Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Lord Gonchar said:

I'm concerned about the protests aggravating the Covid situation, absolutely...

Enough to say, "Stay the **** home"? I mean, the science still applies.

Ah, well, we're drawing some attention to the fact that we all have difference risk factors, right? I'm a well-off white guy who can, for now, can afford to order groceries indefinitely and not introduce risk for my health at-risk family. That's a pretty different scenario from someone of any race who lost their job and was living paycheck to paycheck in the first place. I can only speculate, but if I'm a person of color, the disease may be secondary when I'm concerned that me or my children risk an end like George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery. Even though I've seen it, know the history, I can't possibly understand how the color of my skin itself poses a risk factor. (Sidebar: Trying to explain racism to your kid with autism is futile. It's far too illogical and irrational for someone wired that way.)

I'm very concerned that this makes the whole pandemic situation worse, and not just on racial lines, as the protests have been refreshingly interracial. To CreditWh0re's point, masks are reasonably prevalent among the protesters, so while it isn't a perfect solution, it's at least a mitigation tactic. I think the bigger risks are with people like those in the Ozark pool parties, restarting youth club athletics and people willing to pack into a bar because they need that Negroni. From a sheer volume standpoint, that's far more problematic than brown people who protest being killed because they're brown people.

In this case, you can pretty radically change the assumptions and reach the same conclusions. Krugman says as much when he states the value of life may be agreed at $10m, and he makes the case on half that value.

Krugman didn't reduce the VSL to $5 million to show room to modify the assumptions but still get the same conclusion. As he stated, he did so because of the high number of people who are dying who are older and thus have a lower VSL. Though he totally picked the $5 million out of the air.

One of the papers Krugman cited noted that they could have used the full $10 million VSL (actually they used $11.5 million which they noted was inflation adjusted). But as a matter of economics, they couldn't justify it. Guess economics wasn't Paul's first concern.

Andy makes a really good point though about where assumptions do make a radical difference.

In terms of a cost benefit analysis of social distancing, every assumption that could make a radical difference (individually or in the aggregate) matter. The papers Krugman cited acknowledge that but none of that matters to him. Guess you don't need facts if you already have made up your mind, huh?

In terms of the protests, there is additional risk of exposure. As noted many times here, virus does what a virus does; it doesn't care about borders, why people are together, etc. There has been a certain level of non-distancing that we have deemed acceptable based on a political definition of "essential." Often times, essential is in the eyes of the beholder. Some of that activity was questionable at best but we allowed it. And not protected by First Amendment. Plus protests are outside with at least some people wearing masks. Though I have never been one of the "stay the f--- home" crowd (though I have pretty much done that in large part because I can economically -- but not without some negative consequences that relate to economic issues rather than staying home).

Here's a good write up on the process and continuing evolution of modeling:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/understanding-epidemiology-models/

Why only half of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine

Call me nuts, but I'm kind of surprised nearly 50% said they would get vaccinated. I'm not anti-vax, but without long-term testing I'd be at least hesitant. I would have guessed the largest percentage would be in the "not sure" category.

I suspect that changes once it's your grandma who barely survives it or dies. I already know some 30-somethings who had a rough time, that's good enough for me.

Remember that most of the approaches that are headed to late stage trials are, well, in late stage trials with thousands of people, and based largely on the existing, well studied approaches for treating these other, less contagious (i.e., less profitable) diseases. I think there will be an education problem about relative safety of a vaccine versus risk of getting the disease.

Jeff said:

I suspect that changes once it's your grandma who barely survives it or dies. I already know some 30-somethings who had a rough time, that's good enough for me.

I think that's one of the worst arguments/biggest misconceptions in things likes this - "You'd feel differently if it were closer to you."

It just feels so oversimplified and like an emotional plea. If someone close to you being affected changes your take in any way, you're not thinking, you're feeling. That's fine, but in a thread full of "But Science!" - I don't know. My reply is going sideways from the point. I'm leaving it, but it's not important. I just think that argument doesnt really hold up in most situations.

<Stop. Refocus.>

To me, the standout info in that poll was that people of color seemed much less likely to be interested in getting a vaccine - with blacks twice as likely as than people in general overall to refuse a vaccination - the same people that we continually say are disproportionately affected by things like this.

I'm sure we could argue countless theories as to why this is true, but it's interesting.

80% are in the yes or not sure camp. Depending on how the 31% of not sure people break, we can still get to the necessary herd immunity (and how many of the 49% yes are lost). I expect that how the time between now and a vaccine plays out will have a big impact. Is there a second wave? Any renewed shutdowns? How many additional deaths/cases? Will employers make having a vaccine a condition to coming back to work (or at least allow those with vaccines a more relaxed/normal working environment)? What other opportunities open up with having a vaccine (pretty sure there is at least one poster on PB who would get a vaccine if it meant they could ride roller coasters).

There are certainly two driving factors to decision making. The science is pretty compelling that if you get it and are symptomatic, it's going to suck. If you're symptomatic and additionally have comorbidity factors making it worse, you might die. Not knowing if you're in that camp may ease your mind, or not, but knowing my family is in those risk groups makes it less about me at that point. It's OK to be driven by the science and the feelings. I wouldn't characterize those particular feelings as irrational or unfounded.

The protests sure do add another dimension to all of this, combined with the free-for-all reopening. Today, Florida's infection rate is down to a 0.99, while Orange County is now up to 1.04, its highest point since April 16. That's not ideal.

Lord Gonchar said:

Jeff said:

I suspect that changes once it's your grandma who barely survives it or dies. I already know some 30-somethings who had a rough time, that's good enough for me.

I think that's one of the worst arguments/biggest misconceptions in things likes this - "You'd feel differently if it were closer to you."

It just feels so oversimplified and like an emotional plea.

It turns out that's how humans work. (Well, I know you aren't subject to emotional/subconscious decision making, but, you know, other people are.)

If a vaccine is approved, it will be done via the ordinary established process known as "evidence-based medicine." Several stages of trails, each one documenting incidence of side effects and illness in a population randomly given either the vaccine or a placebo. If the rate of illness goes down in a statistically significant way in the treatment vs. placebo group, and that benefit outweighs any increase in side-effects measured over the course of the trial in those same groups, the vaccine is approved. If not, it is not.

The approval process itself will be enough for some to sign on board. It would be enough for me, for example, because as a scientist I am also a big fan of evidence-based medicine.

Some others will need more nudging. Some of that nudging will come from public health campaigns. (For example, if I visit my doctor's office from about mid-September until about mid-February they always ask if I've gotten the flu vaccine yet.)

Some of that nudging will come from the emotional impact of someone close to you becoming very severely ill or dying.

None of these (science, public health, personal emotion) is in isolation. I get that you enjoy arguing, and that means picking things apart, but this isn't that complicated.

Jeff said:

The protests sure do add another dimension to all of this, combined with the free-for-all reopening.

I'd hardly call it a free-for-all reopening. My workplace has reopened to the public for very limited services today and still has about 1/3 of the staff working from home. Restaurants are still at 50% and some are still doing less, a select few are still take out only. Amusement parks are only now starting to reopen and they are unrecognizable from when we last went. Nobody is going to concerts or sporting events. The asinine one way grocery aisles are still a thing. Everyone's local Old Country Buffet is still shuttered.

We're absolutely reopening. But to say it's a free for all or that it resembles life as we knew it as recently as three months ago is simply not true.

Brian Noble said:

It turns out that's how humans work.

The average human is boring and easy.

I'm not talking about your workplace, I'm talking about the very wide range of actions from city to city, county to county, state to state. If it's not coordinated or measured, it's a free-for-all.

Brian Noble said:

None of these (science, public health, personal emotion) is in isolation. I get that you enjoy arguing, and that means picking things apart, but this isn't that complicated.

No, it's not.

But in a thread where we've been repeatedly told our feelings don't matter, it's a jarring turn.

As expected, my experience on where the feelings matter is 180 from the consensus.

Sometimes I wonder how I'm still alive.

Jeff said:

I'm not talking about your workplace, I'm talking about the very wide range of actions from city to city, county to county, state to state. If it's not coordinated or measured, it's a free-for-all.

Even if it's not coordinated or measured in some areas - there is a significant percentage of the population that is still choosing to self isolate, social distance, stay away, etc. And even if it's not coordinated and measured in some areas - there are many businesses and other public establishment coordinating and measuring it on their own. It may not be ideal, but it's still not the same as it was before March of this year.

Gonch said:

But in a thread where we've been repeatedly told our feelings don't matter, it's a jarring turn.

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like the overall message here for months has been "the facts don't care about your feelings" anytime anyone suggested we were taking this too seriously, we should start to reopen, etc. Suddenly facts were presented and we shouldn't take them into consideration because it could be *your* grandma.

Lord Gonchar said:

But in a thread where we've been repeatedly told our feelings don't matter, it's a jarring turn.

Back up the soul train there... that's an over generalization (and a little dramatic and victim-like, honestly). Your feelings about grandma are not the same as what you "feel" about facts, or things you disagree with on experts for which you simply have a feeling. (And I mean "you" in the general sense, not "Gonch.") A lot of the earlier discussion, and indeed my own frustration with what people "feel," had to do with the latter, not grandma. I don't care if people "think" scientists are wrong.

Now, if you "feel" that walking into a nursing home with a cough is a good idea, then yes, your feelings suck, and the facts don't care what you think. 🙂

That's fair.

But again, me being me buried the lede in that post.

Those we have said are most affected (people of color, specifically blacks in this case) are least likely to be vaccinated according to the article.

Which is the point I wanted to discuss, but now that we went this route, that logic also sorta flies right in the face of the "if it happens to you" idea.

*shrug*

I can only speculate, but there are some pretty good reasons right now that people of color would mistrust authorities. It may be an interesting thing to explore, but given how far away that scenario plays out, I'm not sure it matters. I don't see a world where a public school allows your kid in the building without the vaccination if it's widely available. There will be some backlash to that, but the same requirements already exist for other vaccines.

Ugh, I just looked at the piece that you linked to again. 30% of the no-thank-you crowd don't believe vaccines work? Would you like a little chicken pox, or maybe some polio?

Polio? No thanks. But chicken pox wasn't that bad for me or my brother and sister. No vaccine existed for that when we were kids.

BrettV said:

Gonch said:

But in a thread where we've been repeatedly told our feelings don't matter, it's a jarring turn.

I was thinking the same thing. I feel like the overall message here for months has been "the facts don't care about your feelings" anytime anyone suggested we were taking this too seriously, we should start to reopen, etc. Suddenly facts were presented and we shouldn't take them into consideration because it could be *your* grandma.

The facts don't care about your feelings--the virus is what it is, and does what it does, whether you like that or not. But, your feelings will influence how you make decisions.

That's in part why demagogues inflame passions. But it's also why folks in Information Science and Public Health study which messages emotionally resonate with people in order to help encourage vaccine uptake.