7TIMECHAMPS wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:23 am
Wise Old Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:44 pm
7TIMECHAMPS wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:09 pm
What is your number? It isn't zero. You have to consider the other long term effects on education, the economy, mental health, physical health (people scared to go to the hospital), etc. And all of this worsens racial disparities that are causing a lot of issues right now. Your question isn't a fair question and is really a cop out from having a real conversation about balancing everything.
This was all in the name of not overwhelming hospitals. I haven't seen a single hospital overwhelmed yet. Hospitals are far more likely to be filing bankruptcy than overwhelmed by COVID (what is the long term effect of some of these rural hospital closings?). Most of the U of M models predicted we would peak between 500-1500 daily deaths and have about 25,000-50,000 for the year. Do you think that will end up being correct? For a reference if we did about 25 a day the rest of the year we would end up being in the neighborhood of 5,000. I understand that it is hard to make decisions with a new unprecedented virus but it goes both ways. You can't give the governor and experts a pass and then turn around and bash the administration for getting it all wrong.
In response to your closing argument I will ask this, what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety? In the past infectious diseases have not been treated this way so I do not believe your legal advice is accurate. People risk other people's lives every day, as has been stated several times. In fact for some age groups I am risking your life more by getting in my vehicle than exposing you to COVID. I posted an article about it a few weeks back if you would like to read. This is not as clear cut of a legal situation as you make it out to be.
Finally, does anybody else find it sick that some people want a surge in deaths this fall just so they can be right? Sitting there cheering for it? Gross.
In response to your closing argument I will ask this, what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety? In the past infectious diseases have not been treated this way so I do not believe your legal advice is accurate. People risk other people's lives every day, as has been stated several times. In fact for some age groups I am risking your life more by getting in my vehicle than exposing you to COVID. I posted an article about it a few weeks back if you would like to read. This is not as clear cut of a legal situation as you make it out to be.
Finally, does anybody else find it sick that some people want a surge in deaths this fall just so they can be right? Sitting there cheering for it? Gross.
7TIME, I'm sorry but, I believe I have been engaging in a legitimate conversation about the pros and cons of shelter-in-place vs opening up in a responsible way. Heck, just look at the average length of my posts. 
As for my number, it actually IS in fact, ZERO. Unfortunately, as an individual I only have an infinitesimal ability to affect that outcome. Now, based on the simple fact that there are millions of others in our country that approach this debate the same way you do, is zero preventable deaths in our society due to Covid realistic? Obviously not. And, the reality is -- and this is the whole key to minimizing preventable and unnecessary deaths -- all I can do personally is behave in a responsible way -- don't go out unless I really need to, wear a mask when I am out in public, especially indoors, maintain social distance, and wash my hands often. Don't get me wrong, I don't walk in your shoes each day so, I'm honestly not accusing you of not doing the little things "right" when you're out and about. Since we're obviously going to open up, I can only hope that those that go out do so in a responsible way. So, I've now provided you my number. What is yours? What is GoalieDad's"? What is HockeyCrazy's"?
On a separate note, based on the currently available data, some of those potential side issues you mentioned that some people are predicting are probably being made worse by stay-at-home orders, actually haven't gotten significantly worse or worse at all -- child abuse being one. Some of them have, but most of those have not become significantly worse. As for the reasons why many of those rural hospitals you referenced are being forced to close; the vast majority were in very poor financial shape before Covid, usually due to significant cuts in federal funding in the last 3 years. But yes, the cutbacks in elective surgeries during Covid has also had an effect.
And yes, the lock downs were initiated to reduce the risk of overwhelming the health care system and allow them to build up PPE and ventilators. The experts are saying the reason we haven't been overwhelmed IS because those shelter-in-place orders worked. Also, no, I don't believe we'll likely reach the number of deaths in our state that the U of M models have predicted, BECAUSE Minnesota is being more conservative in our approach. I've provided this info much earlier in this discussion -- but, I'll emphasize it again. This insistence on criticizing/questioning the "lack of accuracy" of the models of Covid outcomes is disingenuous. I linked to an article over a month ago published in Science Magazine that explained in strong detail why the modeling of outcomes in pandemics is one of THE MOST DIFFICULT to model due to the number of variables and how often they change as the situation evolves. Remember, almost every model in mid-March was saying if we didn't shut things down to the degree we did, we would see between 1 and 1.5 million deaths before a vaccine was available. Still, if we stay at our current average of 900-1,000 deaths per day over the last month, we'll reach 200,000 by September. Which means there's a good chance we might hit 300,000 by the end of the calendar year. However, the overall numbers nation-wide are now trending up which means we could be well past 200,000 by September.
What is amazing to me is how often I end up repeating myself in these back and forths but, not A SINGLE STATE has opened in accordance with the CDC's own guidelines. You guys criticize Walz and yet, even he and his administration have opened things up more than the CDC's guidelines allow. As for your contention that it's unfair of me to "give the governor and his experts a pass and then turn around and bash the administration for getting it all wrong." I'm sure you won't be shocked to hear this BUT...it's an apples to oranges comparison. First, I'm not giving Walz and his administration a "pass". They've made mistakes -- some of them significant -- like their policy with LTHC facilities. However, I view Walz and our state administration in a far more positive light regarding their decisions and actions as they're trying to make the best decisions possible based on the best scientific/medical advice available in the area of this virus that they're getting from two of the most prestigious hospital systems in our country and even the world in the U of M and the Mayo clinic.
On the other hand, this administration's mistakes were due to their decision to absolutely ignore the best advice of their medical experts once those experts realized what was going to happen. We haven't had a Covid task force update in how long now? Why do you think that is? I know what my answer to that question is. What's yours? As for your response to my closing argument in my previous post; seriously 7TIME, I explained in detail why we are treating this virus/situation differently than previous viruses. It IS that much different than those others. In my last post, I provided the number of cases of SARS in the U.S. -- 8 cases. The number of deaths was ZERO. That's right, ZERO. You and others are going to seriously try and compare our response to SARS to that of Covid?? Because the details matter when comparing them and -- I'll repeat myself again on a specific point that you and others seem to refuse to even try to answer -- there isn't a single scientist, medical specialist, or researcher that has legitimate level of expertise in the area of this virus that believes we should be opening up to the degree even Minnesota has, especially if we can't get even 70% of the population to where a mask in public. If you think you can find one, please link to that person's comments.
Also, in response to your question about "what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety?" Again, I'm pretty sure I answered that. The moment any individual's words or actions legitimately risks the physical safety of another person as determined by a jury or judge. It's why individuals that were caught coughing or spitting on produce early in this situation were arrested for that activity. As to your comment that you can risk someone else's life every time you get in your car; yes, that's obviously true. Especially if you're impaired in any way. However, your actions while driving that legitimately risk my safety (or anyone else in my car), doesn't risk anyone who WASN'T in the car at that moment. However, if by your actions you risk me being infected by Covid, that also exposes and risks the life of my wife, my kids, my 78 yr old father, his girlfriend, and then obviously anyone else that any of us come in contact with. Is it really that difficult see the fallacy in your analogy?
Heck, let's look at another significant cause of death your side tries to compare Covid to; smoking. Obviously, the person who smokes or vapes is, for the most part only risking their own health, especially considering all of the laws passed nation-wide the last 15 plus years that prohibit smoking in public buildings and private businesses. Weird, as a society we came to the understanding -- thru science I might add -- that we were allowing too many individuals to directly and significantly affect the health of those that shouldn't have to be exposed in such a dangerous way. The consequence being smoking bans being implemented by numerous states which significantly reduced deaths from second-hand smoke. And, if you'll recall, we had a significant debate about "personal freedoms" then as well. Yet, now the vast majority of people are more than happy those bans were instituted. The general point is, we banned smoking indoors because one person's actions were having a definitive, provably negative effect on not just their own lives, but anyone else's exposed to their smoke.
Finally, I want to address the last sentence of your response. IF, repeat IF that was directed at all at me, please show in detail where I have in ANY previous posts made ANY statements that would support a wish or desire to see more vs less deaths. Everything I've stated and argued for or against has been made to illustrate we aren't doing enough to prevent unnecessary or preventable deaths. Nor have I seen any other poster insinuate in any way they are actually desiring more deaths as we move forward. Quite frankly, I'm extremely disappointed in you and feel an apology is in order here.
Sorry but it isn't zero, otherwise you would have been sheltering in place your whole life to prevent influenza deaths right? Why would it matter if people were dying of influenza or Covid? Also, have you left your house in the last 3 months? Even with a mask you are still risking people. And to be clear you do not plan on leaving your house for any reason other than emergency medical care until the entire country is vaccinated correct? I would expect nothing less from somebody with your position, so if so good for you.
Sorry again but you are wrong on the child abuse as well. Most experts are worried the cases are going unreported and the kids aren't getting help. Here is a quote from a CNN article if you like. ""When children are no longer visible to the vast majority of people who are trained and required to report, and then you see this kind of decline, we get super concerned," said Melissa Jonson-Reid, a professor of social work research at Washington University in St. Louis."
We have actually in some ways been more aggressive in our approach than we had predicted with the models. I believe the Minnesota model had said if we shelter in place until May 30 we would see 25,000 deaths. So far we have been more aggressive than that and the deaths rates have been far less. A tough job obviously but we need to adjust our response with what is actually happening.
Did I ever say anything about SARS? I don't believe I did, but yeah good point there it isn't SARS.
You do realize that the "scientists" have been flat out wrong on numerous occasions with this virus, correct? Do I need to go through the long laundry list of wrong statements by various health organizations, such as the WHO? The CDC told us not to wear masks, it wouldn't help but instead we should wash our hands diligently. How does that look right about now? Very tough job for them and not saying we should discredit everything that they say but an objective look needs to be given to everything. However, for good measure here is your boy Anthony Fauci speaking directly about the closure of schools "The idea of keeping schools closed in the fall because of safety concerns for children might be "a bit of a reach," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases". And here is another quote, "Fauci seemed to think that keeping schools closed in general was not necessary." Here is a link to the article below. And since you always follow the best science you agree with that, right? School closure would be tied very closely to our topic here of athletics. Link below. Happy now?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/fauci ... index.html
We actually have a very good example of this transmission to people beyond the original infected person in the flu. Maybe death rates aren't the same but it does kill people and is transmitted in the exact same way. Can you not see the fallacy in your thought process? The was or wasn't in the car at that moment makes no sense. I could endanger a whole schools bus full of kids if I hit it with my vehicle. That is somehow better?
I never said anything about smoking so I am not responding to that. I don't know why you like to put words in my mouth sometimes.
That was not in reference to you but rather someone that is diligently waiting to say I told you so this fall if there is a spike in cases and stated so earlier. I believe another poster addressed it as well.
[/quote]
Why would my number of preventable deaths not be zero just because of flu? Yes, regular flu is transmitted similarly to Covid. However, Covid is FAR more contagious than the flu and, can spread exponentially. And I'm sorry but, the fact that we don't have a Covid vaccine which makes it much deadlier at this point than regular flu so, no, I don't see how flawed my thinking is. The difference in lethality is THE difference maker in how we choose to approach how to deal with limiting it's spread. Because we have a vaccine for the flu, it doesn't spread exponentially. Also, in the vast majority of flu deaths the person dying didn't have the shot.
The point is, Covid is so much worse than flu and, coupled with the fact we obviously don't have a vaccine yet, the only way to significantly reduce spread and avoid unnecessary and preventable deaths is to shelter in place. And actually, I can count on one hand the number of times I have left the house that didn't involve necessities or medical treatment for my family. I have two kids with underlying health issues. So, my wife and I have actually been extremely careful about limiting any contact with others.
As for the SARS numbers, I originally provided those in response to a point GoalieDad made regarding the fact that we've had these viruses every few years recently yet, prior to Covid, we hadn't reacted in the way we have to Covid. My point obviously was that there's just simply no comparison between the two regarding risk of overall death to our population. As for my child abuse assertion, after researching more I have to acknowledge I was wrong on that. I'm very confident I heard something on MPR a couple weeks back where they interviewed an expert in that area and she said that they had actually seen a drop in cases since the shutdown. However, and I've said this before as well, I haven't seen any experts on these side issues arguing strongly against the shelter-in-place orders to reduce Covid spread as I believe they understand that Covid is still going to kill a lot of people even with the shelter-in-place orders and, that the increases in problems or deaths in those other "side issues", won't come close to the impact of Covid.
7TIME, in regards to the scientists making mistakes, I guess the main difference between how you I approach that topic is that, due to this being a brand new virus my expectations on the number of mistakes that may be or, have already been made is that they're going to happen and we just need to roll with the punches. Whereas, since the scientists/experts are in favor of keeping things locked down more often than not, you and others seem to be less tolerant of those mistakes/missteps and use those mistakes to justify the approach of opening things up.
Nexr, your link to the CNN article didn't work. But, I found it on my own and read it. And yes, I'm open to any ideas that can help get kids back to school -- if it's safe to do so. However, as I've already stated three or four times, my rationale for keeping schools closed is not so much for the direct safety of the kids as much as it is about preventing/reducing secondary spread. That's the same reason I have for why it will be difficult to play hockey (or any other contact sport) in the fall. Not because the kids themselves are at a significant risk, but because they could bring it home or to school and get other older, compromised adults sick. I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make myself on this particular issue.
As for your car death analogy, yes you could hit a school bus and kill or seriously injure a bunch of kids. As bad as that would be, that's where your behavior's direct or indirect effect on causing unnecessary and preventable deaths ends. With Covid being able to spread exponentially, if you decide not to shelter-in-place but instead go out at a time when you're pre-symptomatic and begin a chain of infections, effectively becoming a "super spreader" you could ultimately be the start of a chain of deaths of who knows how many others. Now, multiply that by how many thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of people that don't agree with shelter-in-place and thus are going to push the envelope regarding going out and acting normally.
I included the smoking info as the number of deaths per year attributable to smoking/second hand smoke has also been used by others as a way to compare to Covid which, is also a flawed comparison since, as I stated, we actually did adopt laws that "took away" what some people felt was their "right"/"freedom" to smoke where they wanted or, from say a bar owner's perspective, they should have the freedom to allow smoking in their establishment if they wanted to. Yet, government intervened and passed laws that helped keep people safer.
, I don’t think you can pack anymore kids into that small an area.