Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

It’s all a risk/reward for the individual. I know that I ate out last night and it was great. I also know that I have to make reservations well in advance because restaurants are packed and not even taking walk ins right now.

It isn’t a rare thing for people to be ok with eating out. Just varies from person to person with risk tolerance.

It has never been about the individual. That thinking is why half of humanity has been so terrible at overcoming this.

I admittedly don't pore over the statistics like many others, but I am curious if there is anywhere keeping track of the number of individuals that receive their first dose but then are a no-show and never get the second dose. Is it a large enough group to even be worth keeping stats on?

As far as I know, we are only keeping track of 20-something year old women who cosplay (poorly) as the Golden Girls to get their second dose.

In all seriousness, no, I'm not sure if such a database exists. Our school district just announced tonight that the teachers/staff are scheduled for dose #2 the first week of March, and I do not know of anyone anecdotally who has had any issue getting their second dose. Not that my experience means anything in the grand scheme.

Are there places where indoor dining is just now opening up? In Ohio it's been a thing since last May, with great restrictions/regulations. I am not discounting the idea that it could be a high risk situation, but Ohio's numbers would not seem to track in any regard to indoor dining being open or not. We have eaten out sporadically, and never experienced a place that was skirting the regulations. I most certainly felt "safer" in those situations than in all my shopping at various locations.

Jeff said:

It has never been about the individual. That thinking is why half of humanity has been so terrible at overcoming this.

Just to expand on this point, because I STILL hear this "everyone needs to decide for themselves" line: each person's actions have an impact on the people around and a disproportionate effect on the elderly and high-risk. It's not a direct parallel, but I liken that line of argument to saying "everyone needs to decide for themselves how much littering they're willing to do." At some point, if you're littering, you're just an a-hole.

We are a highly individualistic society. It is practically a cornerstone of our country and the way those who live here behave. You are asking for a collective mindset with regards to this pandemic, and something which is counterintuitive to many US residents.

Garnering a collective response wasn't going to happen. The government should focus more on the WIIFM's and they might get the needle to move more. But at this point it doesn't matter much, we will be done soon.

In before the, "this type of thinking is exactly why we are where we are". You can argue that, but I propose that instead of asking the audience to change their beliefs, you should tailor the response approach to the audience and work off of their identified strengths and weaknesses.

1) What I hear you saying: "If the US could support collective thinking, we would already have it." Even if I concede that we're individualistic (which I don't), why would we settle for that? Why wouldn't we strive for something better?

2) By your logic we shouldn't bother telling people not to litter. Or picking up their dog poop. Or not murdering each other.

3) I don't know where you're getting the idea that we're individualistic. "E Pluribus Unum" and all. The vast majority of people would say that they're good people who care about their neighbors and positively contribute to society. They would say that we all have an obligation to one another but that they're generally kind and polite and generous and caring. Basically, every major religion and philosophy has some appeal to a Golden Rule analog and as a country and as individuals we appeal to that ideal all the time. It's not that we're asking people to change their beliefs. It's that we're asking people people to live up to the very beliefs that they already claim.

I mean, I don't want to be a dick or a hypocrite here, but maybe you're using this perspective to justify your own selfish behavior? Aren't you the one who acknowledged systemic racism, but didn't have time to worry about it because it didn't affect you personally?

What Andy said. Also, it's endlessly annoying to hear people talk about what we can't do, for reasons that are just excuses. Humans working together put a machine on Mars (again), are figuring out how to make cars drive themselves, figured out several ways to immunize against a virus in record time... don't give me this crap about how people can't work together toward common goals.

Jumping back a few hours...

Ohio’s restaurants have been open since May. Common protocol seems to be that if a member of the restaurant staff tests positive the restaurant closes a couple of days for cleaning. I am aware of two places in Columbus where that has happened.
Yes, it’s a gamble. The odds are getting better all the time, but it’s a gamble. You may regard public indoor dining as a high risk activity, but with the precautions that are being taken, it appears that the actual risk has remained low, or our State has been incredibly lucky.

I don’t think it’s just luck.

The reality is that the places where you are most likely to pick up a COVID-19 infection are still at home, and at work. As far as I can tell we have not seen infection surges tied to restaurants, retail stores, or amusement parks. And many of our restaurants have been open since May.

—Dave Althoff, Jr.

ApolloAndy said:

1) What I hear you saying: "If the US could support collective thinking, we would already have it." Even if I concede that we're individualistic (which I don't), why would we settle for that? Why wouldn't we strive for something better?

I find myself asking that on a routine basis, but then I see a country with a broken education system, a broken penal system, a broken healthcare system, a dysfunctional government, whatever else you want to insert here, that has been broken for quite some time with minimal effort in fixing it. More effort seems to go into just patchworking things together to get it by a little longer. I think that any one person would strive to make it better, but as a population it doesn't happen and we just accept it for how it is.

2) By your logic we shouldn't bother telling people not to litter. Or picking up their dog poop. Or not murdering each other.

Never really thought about littering or pooping, I guess I would be annoyed if someone threw trash on my lawn, so I don't throw it on theirs. But on the same token I wouldn't care if my interaction with someone caused me to become infected so I don't think as much about infecting others?

3) I don't know where you're getting the idea that we're individualistic.

We score a 91/100 on the Hofstede individualism scale, thus our nation and culture are highly individualistic as compared to many others.

I mean, I don't want to be a dick or a hypocrite here, but maybe you're using this perspective to justify your own selfish behavior? Aren't you the one who acknowledged systemic racism, but didn't have time to worry about it because it didn't affect you personally?

Don't recall, maybe? However, I personally do not contribute to said racism, so it just isn't something I routinely think about?

Lastly, sure, we build self driving cars, and we launch machines to mars. But this isn't a just comparison. Those people work together well partly because they are a homogeneous bunch and partly because they are incentivized to get the rocket launched. Everyone involved in that program worked towards being involved in that program. They all share a common goal, and are rewarded and incentivized by working toward and achieving that goal. Ask those same scientists to launch that rocket by volunteering their time and it doesn't happen. Take a random sample from our population and have them launch a rocket to mars, it would never be achieved, even if you spent time training them on the required skillsets.

You are trying to extrapolate those behaviors of successful small teams into society at large which is comprised of everything under the sun. What are the incentives for everyone to stay home, or for those of us to wear masks in public, that incentive is a bit harder to identify. If that incentive isn't there than I fully believe that people won't engage in the behavior. Society is engaged in a much bigger push/pull with each other than those small successful teams, sure there is conflict, but it is conflict with a purpose, as opposed to conflict due to wildly different opinions and goals.

Let me put it in another light, I believe people try their best to operate with their logical brain. But there is good chunk of our behavior that is governed by our primitive brain, which is running on roughly the same software as a crocodile. The logical brain operates on top of the primitive brain, and typically is the one in control. However at the end of the day the primitive brain will win when it wants to. I always found this to be similar to Windows running on top of MS-DOS. Windows was all you saw, until DOS decided to rear its head and cause everything on top of it to come crashing back down. We are not much different.

Yeah, I hate to tempt fate here, but...

I keep reading about how restaurants are one of the most dangerous places. My anecdotal experience is that my wife eats at a restauarant at least three times a week with some combination of coworkers and has the whole time. Neither her, nor anyone she works directly with on a regular basis (in 8 operating hotels, the corporate office and one construction site across three metro areas) has tested postive. I think the entire company has had 3 or 4 cases total. (and if you read the right articles, hotels are supposedly right up there with restaurants)

I think this is particularly interesting as hotels would seem to be high-traffic contact points.

Then again, my family collectively has been on at least 8 flights since this started (yet another supposedly dangerous acvtivity), I have one kid on a college campus in Florida, another on a different continent, have never really quit doing the things we've always done - just do them a little differently - and I still really enjoy licking shopping carts when no one is looking.

I dunno. I'm not suggesting anything, just sharing my experience. As it so often seems, I am apparently the exception to every rule.

I've said it before, but it's fascinating to me how many different paths people are taking from one end to the other of this thing.

Rideman said:

But every potential infectee that is removed from society reduces the ability of the virus to spread. We may be months away from 'herd immunity' but the level of immunity in the community right now (and while we have different reasoning, we both seem to put that number at about 40%) is already reducing viral transmission. It just hasn't stopped it yet. Even better, concentrating immunization efforts on the elderly and in the schools is probably a smart move, as that targets both the most vulnerable to serious illness and death, and the communities most likely to cause viral spread.

Yes! Yes, yes, yes.

TheMillenniumRider said:
However, I personally do not contribute to said racism

We must clearly be talking about different things because the point of systemic racism is that everyone contributes. (Is it time for semantics?)

TheMillenniumRider said:

But on the same token I wouldn't care if my interaction with someone caused me to become infected so I don't think as much about infecting others?

This has been said a million times before, and in fact, was the very sticking point you and I and others have had for, like, 80 pages: "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." Sure, you can come up with rational and philosophical reasons that this may not be the case. We could take pages (and I think already have) to discuss moral relativism. But at the end of the day, I think it's widely accepted that you should care about other people and if you don't, you're an a-hole. And even if it's not widely accepted, it's still true.

Edited to add: I'm not saying there aren't reasonable justifications for indoor dining worth discussing. Such defenses could include "my mental health is at a breaking point and indoor dining keeps me sane," "restaurants are the backbone of our local economy and waiters need tips to pay rent," "Given the risk factors, transmission statistics, and protocols implemented, I think the benefit to me personally outweighs the cost borne by the public." I disagree with these, but they are at least worth discussing. However, what I'm hearing (or think I'm hearing is) is "It won't hurt me, so I don't care if it hurts others...and that's okay because that's how (I perceive) others behave towards me."

Lord Gonchar said:

As it so often seems, I am apparently the exception to every rule.

Well, I think you've been taking an individualistic(!) perspective on this thing. I mean, there's still a relatively low probability that any given person will contract the disease, even if they're not following protocols. There's a low probability that if they get it, they will notice and an even lower probability that if they notice, it will affect them in lasting ways. I think statistically, you're probably not far from the expected case. Like, from a personal health perspective, I'm pretty sure I will not be affected by this pandemic at all. I'm being mostly careful, I am in a good age category, with no additional risk factors.

The problem is, for every 47 of you and me, there's 2 people who go the hospital and 1 person who ends up dead (numbers mostly pulled out of my a--).

ApolloAndy said:

The problem is, for every 47 of you and me, there's 2 people who go the hospital and 1 person who ends up dead (numbers mostly pulled out of my a--).

As good a place as any.

Top of my head, round numbers:

328 million americans. 500,000 dead. So it's closer to "For every 1000 of us, there 1.5 people who end up dead."

(and there's a greater than 80% chance that those 1.5 people we of age 65 or greater despite them only making up 16% of the population)

Not saying that's not a problem or THE problem. Just saying...

I've been saying all along that we have to be realistic about our individual risk. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions to protect whoever, but regardless of the degree of those precautions the level of risk for me - a 47 year old schlub from Ohio - isn't very great. For some people it's much higher. For most people, it's much lower.

I hate the idea that taking a realistic perspective on things gets equated with not caring or being lazy or careless or whatever. Nothing could be further from the case.

I've often questioned if protecting those most at risk while letting those with very little risk spread it would have been possible/preferrable. You guys seem to think not. Maybe. Probably. Who knows? But it appears to be exactly what we're ending up doing from the other side with the vaccinations.

Again, I dunno. Just thinking aloud. 500k dead is certainly not "nothing" for sure. But 800 under the age of 24 kind of is. (yeah, I know how that sounds)

We never really committed in any direction and just kind of limped along getting less than favorable results in all of the columns. It's a perfect scenario for thought excecises. Even better scenario for everyone thinking they know best.

Another positive. For as maligned as it's been, America's vaccine rollout has been among the best in the world

Be careful how you frame those statistics. A person who never leaves their home and never interacts with another human has a risk that is effectively zero, which is very different from a person who eats in a restaurant. The aggregate risk of all people is meaningless relative to the risk of specific behaviors.

TheMillenniumRider said:
However, I personally do not contribute to said racism, so it just isn't something I routinely think about?

At risk of trying to appear "woke," I think you're reinforcing the "individualistic" problem here. It's not enough to simply not contribute to racism, you have to be actively against it to fix the problem. As MLK said in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Lord Gonchar said:

328 million americans. 500,000 dead. So it's closer to "For every 1000 of us, there 1.5 people who end up dead."

(and there's a greater than 80% chance that those 1.5 people we of age 65 or greater despite them only making up 16% of the population)

Don't forget about my 40 year old neighbor. He spent over 3 weeks in a coma, was hospitalized for 5 weeks, had to learn to walk again, and used an oxygen tank for months.

But hey, he didn't die!

See? Covid hardly kills anybody.

The death count is hardly the entire cost of this thing. In January we had 120,000+ people hospitalized, and there are still 60k in the hospital. We're finally to the point where we have double-digit availability of ICU beds in Orange County, after many weeks where we only had one or two per hospital, at best. I've got a friend battling extreme fatigue three months after having Covid. This is why I keep reminding people that the economic cost is just as extraordinary, if not worse, by pretending it's no big deal.

The fatigue was the real lasting effect for me. I'm 8 weeks past my symptom start and I finally feel like I'm turning the corner on the fatigue. I at least don't feel completely exhausted at the end of an average lazy day. I did some weather cleanup at work last week and some organizing and cleaning around the house over the weekend and it took a day or so to recover.

This echoes the discussion that has been had here for a couple months now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/briefing/tiger-woods-daniel-prud...-bail.html

But who is arguing we need to eliminate risk? It seems the counter argument among those politically inclined is to do nothing. Clearly the right thing was always to do something, and I would argue we didn't get it right.