Cases rising or dropping by you?

[Pyotr]

Unless you were in China in December 2019, the chance you had the virus is like 0.00000000001%

No. It was in the US in December. I work with the public and come in contact with a lot of people.

 

[Pyotr]

So is resisting arrest with violence and assaulting a police officer, which she has pending in Louisiana if she ever goes back. It occurred when she was fired from LSU.

Interesting. I did not know that one.

 

[jamescanuck2001]

No. It was in the US in December. I work with the public and come in contact with a lot of people.

Doesn't matter, chance is extremely remote.

 

[robinb]

I have another antibodies test scheduled for tomorrow. I took one in May, but it was negative.

I’m still convinced I had it this past December. I never, ever get sick but for a week I had flu like symptoms.

What would a positive test do for you? Are you planning to donate plasma?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

My state is crazy with Covid infections. We've had over 20,000 new cases in the last 7 days with a record shattering 3,747 from today. Our governor keeps on trying to establish rules to control the pandemic (a state wide mask rule and a rule to limit bars and restaurants to 25%) and he keeps on being sued and his rules overturned. 20% of the people being tested are positive and a field hospital opened up at our state fairgrounds. It's very frustrating to see things go to heck in a handbasket while people ignore best practices.

More of the medical community is coming on board that instead of doing these sweeping restrictions that the focus instead should be on more localized efforts.

Maybe a more localized approach in your state could funnel that energy towards that instead of constant battles for control at the state level. I say that having had my state in that position and my governor announcing that she will be backing off and instead have health departments take a guidance role rather than a dictating role. Paramount to me is Federal aid and resources like testing kits. I would rather they fight over that than fighting for who has legal authority and who doesn't and what restrictions should be there and what shouldn't. Understandably so people are concerned about compliance too.

 

[JimMIA]

My state is crazy with Covid infections. We've had over 20,000 new cases in the last 7 days with a record shattering 3,747 from today. Our governor keeps on trying to establish rules to control the pandemic (a state wide mask rule and a rule to limit bars and restaurants to 25%) and he keeps on being sued and his rules overturned. 20% of the people being tested are positive and a field hospital opened up at our state fairgrounds. It's very frustrating to see things go to heck in a handbasket while people ignore best practices.

That's a problem that governments at every level have had. Elected officials usually have specific powers, and sometimes the setup is strong-mayor (governor/whatever) and sometimes it's weak. They can only do what they can legally do, and that is often a difficult problem in times like these.

Here in Florida, our governor's office has a good bit of power but Florida is such a big state and has so many vast differences that they often leave the options up to the cities and counties. That's worked well, and they've worked cooperatively together, but it's not like that everywhere.

 

[robinb]

More of the medical community is coming on board that instead of doing these sweeping restrictions that the focus instead should be on more localized efforts.

Maybe a more localized approach in your state could funnel that energy towards that instead of constant battles for control at the state level. I say that having had my state in that position and my governor announcing that she will be backing off and instead have health departments take a guidance role rather than a dictating role. Paramount to me is Federal aid and resources like testing kits. I would rather they fight over that than fighting for who has legal authority and who doesn't and what restrictions should be there and what shouldn't. Understandably so people are concerned about compliance too.

I think that most of the medical community believes in wearing masks but most of my state appears not to agree. Localized efforts won't do squat because the local authorities where the biggest outbreaks are have no interest in doing anything, including complying with previous orders, to help mitigate the spread. Localized efforts are not the solution here. It's the freaking wild, wild west with people doing whatever the heck they feel like filling up bars and socializing in groups with no masks. Thousands of people are getting sick every day and hundreds of people are dying.

 

[Pyotr]

Doesn't matter, chance is extremely remote.

So you’re saying there’s a chance?

 

[Pyotr]

What would a positive test do for you? Are you planning to donate plasma?

Yes.

 

[robinb]

Yes.

That's pretty awesome! I hope that things work out for you.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think that most of the medical community believes in wearing masks but most of my state appears not to agree. Localized efforts won't do squat because the local authorities where the biggest outbreaks are have no interest in doing anything, including complying with previous orders, to help mitigate the spread. Localized efforts are not the solution here. It's the freaking wild, wild west with people doing whatever the heck they feel like filling up bars and socializing in groups with no masks. Thousands of people are getting sick every day and hundreds of people are dying.

I think that's actually the reason why they are starting to advocate for more localized approach or more or less what might have worked better in the beginning.

The exact quote from my governor was "A much more effective way is to have the local buy-in," "The better way to do it rather than using the hammer is to continue to work closely with local officials, local public health officials.". And she knows there's plenty of resistance from people so it's not like we're perfect angels here.

A poster in Canada shared a letter by medical professionals in a province that stated in part: "We are writing this letter in support of the government’s plan to use a tactical localized approach, rather than sweeping new lockdown measures, to deal with the increasing COVID case numbers in Ontario" If you want to read the full letter here it is: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/me...tter-to-doug-ford/ar-BB19zc7Q?ocid=spartanntp For sure there are differences between Canada and us but there's some things to ponder over too.

You're absolutely right about localized issues when it comes to compliance but that is something each local area would be dealing with and they may be better at doing it. My state fought over this stuff in April-June and now the governor only has the ability to extend the state of emergency once every 30 days, and counties have the ability to opt out of certain things (like masks mandates which at one time more than 90 out of the 105 counties did opt out of the mask mandate) but at least she's getting to focus more on testing supplies and *hopefully* a better testing strategy. She's been able to extend the state of emergency twice now (ending November 15th at the moment) but there's less tug of war (presently that is).

I'm not saying a localized approach would work everywhere but right now seems like your state is just locked in a constant battle over control much like mine was. I think sometimes what ends up being an issue is feeling like a governor (or someone working for the government) just calling the shots and not caring and that extends to local officials who just simply disagree with an overreaching approach. So what you end up doing is fighting back and hard just because of that.

No matter what though this all sucks when you see countless people doing whatever without concern to others

 

[JimMIA]

The exact quote from my governor was "A much more effective way is to have the local buy-in,"

The key is compliance, and it doesn't matter who issues a regulation if there is no enforcement. You can't always enforce rules on individuals, but in South Florida many of the offenders were not individuals, but businesses. And businesses can be effectively sanctioned.

Some of our most effective enforcement is through city and county zoning and health agencies. I'll give a couple of examples:

• Miami Beach had problems with people renting AirBnBs to hold big parties. AirBnB tried, but they really couldn't enforce their no-party rules. So the city shut down AirBnB rentals. Problem solved.
• Another city had a restaurant/bar that was ignoring all capacity, masking, and distancing requirements. Zoning inspectors repeatedly cited them and issued fines. The business ignored everything. So finally, the city fined them $15,000, revoked their business license, and closed them permanently.

Often people think the fix is to make the actions criminal and have the police enforce the rules, but that has not been our experience. We tried it, but neither the prosecutors nor judges were going to allow criminal courts to be jammed up with that kind of case. So we switched to the administrative/regulatory agencies and used them...with good success.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The key is compliance, and it doesn't matter who issues a regulation if there is no enforcement. You can't always enforce rules on individuals, but in South Florida many of the offenders were not individuals, but businesses. And businesses can be effectively sanctioned.

Some of our most effective enforcement is through city and county zoning and health agencies. I'll give a couple of examples:

• Miami Beach had problems with people renting AirBnBs to hold big parties. AirBnB tried, but they really couldn't enforce their no-party rules. So the city shut down AirBnB rentals. Problem solved.
• Another city had a restaurant/bar that was ignoring all capacity, masking, and distancing requirements. Zoning inspectors repeatedly cited them and issued fines. The business ignored everything. So finally, the city fined them $15,000, revoked their business license, and closed them permanently.

Often people think the fix is to make the actions criminal and have the police enforce the rules, but that has not been our experience. We tried it, but neither the prosecutors nor judges were going to allow criminal courts to be jammed up with that kind of case. So we switched to the administrative/regulatory agencies and used them...with good success.

Correct about compliance but I think the thought behind it is you're not getting compliance by strong arming people, by having state-wide actions and more. It can push people to do the opposite.

In my state from the beginning the mandates were NOT aimed at individuals anyways. They were more about the businesses. So you're preaching to the choir on that one. But having a civil offense vs a criminal offense only takes the heat partially away. If the governor forces businesses to close because they are deemed non-essential or you have low capacities allowed (which many of these restaurants and bars and whatnot simply have a hard time staying in business that way so then well you've effectively closed them or kept them closed even without a mandate saying they are non-essential) you're back to the crux of thinking someone in government isn't caring about you.

I give an example of the above for one of the last counties in my state to have not had a COVID case until mid-August. The state stay at home order went into effect March 30th and phase 1 began May 4th. So that county had their businesses closed and it wasn't until more than 3 months later after at least some were allowed to reopen that they ever saw a case (edited: corrected sentence). That county opted out of the mask mandate (though some residents voluntarily wore them according to a news article) that went into effect July 3rd and is still in effect (tied to the state of emergency). Now that county has about 1,500 residents so we're not talking a lot of people but the premise is still the same. A localized approach from the beginning would have meant that county could have taken a risk analysis of their own area and enforced things as they saw fit. That county is rural and agriculture (in which farming communities typically have less COVID cases due to their activities).

Like I said may not work in every place (and really no one decision should work in every place, we're not all the same) but it IMO is still worth looking at pros and cons to it.

 

[JimMIA]

Correct about compliance but I think the thought behind it is you're not getting compliance by strong arming people, by having state-wide actions and more. It can push people to do the opposite.

I didn't explain it very well, but the problem with state-wide mandates is that states typically do not have the resources to do the enforcement work. And without enforcement, it just won't work.

No state has sufficient numbers of people with the appropriate legal authority to enforce something like a mask mandate statewide, as one example. And if you add in capacity limits on businesses, etc, the manpower shortage becomes even more severe. So even if you did have widespread agreement with a mandate, you simply would not have enough bodies to cover the whole state.

 

[JimMIA]

A localized approach from the beginning would have meant that county could have taken a risk analysis of their own area and enforced things as they saw fit. That county is rural and agriculture (in which farming communities typically have less COVID cases due to their activities).

Right.

But when we used the localized approach in Florida, people in other states were screaming that we should have statewide regulation -- even though their states were doing the same thing we were doing.

The problem is that Brooklyn is different from Lake Placid. Downtown Miami is different from downtown Ocala or downtown Two Egg (yes, there is a Two Egg, Florida!) Chicago is very different from southern Illinois. Detroit is very different from the UP.

Different strokes for different folks often works better.

 

[godisney14]

I think a combination of both statewide/local mandates, regardless of how effectively it can be enforced, and other agencies intervening to punish businesses are necessary. Just because a positive action is difficult to enforce does not mean it should be ignored. We’ve all seen on news from various places where a business, or even a local police/sheriff leader, decided they do not believe in a state or local mandate and will not act on it.

I think that most of the medical community believes in wearing masks but most of my state appears not to agree. Localized efforts won't do squat because the local authorities where the biggest outbreaks are have no interest in doing anything, including complying with previous orders, to help mitigate the spread. Localized efforts are not the solution here. It's the freaking wild, wild west with people doing whatever the heck they feel like filling up bars and socializing in groups with no masks. Thousands of people are getting sick every day and hundreds of people are dying.

The Midwest, Wisconsin in particular, is getting out of control. Drastic measures from the top to bottom are going to be needed to tame the situation IMO.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Wisconsin in particular, is getting out of control. Drastic measures from the top to bottom are going to be needed to tame the situation IMO.

Or it will just lead to more rebellion and ruin. Who knows I guess.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Right.

But when we used the localized approach in Florida, people in other states were screaming that we should have statewide regulation -- even though their states were doing the same thing we were doing.

The problem is that Brooklyn is different from Lake Placid. Downtown Miami is different from downtown Ocala or downtown Two Egg (yes, there is a Two Egg, Florida!) Chicago is very different from southern Illinois. Detroit is very different from the UP.

Different strokes for different folks often works better.

I've long been discussing that different places need different things so I don't disagree with you.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I didn't explain it very well, but the problem with state-wide mandates is that states typically do not have the resources to do the enforcement work. And without enforcement, it just won't work.

No state has sufficient numbers of people with the appropriate legal authority to enforce something like a mask mandate statewide, as one example. And if you add in capacity limits on businesses, etc, the manpower shortage becomes even more severe. So even if you did have widespread agreement with a mandate, you simply would not have enough bodies to cover the whole state.

I guess from the beginning I never assumed that enforcement would actually be there 100%. No matter whatever is decided, be it local or state or federal, there won't be enough to enforce it 100%. Most decisions I guess hope for deterrence and sometimes that works quite well and other times not.

 

[godisney14]

Or it will just lead to more rebellion and ruin. Who knows I guess.

I doubt it.
It seems like no passive method could get someone who does not currently wear a mask to actually start wearing a mask until that person themself are personally affected by the virus in some way. Let’s be honest, I’m interest to know how many of us have been able to convince a non-masker to ultimately wear a mask by logical reasoning?
And, the daily numbers have been climbing so high even without drastic measures, that such measures may be fine.