Coronavirus (general - personal, gov't response, etc. - not sports-specific)

bkox 2020-07-03 03:25:50 UTC #102

https://www.yahoo.com/news/as-coronavirus-surges-fox-news-shifts-its-message-on-masks-200834996.html

OH NO. the cowardly libtards at fox news are advocating masks!

julio 2020-07-03 04:34:10 UTC #103

Not to worry, The real men can presumably still get their macho news fix at OANN - if they can find it.

The thing is, denying reality doesn't make reality go away. Not preparing for reality just means that when reality comes along and bites you, you're not prepared.

You can't wish it away, you can't pray it away.

California_Dreamin 2020-07-04 19:26:45 UTC #104

Tilt your ears westward tomorrow and if you hear the distance songs of a church hymnal chances are the voice you hear is mine. Our good governor [small g] has now said its unlawful to sing in church, seems that anyone caught singing in church is persona non grata in the state of California. No man will tell me not to sing in church, in fact I, along with thousands of others will sing even louder. Today the church, tomorrow singing in the shower. I choose to sing in either place.

julio 2020-07-04 20:00:10 UTC #105

I’m the lead tenor in our parish choir. We have about 20 regular members, and pride ourselves for taking on demanding works. We have not sung at at Mass, nor rehearsed, since early March. I miss it a great deal.

But there is no way I would sing now, nor support our choir meeting to rehearse or perform...because it’s not all about me. I’m 66, and I’m one of the younger, healthier members. I couldn’t live with myself if my selfishness contributed to the loss of any of these friends.

I’ll sing in the shower, sure, or around the house. But in a group of people I care about? No way.

This is the thing about those who choose to defy common-sense precautions against CV-19 spread. They go on about their “rights,” their “freedom,” but it’s fundamentally a “me” argument, not a “we” one. Yes, they’ll rationalize it, to others and probably to themselves, but at bottom, it is what it is.

rpmcmurphy 2020-07-04 20:55:55 UTC #106

Ok. I am out of here. The level of idiocy espoused by this particular member here has worn me down. No mas. This post indicates that he has a total disregard for even the most sensible of safety precautions which endanger other people. Vowing to “sing even louder” is not a valiant stance for “freedom” which sticks it to the liberals. It is an ignorant act taken by someone who either doesn’t understand the transmission of a deadly disease, or just doesn’t care.

This is no longer a place for intelligent discussion of this most serious of issues. This particular member has chosen to hijack the Covid discussion with outrageous untrue claims that are easily fact-checked, but then he just moves on to another statement - presenting his right-wing nonsense as if it were a well known truth, when in fact it most decidedly is not.

The above statement is outrageously irresponsible. It is proudly advocating a dangerous practice which endangers others.

California_Dreamin 2020-07-04 21:12:37 UTC #107

Nope, its true, I wish it weren't and the fact that you find it foolish indicates you agree with me. He issued it in his press conference on July and pastors have been talking about it ever since. Not hard to find, huge story in the Sacramento Bee but I heard the press conference. Look, I am not trying to hijack anything but again, if you find it foolish that I am even mentioning it, its because you agree the entire thing is foolish.

And not a word from you when the pastors and government leaders were singing and chanting during the demonstrations and protests. My guess is that one of the reasons for the spikes now have nothing to do with singing in church but singing, chanting and close quarters of the protests, things that our leaders were encouraging and participating in. Did you criticize that, not being argumentative, just curious.

And I only bringing this up because it is a big thing here in California and a serious breach of first amendment rights. I honestly thought this was what this thread was all about...discussing these items. Clearly I am in the minority but if you believe it will stop here at singing in church then lets see where it goes next.

California_Dreamin 2020-07-04 21:13:00 UTC #108

Meant July 1.

California_Dreamin 2020-07-04 21:18:43 UTC #109

I guess I am confused. At our church we wear masks [yes I do], social distance and honor the 100 or less. But not allowed to sing? I am sorry if I offended you, didn't mean to, but to me and many Californians, this seems a bridge too far. Suggestions, I understand. Demands, if that is OK with you then I am unsure what to say, governors were never elected to issue demands like this.

By the way, I only brought it up as its a big item today since church is tomorrow.

California_Dreamin 2020-07-04 21:23:47 UTC #110

rpmmcmurphy...certainly didn't mean to offend you, I won't bring it up again.

julio 2020-07-04 21:29:06 UTC #111

You’re clearly confused. Singing ejects substantially more droplets, and virus, than just talking. More infectious material, projected with greater force. NO responsible clergyman would encourage it now, unless he was just plain ignorant.

Of course, as you said, “to many, it’s a bridge too far.” Shades of Trump’s “Many people are saying...” You’re just endorsing ignorance here. We KNOW that singing is a problem; what ignorant people “believe” is irrelevant. Let us not praise ignorance, for a change..

schillingfan 2020-07-04 21:52:44 UTC #112

Talking reason here, from my perspective. Bring 66 with asthma and cirrhosis I am at risk and live with my 34 year old daughter. I follow very thoroughly what the experts say. She’s a public defender, so she goes to work and near people, including clients, at the courthouse. We have talked a lot about what she should and shouldn’t do to protect me.

She went to a BLM protest in Scranton with a group of friends, wore a mask and they were mostly walking. Here in our county we were down to less than 5 cases a day, it is doubling, albeit from a low amount since we are at 25% indoor open. She has been able to work from home when she doesn’t have court, previously she went in most days, mostly because she’s very social and has lots of friends. She usually takes her lunchroom does takeout . When she has gone out to eat, she Eats outdoors, ditto for the two times she has gone to bars. Outside and distanced from strangers. We don’t worry too much about friends as they are smart and careful, too. Today she went to a barbecue and picked up a cheesesteak and chips takeout to eat there.

My point is that there is still a way to enjoy life and be smart. Other countries are doing this. Canada squelched the virus pretty effectively. They aren’t hiding in their homes, business isn’t booming, but it’s moving.

Lawman 2020-07-05 14:09:09 UTC #113

I was looking at Florida again. From June 8th through July 3, Florida’s case count jumped from 64,904 to 190,052. Almost trippled, but their ICU use was up only 14.9% in this same time. Even if you want to look at the case count of 2 weeks ago (due to a lag between case date and ICU need), the case count still doubled but the ICU count is up only 14.9% because most of the case count difference is due to more testing. However, there is also a real rise in cases which would show even if testing remained flat. As a result, the ICU use is up 14.9% in almost a month. If the death rate was going to increase it would’ve by now. So, perhaps what we're seeing is an increase in cases but not an accompanying increase in the fatality rate? I hope I'm right.

andyb 2020-07-05 15:21:48 UTC #114

I hope you are right too, though the increase in cases really has not had enough time to work their way through the system. It is clearly true that we are finding more positive cases because we are testing more young people. The positive test rate increasing though is a sign that it is spreading faster among both younger and older people.

We clearly have gotten better at treating this. Whether it is the new therapies or just experience with patients we were always going to learn more about how to keep people alive. I would also say that a 15% increase in hospitalizations is still significant. The rest of the world and places like NY are going down. So any increase is not great. It is also possible that hospitals and doctors are being aggressive about not overloading hospitals. I am sure more patients who might have been hospitalized earlier are now being treated at home where it is easier to isolate them.

That is why we can't have simple comparisons of these discrete points of data. Behavior adapts. The death rate will be the final judgement and even that will not be really final for a couple of years. Some states are still mis-classifying up to 50% of their deaths. Nationally that is down to maybe 20%-30% but it is still there. The Florida fatalities are ticking up. We'll now get 3 days of low reporting over the holiday weekend, but I fear what the data from next Wednesday and Thursday will show when they start to catch up.

Lawman 2020-07-06 15:47:02 UTC #115

JUST IN: Harvard announces all course instruction will be taught online for the 2020-21 academic year.
Undergraduate tuition of $49,653 remains the same.

My take? Skip the tuition, go to a local Community College.What a rip off.

allentown 2020-07-06 16:18:03 UTC #116

I think there are many small schools where a student can get a very solid education. When one goes to Harvard or its peer elites, one is buying the name on the diploma and the contacts made with other graduates with the elite diploma and alumni with same. You are also buying recommendations from national name professors. In short, it is more obvious that you are buying prestige and contact than that you are buying a better education. You get most of that taking the instruction on-line.

On the other hand, unless one is wealthy, most Harvard students don't pay the quoted tuition. Aid is abundant. It is like hospitals listed charges, which are vastly higher than anyone with insurance or on a government health program actually pay (or have paid on their behalf).

Philsmania 2020-07-06 16:30:01 UTC #117

Makes me think of that skit in the SNL season finale with the Zoom high school graduation ceremony when the principal says “The bad news is that you’re all about to pay full price for fancy colleges when they’re all just University of Phoenix Online with worse tech support.”

zambonir 2020-07-06 16:41:50 UTC #118

I'm actually surprised Harvard isn't closer to $80K. When we signed that kid from Lafayette one of the stories said his tuition was worth $70,000. It seems that base tuition there is 56,556.

The Ivys can probably get away with this but most schools are going to have to adjust somehow. Not only are you not getting the same level of hands-on education (be it labs or one-on-one or just pedagogy in general) but they all sell the overall experience, even if kids won't be paying for meals, housing, extracurriculars etc.

Lawman 2020-07-06 16:46:18 UTC #119

Well, apparently Harvard is bringing the freshman onto campus housing but keeping classes on line only. So, pay for room and board but stay in your room and watch classes on line.

zambonir 2020-07-06 16:56:35 UTC #120

Apparently they are moving Ivy League football to spring as well.

We'll see if that freshman housing idea really flies, and how many kids opt out.

allentown 2020-07-06 19:39:40 UTC #121

I'm reading a lot, letters to editor/articles, about professors fearing a return to class. The schools are developing elaborate precautions to prevent spread of Covid, but they all depend on the students following the rules. We all know this isn't going to happen. Dorms are far less of a problem than off-campus apartments. In Allentown, neighbors have a lot of complaints about loud parties with booze and inexperienced, underage drinkers. Some fraternities/sororities, whom the college polices to prevent this sort of thing have designated members to rent off-campus, where the fraternity/sorority parties are held. This is one indication of how unlikely it is that students will follow the rules to protect against Covid. The professors know it and they are scared. They or their spouses are in the highly vulnerable population, many of them 60 or older with health issues, even more over 50, which is also an endangered population, especially as many look very sedentary. Of the professors of courses I have attended over the past several years, I'd guess half at significant risk, half at virtually no risk. It's about the same for public school teachers. Young elementary school kids are superspreaders of whatever disease is making the rounds. Teachers expect to get sick in the Fall, although in the past it has been colds, flu, intestinal disorders, not Covid.