Coronavirus pandemic

[J N Winkler]

How were free weights handled?  I would imagine that those would be wiped down after use?  I can see that leading to hoarding of certain weights or people running off with them.  That's probably the biggest problem at my local gym, there has historically been no control of keeping free weights organized and racked properly.  Supposedly my gym is just waiting on the State to announce Phase 3.  I'll probably do a couple extra workouts the week they reopen to get a lay of the land.  I have a feeling the pace will be slowed considerably from what I'm used (mostly circuit training).

I didn't see anyone spraying sanitizer on barbell handhold areas, weight plates, dumbbells, cable machine pull handles, or other things that are routinely touched by hand.  I'd expect spraying to be limited largely to weight benches and the like (as was the norm before COVID-19).  At my gym we have issues with weight plates being re-racked out of order that come and go.  We used to have great difficulty keeping barbell weight clips on hand, but this has abated, I think because management is intentionally overstocking them.

I think sanitizing stuff is going to be a time pit, but probably largely offset by low demand (thus no waiting time) for the weight benches and cable machines, even with the young bucks gravitating to that part of the floor.

[kalvado]

Regarding the church debate in California apparently there has been an appeal to the US Supreme Court:

https://www.newsweek.com/california-churchs-battle-gov-gavin-newsom-over-reopening-could-head-supreme-court-1506379

To that end the state issued it's first Church Reopening guidelines today.  The big guideline is in person service capacity will be limited to 25% for the first three weeks of reopening:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-25/california-churches-coronavirus-guidance

Those 25% would have to pray real hard to make up for th rest of the gang.
In slightly differnt news:

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the church debate in California apparently there has been an appeal to the US Supreme Court:

https://www.newsweek.com/california-churchs-battle-gov-gavin-newsom-over-reopening-could-head-supreme-court-1506379

To that end the state issued it's first Church Reopening guidelines today.  The big guideline is in person service capacity will be limited to 25% for the first three weeks of reopening:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-25/california-churches-coronavirus-guidance

Those 25% would have to pray real hard to make up for th rest of the gang.
In slightly differnt news:

Hell, I'd drink for four or five...maybe six if I'm feeling up to it.  Usually I drink all the beer at home anyways, I finished the 70 surplus beers from the wedding in less than three months. 

[Max Rockatansky]

How were free weights handled?  I would imagine that those would be wiped down after use?  I can see that leading to hoarding of certain weights or people running off with them.  That's probably the biggest problem at my local gym, there has historically been no control of keeping free weights organized and racked properly.  Supposedly my gym is just waiting on the State to announce Phase 3.  I'll probably do a couple extra workouts the week they reopen to get a lay of the land.  I have a feeling the pace will be slowed considerably from what I'm used (mostly circuit training).

I didn't see anyone spraying sanitizer on barbell handhold areas, weight plates, dumbbells, cable machine pull handles, or other things that are routinely touched by hand.  I'd expect spraying to be limited largely to weight benches and the like (as was the norm before COVID-19).  At my gym we have issues with weight plates being re-racked out of order that come and go.  We used to have great difficulty keeping barbell weight clips on hand, but this has abated, I think because management is intentionally overstocking them.

I think sanitizing stuff is going to be a time pit, but probably largely offset by low demand (thus no waiting time) for the weight benches and cable machines, even with the young bucks gravitating to that part of the floor.

Hopefully that's the case, it was leading up to closing.  I think it was just me and about six other serious regulars who were showing leading into the City Shutdown.  I have access to a military base gym too, that one will have me curious since they have BUMED hanging over their heads. 

[tradephoric]

California and Illinois have surpassed New York in daily confirmed cases:

https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?region=US&doublingtime=3&location=California&location=Illinois&location=New+York

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding self quarantine orders for out of state travel, here is a more up to date list:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/states-reopening-many-still-require-215946935.html

There is a lot of "please quarantine for 14 days"  but still a handful of hard orders out there.  I was kind of surprised to see Nevada asking for voluntary quarantines still.

[jemacedo9]

It kind of makes me question if you really have thought your stance through at all?  Why not start with some facts and figures from the evidence you cited without reference?  At this point I'm giving you the open door to actually engage in intelligent dialog and perhaps not come off as piggishly hostile towards anyone who doesn't share your world views.

The basic concept is simple: if you have the virus, wearing a mask will reduce the risk of spreading it to other people. If you are walking or running outside, you're probably not going to encounter anyone, or if you do, you'll pass by for a few seconds at most. Inside buildings, not only are there more people close by, but it's an enclosed space, and wearing a mask is recommended.

To add to this...someone may have the virus and not know they have it.  For people who get symptoms, those symptoms do not appear for the first few days at a minimum.  There are those who don't have symptoms.  I feel this point gets forgotten or glossed over, by those who are waiting for a fever to appear to think they have it.

[Max Rockatansky]

It kind of makes me question if you really have thought your stance through at all?  Why not start with some facts and figures from the evidence you cited without reference?  At this point I'm giving you the open door to actually engage in intelligent dialog and perhaps not come off as piggishly hostile towards anyone who doesn't share your world views.

The basic concept is simple: if you have the virus, wearing a mask will reduce the risk of spreading it to other people. If you are walking or running outside, you're probably not going to encounter anyone, or if you do, you'll pass by for a few seconds at most. Inside buildings, not only are there more people close by, but it's an enclosed space, and wearing a mask is recommended.

To add to this...someone may have the virus and not know they have it.  For people who get symptoms, those symptoms do not appear for the first few days at a minimum.  There are those who don't have symptoms.  I feel this point gets forgotten or glossed over, by those who are waiting for a fever to appear to think they have it.

Some of the latest figures I see frequently thrown out there are 35-40% asymptomatic.  From there a large percentage seems to have mild symptoms which probably wouldn't have ever raised a red flag in any other time prior in recent memory.  There is a pretty good chance if that someone was to spend a fair amount of time out in the world that they have already been infected and never knew it.  Even with something as mundane as a common cold symptoms can range from nothing to approaching flu like. 

Looking back to the beginning of the year there was so many unknown variables with COVID-19 that have had some solid answers now.  Back there wasn't a really much in the way of a clear understanding of how the disease was spread and how lethal it was.  Early in the going a lot of epidemiology experts were throwing out mortality rates of 3-5% which i think really scared a lot of people.  As more and more facts come out, that scary "unknown"  factor is starting to wane in the general populace.  Right now that seems to be evident in the form most people have stopped panic buying, the stock markets have largely stabilized after falling hard, and more people are willing/wanting their lives to go back to some semblance of normal.  While none of this COVID-19 stuff has been good it hasn't turned out to be the doomsday scenario it was often touted to be months ago. 

[Rothman]

...thanks to the measures that were taken.

Of course, after this weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if positive trends worsened or reversed in a couple of weeks.

[Brandon]

I'm not so sure some of the measures taken made much of a difference.  Some states never fully shut down and had fatality rates well below states that did shut completely down.

[Max Rockatansky]

...thanks to the measures that were taken.

Of course, after this weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if positive trends worsened or reversed in a couple of weeks.

Yes, but that assumed 3-5% mortality rate didn't end up being a thing.  No one measure was the catch all that sometimes they get singled out to be.  Aside masks some of the other common measures have been:

-  Stay at home/shelter in place orders of varying degrees.  Some were pretty harsh (I was under a 50 mile radius one myself for awhile) whereas others were lax.
-  Pushing to close, shutter or reduce operations of non-essential businesses and facilities
-  Pushing hand washing and disinfecting as a regular practice. 
-  Additonal PPE requirements, the retail world seemed to be the most aggressive on this front.  Masks would fall under this definition. 

As I've stated many times in this thread, I've never once read anything from a public health official saying that virus could be stopped once it was here.  Now that there is established facts the degree of risk of reopening can be more properly calculated.  I don't think really many jurisdictions (Wisconsin comes to mind as an odd exceptions) where everyone was thrown into the mix like it was business as usual.  People will still get sick, there isn't anything that will stop that now.  Now it seems the goal is to introduce as much normalcy as possible that doesn't lead to case overload, because things like the economy and financial welfare of a ton of people are at stake. 

I guess that's the primary reason why I don't see masks as the be all end all so many think it is.  It was more so the other measures that was able to control movement kept things stable so hospitals didn't get overwhelmed.  There doesn't appear to be a ton of evidence to suggest that outside of a few exceptions that hospitals will get overwhelmed.  If anything the mask wearing ought to be pushed as a way of speeding up the process of reopening. 

[Rothman]

I'm not so sure some of the measures taken made much of a difference.  Some states never fully shut down and had fatality rates well below states that did shut completely down.

Such as?

[Rothman]

...thanks to the measures that were taken.

Of course, after this weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if positive trends worsened or reversed in a couple of weeks.

Yes, but that assumed 3-5% mortality rate didn't end up being a thing.  No one measure was the catch all that sometimes they get singled out to be.  Aside masks some of the other common measures have been:

-  Stay at home/shelter in place orders of varying degrees.  Some were pretty harsh (I was under a 50 mile radius one myself for awhile) whereas others were lax.
-  Pushing to close, shutter or reduce operations of non-essential businesses and facilities
-  Pushing hand washing and disinfecting as a regular practice. 
-  Additonal PPE requirements, the retail world seemed to be the most aggressive on this front.  Masks would fall under this definition. 

As I've stated many times in this thread, I've never once read anything from a public health official saying that virus could be stopped once it was here.  Now that there is established facts the degree of risk of reopening can be more properly calculated.  I don't think really many jurisdictions (Wisconsin comes to mind as an odd exceptions) where everyone was thrown into the mix like it was business as usual.  People will still get sick, there isn't anything that will stop that now.  Now it seems the goal is to introduce as much normalcy as possible that doesn't lead to case overload, because things like the economy and financial welfare of a ton of people are at stake. 

I guess that's the primary reason why I don't see masks as the be all end all so many think it is.  It was more so the other measures that was able to control movement kept things stable so hospitals didn't get overwhelmed.  There doesn't appear to be a ton of evidence to suggest that outside of a few exceptions that hospitals will get overwhelmed.  If anything the mask wearing ought to be pushed as a way of speeding up the process of reopening.

Johns Hopkins reports a 6% fatality to case rate in the U.S.

[Max Rockatansky]

...thanks to the measures that were taken.

Of course, after this weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if positive trends worsened or reversed in a couple of weeks.

Yes, but that assumed 3-5% mortality rate didn't end up being a thing.  No one measure was the catch all that sometimes they get singled out to be.  Aside masks some of the other common measures have been:

-  Stay at home/shelter in place orders of varying degrees.  Some were pretty harsh (I was under a 50 mile radius one myself for awhile) whereas others were lax.
-  Pushing to close, shutter or reduce operations of non-essential businesses and facilities
-  Pushing hand washing and disinfecting as a regular practice. 
-  Additonal PPE requirements, the retail world seemed to be the most aggressive on this front.  Masks would fall under this definition. 

As I've stated many times in this thread, I've never once read anything from a public health official saying that virus could be stopped once it was here.  Now that there is established facts the degree of risk of reopening can be more properly calculated.  I don't think really many jurisdictions (Wisconsin comes to mind as an odd exceptions) where everyone was thrown into the mix like it was business as usual.  People will still get sick, there isn't anything that will stop that now.  Now it seems the goal is to introduce as much normalcy as possible that doesn't lead to case overload, because things like the economy and financial welfare of a ton of people are at stake. 

I guess that's the primary reason why I don't see masks as the be all end all so many think it is.  It was more so the other measures that was able to control movement kept things stable so hospitals didn't get overwhelmed.  There doesn't appear to be a ton of evidence to suggest that outside of a few exceptions that hospitals will get overwhelmed.  If anything the mask wearing ought to be pushed as a way of speeding up the process of reopening.

Johns Hopkins reports a 6% fatality to case rate in the U.S.

Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't that on "confirmed cases?"   I don't think anyone reasonably assuming that the current "confirmed case count"  is even close to what's really out there.  The common number I see floating in the news with suspected cases factored in is 0.3%-1%. 

Some other measures I forgot about:

-  Encouraging people who didn't feel good to stay home.
-  Health screens
-  Temperature checks

Out of the three the staying home part probably was by far the most effective I noted.  It pissed a lot of people off at first but they got over their 100% attendance mindset pretty fast. 

[webny99]

The problem is not wearing a mask as a form of protest, or specifically because the virus is overhyped/a hoax/a conspiracy, or because "freedom". Those are the people I want to stay away from.

I agree with you on that; but it's not because I think I'm more likely to contract the virus from them. It's because these viewpoints are harmful to society.

An example was mentioned upthread comparing mask wearing to other basic requirements that we don't even think about, for example, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service". Most people wouldn't dream of walking into a grocery store or a Thruway service area barefoot and shirtless. 300 years ago, it would have probably been normal (not on the Thruway, of course, but say, at a trading post), but things have evolved over time. Wearing a face covering is no different, it just feels different because it was sprung on us and became normal in a matter of weeks instead of centuries. Some resistance to change is normal, but it's important to be able to accept societal shifts like this one, because if we abandon our willingness to accept changes we don't like, we are in effect abandoning society itself.

[Roadgeekteen]

Do you think that we will lock down again if a second wave comes? Belgium just said that they won't lockdown as hard if there is a second wave.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm not so sure some of the measures taken made much of a difference.  Some states never fully shut down and had fatality rates well below states that did shut completely down.

That's a unfair comparison.  There's 6 counties in NJ that have a higher population than all of Wyoming.  New York City - just the city - has a higher population than 38 states.  So of course there should be states that fared better than others with fewer restrictions...because the restrictions wouldn't make any sense relative to their mostly rural populations..

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not so sure some of the measures taken made much of a difference.  Some states never fully shut down and had fatality rates well below states that did shut completely down.

That's a unfair comparison.  There's 6 counties in NJ that have a higher population than all of Wyoming.  New York City - just the city - has a higher population than 38 states.  So of course there should be states that fared better than others with fewer restrictions...because the restrictions wouldn't make any sense relative to their mostly rural populations..

The one thing I think most would agree on is that densely populated areas got hit way harder than rural population centers.  But then again, that's kind of par for the course in almost every pandemic ever.  With regards to San Francisco and the Bay Area that was one of the few major population centers that somehow managed to not get totally hammered like NYC did and how Los Angeles is now. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is an article that cites the CDC estimated 0.3-0.4% mortality rate of COVID-19:

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Again, while that's not a good number is leagues below what some of the initial worst case mortality rates that were being thrown out early in the pandemic.  It isn't so far fetched to see why 3-4% would scare people but 0.3-0.4% would far less so. 

For reference the 1918 Spanish Flu was thought to have had a mortality rate possibly over 10%.  If you think things are bad now put yourself in the shoes of someone who lived through World War I just to come home to watch an even greater number of people die of the flu. 

[wxfree]

Do you think that we will lock down again if a second wave comes? Belgium just said that they won't lockdown as hard if there is a second wave.

Hopefully we'll have the capacity to test people, and identify others who were exposed and get them tested.  If we can do that, we can only quarantine people who were exposed until they either recover or are determined not to have it.  An effective treatment that lowers the fatality rate and the damage the disease causes will make it less scary.  If people are more careful, that will help slow it down.  I've reduced my shopping from pretty much every day to weekly.  The few non-supermarket items I've bought I ordered online and had delivered, which I never did before unless I couldn't get something at a store within about 50 miles.  If people are more aware and make little changes, especially not gathering in crowds, then we may not get massive uncontrolled spread like we had before.  Also, if the numbers start to go up too fast, maybe we'll be quicker to act this time.  Since we have more testing, we're able to figure out when the numbers are going up sooner.  Hopefully any stay at home orders will be limited to certain places if there's an outbreak.  I am hopeful that it won't be as bad as it was in spring, but I'm not really optimistic.  Maybe people acting like idiots, gathering together in huge numbers with no precautions, is just a temporary celebration of freedom, and they'll start being safer as time goes on.  How bad this gets is up to us.  Our behavior determines how many people are going to die and how severe the restrictions will be later on.

[Brandon]

Here is an article that cites the CDC estimated 0.3-0.4% mortality rate of COVID-19:

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Again, while that's not a good number is leagues below what some of the initial worst case mortality rates that were being thrown out early in the pandemic.  It isn't so far fetched to see why 3-4% would scare people but 0.3-0.4% would far less so. 

For reference the 1918 Spanish Flu was thought to have had a mortality rate possibly over 10%.  If you think things are bad now put yourself in the shoes of someone who lived through World War I just to come home to watch an even greater number of people die of the flu. 

I've usually seen rates anywhere from 3-5% for the 1918 H1N1 pandemic.  The second wave, which was really deadly, was caused in part by sick troops being sent back and forth during the last year of WWI.  That pandemic killed 500,000 to 850,000 in the US (out of a then population of 100 million).

Then we have the 1968 H3N2 pandemic (Hong Kong Flu) that killed 100,000 in the US alone (out of a then population of about 200 million).  This seems to be a forgotten pandemic for some reason.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is an article that cites the CDC estimated 0.3-0.4% mortality rate of COVID-19:

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Again, while that's not a good number is leagues below what some of the initial worst case mortality rates that were being thrown out early in the pandemic.  It isn't so far fetched to see why 3-4% would scare people but 0.3-0.4% would far less so. 

For reference the 1918 Spanish Flu was thought to have had a mortality rate possibly over 10%.  If you think things are bad now put yourself in the shoes of someone who lived through World War I just to come home to watch an even greater number of people die of the flu. 

I've usually seen rates anywhere from 3-5% for the 1918 H1N1 pandemic.  The second wave, which was really deadly, was caused in part by sick troops being sent back and forth during the last year of WWI.  That pandemic killed 500,000 to 850,000 in the US (out of a then population of 100 million).

Then we have the 1968 H3N2 pandemic (Hong Kong Flu) that killed 100,000 in the US alone (out of a then population of about 200 million).  This seems to be a forgotten pandemic for some reason.

Regarding the 1968 pandemic it probably wasn't something that was big enough to overshadow the other news events domestically at the time such as Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement.   It might be just my observation but it feels like the further back in time you go the more accepting generations tended to be that disease and death by it was just a part of life.  The modern 24/7 news cycle probably plays a much bigger factor than in why so much panic started with the current pandemic. 

[SEWIGuy]

Here is an article that cites the CDC estimated 0.3-0.4% mortality rate of COVID-19:

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Again, while that's not a good number is leagues below what some of the initial worst case mortality rates that were being thrown out early in the pandemic.  It isn't so far fetched to see why 3-4% would scare people but 0.3-0.4% would far less so. 

For reference the 1918 Spanish Flu was thought to have had a mortality rate possibly over 10%.  If you think things are bad now put yourself in the shoes of someone who lived through World War I just to come home to watch an even greater number of people die of the flu. 

I've usually seen rates anywhere from 3-5% for the 1918 H1N1 pandemic.  The second wave, which was really deadly, was caused in part by sick troops being sent back and forth during the last year of WWI.  That pandemic killed 500,000 to 850,000 in the US (out of a then population of 100 million).

Then we have the 1968 H3N2 pandemic (Hong Kong Flu) that killed 100,000 in the US alone (out of a then population of about 200 million).  This seems to be a forgotten pandemic for some reason.

Regarding the 1968 pandemic it probably wasn't something that was big enough to overshadow the other news events domestically at the time such as Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement.   It might be just my observation but it feels like the further back in time you go the more accepting generations tended to be that disease and death by it was just a part of life.  The modern 24/7 news cycle probably plays a much bigger factor than in why so much panic started with the current pandemic. 

I really doubt that's the case.  Things got shut down very severely in China and large parts of Italy as horror stories were coming out of those locations about hospitals being overrun, dealth toll, etc.  That had nothing to do with the 24/7 news cycle.

So when things started getting real bad in New York, and an NBA player contracted the virus and the NBA shut down its season, it made perfect sense for the US to follow the path of Italy and a good portion of Europe in shutting things down.

[kalvado]

Regarding the 1968 pandemic it probably wasn't something that was big enough to overshadow the other news events domestically at the time such as Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement.   It might be just my observation but it feels like the further back in time you go the more accepting generations tended to be that disease and death by it was just a part of life.  The modern 24/7 news cycle probably plays a much bigger factor than in why so much panic started with the current pandemic.

More like changing meaning of "normal". What we don't appreciate is the amount of work and money invested in keeping people safe.
Think about it in such a way: life expectancy in US pre-WWI (pre-Spanish flu baseline) was about 50 years compared to 80 years today.

[jeffandnicole]

Regarding the 1968 pandemic it probably wasn't something that was big enough to overshadow the other news events domestically at the time such as Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement.   It might be just my observation but it feels like the further back in time you go the more accepting generations tended to be that disease and death by it was just a part of life.  The modern 24/7 news cycle probably plays a much bigger factor than in why so much panic started with the current pandemic. 

I really doubt that's the case.  Things got shut down very severely in China and large parts of Italy as horror stories were coming out of those locations about hospitals being overrun, dealth toll, etc.  That had nothing to do with the 24/7 news cycle.

So when things started getting real bad in New York, and an NBA player contracted the virus and the NBA shut down its season, it made perfect sense for the US to follow the path of Italy and a good portion of Europe in shutting things down.

Regarding the 24/7 news cycle, I do believe that to an extent.  And it goes far beyond the CNNs and FOX News' of the world.  As people can post on social media, and much of that it opinion stated as fact, and much of that is posted by friends and friends of friends that supports their views, it just constantly encourages people to dig in even further on their believes and views.

It made perfect sense for the US to shut down, because if we didn't, we would've looked like some outcasts.  We *had* to shut down almost to save face.  And yet, some people think we should've shut down earlier, and some think we shouldn't have shut down to the extent we did.

That's what makes this such a tough decision - no matter what, the majority of the people believe it was done wrong.  Even if 1/3 believe we should've shut down earlier, 1/3 believe we shouldn't have shut down to the extent we did, and 1/3 believe we did it the right way, that means 2/3rds of the population disagreed with what we did.