COVID-19 Megathread 5: The Trumps catch COVID-19

[Calthrina950]

I certainly hope that mask wearing will not be the norm for that long.

I don't even think it's as common as it was a few weeks ago.

When I went out on Tuesday in public outdoor spaces, unmasked people outnumbered masked people 79 to 1.

I certainly think that people should be wearing them, and that they are necessary now. But it's hard for me to see people wearing them that far into the new year, particularly since it is likely that we may have a vaccine before then. But we'll see what happens. Mandatory mask orders have continued to spread in the meantime, with Los Angeles County, California and King County, Washington now requiring them. However, they haven't spread as fast in recent days as I would have expected. It will be interesting to see also, how long it will be mandatory. Once temperatures start to hit the heights of summer-say 90 or 100 degrees-how comfortable will they be? How practical will it be? I'm not sure.

[Calthrina950]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/how-long-are-we-going-to-be-wearing-masks-we-asked-the-experts/ar-BB13nolJ


Some experts expect mask wearing to be heavily encouraged until Nov 2021 (18 months) - the general time frame most experts expect a fully functional vaccine to be fully distributed. I still don't know if I buy it

I'm not wasting the next 18 months of my life on this.

You're not willing to wear a mask around other people until a vaccine is available?  Please explain how wearing one would constitute a waste of your life. 

Frankly, I'm puzzled why so many people who want to be out and about (which I certainly understand) are NOT willing to also wear a mask while they're out and among other people.  They should be embracing wearing a masks as a way to get out and activity back to closer to normal!  Wanting everyone to be out in public with no masks and no vaccine is just irresponsible, and risks everyone's health.  The virus is still prevalent in the US and many other countries, and just hoping for the best will not protect you.

Because people (perhaps myopically) want normalcy to resume, and wearing face coverings in public is such an obvious visual reminder that things haven’t returned to normal and things remain unsafe.  Remove the visual and you remove the association. 

It also doesn’t help that over there course of the pandemic the directives coming from top officials on whether or not to wear masks have done a complete 180°.

It does amaze me how quickly they went from being recommended to becoming mandatory in many places. And in some respects, enforcement of mask mandates has been excessive. I saw a story on my local news station yesterday that a black woman in New York City was pulled down and "manhandled" by police officers there for not wearing a mask at the subway. I also heard that Denver International Airport is requiring all individuals to wear masks while on their premises, and that they are fining those who do not. This is something I've always been wary about: arresting or fining people for not wearing masks.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1219057585707315201

I guess no more international travel, forever.

🙄

There will eventually be a vaccine or new anti-virals that will help with this.

The WHO has a clear agenda of decreasing morale, it’s just apparent at this point.

Nah, they are just acting like tone-deaf scientists. They warn it may never go away because there will almost certainly be some lingering outbreaks in less developed regions/among anti-vaxxer nuts kinda like somewhere in between Measles and Polio. The problem is, the WHO is completely tone-deaf and doesn’t understand saying things like these scares people who take the words out of context.

I know it sounds tone deaf. But trust me, as someone who’s spent the last two years being taught by microbiologists and virologists, it’s our duty to warn about all the likely outcomes, especially the bleaker ones. Even when talking about their own research area, it’s always couched in hypotheticals and somber warnings.

It’s one of the things they bake into you as a student: be aware of all the worst case scenarios that could arise from your research, and include them in your write up.

Most of these guys aren’t scaremongering, they see it as their ethical responsibility to present and discuss the worst case scenario.  

Yeah, this is totally wrong. Yes, it's certainly the media's fault for reporting these sorts of "may" statements of a 1% or 5% probability result as if they are guaranteed facts, but it's not as if the scientists aren't aware that they are making statements that will be picked up by the media--at this point, they are often statements made directly to the media! It's those scientists' duty to couch their words in precise ways that actually express what they mean. "May have X result" is not saying what they mean in a precise and easily understandable manner for non-scientists. They need to say things like "There is a small chance that...", "We believe there is approximately 5% chance of..." or similar types of phrasing. Anything else is irresponsibly overstating the negative downside scenarios and results in apocalyptic thinking and reporting.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
Scientists are already working to pare down complex concepts and findings for the public's benefit. It's not their fault if the public can't be bothered to read past a sensationalist headline.

The real enemy here isn't researchers in the life sciences (who are, by all accounts, worked off their feet right now), it's widespread scientific illiteracy and bravado, that leads members of the public to assert that they understand this crisis better than experts like Dr Fauci.

It amazes me the extent to which Dr. Fauci has become vilified by many in the Republican base. They view him as a bogeyman who is an "agent" of the Deep State and somehow in collusion with the Democrats, the Chinese, and Bill Gates to foist authoritarianism upon us. I've been astounded in general by the extent to which this virus has become politicized. There are so many ignorant people in this country.

[Calthrina950]

Another report from my job, and one alarming indicator that has become more ubiquitous than before. Today, the store (Home Depot) was exceptionally busy, probably the busiest it has been since this whole crisis unfolded. The store once again lifted their occupancy requirement to 200, and for much of the day, it didn't seem like they were rigorously enforcing that requirement (though they started to in the afternoon). The majority of people are still wearing masks, but the breakdown is definitely 60-40% now.

The "maskless minority" seems as if it is bolder than before. I suspect that with no mask mandate forthcoming from the city, county, or Governor at this stage, and with temperatures starting to significantly rise (we hit the mid-80s today in Colorado Springs), the numbers of maskless will continue to rise. This is especially alarming because a Walmart and a Goodwill in Colorado Springs reported coronavirus outbreaks, with several of their employees being diagnosed with it, and a King Soopers employee in Denver died from it.

[Calthrina950]

Another report from my job, and one alarming indicator that has become more ubiquitous than before. Today, the store (Home Depot) was exceptionally busy, probably the busiest it has been since this whole crisis unfolded. The store once again lifted their occupancy requirement to 200, and for much of the day, it didn't seem like they were rigorously enforcing that requirement (though they started to in the afternoon). The majority of people are still wearing masks, but the breakdown is definitely 60-40% now.

The "maskless minority" seems as if it is bolder than before. I suspect that with no mask mandate forthcoming from the city, county, or Governor at this stage, and with temperatures starting to significantly rise (we hit the mid-80s today in Colorado Springs), the numbers of maskless will continue to rise. This is especially alarming because a Walmart and a Goodwill in Colorado Springs reported coronavirus outbreaks, with several of their employees being diagnosed with it, and a King Soopers employee in Denver died from it.

The increasing temps should cancel out this behavior.

I'm not sure about this, but we'll see what happens. I certainly do think that when temperatures start to routinely hit the 90s and 100s, wearing a mask will be distinctly uncomfortable. But as they say, some momentary discomfort is worth it when you're doing your part to stem the virus's spread.

[Calthrina950]

Alachua County, Fla., has repealed its mask directive. But police say nobody was ever cited under it anyway.

I know that many areas imposing mask mandates had set a deadline for them to expire. With summer upon us, will any of them be extended? Or ended?

[Calthrina950]

Alachua County, Fla., has repealed its mask directive. But police say nobody was ever cited under it anyway.

I know that many areas imposing mask mandates had set a deadline for them to expire. With summer upon us, will any of them be extended? Or ended?

I would bet that some places never repeal it, even if this virus is completely stamped out. Not only that, they'll probably extend it to all people outdoors too. I'm sure this won't happen everywhere though.

The Patriot Act was never repealed, so I'm sure a lot of mask laws will stick around forever too.

I would hope not. I don't think mask-wearing will be a permanent practice, though it will certainly be utilized whenever there is a similar outbreak like this pandemic in the future.

[Calthrina950]

U. of Cambridge scraps face-to-face lectures for entire 2020-21 academic year.

Talk about unnecessary.

I don't understand such a gesture either, especially since the past few months have revealed the flaws to an entirely online approach. Many colleges and universities will not be able to survive if they stay online for the next academic year. Students are not willing to fork over thousands of dollars in tuition for such classes. But at the same time, it's going to be hard to implement social distancing safeguards for such campuses. There has to be a solution that addresses both issues.

[Calthrina950]

U. of Cambridge scraps face-to-face lectures for entire 2020-21 academic year.

Talk about unnecessary.

I don't understand such a gesture either, especially since the past few months have revealed the flaws to an entirely online approach. Many colleges and universities will not be able to survive if they stay online for the next academic year. Students are not willing to fork over thousands of dollars in tuition for such classes. But at the same time, it's going to be hard to implement social distancing safeguards for such campuses. There has to be a solution that addresses both issues.

Honestly, I think the fact that so many universities can move many of their programs online so easily speaks to the fact that they're seriously overcharging in the first place.

I understand that lab courses can't be replicated online, but if, ultimately, there is little difference between the in-class and online deliveries of, say, a history course... how can we justify paying $6000 a year for what essentially amounts to "being talked at." This was a problem I had before COVID.

I certainly agree that universities are overcharging, and I think that there is a role for the expansion of online education. Students should be given a greater variety of options to choose from, and tuition attached to online classes should be lower. However, as you know, many students prioritize the "social life" of campus, if you will, and the services which it offers, above even their classes. After a while, enrollment numbers will drop, if they feel that they aren't going to get the "full college" experience.

U. of Cambridge scraps face-to-face lectures for entire 2020-21 academic year.

Talk about unnecessary.

I don't understand such a gesture either, especially since the past few months have revealed the flaws to an entirely online approach. Many colleges and universities will not be able to survive if they stay online for the next academic year. Students are not willing to fork over thousands of dollars in tuition for such classes. But at the same time, it's going to be hard to implement social distancing safeguards for such campuses. There has to be a solution that addresses both issues.

Cambridge is one of the few universities that has the name brand to not worry terribly about students transferring in the wake of online classes. I think a lot of private universities in the US (especially ones not in the top 20 or so schools) may struggle in the next year if they were to go to all-online, or be forced too

This is very important. Larger universities-not just Cambridge, but Ivy League schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Stanford, etc.-have the cushion that they need to get through this crisis. The smaller colleges, however, do not. And in many of the communities in which they are located, colleges are major generators of economic activity. So we'll see what happens. I know that here in Colorado, the intent right now is for in-person instruction to resume in the fall.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/sfpelosi/status/1263601262567686144

One mask that, if properly fitted like a muzzle, can save many thousands of lives.

This isn't the first time that Trump has worn a mask at a plant. He did so at a mask manufacturing/PPE plant in Arizona, I believe, a few weeks ago, and took it off. The difference here of course, is that this time we have a photograph of him wearing one. Remember that he took it off again before finishing the tour. So we really can't credit Whitmer or Nessel with anything here.

At any rate, I honestly don't understand why we continue to litigate this matter. Trump's made it clear that he's not going to wear a mask in most circumstances, and he's not going to change his behavior.

[Calthrina950]

Glad the virus-truthers want to listen to the CDC without question now!
Since we are doing that, how about we have everyone wear a mask, slowly reopen (and revert back to shutdowns if cases spike), and social distance, like the CDC recommends?

You know, I don't really have a huge problem with masks.  I'm happy to wear one if I'm going to be in a place like a supermarket (I actually remember kind of regretting not wearing one the last time I went in one).  I just think that most businesses should be open, even those not conducive to masks or social distancing (like restaurants).  As I live alone, I am also going to see friends when I can, as I would go crazy otherwise.

If masks in certain circumstances (like a crowded store) are what it takes to otherwise get back to normal, I'm fine with that.  It kind of feels dystopian when restaurant servers have masks on, but I don't mind that either at the end of the day.

What I do think we need (and even once this is over) is hand sanitizer everywhere.  You should never have a hard time finding it when you enter a store, workplace, church, stadium, or restaurant.

No.  In March, governors and state health officials closed our businesses, suspended our kids' educations, and took our freedoms by exaggerating the risks of COVID-19.

Now they want to trade it back to us for mask mandates, contact tracing and made-up rules?

I don't think so.

Do you think we should throw open the economy and allow for everything to go back to normal? I don't think that's a realistic course of action at this juncture. As I've made clear before, I certainly don't think that the current lockdowns are sustainable, and I think that economic activity ought to be resumed as soon as possible. However, we have to take precautions in doing so, and we have to make sure that our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed by a potential future wave. Moreover, though I've expressed my aversion to mask mandates from government, I think it's within the right of businesses to require them, and if masks help to smooth the transition towards normalcy, then I'll support them. And we certainly need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, so that we can keep better track of cases as they develop.

[Calthrina950]

Glad the virus-truthers want to listen to the CDC without question now!
Since we are doing that, how about we have everyone wear a mask, slowly reopen (and revert back to shutdowns if cases spike), and social distance, like the CDC recommends?

You know, I don't really have a huge problem with masks.  I'm happy to wear one if I'm going to be in a place like a supermarket (I actually remember kind of regretting not wearing one the last time I went in one).  I just think that most businesses should be open, even those not conducive to masks or social distancing (like restaurants).  As I live alone, I am also going to see friends when I can, as I would go crazy otherwise.

If masks in certain circumstances (like a crowded store) are what it takes to otherwise get back to normal, I'm fine with that.  It kind of feels dystopian when restaurant servers have masks on, but I don't mind that either at the end of the day.

What I do think we need (and even once this is over) is hand sanitizer everywhere.  You should never have a hard time finding it when you enter a store, workplace, church, stadium, or restaurant.

No.  In March, governors and state health officials closed our businesses, suspended our kids' educations, and took our freedoms by exaggerating the risks of COVID-19.

Now they want to trade it back to us for mask mandates, contact tracing and made-up rules?

I don't think so.

Do you think we should throw open the economy and allow for everything to go back to normal? I don't think that's a realistic course of action at this juncture. As I've made clear before, I certainly don't think that the current lockdowns are sustainable, and I think that economic activity ought to be resumed as soon as possible. However, we have to take precautions in doing so, and we have to make sure that our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed by a potential future wave. Moreover, though I've expressed my aversion to mask mandates from government, I think it's within the right of businesses to require them, and if masks help to smooth the transition towards normalcy, then I'll support them. And we certainly need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, so that we can keep better track of cases as they develop.

I generally think all businesses should be able to open with only the most basic social distancing practices enforced (six feet of separation between parties, encouraging frequent handwashing, temperature checks, etc.)  We can continue to enforce limits on visits/new admits to nursing homes and hospitals. 

As far as mass events, I'm pretty comfortable with no restrictions on open-air, outdoor events.  Indoor events like conferences should have some limit, but probably nothing more restrictive than limits on groups of +250 (cruise ships remain a no-go, under these rules).  The only place where I can see an argument for mandatory masking are airplanes (multiple hours with 100% recirculated air and close proximity). 

K-12 schools should plan on opening early later this summer (June/July) for 7-10 weeks of instruction before grade promotion in August/September.  Colleges should have in-person instruction beginning in early August, so that way the semester can finish-up by Thanksgiving and kids can be home from November - January (peak flu season).

For the most part, this seems like a reasonable framework, if you will, for reopening economic activity. I certainly don't think that many of the guidelines which have been currently proposed are reasonable-i.e. the CDC guidelines for reopening schools. And I have become averse towards hearing the phrase "the new normal" which has been utilized so often. But I also do believe that we cannot return to complete normalcy until this pandemic has passed.

[Calthrina950]

Even though we are months removed, and the weather is now warm, in my head it still feels like it’s March. Anyone else?

Yeah people have wasted two months of their lives on this; fortunately, that’s starting to change now as lockdowns are being relaxed.  

"Wasted?"

I really don't get why people are acting like not being able to go to group events is "wasting" one's life. I've been carrying on with life pretty much as normal, though obviously not making impulse shopping trips. I can go to the park, I can read (libraries being closed is tough, but at least here they're open for curbside service), I can still talk to to people on the phone or even video chat, I can order delicious food from local restaurants, I can do crafts, I can train my pets, I can play video games, etc etc etc. Why is social distancing "wasting" life?

The mental health impacts of this are real and we must be aware of making sure we get the interaction we need, even if it's different than normal. But anyone who is "wasting" their life cannot blame the virus for it: there's plenty to do that doesn't require being in close proximity to others.

I can't help but compare people complaining about this to a spoiled child who has way more toys than they can ever play with complaining when some of the toys are taken away, even though there are still dozens in reach.

Umm, no, most of what living life is requires being around other people.  Basically all you can do alone is distract yourself from the fact that you are alone with entertainment and stuff.  If you actually support social distancing (which has been a stupid concept from day 1), you could make every single one of those same arguments for seasonal flu.

Fortunately, I live in a place where people have brains and have largely given up on social distancing out of fear for a virus that is basically the flu in terms of death rate.

In fact, I've come to believe that the proper policy would have been literally the opposite of social distancing, where we encouraged everyone young and healthy to have even greater social contact than usual to try to hit herd immunity within a couple weeks or so while sparing the tiny minority of people for whom the coronavirus is actually a concern from the virus.

While I don't want to devalue the lives or experiences of those who have suffered (and died from) coronavirus, I will state that posting pictures of various younger to middle-aged victims of the virus is in some respects, disingenuous. I've read and heard many stories reported by the media about senior citizens-octogenerians, nonangerians, and yes, centenarians (including a few World War II veterans)-who have contracted and beat the virus. And of course, we know that mortality rates among the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions are much higher than for the remainder of the population. The point I'm trying to make is that statistical outliers don't tell the full story of what's happening with this virus. Anyone can die from this, but there are many factors which determine how a person will fare with it.

[Calthrina950]

I mean, what the actual f**k

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1264978727416578048

Well, is this permitted under North Carolina regulations?

After almost the whole country was placed under house arrest for 2 months, we can't very well claim that most of the regulations are too lax.

But, admittedly, it would be different if North Carolina said you can't have big sports events like this.

It's certainly clear to me that many people have grown tired of the restrictions which have been put in place. And I now firmly believe, more than I did before, that political polarization in this country has been intensified because of this virus. Many people who were deeply distrustful of government before this happened-and who tend to be on the right or to vote Republican-will become further reinforced in those habits as a result of this. Distrust of the mainstream media, which in their view "overhyped" this crisis, will become yet more prevalent. And memories of this will persist long after this is over.

[Calthrina950]

Only in America could a pandemic be considered a political issue

It's unfortunate, but true. The responses to this crisis have been driven, in large part, by the individual state governors, and one can correlate the extent or nature of each state response to the political affiliation of the respective governor. There have been some outliers to this. Governor Polis in Colorado, for example, has probably been the least restrictive out of all the Democratic Governors. He refrained from imposing a statewide mask mandate; he stated that the media's focus on testing was "misplaced" and didn't take into consideration other factors underlying the situation; and he allowed for many non-essential businesses to resume operations earlier than other states (i.e. barbershops, salons, and now dine-in restaurants).

On the other hand, you've had Governor DeWine of Ohio, who aside from mask mandates, has pursued many of the same actions as his Democratic counterparts, and Governors Hogan of Maryland and Baker of Massachusetts, whose responses have virtually been the same as theirs. But in general, political affiliation has governed our responses. Democratic states have been more restrictive, and slower to reopen, than Republican states. Democratic governors have had a more "authoritarian" tone and style than their Republican counterparts-just look at Whitmer in Michigan and Wolf in Pennsylvania to give a few examples.

And no, opposition to the lockdown orders is not merely confined to "Republicans" or to the "right". Even many left-leaning types and "Democrats" have become increasingly skeptical in recent weeks, and have disagreed with many of the actions which have been implemented. Personally, I continue to remain of the belief that many of the measures implemented were necessary ones. But I do not think that they should be continued indefinitely, as I've also made clear, and I see the reopening process taking place now as justified, as precautions continue to be taken. I am also of the belief that when we reevaluate what was done here, we will find that we may have transgressed in certain respects, beyond what may have been appropriate or plausible.

[Calthrina950]

I mean, what the actual f**k

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1264978727416578048

Well, is this permitted under North Carolina regulations?

After almost the whole country was placed under house arrest for 2 months, we can't very well claim that most of the regulations are too lax.

But, admittedly, it would be different if North Carolina said you can't have big sports events like this.

It's certainly clear to me that many people have grown tired of the restrictions which have been put in place. And I now firmly believe, more than I did before, that political polarization in this country has been intensified because of this virus. Many people who were deeply distrustful of government before this happened-and who tend to be on the right or to vote Republican-will become further reinforced in those habits as a result of this. Distrust of the mainstream media, which in their view "overhyped" this crisis, will become yet more prevalent. And memories of this will persist long after this is over.

This may be true in general, it comes with the important caveat that the situation might actually be opening the eyes of seniors to Trump's level of ridiculousness. As Republicans under 65 entrench, it pushes away seniors who just want to live.

This is true, since seniors have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic (along with those who have underlying medical conditions). As I've said elsewhere, if Trump loses the senior vote, he will lose the election.

[Calthrina950]

Only in America could a pandemic be considered a political issue

Republicans have been conditioned to treat every single criticism of Trump by Democrats as a political scheme to take him down. Even COVID-19, which is now treated as a serious issue by Trump himself and Republican leaders, and Trump himself who recommended shelter-in-place orders for over a month, is still decried as a political attack and as being blown out of proportion by Democrats.

Criticism of stay at home orders extends to both parties but continue your with set narrative

I didn't say criticism wasn't aimed at GOP governors as well. I just said that clearly there is a strain of thought going on in GOP circles that Democrats are trying to damage the economy to take down Trump. Examples:

https://thecitizen.com/2020/05/16/democrats-damaging-people-economy-out-of-trump-hatred/
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rush-limbaugh-democrats-hoping-destroy-trump-economy

I live and work in a Trump+24 county as well, so it's not exactly like I need to go far to hear this. With regards to my first post, the point was that virtually anything negative directed at Trump that is big enough to get picked up by conservative news seems to eventually be decried as a political scheme to take down Trump.

You are correct when you say that many Republicans have utilized coronavirus as a partisan "baton", if you will, against Democrats, and that some have indulged in conspiracy theories to that end. However, I believe you misconstrued the overall point which yfnlucci was trying to make. Criticism "against GOP Governors" is not coming from the right alone; it is not solely the right that is agitating or protesting against Governors of both political parties. There are many people, both right-wing and left-wing, who are upset with Democratic Governors as well, to say nothing of Republican Governors. I think it is fair to say also, that there are many who initially supported the lockdown orders, but have turned against them in recent weeks because of the economic and other consequences which they have generated.

[Calthrina950]

Anybody who doesnt wear a mask in public places should be arrested for reckless endangerment. Plain and simple.
And no that's not fascism, it's called saving lives! Right wingers should be ashamed of themselves.

This reeks of authoritarianism. And you wonder why Republicans have become increasingly opposed to the lockdown orders? I've made clear before that businesses should have the right to mandate masks, if they so wish, but that penalizing or fining people for not wearing them would be going too far. It's a shame that mask-wearing has become another flash point in our ongoing culture war, but so it has.

[Calthrina950]

No it's called people who want to save lives vs people who care more about going to a football game then protecting people around them!

When did I say anything about football games? I could care less about the football games.

We have to have ideas that are realistic and workable.

I would also add that people aren't protesting against or criticizing the lockdown orders because they "care about football games" or "want to get a haircut." Many people's livelihoods are on the line if the economy is not reopened in due order, and this is to say nothing of the demonstrated psychological impacts which this is having for many. Essential surgeries have been delayed; the education of millions of children has been negatively affected; and unemployment rates have climbed to unprecedented levels. Bringing about the end of lockdown orders will alleviate the stresses that many are dealing with right now.

[Calthrina950]

No it's called people who want to save lives vs people who care more about going to a football game then protecting people around them!

When did I say anything about football games? I could care less about the football games.

We have to have ideas that are realistic and workable.

I would also add that people aren't protesting against or criticizing the lockdown orders because they "care about football games" or "want to get a haircut." Many people's livelihoods are on the line if the economy is not reopened in due order, and this is to say nothing of the demonstrated psychological impacts which this is having for many. Essential surgeries have been delayed; the education of millions of children has been negatively affected; and unemployment rates have climbed to unprecedented levels. Bringing about the end of lockdown orders will alleviate the stresses that many are dealing with right now.

Except ending lockdowns isn't like flipping a switch on economic activity. The lockdowns aren't, nor were they ever, the primary thing slowing down spending; it was the virus itself.

The maddening thing about the discourse on this topic is we have ample evidence that economic activity was falling in early March, weeks before any shutdowns were issued. People, especially older people, immuno-compromised people, or anyone living with a person with those conditions, are going to change their behavior when confronted with a generational threat like the virus.

In the most generous interpretation I can think of, people attribute all of the economic loss to the shutdowns (or to the Chinese, Trump, governors, etc.) because bad events are easier to be upset about when they are human caused. But, sometimes bad things just happen. We're in the middle of what is an unprecedented bad thing. There could have been very different responses which would have changed at the margins, but most of the damage we saw in March and April were inevitable because of the nature of the threat itself.

I'm not denying that the pandemic has had its own impact upon economic activity, and that many people took action of their own before governments did so. But the governmental response to this certainly exacerbated the pandemic's effects. I think the lockdown orders were reasonable early on because of the unknowns that were attached to this. But, now that we know much more about the virus, the range of outcomes associated with it, and its infection rates, I don't think that we are justified in maintaining the current situation, as it were. Removing many of these restrictions won't mean an automatic resumption of all economic activity that has been disrupted by this, but keeping them in place will only inflict more pain upon the individuals who have suffered enough already.

I certainly do not believe that some of the policies implemented-i.e. some of the mundane social distancing restrictions in public places like one-way aisles and the like-should be continued indefinitely. If anything, I think we ought to continue maintaining a robust testing apparatus, encouraging rigorous sanitary practices, and maintaining restrictions on larger gatherings of people. And there should be a definitive timetable to allow for such events to resume, and for school districts to resume this fall. We can't wait until there is a vaccine before we have a full resumption of normal activity-the "new normal" shouldn't be allowed to be permanent.

[Calthrina950]

And no, opposition to the lockdown orders is not merely confined to "Republicans" or to the "right". Even many left-leaning types and "Democrats" have become increasingly skeptical in recent weeks, and have disagreed with many of the actions which have been implemented.

I think it's no longer left versus right, but authoritarians (particularly the media) versus the rank-and-file.

Can't say I agree Calthrina. I'm a newsworthy level I can't think of even a relatively minor Democrat or other liberal expressing from criticism or even suspicions about the continued lockdown orders. Anecdotally at least, Bandit is the only leftist on Atlas Tua firmly expressed opposition Raven skepticism, and he's frankly always been a fringe type even around here.

what are you basing your opinion on?

As I've said before, there has been, and continues to be, a partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans over this issue. I cited a poll some weeks ago in which 62% of Republicans said that they wished for normal economic activity to resume. As of right now, I would say that the majority of Democrats and those on the left support these orders. The point I was trying to make is that opposition to the lockdown isn't solely coming from the right or from Republicans, and in recent days, Democratic Governors in some states (i.e. Newsom in California and Wolf in Pennsylvania) have begun lifting some of the restrictions which have been imposed, due to popular pressure.

In Pennsylvania in particular, some Democratic lawmakers called for Wolf to allow for curbside delivery for retail businesses (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/05/democratic-lawmakers-push-gov-tom-wolf-to-allow-all-retail-businesses-in-pa-to-offer-curbside-service.html), which he hadn't permitted previously. And I'm not going to cast aspersions on what Bandit3 has said here. I don't see him as "fringe" at all, and I certainly don't think it's wrong for people to reevaluate what has been done, given that we've now had two months of experience with this.

[Calthrina950]

No it's called people who want to save lives vs people who care more about going to a football game then protecting people around them!

When did I say anything about football games? I could care less about the football games.

We have to have ideas that are realistic and workable.

I would also add that people aren't protesting against or criticizing the lockdown orders because they "care about football games" or "want to get a haircut." Many people's livelihoods are on the line if the economy is not reopened in due order, and this is to say nothing of the demonstrated psychological impacts which this is having for many. Essential surgeries have been delayed; the education of millions of children has been negatively affected; and unemployment rates have climbed to unprecedented levels. Bringing about the end of lockdown orders will alleviate the stresses that many are dealing with right now.

I’m sure a minority of the protestors are concerned about their jobs, but more of them seem to protesting out of some rather twisted idea of freedom/to own the media/libs/insert-group-here.

The economic damage of the lockdowns are real, but if that is truly what these people were concerned about, they would be more than happy to promote mask-wearing (so we don’t have to keep closed down) and to social distance so that they can get back to work without fear of a resurgence (and a potential second lockdown)
It’s common sense and has the added benefit of not killing granny.

Maybe I am expecting too much when I expect the working American to think rationally, but I just don’t think the protestors are really the ones who are suffering the most economically. It seems more like a middle finger to the “evil media/elites” than anything.

I don't think the protesters represent the majority of people on either side of the debate. Most of those who are opposed, or have become opposed, to the lockdown orders seem to be following the law, continuing with their jobs, and generally keeping themselves quiet in public, but making their viewpoints plain to their personal acquaintances (or family), or in an online context, where they have some anonymity. And of course, people are expressing their viewpoints through other ways-such as pursuing "normal" activities as best as they can. And I certainly don't condone much of what these protesters have done (i.e. hanging politicians in effigy, spreading baseless conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci, making death threats against certain public figures). But there is a legitimate basis to the anti-lockdown argument which shouldn't be ignored.

[Calthrina950]

Governor Andrew Cuomo takes action to require masks in stores:

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1266036686053613574

Weren't face masks required in New York already? I don't understand what this order is intended to accomplish.

[Calthrina950]

Governor Andrew Cuomo takes action to require masks in stores:

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1266036686053613574

I really really hope this is already the case for public transport as well.

If yes, normal, sane decision.

If people can't be bothered to wear a thin piece of fabric for a short part of their day in certain spaces, I guess they can just use their own cars and order stuff online.

I continue to remain wary of mask mandates emanating from government, especially if they come attached with penalties of some kind. And as we move into summer, I am beginning to wonder whether or not they will truly be a permanent fixture of society until there is a vaccine.

[Calthrina950]

Governor Andrew Cuomo takes action to require masks in stores:

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1266036686053613574

I really really hope this is already the case for public transport as well.

If yes, normal, sane decision.

If people can't be bothered to wear a thin piece of fabric for a short part of their day in certain spaces, I guess they can just use their own cars and order stuff online.

I continue to remain wary of mask mandates emanating from government, especially if they come attached with penalties of some kind. And as we move into summer, I am beginning to wonder whether or not they will truly be a permanent fixture of society until there is a vaccine.

I mean, would it really be that bad wearing a really thin mask while you're in the grocery store or in public transit?

That's basically where people wear them here, and it's not an issue.

Plus, it's not really jeopardizing anyone's right to free movement etc., it's just requiring people to have a 40 cent mask on in a few places lol

I've said before that I don't have an inherent problem with mask-wearing in itself. I'm required to wear one on my job, and I wear them whenever I go out in public. What I have a problem is with government mandating their use, particularly with fines or penalties attached. I've also expressed my belief that businesses should be allowed to require their customers to don them while on their premises.