Coronavirus pandemic

[Roadgeekteen]

Honest to God, I don't know how anyone has the time to keep up with this thread. It's just too much.

If things really get out of hand, don't lock: simply allow the thread to become an RSS feed. Users can share links to news, and snippets of that story, but cannot give personal opinions about the stories.

There would be no opinion sharing in that case.

[Takumi]

Honest to God, I don't know how anyone has the time to keep up with this thread. It's just too much.

If things really get out of hand, don't lock: simply allow the thread to become an RSS feed. Users can share links to news, and snippets of that story, but cannot give personal opinions about the stories.

Is that possible on SMF?

[kphoger]

The virus has become politicized.

Has become?

When was it not?

-The Communist Party's first response to reports of the virus was not to take preventative measures but to pretend nothing was happening and punish anyone who said otherwise to anyone (even in private communications).  That allowed the virus to spread far, far more than it otherwise should have.

[kphoger]

I've been thinking about this...

A while ago, the state of Kansas decided that anyone arriving from Arkansas had to home-quarantine because the virus was too widespread there.  Then later, when it became more widespread in Kansas than in Arkansas, the home-quarantine order was rescinded.

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

My impression is the naughty lists are haphazard, difficult to keep standardized, and fluctuate too much to work effectively. For example, I was not welcome in NY last week, but am welcome this week, and will likely be unwelcome again next week.

[jakeroot]

Honest to God, I don't know how anyone has the time to keep up with this thread. It's just too much.

If things really get out of hand, don't lock: simply allow the thread to become an RSS feed. Users can share links to news, and snippets of that story, but cannot give personal opinions about the stories.

There would be no opinion sharing in that case.

That's the point.

Is that possible on SMF?

It would be up to the individual user to format each post appropriately. It would be "like" an RSS feed, more than an actual one.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Minnesota joined mandatory masks today. Perhaps to a fault, our governor has given people ample chances to behave like responsible adults before making these kinds of decisions.

[kphoger]

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

My impression is the naughty lists are haphazard, difficult to keep standardized, and fluctuate too much to work effectively. For example, I was not welcome in NY last week, but am welcome this week, and will likely be unwelcome again next week.

Kansas numbers surpassing Arkansas numbers was specifically stated to be the reason that Arkansas was taken off Kansas' naughty list.  Part of me thinks that makes sense, but another part of me doesn't.

Imagine if the virus were ten times more widespread in two states than anywhere else.  Would it make sense to remove travel restrictions from one to the other, just because they flip-flopped the #1 and #2 spots?

[stormwatch7721]

Ohio also joins the mask order.

[J N Winkler]

A while ago, the state of Kansas decided that anyone arriving from Arkansas had to home-quarantine because the virus was too widespread there.  Then later, when it became more widespread in Kansas than in Arkansas, the home-quarantine order was rescinded.

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

Speaking in broad terms, the rationale for these quarantine requirements is to prevent people from a badly affected state seeding new outbreaks in another that is less hard-hit.  It might be that Kansas should now be on Arkansas' naughty list.

This said, I wonder to what extent the science supports the specific criteria.  For example, Kansas blacklists another state once its fourteen-day total of new cases per 100,000 reaches three times Kansas' own.  Why that ratio and not, say, one and a half, two, or even four?

Moreover, the blacklist appears to be reviewed at two-week intervals and is entirely backward-looking (only cases already found are considered).  Wouldn't it yield a significantly higher degree of protection if it were reviewed daily and states that are not already on the list, but where it is clear cases are in an exponential growth pattern, were evaluated for addition to the list on the basis of their projected two-week case count up to two weeks later?  (Apropos of a parallel thread, this looks like an interesting use case for Excel conditionals and pivot tables.)

[SectorZ]

Ohio also joins the mask order.

They were, IIRC, the first state to have any shutdowns and they're starting a mask order now? Wow.

[webny99]

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

I think whether Arkansas is on the naughty list should be 100% based on what's happening in Arkansas, and 0% based on what's happening in Kansas. So no, I guess it doesn't make much sense to me.

[tdindy88]

Add Indiana to the mask list as well. Considering just reading about Minnesota and Ohio I'm guessing the rest of the Great Lakes states are starting to all fall in line again as a region. I guess this now puts Wisconsin on the clock.

[Big John]

Add Indiana to the mask list as well. Considering just reading about Minnesota and Ohio I'm guessing the rest of the Great Lakes states are starting to all fall in line again as a region. I guess this now puts Wisconsin on the clock.

The legislature, not the governor, has this power and they have no intention of doing that.

[kphoger]

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

I think whether Arkansas is on the naughty list should be 100% based on what's happening in Arkansas, and 0% based on what's happening in Kansas. So no, I guess it doesn't make much sense to me.

That's what half of me thinks.  But then, the other half of me...

Imagine a graduation party here in Wichita, one that had been postponed until now.  Family traveling to the graduation from within Kansas (where the virus is more widespread) would have no restrictions, while family traveling from Arkansas (where it's less widespread) would be required to self-isolate for two weeks.  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

[MikieTimT]

Was that the right move to make?  Or should Arkansas have stayed on Kansas' naughty list?

I think whether Arkansas is on the naughty list should be 100% based on what's happening in Arkansas, and 0% based on what's happening in Kansas. So no, I guess it doesn't make much sense to me.

That's what half of me thinks.  But then, the other half of me...

Imagine a graduation party here in Wichita, one that had been postponed until now.  Family traveling to the graduation from within Kansas (where the virus is more widespread) would have no restrictions, while family traveling from Arkansas (where it's less widespread) would be required to self-isolate for two weeks.  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

We just had the converse of that scenario 3 weeks ago.  Family came down with their daughters from KS to AR for our niece's graduation/prom on our back deck and their kids.  No one experienced anything unusual in the 3 weeks since.  Neighbors didn't even complain about the loud music played outdoors until 11PM!

[webny99]

I think whether Arkansas is on the naughty list should be 100% based on what's happening in Arkansas, and 0% based on what's happening in Kansas. So no, I guess it doesn't make much sense to me.

That's what half of me thinks.  But then, the other half of me...

Imagine a graduation party here in Wichita, one that had been postponed until now.  Family traveling to the graduation from within Kansas (where the virus is more widespread) would have no restrictions, while family traveling from Arkansas (where it's less widespread) would be required to self-isolate for two weeks.  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

Well, if the virus is still spreading rampantly, the party should probably be postponed again. I agree that it doesn't make sense to require people from places where the virus is less widespread to quarantine.

But then this calls into question the value of having your own naughty list if you're on everyone else's naughty list. What's the point?
Seems to me quarantine restrictions make the most sense for places like NY/NJ/CT where the virus is largely under control. States should be focused on reducing spread within their own population first: encouraging mask wearing and social distancing, scaling back bars and restaurant openings, encourage spending time outdoors, etc. Worry about out-of-state travelers later, once you've got the spread contained.

[kphoger]

Well, if the virus is still spreading rampantly, the party should probably be postponed again.

Not necessarily, if everyone is coming from locales with very few cases.

States should be focused on reducing spread within their own population first: encouraging mask wearing and social distancing, scaling back bars and restaurant openings, encourage spending time outdoors, etc., etc., and worry about out-of-state travelers later, once you've got the spread contained.

Why?  The goal of the governor is presumably to keep the number of new infections low–no matter who it is that infects a resident or where they came from.  Whether an New Yorker or a fellow Kansas infects a Kansan, it's one more case regardless.  Besides which, spread cannot be "contained" without accounting for people coming from outside the state.

[kalvado]

This said, I wonder to what extent the science supports the specific criteria.  For example, Kansas blacklists another state once its fourteen-day total of new cases per 100,000 reaches three times Kansas' own.  Why that ratio and not, say, one and a half, two, or even four?

Compartmentalizing the population is one of the long-established measures to limit the spread. Since people are much more dependent on others these days, full isolation is not practical. So there have to be some formal criteria to have enough mobility but maximizing benefits of isolation. 3x, 2x or 5x - any number can be equally questioned.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky's governor tried a travel ban. It got struck down in federal court. I would imagine that this is in effect for the entire Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kntuckky, and Tennessee.) (Note that the ban on in-person church services referenced in the story was also struck down later by another federal court).

So now the governor is trying what he calls a "travel advisory" and asks anyone who travels to a list of states at or near 15 percent positivity rates to self-quarantine for 14 days. From what I've heard, public opinion is against him on this and anyone who goes to Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, or any of the other states is thumbing their noses at him. Now he's been reduced to pleading with people with plans to vacation in one of those places to cancel their travel plans since there's nothing he can compel them to do, having been neutered by a federal court.

[Roadgeekteen]

Kentucky's governor tried a travel ban. It got struck down in federal court. I would imagine that this is in effect for the entire Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kntuckky, and Tennessee.) (Note that the ban on in-person church services referenced in the story was also struck down later by another federal court).

So now the governor is trying what he calls a "travel advisory" and asks anyone who travels to a list of states at or near 15 percent positivity rates to self-quarantine for 14 days. From what I've heard, public opinion is against him on this and anyone who goes to Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, or any of the other states is thumbing their noses at him. Now he's been reduced to pleading with people with plans to vacation in one of those places to cancel their travel plans since there's nothing he can compel them to do, having been neutered by a federal court.

Kentuckians should listen to him and not travel to hotspots. It's really that simple.

[hotdogPi]

Kentucky's governor tried a travel ban. It got struck down in federal court. I would imagine that this is in effect for the entire Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kntuckky, and Tennessee.) (Note that the ban on in-person church services referenced in the story was also struck down later by another federal court).

So now the governor is trying what he calls a "travel advisory" and asks anyone who travels to a list of states at or near 15 percent positivity rates to self-quarantine for 14 days. From what I've heard, public opinion is against him on this and anyone who goes to Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, or any of the other states is thumbing their noses at him. Now he's been reduced to pleading with people with plans to vacation in one of those places to cancel their travel plans since there's nothing he can compel them to do, having been neutered by a federal court.

Kentuckians should listen to him and not travel to hotspots. It's really that simple.

Nashville and its metro area is a hotspot (and more than the rest of Tennessee outside the southwest corner). I'm not sure how many live in Kentucky and work in Tennessee, but those people definitely need to be able to travel between the states.

That being said, going to a non-adjacent state that's a hotspot is highly discouraged.

[formulanone]

...in effect for the entire Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kntuckky, and Tennessee.)

...and you've only been warning us about Louisville all these years?   

[Roadgeekteen]

Kentucky's governor tried a travel ban. It got struck down in federal court. I would imagine that this is in effect for the entire Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kntuckky, and Tennessee.) (Note that the ban on in-person church services referenced in the story was also struck down later by another federal court).

So now the governor is trying what he calls a "travel advisory" and asks anyone who travels to a list of states at or near 15 percent positivity rates to self-quarantine for 14 days. From what I've heard, public opinion is against him on this and anyone who goes to Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, or any of the other states is thumbing their noses at him. Now he's been reduced to pleading with people with plans to vacation in one of those places to cancel their travel plans since there's nothing he can compel them to do, having been neutered by a federal court.

Kentuckians should listen to him and not travel to hotspots. It's really that simple.

Nashville and its metro area is a hotspot (and more than the rest of Tennessee outside the southwest corner). I'm not sure how many live in Kentucky and work in Tennessee, but those people definitely need to be able to travel between the states.

That being said, going to a non-adjacent state that's a hotspot is highly discouraged.

Well essential travel is different.

[wxfree]

This virus is causing a lot of harm in a lot of different ways.  To remediate some of that harm, Houston now has a drive-through strip club.  It's nice to know we can find solutions to these problems.

https://www.chron.com/local/article/Would-you-like-a-side-of-glitter-with-that-burger-15423217.php