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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A prolonged lockdown actually has the potential to cause the virus to kill more people as it ensures there is an active body of people who can transmit the virus. .

You're going to have to explain this one.
A lockdown restricts population movement and population interaction and duration of those interactions. Any infected "pockets" of population should, with the lockdown and self isolation due to infection, remain more isolated and thus reduce the potential spread of the virus to new populations and people. Done right with track and trace so you can put infected (and those who came into contact with infected) into not just lockdown, but full isolation for a few weeks, means that you contain and eliminate the virus spread.

I think the idea is that because we have restricted where people can go it will cause everybody who does go out to go to the same places. Which results in more people being in proximity than they would otherwise. IE: If people would normally go to X, Y , and Z, but during lockdown only Z is open, then everybody will go to Z. Which results in everybody being in 1 place as opposed to 3.

I certainly know at Costco that we've had much higher numbers of people in the store at all times compared to normal. Its like a busy weekend, but every day of the week rather than just on the weekend.

This explanation explains why the lock-down measures aren't very effective. People are still coming into contact with lots of people. So the virus still spreads.

The reason lockdowns can kill more people specfic to the virus is it can cause the pandemic to reach more people based on a longer time to spread because of the lack of herd immunity in communities.

 Overread wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A prolonged lockdown actually has the potential to cause the virus to kill more people as it ensures there is an active body of people who can transmit the virus. .

You're going to have to explain this one.

To be as polite as possible; it may be best if you leave that line of discussion be.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A prolonged lockdown actually has the potential to cause the virus to kill more people as it ensures there is an active body of people who can transmit the virus. .

You're going to have to explain this one.
A lockdown restricts population movement and population interaction and duration of those interactions. Any infected "pockets" of population should, with the lockdown and self isolation due to infection, remain more isolated and thus reduce the potential spread of the virus to new populations and people. Done right with track and trace so you can put infected (and those who came into contact with infected) into not just lockdown, but full isolation for a few weeks, means that you contain and eliminate the virus spread.

I think the idea is that because we have restricted where people can go it will cause everybody who does go out to go to the same places. Which results in more people being in proximity than they would otherwise. IE: If people would normally go to X, Y , and Z, but during lockdown only Z is open, then everybody will go to Z. Which results in everybody being in 1 place as opposed to 3.

I certainly know at Costco that we've had much higher numbers of people in the store at all times compared to normal. Its like a busy weekend, but every day of the week rather than just on the weekend.

This explanation explains why the lock-down measures aren't very effective. People are still coming into contact with lots of people. So the virus still spreads.

The reason lockdowns can kill more people specfic to the virus is it can cause the pandemic to reach more people based on a longer time to spread because of the lack of herd immunity in communities.

But herd immunity (without vaccine) requires the virus to spread to the majority of the population in order to take effect. I think the number quoted is at least 60% of the population being exposed.
Speeding things up doesn't help the virus reach less people, if anything it would reach more because there's no curtailment on infection spread. Furthermore you note that hospitals were not overwhelmed, whilst accepting that the lockdown reduced the rate of spread. Clearly if the lockdown reduces the rate of spread then that makes it easier for hospitals to deal with the cases they do get without being overwhelmed which saves lives.

Furthermore the longer you draw things out the more time the medical community has to train, study, prepare and research the virus. Developing new methods to treat it; learning the danger signs better; having a greater understanding and heck just being able to have more time to purchase essential drugs, ppe and other required resources. Heck the UK hasn't had "overwhelmed medical services" and yet there's been a PPE shortage the whole time in some sectors; we've had huge problems with the medical care for care homes and we've had doctors pulling longer and longer shifts to cover those they did get. Sure perhaps not every corona bed was filled; but the system already was showing cracks before reaching that bed capacity. Wtihout lockdown we'd have hit those limits hard; then hit the bed limits to the point where you can't go to hospital because there won't be a bed on the ICU ward; there won't even be a chair in the waiting lobby.

 Overread wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
A prolonged lockdown actually has the potential to cause the virus to kill more people as it ensures there is an active body of people who can transmit the virus. .

You're going to have to explain this one.
A lockdown restricts population movement and population interaction and duration of those interactions. Any infected "pockets" of population should, with the lockdown and self isolation due to infection, remain more isolated and thus reduce the potential spread of the virus to new populations and people. Done right with track and trace so you can put infected (and those who came into contact with infected) into not just lockdown, but full isolation for a few weeks, means that you contain and eliminate the virus spread.

I think the idea is that because we have restricted where people can go it will cause everybody who does go out to go to the same places. Which results in more people being in proximity than they would otherwise. IE: If people would normally go to X, Y , and Z, but during lockdown only Z is open, then everybody will go to Z. Which results in everybody being in 1 place as opposed to 3.

I certainly know at Costco that we've had much higher numbers of people in the store at all times compared to normal. Its like a busy weekend, but every day of the week rather than just on the weekend.

This explanation explains why the lock-down measures aren't very effective. People are still coming into contact with lots of people. So the virus still spreads.

The reason lockdowns can kill more people specfic to the virus is it can cause the pandemic to reach more people based on a longer time to spread because of the lack of herd immunity in communities.

But herd immunity (without vaccine) requires the virus to spread to the majority of the population in order to take effect. I think the number quoted is at least 60% of the population being exposed.
Speeding things up doesn't help the virus reach less people, if anything it would reach more because there's no curtailment on infection spread. Furthermore you note that hospitals were not overwhelmed, whilst accepting that the lockdown reduced the rate of spread. Clearly if the lockdown reduces the rate of spread then that makes it easier for hospitals to deal with the cases they do get without being overwhelmed which saves lives.

Furthermore the longer you draw things out the more time the medical community has to train, study, prepare and research the virus. Developing new methods to treat it; learning the danger signs better; having a greater understanding and heck just being able to have more time to purchase essential drugs, ppe and other required resources. Heck the UK hasn't had "overwhelmed medical services" and yet there's been a PPE shortage the whole time in some sectors; we've had huge problems with the medical care for care homes and we've had doctors pulling longer and longer shifts to cover those they did get. Sure perhaps not every corona bed was filled; but the system already was showing cracks before reaching that bed capacity. Wtihout lockdown we'd have hit those limits hard; then hit the bed limits to the point where you can't go to hospital because there won't be a bed on the ICU ward; there won't even be a chair in the waiting lobby.

I am not arguing against the initial lockdown. That has merit because #1 we didn't know exactly what we were dealing with. and #2 it gave our medical facilities time to get things in order. I am arguing against prolong lockdown. Our medical facilities have had time to build up their resources and we know what we are dealing with a lot better now. In regards to herd immunity the closer to you get to 100% exposure obviously the better it works but the fewer number of people who are capable of spreading the virus means the virus will reach less people. Not to mention the fact that this virus DOES NOT KILL people under 60 at a scary rate. Developing herd immunity in the active under 60 population is what is important because it is actually quite easy to isolate the vunerable from the young and healthy for a few months.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The toll of the lockdown will never be fully known. How could we possibly track people who decide to turn to crime (a dangerous profession) because they can't afford to feed their family? Financial consequences created by people being unemployed can take years to develop too. There is no disputing this. Poverty and unemployment cause rates of suicide/crime to rise. So lockdowns kill people too.

Nobody is arguing that quarantines don't have downsides, but society has options and resources to address these problems as well, particularly the wealthiest and most powerful society in human history. And, once again, significant economic disruption was almost certainly going to occur anyway, see my example on the previous page about game stores.

Plus realistically - the lockdowns we have in place aren't restrictive enough to make a big difference. For example...In NYC they didn't even close the subways (a subway car is probably the worst place to be in a pandemic). People crowd into grocery stores to fight over toilet paper and pork chops waiting in lines around the building. These are pretty ineffective measures to begin with.

There is space to debate specific measures, but just because one feels that the NYC subway system wasn't properly handled doesn't mean that the larger issue of temporary quarantines was invalid. NYC also went to great lengths to actively disinfect those subways and reduce travel on them, and has a uniquely high population density with all that entails. Most of the gigantic lines and waits were at the outset of the crisis. Toilet paper crunches haven't been a thing for a while.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The toll of the lockdown will never be fully known. How could we possibly track people who decide to turn to crime (a dangerous profession) because they can't afford to feed their family? Financial consequences created by people being unemployed can take years to develop too. There is no disputing this. Poverty and unemployment cause rates of suicide/crime to rise. So lockdowns kill people too.

Nobody is arguing that quarantines don't have downsides, but society has options and resources to address these problems as well, particularly the wealthiest and most powerful society in human history. And, once again, significant economic disruption was almost certainly going to occur anyway, see my example on the previous page about game stores.

Plus realistically - the lockdowns we have in place aren't restrictive enough to make a big difference. For example...In NYC they didn't even close the subways (a subway car is probably the worst place to be in a pandemic). People crowd into grocery stores to fight over toilet paper and pork chops waiting in lines around the building. These are pretty ineffective measures to begin with.

There is space to debate specific measures, but just because one feels that the NYC subway system wasn't properly handled doesn't mean that the larger issue of temporary quarantines was invalid. NYC also went to great lengths to actively disinfect those subways and reduce travel on them, and has a uniquely high population density with all that entails. Most of the gigantic lines and waits were at the outset of the crisis. Toilet paper crunches haven't been a thing for a while.

Those were just examples. People are still going to grocery stores in mass because they can't go to restaurants. The point is there is still a lot of contact between people. Not to mention people who work in the essential businesses having excessive contact. So everyone who goes shopping for food comes into contact with people who have come into contact with everyone in the local community. Masks and distancing have some effective in mitigation but it is far from perfect. I'm just saying the measures aren't great and IMO not great to the point they have basically no effect over doing nothing. Except - doing nothing does not have the economic destruction which also ends lives.

Let's talk about "essential businesses" for a second here.

What qualifies as "essential businesses" varies from state to state...and it really is a Red v Blue thing as to how the "essential businesses" are being monitored. My youngest brother's job was considered "an essential business"...and he works in fast food. That stuff isn't "essential". It's convenient, not essential. Essential is things like EMS, police, fire, grocery stores, medical services, gas stations, insurance/home repair related items, etc. If his bosses hadn't been willing to accommodate him because of his asthma & compromised immune system? He was going to flat-out quit.

I'm sure someone will be along to say that I'm being "elitist" or whatever, but the people whose jobs were looked down upon prior to this are suddenly now considered "essential" and yet measures were not really taken to showcase this until it started affecting corporations.

It depends on how you quantify essential. one could make the argument that all jobs are essential to the holder of that job.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
It depends on how you quantify essential. one could make the argument that all jobs are essential to the holder of that job.

Essential job" means that the job is an essential service.

There's no "quantifying" that changes this. Gamestop wasn't an "essential service".

 Xenomancers wrote:
The main thing that is frustrating is even now in this thread is people still tote that lockdowns save lives. They don't beyond keeping the hospitals from being overrun

You were so close to getting it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The main thing that is frustrating is even now in this thread is people still tote that lockdowns save lives. They don't beyond keeping the hospitals from being overrun

You were so close to getting it.

What am I missing exactly? Because I went on to explain that hospitals aren't being overrun anywhere. So perhaps a lockdown could be effective in the right circumstance or in a specific region but here in the states where we have more hospitals than we need really - the only thing lock-downs do is make initial #'s of deaths lower while essentially saving 0 lives in the long run. They can potentially be causing more death by slowing the rate of herd immunity and they will certainly cause MORE deaths in the long run through economic hardships. That is basically my argument in a nutshell. Whats missing?

Lockdowns don't save lives lost to the virus depending on how it spreads, the point is to prevent pointless loss of life in a swamped healthcare system. The virus kills about 1% as far as we're aware. As was shown in Italy, that % can shoot up if you can't manage the infection rate. These first lockdowns were implemented to get a grip on the spread so that the point of Italy wouldn't be reached.

I'm also very confused how slowing the rate of herd immunity will cause more deaths? If about 1% dies of the virus, how does that suddenly go up by slowing down the road to herd immunity?

 Kanluwen wrote:
My youngest brother's job was considered "an essential business"...and he works in fast food. That stuff isn't "essential".

On some level I agree, however there are actually a fair number of locales where such establishments unfortunately comprise a significant proportion of local food supply, and in general restaurants have been allowed to continue operating as long as they were take-out only. Most anything food related that could be done without dine-in generally appears to have fallen under the "Essential" category.

What was odd to me was that my job, an office job that could be done remotely, was deemed "essential", I've been working from home for over two months

 Xenomancers wrote:

Those were just examples. People are still going to grocery stores in mass because they can't go to restaurants. The point is there is still a lot of contact between people. Not to mention people who work in the essential businesses having excessive contact. So everyone who goes shopping for food comes into contact with people who have come into contact with everyone in the local community. Masks and distancing have some effective in mitigation but it is far from perfect. I'm just saying the measures aren't great and IMO not great to the point they have basically no effect over doing nothing. Except - doing nothing does not have the economic destruction which also ends lives.

There is no perfect answer or clear solution or method to keep everyone from being harmed, significant economic damage was going to occur either way, however there are more proactive means of addressing that which can be explored if government chooses to do so. The bulk of the epidemiology and professional medical community would disagree that the the steps taken had basically no effect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

What am I missing exactly? Because I went on to explain that hospitals aren't being overrun anywhere.

Which was the point, the quarantines appear to have worked as intended in that regard.

the only thing lock-downs do is make initial #'s of deaths lower while essentially saving 0 lives in the long run. They can potentially be causing more death by slowing the rate of herd immunity and they will certainly cause MORE deaths in the long run through economic hardships.

There is no data to support the idea that the economic issues will cause more deaths in the long run, and again, the wealthiest and most powerful society in the history of the human race has options and resources to address those economic hardships.

You literally said they don't work, except in that they did the exact thing they were intended to do (!) and then handwaved it away.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Lockdowns don't save lives lost to the virus depending on how it spreads, the point is to prevent pointless loss of life in a swamped healthcare system. The virus kills about 1% as far as we're aware. As was shown in Italy, that % can shoot up if you can't manage the infection rate. These first lockdowns were implemented to get a grip on the spread so that the point of Italy wouldn't be reached.

I'm also very confused how slowing the rate of herd immunity will cause more deaths? If 1% dies of the virus, how does that suddenly go up by slowing down the road to herd immunity?

We still aren't at a point yet were we can adequately rely on these mortality rates. Without knowing the total number infected in a region you can not come up with a reliable mortality rate. Deaths per 100k pop are the best indicator right now of problem areas. The mortality rate should be approximately the same everywhere with only slight differences based on geographic and demographic criteria. Also there seriously ill on this virus die anyways. 9 out of 10 people that go on ventilators don't make it. So I don't think it's really even access to medical care. A good portion of people who are saved in hospitals are saved because they were kept off the ventilators. The point is - other than assisting people with breathing that don't require ventilators (probably weren't going to die anyways) there inst really a lot they can do.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Lockdowns don't save lives lost to the virus depending on how it spreads, the point is to prevent pointless loss of life in a swamped healthcare system. The virus kills about 1% as far as we're aware. As was shown in Italy, that % can shoot up if you can't manage the infection rate. These first lockdowns were implemented to get a grip on the spread so that the point of Italy wouldn't be reached.

I'm also very confused how slowing the rate of herd immunity will cause more deaths? If 1% dies of the virus, how does that suddenly go up by slowing down the road to herd immunity?

We still aren't at a point yet were we can adequately rely on these mortality rates. Without knowing the total number infected in a region you can not come up with a reliable mortality rate. Deaths per 100k pop are the best indicator right now of problem areas. The mortality rate should be approximately the same everywhere with only slight differences based on geographic and demographic criteria. Also there seriously ill on this virus die anyways. 9 out of 10 people that go on ventilators don't make it. So I don't think it's really even access to medical care. A good portion of people who are saved in hospitals are saved because they were kept off the ventilators. The point is - other than assisting people with breathing that don't require ventilators (probably weren't going to die anyways) there inst really a lot they can do.

Yes, hence the "as far as we're aware" line. But that doesn't even matter to the overall argument you're making. If a hospital is full because of virus patients, if there is no more room on the ICU, people who could be saved are going to die. Resources are limited, healthcare personnel is limited. They have two hands, two feet and need to rest like the rest of us. Cramming infections into a short period of time is going to overload not just hospital space, but also burn out the people supposed to keep it running.

 Ouze wrote:
You literally said they don't work, except in that they did the exact thing they were intended to do (!) and then handwaved it away.

To put it as politely as possible; we both know that this particular back-and-forth will not go anywhere.

Show us!

H wrote: The question is, just what is "rational?" Just like trying to give a comprehensive answer to just what "truth" is or what "casality" actually is, it seems as if it would be trivially easy, but the more you dig in, the less clear it seems to be. You could say, in a casual sense, "well, rationality is the use of reason." The we need to say, "what then is reason?" And we are unlikely, I think to get to a "bottom" along those lines.

I think I want to tentatively say that "rationality" and "reason" are just something like normative claims. I don't really have any way to fill that out though, as I said, it is not something I've really managed to dive into. That being said though, I think, if we look at things with something of a historical lense, there are a number of reasons why we aren't all just Logical Positivists now. The notion of logic and/or reason as sufficient just isn't really, well, sufficient.

I don't know if that's of much use but I recently re-read How We Decide (pop science) by Jonah Lehrer (plagiarism and quote fabrication scandal, so who knows how accurate that is but he quotes scientists in that book so it might be worth looking into the underlying research) and there are chapters about morality, rationality, and decision making (trying to connect it on a biological/neurological level). I think the conclusion about relying on rationality was that too much of it leads to self-doubt and indecision, and people with neurological issues that cause extremely rationality end up making really bad decisions or no decisions at all. They end up prioritising the wrong data points as they can't evaluate the importance of things or they just can't decide at all.

People who feel like they are being rational or reasonable in their decision making are often just rationalising everything, and not being rational or reasonable at all. Their brain just likes that decision and convinces itself that they made a good decision. Nothing feels as good as feeling right.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Saying unless you're old or compromised it will be nothing more than a bad flu is just sticking your head in the sand. Look at all the reports of side effects and permanent damage it can cause in even young people. There is absolutely no guarantee that if you catch it, it will just be a 'bad flu' at worst, this is the worst kind of hubris.

Every case I've seen of a supposedly healthy young person getting it super bad has turned out to have been a person who had some other underlying condition. That by default puts them in the compromised category.

The problem seems to be that "underlying conditions" has a really wide spectrum. Stuff that—in the USA—wouldn't even count as a pre-existing condition. There were reports of otherwise healthy people (technically not in danger) where the virus was harsh on their respiratory system. There are a bunch of people who officially count as survivors but who'll have a hard time doing even light sports for the rest of their lives. And it seems that the virus can also attack the circulatory system, depending on how good/bad your immune system is. Even some teenagers have died. These early guidelines (about who's affected the worse) may have just been lucky in that they covered a sizeable chunk of potentially critical indicators but it seems like there's more that we just don't know too much about because those are not as easy to categorise as "old" and "bad health". Even with a lower than expected death rate the amount of people who'll end up with really bad after effects seems significant on its own.

Not Online!!! wrote:Then again i am also expecting a hike in Central europe after the reopening of Shops because people just can't help themselves after witnessing today....

I think so too, we had multiple protests here in Germany and some people are behaving really carelessly. They wear masks pro forma but don't care how good of a fit it has (some don't even cover their noses, others use scarves in a way can only loosely be described as a mask).

When I was buying groceries two days ago the couple behind me at the checkout was standing right behind me as if it's still 2019. I didn't say anything because I didn't know if they were "corona truthers" or if they were just a bit careless and I didn't want to risk an escalation with idiots so I just tried to crate some distance between us. But for some reason my "I didn't shower for a day" scent didn't dissuade them from reducing that distance every time I tried to escape them :/

Mario wrote:

H wrote: The question is, just what is "rational?" Just like trying to give a comprehensive answer to just what "truth" is or what "casality" actually is, it seems as if it would be trivially easy, but the more you dig in, the less clear it seems to be. You could say, in a casual sense, "well, rationality is the use of reason." The we need to say, "what then is reason?" And we are unlikely, I think to get to a "bottom" along those lines.

I think I want to tentatively say that "rationality" and "reason" are just something like normative claims. I don't really have any way to fill that out though, as I said, it is not something I've really managed to dive into. That being said though, I think, if we look at things with something of a historical lense, there are a number of reasons why we aren't all just Logical Positivists now. The notion of logic and/or reason as sufficient just isn't really, well, sufficient.

I don't know if that's of much use but I recently re-read How We Decide (pop science) by Jonah Lehrer (plagiarism and quote fabrication scandal, so who knows how accurate that is but he quotes scientists in that book so it might be worth looking into the underlying research) and there are chapters about morality, rationality, and decision making (trying to connect it on a biological/neurological level). I think the conclusion about relying on rationality was that too much of it leads to self-doubt and indecision, and people with neurological issues that cause extremely rationality end up making really bad decisions or no decisions at all. They end up prioritising the wrong data points as they can't evaluate the importance of things or they just can't decide at all.

Which hits on the point that true rationality accounts for emotion, and that making decisions solely based on 'cold logic' is, quite ironically, irrational. But someone who has never experienced normal emotions will be unable to properly evaluate that element. Yet to be truly rational one must be able to feel the emotions involved, while also being able to evaluate the situation without their own emotions interfering. The result is that the 'ideal' rationalize-er would be able to feel emotions normally but also 'turn them off' as needed. Obviously no one can do that, so we settle with getting as close as we can. For the overwhelming majority of people emotion and ignorance pose the largest interference with analyzing a situation, thus leading to the meaning of logical generally pushing towards less-emotion-equals-better-logic.

Long story short; just because logic is not perfect does not mean it is not important. And that the more emotion is involved in a situation the more critical it is to evaluate it's impact, BUT also the more critical it is to keep emotion out of one's own evaluation.

I think the point is that everyone can measure 2 metres rationally but you have to acknowledge that a lot of people either won't or will ignore it.

Anyone checked the numbers? Denmark, Austria, Holland, France, and Switzerland have all started easing lockdown around 2 weeks ago or before. Any sign of spikes?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the point is that everyone can measure 2 metres rationally but you have to acknowledge that a lot of people either won't or will ignore it.

Measuring isn't always easy. Whilst we might all know what 2m is on a tape measure, it doesn't mean we are all familiar with it as a distance in realty. That's why the government advice keeps saying things like "1bed, 2 fridges, a trolley etc..." ergo things people can relate to in their environments and life as a reference point. As gamers (esp if you ever played Warmachine MK1 or 2) you really saw this in how some people with practice could measure distances really well by eye; others couldn't until the tape measure was on the board. Reality is just the same, only most people aren't landscapers or buildres measuring stuff all the time.


The other aspect is its an alien behaviour to us. It's really different and you're going up against decades of normal life. In addition its not consistent. There are many many times you are going to go within the 2m spacing; both casually and deliberately in different situations. It thus becomes a hard thing to continually maintain vigilance with. Even though its a really simple concept.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Anyone checked the numbers? Denmark, Austria, Holland, France, and Switzerland have all started easing lockdown around 2 weeks ago or before. Any sign of spikes?

Here in Ontario, a lot of things opened up on the 19th. We just hit our 4th day in a row of increased cases. I can only imagine how bad the numbers will be in 2 weeks. We were on a serious downward trend too.

I see that on the chart. Bear in mind though that your incline started later than those in Europe, so you may just be hovering around a peak before declining again, possibly?

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Anyone checked the numbers? Denmark, Austria, Holland, France, and Switzerland have all started easing lockdown around 2 weeks ago or before. Any sign of spikes?

Here in Ontario, a lot of things opened up on the 19th. We just hit our 4th day in a row of increased cases. I can only imagine how bad the numbers will be in 2 weeks. We were on a serious downward trend too.

Where I live, we just had a federal judge appointed by a very specific political party that is all about "religious freedom" for one group strike down a restriction on in-person, indoors church services. So we're expecting a biiiiiiiiiiiig spike soon.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I see that on the chart. Bear in mind though that your incline started later than those in Europe, so you may just be hovering around a peak before declining again, possibly?

I hope so, but honestly I think the weather was doing more to keep people isolated than anything else. We were ten degrees below seasonal for 4 weeks running. It was fething cold for quite a while. Now that we're consistently over 20 degrees C, I expect there will be way more community transmission as people start going out and enjoying the weather.

Possibly, many seem to think that outdoor activity doesn't seem to be the main driver of it though

Next monday Markus 14 days for us, including incubation time we will probably See a first rise in cases over the weekend and further forwards more again.

Hence my comment.
The behaviour has changed completely schizophrenucally from 0-100 for some people...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Possibly, many seem to think that outdoor activity doesn't seem to be the main driver of it though

It depends on the nature of that outdoor activity.

Walking in the woods 2m apart fine. Basking on a crowded beach where you're lazing around shoulder to shoulder; then lining up at a busy kiosk for icecreams and then all busying in and out of the same carpark at the same time and touching the same surfaces in quick succession etc.. - totally different story and potential for exchange. Being outside in itself is not a protection, its just less likely than in an enclosed space. Furthermore crowds and dense populations of people are still a huge risk no matter if you are inside or out.