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.

In Illinois, where I work, masks are required as of today as well.

Would be interesting requirement here seeing you can't buy one

Here in PA it's a requirement as well, though the Asian market I go to had signs up a full week before it became a requirement.

Would be interesting requirement here seeing you can't buy one

At least here it just has to be a face covering, so it's a lot of cloth masks, some home made, and even people just tying a handkerchief over their face like they're in a Western movie.

Gotta maintain that illusion of safety. Rumours of BJ talking about masks for the British public... Hopefully nothing will come of it.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Gotta maintain that illusion of safety.

Bit surprised you are not aware; most people are generally able to distinguish the concepts of 'safer' and 'completely safe' quite readily. One does not expect to be completely safe from car accidents just because they are wearing a seat belt, nor should they. But seat belts are still required because they make a significant improvement on safety relative to the effort. Similarly, wearing a mask is at worst an inconvenience and even a marginal improvement in safety is worth the comparatively trivial cost.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Higher impact on ethnic minorities remains unexplained.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52492662

I mean, "African and Indian immigrants fill most of our essential jobs and are thus extremely vulnerable to infection" seems to be a pretty good explanation.

Throw in socio-economic and cultural factors and it’s truly not hard to figure out.

nfe wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Higher impact on ethnic minorities remains unexplained.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52492662

I mean, "African and Indian immigrants fill most of our essential jobs and are thus extremely vulnerable to infection" seems to be a pretty good explanation.

20% of NHS worker deaths are Filipino. They make up less than 2% of the workforce. There's more to it.


UK gov make their 100,000 tests per day target. By counting all the tests they sent out rather than those actually completed.

"Two-thirds of Bangladeshi men over the age of 60 have a long-term health condition that would put them at risk from infection."

Per the article.

 Scrabb wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Higher impact on ethnic minorities remains unexplained.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52492662

I mean, "African and Indian immigrants fill most of our essential jobs and are thus extremely vulnerable to infection" seems to be a pretty good explanation.

20% of NHS worker deaths are Filipino. They make up less than 2% of the workforce. There's more to it.


UK gov make their 100,000 tests per day target. By counting all the tests they sent out rather than those actually completed.

"Two-thirds of Bangladeshi men over the age of 60 have a long-term health condition that would put them at risk from infection."

Per the article.

Ah, that'll explain the Filipio numbers. I see.

Oh, wait, no it won't. Maybe someone should investigate.

Touche.

Well, it's back to work Monday for me. (technically Saturday).

Restaurants are now able to be opened, but we have 2 days of food prep to do.

In addition to wearing gloves and face masks we need to stand at least 6 feet apart. We are also legally limited to 50% capacity, and all tables must be at least 6 feet apart. So, realistically this means we are at 45% table capacity. Also, no tables of more than 6 people.

I'm totally thrown. Mothers day is coming up fast. It's usually our busiest day of the year, by a far margin. Every year the store is PACKED. I have no idea what will happen now. I somehow expect groups of people waiting outside the door for a table to free up.

I hate dealing with people on "normal" days that demand "their table NOW". Also, I know I'm going to have to stop people from trying to pull 2 tables together.

Good luck and stay safe cuda. Restaurant staff have it rough at the best of times.

With social distancing measures in place bars and restaurants are going to loose more by reopening than by staying closed.

Half the amount of covers per sitting isn't even going to keep lights on in some venues..

 Mr. Burning wrote:
With social distancing measures in place bars and restaurants are going to loose more by reopening than by staying closed.

Half the amount of covers per sitting isn't even going to keep lights on in some venues..

That's a good point and the same is likely true of movie theatres. Without the huge opening weekends for blockbusters with all seats filled many are going to struggle to stay open. Airlines could have the same problem. Ironically in many cases it costs more to open and be half-empty than it costs to stay closed.

It'll also be interesting to see if there's confidence among the general public to even go to bars and restaurants any more.

Polls from the UK suggest otherwise, with something like 60 odd percent saying they would be afraid to go out to public places once lockdown is lifted. It's a little absurd really when you consider that for the vast majority of healthy folks, the likelihood of dying from cv is about the same as the likelihood of them dying this year anyway, that fear is irrational. I'll be happy to visit pubs and restaurants once they open up, I'll just avoid crowded places, which I generally did anyway.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Gotta maintain that illusion of safety.

Bit surprised you are not aware; most people are generally able to distinguish the concepts of 'safer' and 'completely safe' quite readily. One does not expect to be completely safe from car accidents just because they are wearing a seat belt, nor should they. But seat belts are still required because they make a significant improvement on safety relative to the effort. Similarly, wearing a mask is at worst an inconvenience and even a marginal improvement in safety is worth the comparatively trivial cost.

There's a difference here though.

Seat belts have been shown, scientifically, to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries in car accidents. Hence making their use mandatory saves lives and reduces the impact on health services and the state from the impact of those accidents. They are also designed to fit in a specific way with very little chance of the public messing up their use (can I stick something into a hole correctly etc).

The evidence of masks to reduce the transmission during pandemics is very shaky though. There have been studies that show no difference, some show it has a *very* minor positive impact. What the studies have shown is that:-

Higher grade masks in medical services (e.g. hospitals) significantly reduce the risk for the medical staff of catching the disease.
That the transmission of a virus through a face covering can be up to 90% lower (noting 10% is still a lot when you are talking millions of individual viruses)
That if you *explosively* (i.e. completely uncontrolled) sneeze the maximum distance particles can travel is about 7m (but this is to the floor)) so for a 1.8m tall person at 7m it won't be in your face at this point.

After this we have to postulate on what this means. There is no doubt masks can help in certain circumstances but then why doesn't it help with the transmission in a significant way? I could suggest the following:-

Medical services, doctors, nurses etc have been professionally trained to use them; they are regularly checked by other staff; the PPE is regularly changed. This doesn't apply to the public. They are likely to use the same mask over and over, they are not trained in their use and will apply them to their own faces. This means that masks may not be providing the protection they think it is. Handling a contaminated mask and then touching a surface can just as easily transmit the virus. Not wearing them properly, adjusting them because they are uncomfortable all risk transmitting the diseases. I have seen people walk with a mask on then pull them down when they talk to someone. Reusing the masks also brings its own risk - one interaction with a virus contaminates the mask. They should then be removed by someone professionally and disposed of. If you handle it, wear it the other way round next time etc all risk transferring the virus. Finally masks are a dream come true for a virus. They are generally warm and moist and protected from the elements so they can live longer in that environment (and then placed right next to where they can infect someone). Again this is why the professionals regularly dispose and don't reuse their PPE.

As such there is a very large risk that people wearing masks will have the illusion of being safer than they are and hence take more risks (standing closer together etc). Hence it does become an illusion of safety rather than a real increase in safety and ultimately that can spread your virus faster. And this might be why the evidence for using masks is very weak as although it benefits in some cases where people use them properly it is offset by those that don't and because of the illusion actually end up infecting more people. Hence ultimately I agree with the UK Government approach on masks. Making them mandatory will put additional pressure on getting PPE for the NHS/Social Care where it might actually make a difference and we already have a shortage. We don't need a bigger shortage.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Polls from the UK suggest otherwise, with something like 60 odd percent saying they would be afraid to go out to public places once lockdown is lifted. It's a little absurd really when you consider that for the vast majority of healthy folks, the likelihood of dying from cv is about the same as the likelihood of them dying this year anyway, that fear is irrational. I'll be happy to visit pubs and restaurants once they open up, I'll just avoid crowded places, which I generally did anyway.

Yes but its not just about them, its about their parents, their brother with asthma, their grandparents etc.... This is the point and why people are scared. It's not just that YOU might die its that OTHERS might die because you brought a disease home because you want out to see a film. You do something totally normal, safe and for your own entertainment and you are responsible for bringing home something that kills another family member or friend. That's the terror people have.

This isn't like a random disease, its an epidemic of one very specific disease that has shown a very effective spreading pattern for a social species. Plus you don't even know you've got it - you've been spreading it to friends, family and work mates for a whole week or so before you start coughing and self-isolate. The damage is done before you've even a chance to stop it spreading from yourself.


That's why people are justifiably scared and why places like cinemas simply won't recover until there's a vaccine or infection rates are so low and traced back that its removed/reduced from the population. The government payments are going to have to be maintained long after lockdowns end until such a time as the country is "cleansed" to a point where people can socialise as normal


We will reach that point, how long it takes is unknown.



Of course there's also the grim other angle which is that the disease keeps spreading until you've lost everyone you will lose from it and it burns out of the population that way - ergo natural selection and herd immunity.

 Scrabb wrote:
"Two-thirds of Bangladeshi men over the age of 60 have a long-term health condition that would put them at risk from infection."

Per the article.

I'm not going to look up the article unless someone demands it, but Kamala Harris, a US senator, is pushing for a panel here in the US to investigate the disproportionate medical outcomes in the US as well to help drive the response. As with other countries, in the US, people of color are dying at a rate much higher than white people, in some cases substantially higher (13% of the population in a state but 30% of the deaths iirc).

I'm for the investigation. It could be socio-economic factors as mentioned, but perhaps there is a racial element to the disease as well, like sickle cell anemia.

 Whirlwind wrote:


There's a difference here though.

Seat belts have been shown, scientifically, to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries in car accidents. Hence making their use mandatory saves lives and reduces the impact on health services and the state from the impact of those accidents. They are also designed to fit in a specific way with very little chance of the public messing up their use (can I stick something into a hole correctly etc).
.

Fairly minor inconvenience, potentially big help as symptomless people don't spread it out so much. Point of mask isn't preventing you from catching.

2 weeks after requirement austria got 90% drop in new cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Polls from the UK suggest otherwise, with something like 60 odd percent saying they would be afraid to go out to public places once lockdown is lifted. It's a little absurd really when you consider that for the vast majority of healthy folks, the likelihood of dying from cv is about the same as the likelihood of them dying this year anyway, that fear is irrational. I'll be happy to visit pubs and restaurants once they open up, I'll just avoid crowded places, which I generally did anyway.

Lol. It's always about me me me me with you.

Did it occur that just because you might not die your old parents could? Or that old lady you pass while you are in infecting stage without even knowing you have it as symptoms haven"t started?

Nope. Mememememememe.

tneva82 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Polls from the UK suggest otherwise, with something like 60 odd percent saying they would be afraid to go out to public places once lockdown is lifted. It's a little absurd really when you consider that for the vast majority of healthy folks, the likelihood of dying from cv is about the same as the likelihood of them dying this year anyway, that fear is irrational. I'll be happy to visit pubs and restaurants once they open up, I'll just avoid crowded places, which I generally did anyway.

Lol. It's always about me me me me with you.

Did it occur that just because you might not die your old parents could? Or that old lady you pass while you are in infecting stage without even knowing you have it as symptoms haven"t started?

Nope. Mememememememe.

I think this may be the first time ive ever agreed with Tneva

tneva82 wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Polls from the UK suggest otherwise, with something like 60 odd percent saying they would be afraid to go out to public places once lockdown is lifted. It's a little absurd really when you consider that for the vast majority of healthy folks, the likelihood of dying from cv is about the same as the likelihood of them dying this year anyway, that fear is irrational. I'll be happy to visit pubs and restaurants once they open up, I'll just avoid crowded places, which I generally did anyway.

Lol. It's always about me me me me with you.

Did it occur that just because you might not die your old parents could? Or that old lady you pass while you are in infecting stage without even knowing you have it as symptoms haven"t started?

Nope. Mememememememe.

Ah, nice of you to finally engage me properly for once. Unfortunately, you're mistaken.
By your logic, I shouldn't get into my car in the morning. Because I might kill someone with it. You could apply that to literally any action taken by anyone ever. There's always some element of risk.
Shield the vulnerable as best as possible, let everyone else get back to some semblance of normality.

An old lady isn't going to be infected by walking past someone outside.

I'll add this too. It might help you understand, as you really don't seem to be getting it.

Please do not attach non-wargaming images to your posts - BrookM

 Ouze wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
"Two-thirds of Bangladeshi men over the age of 60 have a long-term health condition that would put them at risk from infection."

Per the article.

I'm not going to look up the article unless someone demands it, but Kamala Harris, a US senator, is pushing for a panel here in the US to investigate the disproportionate medical outcomes in the US as well to help drive the response. As with other countries, in the US, people of color are dying at a rate much higher than white people, in some cases substantially higher (13% of the population in a state but 30% of the deaths iirc).

I'm for the investigation. It could be socio-economic factors as mentioned, but perhaps there is a racial element to the disease as well, like sickle cell anemia.

A few minutes on google or better yet on the CDC website https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/spotlight/HeartDiseaseSpotlight_2019_0404.pdf
shows that preexisting medical conditions that would be comorbidities with covid19 deaths are more prevalent among African Americans. It would be more surprising if there wasn’t a racial disparity in the covid19 death rates.

Combined data for 2015 through 2017 allowed for assessment by major racial/ethnic categories and found that non-Hispanic black adults had the highest prevalence of obesity (38.4%) overall, followed by Hispanic adults (32.6%) and non-Hispanic white adults (28.6%).

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0579.htm

African-American children have the highest prevalence of asthma.4
African-Americans in the U.S. die from asthma at a higher rate than people of other races or ethnicities.4
African-Americans are three times more likely to die from asthma, especially African-American women, than any other group.9
African-Americans are three times more likely to stay in the hospital from asthma.4
About 13.4 percent of African-American children have asthma, compared to about 7.4 percent of white children with asthma.4

https://www.aafa.org/asthma-facts/

Diabetes disproportionately affects racial/ethnic minority populations. Compared with white adults, the risk of having a diabetes diagnosis is 77% higher among African Americans, 66% higher among Latinos/Hispanics, and 18% higher among Asian Americans (1). Despite the high prevalence of the condition, minorities experience lower quality of care and greater barriers to self-management compared with white patients

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/5/743

Ok, some people are claiming that things like masks and lockdowns are of debatable credibility, that the science isn't solid, there's room for debate, etc.

Well, you know the old saying "Tell it to the hand."? I say to the people saying there isn't enough evidence to support things like masks, social distancing, lockdowns, etc "Tell it to the facts."

The facts are that countries that listened to experts and initiated hard active measures early on had very low rates of covid and are now largely free of it. New zealand is the main example. South korea i believe is another.

Countries that hesitated, delayed, implemented the measures in a half assed way got hit harder.

And we all know who's Number 1 in covid infections and deaths.

As I said in another post, figures can lie because liars can figure. Which means you have to check the methodology of a claim as well as the results.

The main data set here is that countries that reacted rapidly and properly in the manner epidemiologists recommended suffered the least and those that didn't suffered more.

People can, based on their own motivations and biases, try spinning that data with whatever factors they choose. The key data doesn't change.

 Matt Swain wrote:
And we all know who's Number 1 in covid infections and deaths.

In defense of the USA, we are exceptional in all we do: second place is first loser.

USA! USA! USA!

 Ouze wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
And we all know who's Number 1 in covid infections and deaths.

In defense of the USA, we are exceptional in all we do: second place is first loser.

USA! USA! USA!

In a different set of circumstances I might laugh a little here. I just can't now, but thanks for trying to cheer me up.

Socio-economics drives health issues like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease etc. And things like more people living in homes together. Go to poor white communities and you’ll see many of the same risk factors. Well, maybe other than population density since in the US poor whites tend to be rural.

Everyone knew from the beginning that poor communities were going to get blasted by this thing. I’m surprised by the surprise.

Edit: of course access to healthcare may be a factor. But I think anyone who knows anything about these risk factors could see that freight train coming.

 gorgon wrote:
Socio-economics drives health issues like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease etc. And things like more people living in homes together. Go to poor white communities and you’ll see many of the same risk factors. Well, maybe other than population density since in the US poor whites tend to be rural.

Everyone knew from the beginning that poor communities were going to get blasted by this thing. I’m surprised by the surprise.

Edit: of course access to healthcare may be a factor. But I think anyone who knows anything about these risk factors could see that freight train coming.

Yup. It’s harder to eat healthy and live healthy when you’re poor even without accounting for any hereditary or environmental factors. Low income families, across racial lines are also the ones hardest hit by the 30 million unemployed workers and consequent lack of health insurance if they were lucky enough to have it through their job. They’ll also be the ones who struggle the most to make ends meet during the crisis and the least capable of recovering in a post covid19 economy.

tneva82 wrote:

Fairly minor inconvenience, potentially big help as symptomless people don't spread it out so much. Point of mask isn't preventing you from catching.

You could be asked to wear a bright yellow mac before you go out and wash it when you get back - that is also a minor inconvenience but it doesn't mean it is effective in preventing the spread of the virus. I repeat - the scientific evidence that masks are effective at slowing or preventing spread of respiratory illnesses in a community is weak. All controlled studies have shown no or very little impact on the spread of a virus this doesn't matter whether you have it and trying to prevent spreading it on or don't have it and trying to avoid getting it because the tests consider a populace at large. The reason why this is unclear. My best postulation is that people don't use them correctly and do not continually swap them out / clean them.

For example take the image here at 15:42

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/may/02/uk-coronavirus-live-government-insists-it-met-100000-daily-test-target?page=with:block-5ead86bc8f087d47c77881f7#block-5ead86bc8f087d47c77881f7

What's wrong with this picture? The customer is being tested for a temperature and seems to have done a decent job of using a mask. But what about the worker....mask isn't fully covering the face, large gaps around the side. Easily within 2m. And here potentially is your problem. The employee feels confident that they don't have it and hence are using the PPE incorrectly and it's effectiveness is likely to be low (barring preventing spitting at the customer). What is the chance that they change their gloves each time after they have breathed on the gloves? If they employee does actually have the virus they are acting in a way that is almost certainly going to spread it.

And this ultimately is why masks may not work. It's not the mask itself that is the problem its the way we use them and which why isolated tests on masks seem to show an effect but actual populace tests seem to have minimal effect. But these things are difficult to test, need large samples and take time to consider other possibilities.

2 weeks after requirement austria got 90% drop in new cases.

This is a very poor scientific approach. Because you can see a link you determine a cause and effect. The problem is that it is anecdotal. Austria implemented a number of other measures which could have caused the effect as well. You are making a conclusion without evidencing that the link is real. Simply I could state because everyone wore bright yellow Macs for those two weeks is the cause for the 90% decrease. It's plainly ridiculous and so is the above statement without evidence. The test is to prove the statement wrong and question whether there were any other factors that could have generated the same result (e.g. social distancing). Basically you have to assume your hypothesis wrong and try and prove if anything else could cause it (rather than use the evidence to prove the statement correct as that stops you thinking about other possiblities).

Post hoc ergo Procter hoc. Great when it works for you, and the ones who advocate absolute lockdown have the benefit of this all the way here.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
... I'll be happy to visit pubs and restaurants once they open up, I'll just avoid crowded places, which I generally did anyway.

You must go to some pretty crap pubs and restaurants

um? if you say so? if youre going on number of customers as an indicator of a restaurant or pubs quality, then wetherspoons and mcdonalds would be the countrys best establishments