Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

It is consistent that climate influences the outcomes. Miami might be ridiculous, but it's mostly being ridiculous outdoors. Rural Michigan, where it snowed again today, not so much. Texas is (blizzard aside) generally warmer, and even though the liberal cities are faring better than the conservative rural areas, the lower population density helps to a degree. I think you can still explain most of the situations, but there are a ton of inputs.

You also have to wonder how much underreporting is going on. I've known people who have been sick over the past year and never took a test. They simply dealt with the symptoms and didn't want to know one way or the other. Maybe they assume they had Covid. Maybe they wouldn't admit they might have Covid. Ted Nugent is rethinking his early position since he got a pretty bad case of it.

It's probably just cat scratch fever.

Can Covid-19 take his fever high enough?

Here's some good news. Breakthrough infections are exceptionally rare, obviously getting more rare with more vaccination, but when it happens the hospitalization rates are crazy low, and those breakthroughs are not likely a vector for further spread.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22395551/covid-vaccine-breakthro...n-rare-cdc

We're so close

ApolloAndy said:
Yeah. I think around last July when TX and FL were being dumb, I tried to draw direct causality from "state lifts regulation" to "cases increase", but it's not borne out in the data that way. That doesn't mean I don't think it's happening. I'm sure even the people who think the regulations should be lifted will acknowledge that it will lead to some increase in cases and I'm sure in aggregate, the places that have less restrictions have more cases. But I gave up on trying to find each particular "no mask mandate spike," especially because of all the mental gymnastics required to ignore data points that don't fit with that narrative. (...)

This is the problem with trying to extrapolate with limited data from a complicated system. If you look just at mask mandates and case rates, the correlation is *obvious*: mask mandates cause COVID. Nearly everywhere such mandates have been implemented, the implementation of the mandate was followed almost immediately by a significant rise in new cases. Likewise, in places where the mask mandates have been removed, ending the mandates has been followed by a drop in cases. The data is right there and it's irrefutable: clearly the mask mandates cause COVID cases.

Of course if you actually believe that, you're a special kind of stupid. Mask mandates were applied because cases were rising and were removed because cases were dropping, not the other way 'round. And there are a lot more variables involved, the most important being the prevalence (or lack thereof) of virus in the population. So yes, the data correlate restrictions with rising cases and the removal of restrictions with declining cases. If anything, what that shows is that the restrictions in question actually have minimal effect on case counts. Which also makes sense. For most of us, our odds of exposure to active virus has been pretty low since the beginning. At worst, using the most pessimistic estimates I had available, odds of exposure in Ohio peaked at about 1:27. Using that same estimate we're now down to 1:271. The State estimates (officially) that we've had a total of 1,058,395 cases since 2019, and my pessimistic estimate inflates that to 3,527,983 cases at worst. That's about 32% of the population. But that's also spread out over 16 months. The highest number of simultaneous active cases we've had, by my estimate, was 402,833 people (that's that 1:27 figure from December 11). Even at that, the demographics of COVID are not evenly spread...which is why for any given person your odds of encountering, and subsequently contracting, SARS-CoV2 are probably nowhere near these statistical probabilities, and are instead either significantly higher, or significantly lower, depending on where and how you live.

For the record, vaccinated or not, you are unlikely to contract COVID-19 by licking a doorknob. I recommend against it anyway, as there are a lot of other nasty diseases you can get that way, and the Fauci Ouchies won't protect you from them.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

RideMan said:

Mask mandates were applied because cases were rising and were removed because cases were dropping, not the other way 'round. And there are a lot more variables involved, the most important being the prevalence (or lack thereof) of virus in the population. So yes, the data correlate restrictions with rising cases and the removal of restrictions with declining cases. If anything, what that shows is that the restrictions in question actually have minimal effect on case counts.

I'm not sure how the first three sentences support the conclusion. Care to elaborate?

Is It Time To Eliminate Outdoor Mask Wearing?

I read that and this Slate article this morning. Almost shared them both here.

So you guys have been wearing masks outside?

Ummm yeah, me too.

I bet you wear a mask in your car while driving by yourself too.

...without a seatbelt of course!

We were at Hilton Head for spring break back in March and I was shocked at how many people were wearing masks when they were outside at the resort. I can understand it if people were jammed together but I never saw a situation like that. What I saw instead would be a few people on the walkway to the beach wearing masks. I didn't understand that. I wondered how many of those people looked at me and muttered "maskless mo*%$er!" under their mask.

Lord Gonchar said:

So you guys have been wearing masks outside?

Ummm yeah, me too.

Only at theme parks and any other public event that has required them. I can't say I ever have in any other situation.

Once again proving Coasterbuzzers are months ahead of the curve

CDC says to stop hygiene theater

Never wore a mask walking around the neighborhood or in various parks in the area. You pass people on walking/hiking trails but people tend to swing out wide to create more space. And if you stop to talk with someone, people keep more distance than usual.

In terms of eat in dining, Faucci and Gupta say not yet. But I know a lot of people who have eaten inside at restaurants the entire time its been available (Ohio opened up with limited capacity in June/July 2020, I think?). And that was with no vaccines at all. Different people with very different views.

I'm not normally a huge "eating out" person but since restaurants opened for dine in if I've felt the urge I've done it. Planning to next Tuesday meeting a friend. I only wear a mask outdoors if required to and it better be something I either really want to do or can't avoid.

We haven't been wearing masks outdoors ever, unless it was a venue that required it. Not having theme park tickets, that has really just been the Give Kids The World Village thing they ran over the holidays. I didn't think it was largely a thing, but apparently some states had strict rules about it.

I hate when dudes are dudes though:
What Do Women Want? For Men to Get Covid Vaccines.

Sooooo glad I don't live in one of THOSE places! No face coverings outdoors at all, and indoors only when absolutely required...and while there are specific venues that require them outdoors, I have not been going to those places. I have noticed that there is a benefit to NOT wearing a mask: when I went for my first inoculation I had to wait in a long line outside the venue. Most people seemed to be masked; I was not until I got to the door. The result was that I had absolutely no trouble staying 6' away from anybody else! Anyway...

ApolloAndy said:

RideMan said:

Mask mandates were applied because cases were rising and were removed because cases were dropping, not the other way 'round. And there are a lot more variables involved, the most important being the prevalence (or lack thereof) of virus in the population. So yes, the data correlate restrictions with rising cases and the removal of restrictions with declining cases. If anything, what that shows is that the restrictions in question actually have minimal effect on case counts.

I'm not sure how the first three sentences support the conclusion. Care to elaborate?

I thought it was clear. The point is that the correlation suggests that the mask mandate causes COVID cases because implementing the mandate resulted in cases increasing, and removing the mandate resulted in cases falling. In fact, there are confounding factors. A closer look at the data indicates that cases were rising or falling at a predictable rate, and the implementation or rescission of a mask mandate is unlikely to have been the sole cause of the change in case rates. Because rates increased after the implementation and fell after the rescission, the worst thing you can conclude is that the mandate had little or no effect. In fact you can't really prove any effect at all because you have no control.

My point, though, isn't to argue whether mask rules are effective or not; my point is to show the well-known fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. Now if you want to get into the mask argument, that's a completely different discussion, and I think the science on it has been kind of interesting and not particularly surprising: population level data shows little or no benefit; anecdotal data is overwhelmingly positive. And that differentiation actually makes perfect sense.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

COVID-19 hospitalizations tumble among US senior citizens

COVID-19 hospitalizations among older Americans have plunged more than 70% since the start of the year, and deaths among them appear to have tumbled as well. The drop-off in severe cases among Americans 65 and older is especially encouraging because senior citizens have accounted for about 8 out of 10 deaths from the virus since it hit the U.S.

Over 80% of senior citizens have gotten at least one shot, compared with just over 50% of all adults.