Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Ah but there you go.. Social distancing and lockdowns.. You've got 2 variables there. They are not one and the same. You can socially distance without lockdown.
Iift the lockdown in the UK right now and you'd see exactly what Im talking about.

Issue with that is People just trying to "Outsmart" everything and not doing what they're told

Slipspace wrote:

The answer to the first paragraph is pretty easy to find with just a tiny amount of searching. The medical staff being furloughed are basically a result of the way healthcare is funded in the USA. Because everything is privately funded hospitals are currently losing money because all those juicy, profitable elective and non-emergency surgeries and procedures aren't going ahead because of the pandemic. Therefore many of theses hospitals are furloughing staff because they can't afford to pay them. It's like a cosmetic surgeon furloughing staff because their business isn't doing so well right now. I initially saw this explanation on the BBC but the Guardian also has an article explaining it. I know, conspiracy theories are less fun when you have to do even a small amount of research

Aye, there's a lot of medical staff that simply have nothing to do during a pandemic as they're not involved in ER's, ICU's, epidemiology, etc and may have little or no experience in such. A rheumatologist specializing in geriatric arthritis isn't exactly going to have much to do or be much assistance during an infectious disease outbreak, and there's probably less demand for anesthesiologists with fewer people out and about commuting and getting in car accidents, sustaining workplace injuries, getting in bar fights, etc. Just because someone works in the medical field doesn't mean their services are in demand currently.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

The answer to the first paragraph is pretty easy to find with just a tiny amount of searching. The medical staff being furloughed are basically a result of the way healthcare is funded in the USA. Because everything is privately funded hospitals are currently losing money because all those juicy, profitable elective and non-emergency surgeries and procedures aren't going ahead because of the pandemic. Therefore many of theses hospitals are furloughing staff because they can't afford to pay them. It's like a cosmetic surgeon furloughing staff because their business isn't doing so well right now. I initially saw this explanation on the BBC but the Guardian also has an article explaining it. I know, conspiracy theories are less fun when you have to do even a small amount of research

Aye, there's a lot of medical staff that simply have nothing to do during a pandemic as they're not involved in ER's, ICU's, epidemiology, etc and may have little or no experience in such. A rheumatologist specializing in geriatric arthritis isn't exactly going to have much to do or be much assistance during an infectious disease outbreak, and there's probably less demand for anesthesiologists with fewer people out and about commuting and getting in car accidents, sustaining workplace injuries, getting in bar fights, etc. Just because someone works in the medical field doesn't mean their services are in demand currently.

Doubly so since quite a few hospitals (at least in the US, and I've heard other places) stopped many forms of 'elective' procedures, including some life saving ones. If they won't do those procedures, they're not going to keep those specialists on hand.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Socially distancing without lockdown is so much harder. Ever travelled on a tube at rush hour?

While I agree, people are obviously going to have to try to continue social distancing in large part even after lockdowns end (and in most places, this will happen in phases). So, they'll have to figure out alternatives... whether it's continuing to work remotely where possible, biking / driving / using alternate transport, everyone on the tube wearing a mask... there's a lot that can be done that isn't full lockdown or full return to normal. Honestly, I can't see "normal" in the near future, but some measures absolutely need to be eased in phases, and are being or are about to be most places, depending on where they are on the curve.

The thing with Georgia is that it didn't life it's stay at home order "weeks ago" - today is the 9th day, so a little over a week. If there was spike, we may not have seen it yet because they are yet symptomless.

And of course, despite the fact the stay at home order was lifted - that doesn't mean anything has returned to normal. I truly doubt business is booming at shopping malls and bowling alleys in Georgia, despite the fact some of these businesses are now allowed again to reopen.

No, it was in response to the ICL model. A few scenes in the paper of crowded beaches shown in the media may have contributed, but now we know that interactions outside arent causing the spread, so we can re evaluate that right there. These unprecedented restrictions should be being reviewed and adjusted at every available opportunity so as not to restrict any liberties for a moment longer than necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Liste wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Ah but there you go.. Social distancing and lockdowns.. You've got 2 variables there. They are not one and the same. You can socially distance without lockdown.
Iift the lockdown in the UK right now and you'd see exactly what Im talking about.

Issue with that is People just trying to "Outsmart" everything and not doing what they're told

I assume by outsmart you mean knowing their rights?
'Doing what they're told'
That's the problem right there.

 insaniak wrote:
Maybe make fun of other people's command of the english language in a thread where you haven't just misread 21 thousand as 21 million?

Ha! You're right. He said it would save 21,001.518 lives. I think it's fairly obvious why I would confuse a period for the comma - who the feth uses three decimal points to measure something that only exists as whole numbers? How do you save 0.518 lives? I don't think we need that many significant digits. Let's just round up to the next whole number.

I've been driving for a while. I'm not dead. Why the hell am I still wearing a seatbelt?

1,350,000 automobile deaths occurred worldwide last year - and that's with seat belts! That's almost FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT higher than the number of deaths attributable to coronavirus!!! Screw your seat belt! Why do we still allow people to drive?! Why haven't we locked down cars!!?!? We could save MILLIONS!! Every life is worth it! Why should these people die just because you don't want to take a bus to get your haircut? If you are against the car lockdown, you just want to kill grandma! (Am I doing this right? When do I post the meme?)

No, the reason people think it is dangerous is because almost 300,000 people are dead, 4 million people have contracted it, and doctors still don't know what long term effects will be suffered by those who have recovered.

300,000 people have died worldwide. That's 0.005% of the 7.8 billion people on this planet, and fewer people than have died in... oh, let's say automobile accidents. Heart disease kills something like 15 million people every year. 372,000 people drown every year. For some reason, we can look at those numbers and remember that death is an inevitable risk in everything we do, but we look at something less deadly and less dangerous and think the risk is too high?

Of those 300,000 deaths, more than half have been over the age of 80. Two thirds of the deaths have come from people already in hospitals or assisted living care. 97% of the deaths have been people with one or more comorbidities - things like being morbidly obese, having hypertension, diabetes, or being immunodeficient - things already lowering their life expectancy by decades. Honestly, if don't need to use a mobility scooter to go around Disney World, the chance of you NOT dying from this is pretty damn good.

And those 4 million people who have contracted it? Well, there's probably a hell of a lot more than 4 million, and 99% of them have had zero or mild symptoms and were in no way, shape, or form in any danger at all at any point during their infection. Many of them didn't even realize they were supposed to be sick. There's even an increasingly likely chance that you've already had it and just didn't know.

The fact is, you are unreasonably scared of the coronavirus because the little voice in your head that judges risks has been warped by fear. Some of this fear was justified, but no longer is, now that better evidence is available. And some of this fear is due to a mass hysteria. It's the same sort of hysteria that causes mobs to lynch innocent people or accuse their fellow villagers of being witches. Anybody who is not with you is against you. They are a threat to your survival. You see some guy sitting outdoors on a bench without wearing a face mask, and he's literally going to kill your grandma.

But I'm not a threat to your survival. I'm on your side. I want you to come out the other end of this thing healthy and safe. And I have high confidence in this happening. My comments should make you feel better. I'm saying the virus isn't dangerous, that you have nothing to fear. That you WILL be safe. That you don't have to put up with the inconvenience or indignity of a lockdown. That you can see your family and even hug them, and you don't have to freak out when the guy behind you in the grocery store doesn't stand directly on the little X made out of tape.

But you are just so certain that the night is dark and full of terrors that you think I must be a witch, aligned with that darkness. If your mind is that diseased, I can't help you. I'm no witch, but I doubt there's much I can do to convince you of that. But just know that at the end of all this, you will be safe and (relatively) healthy, and that I've always said you would be.

 Sqorgar wrote:
1,350,000 automobile deaths occurred worldwide last year - and that's with seat belts! That's almost FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT higher than the number of deaths attributable to coronavirus!!! Screw your seat belt! Why do we still allow people to drive?! Why haven't we locked down cars!!?!? We could save MILLIONS!! Every life is worth it! Why should these people die just because you don't want to take a bus to get your haircut? If you are against the car lockdown, you just want to kill grandma! (Am I doing this right? When do I post the meme?)

Preaching to the converted, here. If it were up to me, every single car on the road would be fitted with collision avoidance and breathaliser ignition systems, and renewing your license would require a resit of the practical driving test and a road law refresher.



For the rest of your post, I really don't know what to tell you. You're not the messiah. You're a peddler of conspiracy theories. Get a grip.

I have to stop looking at this thread, all these "car accidents kill more people that corona!!!" strawmen arguments are giving me a headache

I'm finding as well that the fact that we predicted right back at the start that people would treat this like Y2K - insisting that the fact it turned out less devastating than predicted means we didn't need all the preventative measures that made it less devastating than predicted - doesn't make the fact that it's now happening any less frustrating.

 Ouze wrote:
The thing with Georgia is that it didn't life it's stay at home order "weeks ago" - today is the 9th day, so a little over a week. If there was spike, we may not have seen it yet because they are yet symptomless.

Florida opened on Monday. I think Georgia opened last Thursday. So, it's been eight or nine days and, on average, symptoms start to manifest around 5 days after infection. If there was going to be a spike, we'd be see some evidence of it happening by now. The real test will be Tuesday. I'd say Monday, but they like to cram a bunch of weekend updates into the Monday update, which tends to make it seem like a spike.

We've been two weeks away from an apocalypse that never came for months now. You should be happy that we're reopening and okay. It kind of feels like you are cheering for our deaths.

And of course, despite the fact the stay at home order was lifted - that doesn't mean anything has returned to normal. I truly doubt business is booming at shopping malls and bowling alleys in Georgia, despite the fact some of these businesses are now allowed again to reopen.

I can't speak for Georgia, but things are fairly hopping here in Florida. Every restaurant I've eaten at this week has had a dozen or more of people at it. Some people are wearing masks, but a lot aren't.

There's been a few places that haven't fully opened yet, but it has mostly been hipster-focused places that have chosen not to reopen. But we've got a lot of good ole boys down here and you can't measure the feths they give with a PCR test. The BBQ places are open and packed (as packed as 25% capacity will allow), but you might not be able to get your vegan eggplant and tofu salad with artisanal craft beer right now. They respect us too much to allow us to give them business.

Yeah... personally, while I'm in favor of some easing of restrictions (I mentioned us being able to go to the beach, staying far away from people, and it was a huge relief) I don't find those arguments convincing at all Sqorgar.

I don't care if it mostly targets at risk people, those people are still my neighbors. I live in Florida, and there's a lot of that target population in my community, even my church. I'm going to do everything I can to lessen their risk.

That said, I also have small kids and want to be a good parent, so it is a balancing act of how to stay socially distant and yet take the best care of them, which absolutely involves things like exercise and playing outside. We've found all sorts of ways to do it while trying to stay far away from people.

It doesn't have to be an either/or, ultimatum type situation here... you can have compassion for people and while some things are being eased, still take as many precautions as possible. It's just being a good citizen, neighbor, and friend (or even family).

Edit: From your post, I also get the impression we must live in very different parts of FL as obviously it's a huge state. It's not like you describe at all here. Restrictions are easing, but people are absolutely taking as many precautions as possible...

Always good to have death Olympics, where unless you get first place, it doesn't matter. Also good to have the experts like Dr Phil weigh in on these threads.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm finding as well that the fact that we predicted right back at the start that people would treat this like Y2K - insisting that the fact it turned out less devastating than predicted means we didn't need all the preventative measures that made it less devastating than predicted - doesn't make the fact that it's now happening any less frustrating.

The difference is, we know that the Y2K worked because we made it work. Hell, I was part of that work. I know exactly what would've happened to the code if I didn't change it because I ran a multitude of tests before and after the change, such that I can demonstrate absolutely that what I did made a difference. We don't have any evidence that the lockdowns have done anything. I read an article earlier today which also noticed. The author may have been referencing this earlier article.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:

I don't care if it mostly targets at risk people, those people are still my neighbors. I live in Florida, and there's a lot of that target population in my community, even my church. I'm going to do everything I can to lessen their risk.

And you should. It absolutely should be your choice, and their choice, if they are at risk. But I'm not convinced that locking everyone in their homes, legally, is the best way to go about saving them. For instance, I've known people who lost family members recently - not to COVID, but to cancer and a heart attack - that weren't able to see their sick family members in the last weeks of their lives... and they are livid. Absolutely pissed that they never got to say goodbye to their loved ones. A lockdown isn't saving anyone, and it is only making the elderly's last days a nightmare of isolation and loneliness. There's a better way. We can protect the at risk without locking them away.

That said, I also have small kids and want to be a good parent, so it is a balancing act of how to stay socially distant and yet take the best care of them, which absolutely involves things like exercise and playing outside. We've found all sorts of ways to do it while trying to stay far away from people.

Kids are a completely different discussion. I've got some choice words on how they are handling schools during all this, and my daughter has had to keep her braces on for an extra month and a half (so far) because dental care is considered an optional procedure. Kids aren't socializing or getting enough exercise, and I swear that if they decide to do distance learning for the fall semester, I'll take my kids out of school and home school them.

Edit: From your post, I also get the impression we must live in very different parts of FL as obviously it's a huge state. It's not like you describe at all here. Restrictions are easing, but people are absolutely taking as many precautions as possible...

I'm in the Panhandle. People are taking precautions - they are standing slightly farther away from each other and there are a lot of masks, but I wouldn't say that anybody is living in fear.

Regionally that makes some sense (I'm in the Tampa-St.Pete area, so it's likely more closely populated). And I can sympathize with some things you're saying.

However, I feel like you're mixing some arguments. You say "a lockdown isn't saving anyone, and it is only making the elderly's last days a nightmare of isolation and loneliness". Yet your earlier post specifically pointed out how it was a huge risk to the elderly. Both things can be true at once - lockdown is making it harder on those who were in hospice and just wanting to see their loved ones, and yet also making it safer for those who were at high risk. It's a complicated situation... and I think everybody needs to try to put themselves in the other's shoes, as both of those things are rough and we're figuring out how to balance them.

I also don't think social distancing should in any way be thought of as "living in fear" (not that you said that, just pointing out the phrase). I really want to do a lot of things, appropriately socially distanced, and it's not due to fear... just precaution, and out of consideration for others (family, friends, neighbors, etc).

Sooooo.. a quick break from the discussions that relate to the politics of opening.
The time has come, the walrus said, to reference many things. Of bluetoed victims of the plague, and spiderbites and scones.

Okay, I really can tie those three together. Blue toes is tossed about in the media as a sign (somehting you FEEL is a symptom, something you observe is a sign) of the disease in some people -- a new and "confusing one". Without a clue here, I speculate what this might mean. Blue blood is one of three things. Its blood someone injected blue dye into, its blood that is deoxygenated, and its blood that because of aberrant hemoglobin precursors is unable to carry oxygen in all of its pigments. Pigments? Well, hemeglobin is one of most famous pigments in the human body offhand, its literally why caucasion colored people not clear colored like some wierd deep sea animal. The mix of arterial red and a bit of venous blue blood in the peripheral tissues gives lips their red and skin their pink, except when you are, for example, very cold or suffereing some sort of wierdo blood circulation issue or oxygen deprivation.

That's in the normal person. What might cause you to get problems JUST in your feet? The feet are way down at the bottom of your personal gravity well, and there are a couple of disease processes that preferentially migrate to the feet as a result. Spiderbites is one -- the injected venom can sort of ooze down into the foot and cause its cellular and tissue damage there, if you got, for example, bit on the leg. Ow! So its possible that something in this dire disease is similarly tracking the effect of gravity, building up in feet (possibly the feet of people who work on their feet a lot) and then being clinically evident in that spot first, rather than causing the hands and mouth to go blue. Possible. Because there has been chatter about the possibility that there is aberrant overproduction of heme precursors, I can't rule a methemoglobinemia that somehow in this disease ends up in dependant areas out. So that's tying in spiderbites -- substances like dye or toxin not normally found in the lymph or blood that end up down there. MAYBE.

But another possible and logical model immediately springs to mind. One of the major morbidity cofactors -- diabetes -- is already a disease state well known for causing aberrations to the blood vessels in the feet of its victims, leading to a chronically poor oxygenation, actual necrosis in some cases, the gangrenous necrosis toe by toe of the feet across the disease's worse progressions and the amputations for bad peripheral vascular trauma of multiple toes or such. Its enough that diabetes patients often get their feet cleaned by professionals .. after diminished nerve capability means they become less likely to spot the beginnings of infection or rot down there. As I remember it, there is a thickening of the delicate walls of blood vessels from the gradual attachment of more and more tiny sugar molecules to the proteins, and all sorts of other nasty stuff. That's ... grr ... probably a huge oversimiplification, but bear with me, there is something in diabetes mellitus that can directly screw with blood vessels, and something about being feet that makes it show up there first and worst.
And you get diabetes from eating too many carbs -- like in scones, a dish made of carbs -- and not exercising the calories off enough. And thus its all tied back together!

So blue toe sign might this be a dye in the blood that pools in the feet (methemeoglobin = precursor to hemoglobin + emia = in the blood?) It might be. It might also be a result of the interaction of poor oxygenation with preexisting conditions of bad vascular circulation in the feet -- which is certainly compatible with the diabetes being a risk factor for this disease's morbidity and mortality already. That would be particularly hard to show because basically, one of the things that screws up oxygenation studies like the pulse ox is methemoglobins being present in tissue, or some other thing that causes a discoloration and by the time you are slicing up the toes in a pathology lab to figure out if they were low oxygen, dyed blue, or simply wierd, its an autopsy, not a medical investigation of the living patients.

If its some wierdo pigment or dye that is a side product of metabolic disruption, I don't know how that is great to know other than you should be checking your feet and seeing a doctor if the toes turn blue right now. If its some sort of interaction with low oxygen tension in the blood and perhaps a precursor effect like diabetes, then it gives you an idea you should .. wow .. be checking your feet and if they go all funny colored see a doctor. In that second case, though, you probably have other clues by then, too, but in the first case, perhaps that dye ends up in the blood before people realize they have it. Who knows?

Anyway. Generic advice to a diabetes sufferer would be to clean up your blood sugar so as to be better able to ward off infection through a healthy immune response. That isn't going to be bad advice right now -- and especially because blood sugar controls get wonky when the body starts to fight off a lot of infections, close monitoring and regular mild exercise atop a carefully planned diet are probably the best steps the blood sugar sick among us can prepare for this with.

There is a saying "its easier to pull a fat man through the eye of a needle, than to take sugar away from a diabetic" .. but in many cases, even mild, repeated exercise (the Pima indian tribe is the most famous example, in the are of the US Public Health doctors, they instituted a program of walking half an hour 3 times a week, and it damn near cured the whole tribe of functionally being diabetic. But I digress) ah... even mild, repeated exercise like a half hour stroll after dinner every day is very likely to be of huge benefit for the pre-diabetic people or diabetic people currently on lockdown, with less than normal exercise chances out in the world and even lacking the minimal exercise that many jobs bring (eg, standing on your feet and walking for a shift). Giving your immune system its fighting best against this disease is very probably the only variable we get to play with before we come under the gun, as 70 to 80 percent of us all eventually will, and sleep schedules, exercise regularity, and diet sanity are some great weapons. Perhaps you know someone who falls in this risk category, and a gentle reminder that they can get real benefit out of a half hour walk could help them motivate.
One of the big errors in the way we approach working out is to imagine it takes lycra and a gym and / or a maschoistic ruck run through a swamp while carrying 180 pounds (that's like 13 stone for you euro types who don't use pounds any more). Exercise to the sedentary is pretty much anything except a couch these days.

But again, I digressed a bit, todays thought really was "why blue TOES, why not blue LIPS" and the speculations above are two possible reasons why.

 RiTides wrote:

However, I feel like you're mixing some arguments. You say "a lockdown isn't saving anyone, and it is only making the elderly's last days a nightmare of isolation and loneliness". Yet your earlier post specifically pointed out how it was a huge risk to the elderly. Both things can be true at once - lockdown is making it harder on those who were in hospice and just wanting to see their loved ones, and yet also making it safer for those who were at high risk. It's a complicated situation... and I think everybody needs to try to put themselves in the other's shoes, as both of those things are rough and we're figuring out how to balance them.

I'm saying a few things.

1) There's no evidence that lockdowns are making a lick of difference. When compared to communities that don't lock down, they follow essentially the same curve of infection. And when you look at these curves relative to the lockdowns, improvements are seen before they could reasonably be expected based on the timing of the lockdown. At the very least, there's no explicit evidence that the lockdowns are what is making the difference, and given the extreme social, psychological, and physical burden these lockdowns are having on a great number of people, shouldn't we be demanding at least some empirical evidence that they have been effective before continuing them any longer?

2) We can create a compassionate system for protecting the ones at risk that is infinitely better than the system we have now - a system I would basically call elderly abuse. Isolating the elderly from their family, from visitors, keeping them from going out or being part of events and gathering. There are ways that we can easily minimize risk without isolating them from all human contact. The way we've approached this lockdown has been inhumane, and preventing families from getting the closure they need during the sickness and death of loved ones. For instance, during this thing, my kid's math teacher found out she had stage 3 ovarian cancer. She had to get surgery and her husband could not take her to the hospital, sit with her in the waiting room, or comfort her during a time when I know she needed him the most. They removed her uterus and overies, a ten pound tumor, plus sections of the surround organs. I can not imagine sitting in the waiting room, facing that kind of surgery without someone's hand to hold. Her surgery was a success and she's recuperating, but she just had the hardest few days of her life and was alone during the single most terrifying part.

3) Those who are not at risk - the vast majority of people - should not be put on house arrest to benefit the few who are. Those who are at risk can be easily protected without society coming to a complete halt for half a year. Moreover, in my experience, the people who we would probably consider most at risk (the elderly) are the ones most likely to choose to a normal life and seeing family over isolation and loneliness - I know that if I were in the twilight of my life, I'd rather spend every day with my loved ones rather than avoid them and live a little bit longer. I also see more 70 year olds out and about than 25 year olds, honestly. I think your view of death changes as you get older and it becomes more inevitable. But at any rate, I think it should be their choice, at least, rather than one that is made by politicians on their behalf.

I also don't think social distancing should in any way be thought of as "living in fear" (not that you said that, just pointing out the phrase). I really want to do a lot of things, appropriately socially distanced, and it's not due to fear... just precaution, and out of consideration for others (family, friends, neighbors, etc).

I understand the sentiment. For many people, it is just a courtesy, or a simple act of following practices that they've been told will help some. But some people really do act out in fear. Luckily, I've yet to meet, in person, someone who would decide to fight me in the middle of Publix because I wasn't wearing a mask - but I've seen their Facebook posts. Hell, I've read posts in this very thread.

I guess I'll agree to disagree - your #1 point / assumption (that lockdowns don't make "a lick of difference") has been, in my view, proven false both in this thread and in general. If our starting points are that different, we can't really effectively discuss much beyond that...

With the US opening up again during rising cases he'll either be proven right or take another month off.

Well, just watched UFC 249 in Jacksonville, FL. Aside from those involved in the octagon, social distance protocols were in effect, all personnel tested and cleaning crews came in after every fight.

Pretty surreal watching fights with no crowd, particularly because quite a few of the fights were barnburners. But damn did I miss sports.

Now bring back baseball! The UFC just laid out the blueprint for sports to come back.

Sports with no audience are do-able if the players and officials are frequently tested and isolated if infectious.

It's basically like the reaction of the porn industry to HIV.

It's not normal, though. A lot of the income is from ticket sales. How will that be replaced?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It's not normal, though. A lot of the income is from ticket sales. How will that be replaced?

I was under the impression that ticket sales were rapidly becoming unimportant to sports. Or at least football anyway. All the money was from advertising and remote viewing.

Advertising will make up some of the shortfall, since a lot of the shortfall from ticket sales will be made up for by increased viewer numbers watching from home, which is likely to be somewhat inflated when things first start up again due to people going through withdrawal from not being able to watch other people running around with a ball for the past several months...

 insaniak wrote:
Advertising will make up some of the shortfall, since a lot of the shortfall from ticket sales will be made up for by increased viewer numbers watching from home, which is likely to be somewhat inflated when things first start up again due to people going through withdrawal from not being able to watch other people running around with a ball for the past several months...

It may vary sport to sport, but this will make absolutely no difference to the big ones. They'll lose a lot of on site advertising and programme sponsors etc, though these aren't a big percentage of revenue anyway, but viewing figures won't change meaningfully. The people going to watch their side live are the same people watching all the other teams on TV, then you have global audiences, to the point that on site viewers are financially irrelevant to big sides. Old Trafford takes 76,000 people but the games are watched by an average 68 million. Your overall numbers viewing won't change sufficiently for it to makes much odds to broadcasters and advertisers. Losing 76,000 tickets multiple times a week is a big loss to the club, but an extra 76,000 viewers isn't a meaningful gain to advertisers or broadcasters.

Additionally, the pubs and other public viewing places won't be buying in and they're a major revenue stream for broadcasters.

On the other hand, smaller clubs, and smaller sports, see a much, much higher percentage of revenue coming from ticket sales because they don't have the advertising power, and don't have colossal viewing figures so could present a new audience with a sizeable percentage increase but the tv isn't interested in them and they only really get occasional coverage or streaming. At the moment, these sports are getting some extra interest because people keen to watch sport will absolutely find sport to watch (me and lots of friends have been watching Belarusian football ) but they're sunk when the elite ones come back.

Dukeofstuff wrote:

Blue blood is one of three things. Its blood someone injected blue dye into, its blood that is deoxygenated, and its blood that because of aberrant hemoglobin precursors is unable to carry oxygen in all of its pigments. Pigments? Well, hemeglobin is one of most famous pigments in the human body offhand, its literally why caucasion colored people not clear colored like some wierd deep sea animal. The mix of arterial red and a bit of venous blue blood in the peripheral tissues gives lips their red and skin their pink, except when you are, for example, very cold or suffereing some sort of wierdo blood circulation issue or oxygen deprivation.

Eh?

Deoxygenated blood is not literally blue. It's a darker, slightly more purply red than oxygenated blood (say Khorne Red vs Evil Sunz Scarlet) - but it's still red.

Think international travel will make a comeback anytime soon? I know that this is an incredibly selfish thing to think about at this present time and I apologise for it but I had planned to go to New York and Japan this year and I’m far less traveled than I’d like to be at this age....really hoping I haven’t missed my chances like with Hong Kong.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Think international travel will make a comeback anytime soon? I know that this is an incredibly selfish thing to think about at this present time and I apologise for it but I had planned to go to New York and Japan this year and I’m far less traveled than I’d like to be at this age....really hoping I haven’t missed my chances like with Hong Kong.

depends on how fast we got a cure, which can range from vacination too other things.

if i were a betting man, i'd say late next year.

International travel might come back sooner, but with quarantine periods which will make it quite impractical for the short trips we are used too. A 2 week wait in an airport hotel for you to clear entry is basically too long for how we view overseas travel today.

It's the entire length of many people's typical holiday - sometimes double. Meanwhile its completely impractical for business trips.


Effective screening tests and pre-travel isolation (only for those who drive themselves and don't use public transport to access the airport - good luck proving that) could be used to try and work around it; however its likely to remain a policy for quite some time.


So I figure long distance travel is a no-go for a good while yet. Countries just don't want to risk setting up their own monitoring systems and then see it all shot to bits with a tourist or two infecting a whole plane and suddenly you've got several hundred people all going to different places once they arrive - all carrying it.

Heck maybe they'll make everyone wear oxygen masks during the flight and load people on three or four at a time until the mask is in place.

I wish I traveled more often in the past.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I wish I traveled more often in the past.

I know the feeling. That said I'm sure that travel will return.

It's important to realise that this pandemic isn't going to change the world for decades to come. Travel will return; sports events with thick cheering crowds will return; busy malls and conventions; international meetings; holidays; trips abroad; sunny days by the seaside and a full house of parliament. It will all return given time.

If anything if you are earning use the next year or two to help save so that you can travel when the world opens up a bit more.


It feels a super long way off now, especially because lockdown slows down life for many people to a crawl; or has had the opposite effect and has chocked working people with insane workloads. Either approach makes the future feel a VERY long way away.