Read the article. They reported the current stats, identified 2 businesses where a patron and an employee tested positive with time stamp, and predicted there will be more cases because of the asymptomatic spread of the virus. That's "making it sound a lot worse than it is"?
The media predicted the US could surpass 2M cases back in June. They were accused of making it sound worse than it was. The US is just shy of 6M cases today. Should surpass 6M by Tuesday. Your point?
Minnesota health officials announced 15 cases linked to the massive rally. "We're expecting that we're going to see many more ... Thousands of people attended that event."
www.nbcnews.com
Imagine being so bold as to predict that an infectious disease would be... infectious...
The media predicted the US could surpass 2M cases back in June. They were accused of making it sound worse than it was. The US is just shy of 6M cases today. Should surpass 6M by Tuesday. Your point?
We all know it is infectious. Organizers clearly knew there would be more spread from Sturgis. The people attending knew. Not that they didn't care, but they weren't ready to give up their freedom to relieve their worries. They were prepared to pay the price. So what is the point of feigning the apocalypse after the fact? Politics? Yeah, there are consequences for taking risks. Who knew?
We all know it is infectious. Organizers clearly knew there would be more spread from Sturgis. The people attending knew. Not that they didn't care, but they weren't ready to give up their freedom to relieve their worries. They were prepared to pay the price. So what is the point of feigning the apocalypse after the fact? Politics? Yeah, there are consequences for taking risks. Who knew?
There's a profound difference between calculated risk - riding your bike on a track, wearing protective gear, and stupid risk - squidding down the 401 in a wifebeater shirt, shorts and flipflops.
In this instance at Sturgis, its not what what price they were prepared to pay, but what is the risk they're taking home to share ?
Consequences are radically different when they can influence/infect others.
There's a profound difference between calculated risk - riding your bike on a track, wearing protective gear, and stupid risk - squidding down the 401 in a wifebeater shirt, shorts and flipflops.
In this instance at Sturgis, its not what what price they were prepared to pay, but what is the risk they're taking home to share ?
Consequences are radically different when they can influence/infect others.
I hear you, but I’m not buying into the event being the bad guy. The infected dummy could just as easily spread Locally.
I’m guessing attendees didn’t compromise their normal principles when they visited Sturgis, the net impact of spreading it there or at their local Walmart ought to be the same.
I’m guessing attendees didn’t compromise their normal principles when they visited Sturgis, the net impact of spreading it there or at their local Walmart ought to be the same.
That's assuming that the infection is equally prevalent across the US. I doubt that is accurate. Bob travels from an area of high infection (increasing the likelihood he has it) to Sturgis and infects Steve who lives in rural Kansas where no infections have been reported for quite a while. Steve infects his family who infect their friends before they figure out anyone is infected. Going to your local Walmart you should be mostly exposed to a pool of people with a similar likelihood of being infected.
Bob travels from an area of high infection (increasing the likelihood he has it) to Sturgis and infects Steve who lives in rural Kansas where no infections have been reported for quite a while. Steve infects his family who infect their friends before they figure out anyone is infected. Going to your local Walmart you should be mostly exposed to a pool of people with a similar likelihood of being infected.
Steve goes to Walmart for 20 min. on a Saturday afternoon where there's a hundred people from a local pool spread out in the store (and he'll more than likely be told to wear a mask) vs. Steve spends 3 days wandering around a street shoulder to shoulder with thousands from all over the country and 3 nights shoulder to shoulder in half a dozen packed bars. Your analogy sucks.
There's a profound difference between calculated risk - riding your bike on a track, wearing protective gear, and stupid risk - squidding down the 401 in a wifebeater shirt, shorts and flipflops.
In this instance at Sturgis, its not what what price they were prepared to pay, but what is the risk they're taking home to share ?
Consequences are radically different when they can influence/infect others.
That's assuming that the infection is equally prevalent across the US. I doubt that is accurate. Bob travels from an area of high infection (increasing the likelihood he has it) to Sturgis and infects Steve who lives in rural Kansas where no infections have been reported for quite a while. Steve infects his family who infect their friends before they figure out anyone is infected. Going to your local Walmart you should be mostly exposed to a pool of people with a similar likelihood of being infected.
It would take a lot of modelling to get the +/- on this. Considering about 5mill US persons have been infected means >98.5% of the population has not.
Bob could interact with about the same number of people locally or far away if his behaviour is risky. Infected Bob might also be less likely to spread riding a few days solo.
A lot to evaluate, Im not an expert, maybe I’ll check into a Holiday Inn tonight, then I can answer tomorrow
It's thought that the real number of infected is several times higher than the actual documented number. No one knows how big "several" is.
There was testing done in NY a couple months ago indicating about 14% - 20% of the population there had antibodies.
Only a fraction of the people who have been infected at some point in the past, would be currently contagious, but that would vary depending on what stage of the pandemic. New York residents are probably less infectious than most at this point, considering that the peak of the infection has long since passed there. Florida, Texas, South Carolina, etc ... that's not the case.
Folks, I was doing the circle around Lake Simcoe yesterday, out for my usual weekend jaunt in the hot sticky weather. I should have took pix of the 1000s of people on the beach in downtown Barrie - no masks, not social distancing, just as bad as any street at Sturgis. As I went around the beach roads people were doing the same thing fishing shoulder to shoulder on docks, swimming off packed piers.
Expecting massive surge in Ontario shortly but...
Ontarians have been doing it all summer. Apocalypse not found. Stop having a nervous breakdown. It's going to be alright. Really.
We all know it is infectious. Organizers clearly knew there would be more spread from Sturgis. The people attending knew. Not that they didn't care, but they weren't ready to give up their freedom to relieve their worries. They were prepared to pay the price. So what is the point of feigning the apocalypse after the fact? Politics? Yeah, there are consequences for taking risks. Who knew?
Folks, I was doing the circle around Lake Simcoe yesterday, out for my usual weekend jaunt in the hot sticky weather. I should have took pix of the 1000s of people on the beach in downtown Barrie - no masks, not social distancing, just as bad as any street at Sturgis. As I went around the beach roads people were doing the same thing fishing shoulder to shoulder on docks, swimming off packed piers.
Expecting massive surge in Ontario shortly but...
Ontarians have been doing it all summer. Apocalypse not found. Stop having a nervous breakdown. It's going to be alright. Really.
If they were at sturgis and took no precautions, they were either prepared to pay the price or just incredibly dumb. The ones that got infected on the trip home/after they got home I feel bad for.
If they were at sturgis and took no precautions, they were either prepared to pay the price or just incredibly dumb. The ones that got infected on the trip home/after they got home I feel bad for.
The US is a very litigious nation. The technology exists to trace contact infection from genomic information. It’s not beyond the realm of impossibility for someone to sue another party for reckless endangerment or culpable homicide perhaps if they can trace that person back to voluntary attendance at a large gathering contrary to public health advice. It would be an extraordinary lawsuit for sure.
The US is a very litigious nation. The technology exists to trace contact infection from genomic information. It’s not beyond the realm of impossibility for someone to sue another party for reckless endangerment or culpable homicide perhaps if they can trace that person back to voluntary attendance at a large gathering contrary to public health advice. It would be an extraordinary lawsuit for sure.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.nbcnews.com
