Gov. Baker has announced his re-opening plan to the cities and towns. I’m sure it’s the result of many informed conversations, but I can’t discern the rhyme or reason. In a bit of bravado that will have the opposite of its intended effect, Karyn Polito trotted out the cliché “tough times never last, tough people do”. Well, unless they die, which a lot of tough people have done.
– Why are houses of worship included? Don’t people sing there, and speak loudly? How do you impose distancing at a crowded church? (Easier in some churches than others, for sure.) Update: I wasn’t the only one concerned — the Globe interviewed a variety of experts who were especially skeptical that this was a wise decision.
— Hair salons? I get it: People really, really want their hair cut. (Raises hand.) Is this truly essential? You can’t distance inside a hair salon, nor can you wear a mask while your hair gets done.
– Construction: Well, construction never stopped at the Weymouth compressor, fossil fuel infrastructure being deemed “essential”. I’ve seen a lot of landscaping work and some house work that was dubiously-distanced; at least it’s outside, but riding in a truck is not!
— Manufacturing: Some plants will be fine; others won’t. Again, witness how certain indoor-warehouse environments (Amazon, Wal-Mart) have already been reported for inadequate worker protections.
— Recreational marijuana: I get this. One can pick up curbside; people are bored; liquor stores are open; so why not.
In other words, what were/are the epidemiological criteria? How does the state enforce all of this new activity with new restrictions?
A @MassGovernor reopening plan isn’t correct merely because some think it’s too slow and others too fast. This ain’t no fairy tale.
— Tommy Vitolo (@TommyVitolo) May 18, 2020
We’ve heard that science will drive decision making, but there’s no science in a Memorial Day weekend reopening. There is simply money to be made.
Update: Mass. Budget and Policy Center has questions much along the same lines (via email):
As we look at the Baker Administration’s Reopening Massachusetts plan, it’s important to consider:
Do we have the resources to keep workers safe? Moving through the phases described in the Governor’s plan will require substantial additional public investment for PPE, cleaning supplies, in order to provide public education, transportation and countless other public services in a socially-distanced way.
How do we best support those out of work? About 1,000,000 people have filedfor unemployment benefits in the Commonwealth. Equitable direct cash assistance via the federal and state government will be needed to make sure we can get these dollars back into the hands of low and moderate-income people, regardless of immigration status.
What are the child care options available to working parents? In reopening our economy, parents should not be forced to work when circumstances such as lack of safe and affordable childcare make it impossible. We must ensure that early education and child care providers are supported and in place.
How can we collectively support an equitable and just reopening? As economists have reported, cuts to the state budget are more harmful than tax increases during recessions. We need more resources to address this crisis including using our state’s Rainy Day Fund, federal relief, and homegrown revenue solutions.
I think some of this was in fact informed by what people seem most anxious to get back to – not necessarily the worst thing in the world if you accept that just powers derive from the consent of the governed.
There are competing interests here, one of which is the need of people to not get sick and die. Survival is generally thought to outweigh other interests — that is, your consent to go back to work does not outweigh my lack of consent to be sickened and die.
Yes, there are high costs either way. “Consent of the governed” cuts both ways.
Tommy hits the nail on the head. Baker is always trying to be right in the middle of public consensus on any particular issue, and this plan is fairly similar to that. It’s literally a self contradiction to limit gatherings of 10 people or more and allow houses of worship to reopen for regular service. It is my hope that most of them opt to continue the online only way of doing things.
I can see appointment only services reopen such as haircuts if no one else is in the barbershop and both customer and barber wear masks at all times while the barber wears gloves. It also seems like a pretty lousy way for those folks to make money, unless they upcharge, and they would be better off collecting unemployment through June 30. I agree May 25th seems like a rather arbitrary timetable to start that phase based around optimism and polling rather than science.
The Governor cites a lot of data showing that the present policies are working and then uses that to change them, with the caveat that if the trends change we will retreat phases, but in my view, it is easy to stay closed and reopen when it is safe than to reopen and then reclose. The whiplash will be just as bad economically as the additional cases will be for public health. It would also be nice if the legislature asserted itself and presented its own plan, a rare chance for Democrats in this state to show an informed alternative to Baker’s leadership.
They should demand TestandTrace before a reopening
https://testandtrace.com/
I’ve also been trying to wrap my head around restart worship (which the plan says can accommodate 40% normal capacity) and limiting to 10 total people. I don’t know if the drafters thought all churches were that small or that worship had stopped altogether. In my church we have a rotation of 10 leaders per week we call the Holy Ghost Crew who conduct worship in the sanctuary while streaming live on FB and broadcasting on local cable. That will have to continue if we stick to 10 people, but we could loosen a bit if 40% were allowed. As a Deacon I don’t want to be the person saying you can’t come to church this week or you can’t visit this week. That is exclusionary and entirely contrary to the teachings and example off Jesus.
I think Christ would not want people to get sick or die needlessly either.
I think test-and-trace is overkill. I think it’s enough to have fine-grained daily data about reported cases — data that we already have.
It is straightforward to analyze that data and provide a daily report of the rate of change in reported cases for each city and town. A time series of that data set for each day is enough to see changes in location of the pandemic hotspots. Epidemiologists can use the resulting data to make recommendations for each city/town. The data itself is already collected from point sources (hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, etc). Tracking the location and magnitude of those point sources allows even more localized recommendations.
I’m not arguing against testing, I’m instead saying that we already have enough data to begin making more informed decisions based on what’s already in hand.
In my view, there are serious privacy concerns associated with any tracing effort — privacy concerns that are indeed a “competing interest” to the benefits of contact tracing. We’ve used contact tracing for decades to help manage STDs. What we have NOT done in such programs is to have the government perform those actions, collect the resulting data, and coerce conformance.
I do not want the government to have carte blanche to gather, preserve, and use data about when and where I go, who I meet and come in contact with, and — the obvious next step — enforce quarantine based on the result.
In my opinion, such behavior is the very reason for the Fourth Amendment. Thousands of Americans have died to preserve those rights, and I am not willing to give it up — especially during the current administration.
That’s the only thing that’s working in the countries that have contained the virus from South Korea to Australia. It’s what has to be done here.
Sometimes there are other values that take precedence over what works.
You have a different definition of “working” than me.
The more you advocate this line of argument, the more you drive me and people like me into the arms of the right wing.
Privacy matters. After seeing what the Trumpists do, I really can’t believe that you’re advocating EXPANDING their ability to destroy you, me, and anyone else who disagrees with them.
You KNOW what out-of-control ICE agents are doing. What do you think this ICE will do with detailed minute-by-minute data about where a specific person went as well as who that person met with and for how long?
I do not WANT to live in South Korea or China.
Calm down Tom. We’re talking about isolating folks who are sick to reduce the spread of disease by following the science. Some testing and tracing will be needed to make that effective. It can be done in a way that respects civil rights and civil liberties.
Revere opened a very nice hotel for asymptotic patients to self quarantine from their families. Very few volunteered to do this. I think forcing people to do this isn’t the worst thing, again it’s a nice hotel not a prison. They’ll get free meals from the city and it’s just a 14 day confinement.
There’s a balanced approach similar
to this one done to scale in South Korea, which now enjoys a lot lore personal freedom than we do since they beat back the virus by being stricter And better prepared at the start.
I’m fine with reopening parts of the state or the country once they fall below a certain threshold where we know they can’t rise up again. WA and SF are awfully close to that point now, and it’s frankly because their initial restrictions were much stricter than MA.
The other thing to remember is those rural areas do not have the same hospital capacity or equipment access, so making sure their workers have PPE and their field hospitals a) exist and b) have ventilators makes more sense than reopening without a plan, as the Republicans are doing in other parts of the state.
The WI Supreme Court made a blanket decision that any control was unconstitutional. I think they undermined the ability of their governor and city mayors to lock down the areas where cases are higher. I really do not want other states copying their lead and risking harming the many in the name of the personal conveniences of some.
I’m talking about the “tracing” part of testing and tracing, and then responding to praise for the methods of South Korea.
Our government is proposing to work with telecom companies to perform automated “contact tracing” by collecting and aggregating cellphone location and other data. These are approaches that collect and preserve detailed — in both time and space — histories of where each phone (and therefore person) has been.
Each history is turned into path, and those paths are layered on top of each other to identify “contact” events. It’s a bit like the system ATC controllers use to identify incidents where aircraft violate minimum separation guidelines.
The result is a system that gives authorities the ability to identify each and every other individual or group of person of interest has encountered for an arbitrary period of time and space. That should raise loud alarms for anybody who cares about Fourth Amendment and privacy rights.
Did you actually read the WI decision? Are you familiar with the facts? The fundamental question, as I read the reports, was whether a gubernatorial appointee (Andrea Palm, secretary-designee of the WDHS) has the authority to indefinitely extend stay-at-home orders without legislative approval.
It is times of stress, challenge, and uncertainty that we most require the rule of law. It is when passions run most intensely that we most require constitutional protections.
I suggest that your characterization of the WI court decision — “harming the many in the name of the personal conveniences of some” has more to do with your personal opinion than the facts of the case. I see no evidence that the WI court was acting to advance “the personal conveniences of some”.
My opinion is that, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, extreme measures require extreme caution. I do not think that an unconfirmed appointee to a state agency should be able to shut down an entire state without legislative consent — in MA or WI.
Local and state Executives and public officials are stepping up because legislatures and The President are not doing their jobs. At the end of the day yes I trust a public health official more than the gerrymandered Republican science denying legislature of a Wisconsin and the right wing elected state Supreme Court. Their decision is going to overwhelm the hospitals as morons immediately crowded one another in bars and restaurants. I value the safety of my friend completing med school there who is also doing rotations and taking care of an infant child very vulnerable to this virus over the freedom of a bunch of overweight Packers fans lining up to get hammered at a bar.
Maybe when Flint, which has gone for six years now without safe water, or the black And brown neighborhoods Devastated by this pandemic get equal protection we can worry about the petty freedoms of affluent whites.
The cynic in me wants to say we’ve already made minced meat out of the first amendment, so might as well do likewise with the fourth:(
I’ve been advocating a competing interest strategy all along, but guaranteeing no death is not the only one and frankly hardly feasible.
It’s not guaranteeing no deaths, it’s preventing needless deaths. The rates of infection and deaths are doing down, why would we want them to go up?
Nobody wants the rate of infection or death to go up, that’s a cheap shot.
The most effective way to stop STDs, AIDs, and unwanted teenage pregnancy is to stop teenagers from having sex. How did that work out?
I think we need to find a realistic balance between risk and freedom.
We have. For most people this is an inconvenience at best. I didn’t see either of you in line for food at the pantry on Wednesday. I don’t think either one of you has buried friends, neighbors, loved ones or co workers.
Speaking of churches, the priest at the parish I attended in Boston just lost his mom. I think this is way more serious and deadly than the people with guns demanding freedom are making it out to be. Sad to see two progressives I respect closer to that camp than the scientific community.
Maybe two progressives with a different view ought to tell you something. You may have noticed I haven’t made any personal financial complaints lately since unemployment is actually treating me quite well. You won’t see me at the food pantry, but you also won’t see me at the state capitol locked and loaded. You seem to ignore legitimate emotional and psychological effects of isolation and that’s before we get to those for whom it really is unsafe or unhealthy. You also are way too willing to ignore yes, the liberties we supposedly value as Americans against all comers, even the extremes of terrorism or pandemic. The scientific community rightly has a strong voice in these discussions, but our system of governance requires a variety of input. If someone really close to me succumbs to this I promise I will not be complaining that someone got too close without a mask. These things happen. My biggest complaint, apart from the grief itself of course, will be that in the epitome of adding insult to injury we can’t say goodbye properly because of social distancing mandates.
@jconway:
I reject, and frankly resent, your implication that I’m “cloer to the [people with guns ] … than the scientific community”.
Everything I’ve said and written here is consistent with current science. I’m working with scientists, I’m consulting with epidemiologists.
I’ve said all along that in your neighborhood, Christophers, and mine, the restrictions are vital to saving lives. I’ve never disputed that.
I would like YOU to admit that people living in Aroostook County, ME or Alcona County MI do NOT have live with those same restrictions, at least today. I’m not saying they’re immune, I’m certainly not supporting violence. I’m saying that when there have been a total of FOUR cases in an entire county since the pandemic began, there is no need to force residents to stand six feet apart or wear a mask inside a grocery store.
I think we agree that we must listen to the science. That means ALL the science.
We are talking about Bakers order on this thread for our state, so ME and other parts of the country without as many cases are not relevant to this discussion. I think I was clear those places can adjust the guidelines to suit local conditions in your other comments on that topic.
Those are not the conditions here or in the large urban centers down south and in Wisconsin that are prematurely opening. I think it’s premature to reopen the state by May 25th and to have an arbitrary timeline that is not supported by the experts.
Where do you think we should be in order to reopen? A vaccine may not be available for 12-18 months and waiting for that is a non-starter for me. What if the cases don’t decline enough? At some point we have to just set a date by which we say OK, we tried, but now the show must go on and redirect efforts to caring for the vulnerable.
I do not know, I am not a scientist. I think there’s a point where the level of new cases tapers off and it’s safe to reopen. Wuhan is there. South Korea is there. Germany is there. Italy is about to be there. So is WA state and San Francisco.
The problem with what America did under President Trump, is it ignored the intelligence and warnings and examples of other places and just pretended this would not hit our shores or have an impact. Then when it did, everyone at all levels, even some people who have responded better since like Cuomo, DeBlasio, and Baker, closed too late to make an impact.
As soon as the kids from Wellesley and my own school came back from Italy we should have closed the state, something no one would have supported at the time in hindsight. Having such a devolved approach has really undermined our ability to contain this virus and prevent a similar catastrophe down the road.
Then Trump not only cuts Obama’s funding and dismantled the team, he did not even prepare as the Bush administration did for this kind of event. It’s truly gross negligence on an almost criminal scale. So while we argue with one another over what to do next, I hope we can all agree we wouldn’t be in this situation had we been better prepared.
You keep talking about closing too late. I’d like to think that if we were truly on top of this, we’d never have to close at all. We did not for similar 21st century episodes and should not have to resort to a strategy last employed 100 years ago.
We are in agreement there. Trump massively failed to protect us from this. CDC should have been on the ground in Wuhan, we should have closed the doors to China and Europe a lot sooner, and we should have had a test and trace system in place to isolate the cases they started in WA. We did not do what we should have which is why we are now forced to hose between bad options.
My heart breaks for my seniors, many of whom I’ve taught for two years. It’s not fair to them to miss their last year of high school, prom, graduation, and with a cloud of uncertainty about whether they can go to their chosen destinations in the fall. Many of them, not just the seniors, have been forced to work long hours in dangerous jobs to help their families who have lost income. So it’s been a huge avoidable tragedy, not just for the sick.
I am not trying to minimize your pain. A friend in Chicago and I have had similar arguments since she has severe OCD and staying in the house during this time is making that so much worse. Chicago is more extreme than here and has even closed parks and the lakefront, which I would never have supported since its not backed by science. So I fell for her. I feel for you and Tom too, it’s been tough. I won’t minimize it. But I do think these sacrifices are showing a serious reduction in the spread and if we stay closed another 2-3 months as I support, we will be in much better show to reopen once and stay open.
Thank you for that. Your students are exactly the kind of people whom I am thinking about, but whose circumstances are not mine. I think Trump is also ultimately to blame for our inability/reluctance have a reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of such significant public policy issues. He eggs on his base to “liberate” states to distract from his incompetence (while flying Nazi and Confederate flags, two regimes representing the antithesis of liberty and packing heat thus negating the concept of peaceable assembly), which prompts our base to say well even your legitimate concerns makes you look suspiciously like them. If someone else were President, first s/he would much better manage a federal response. Second I think more people would be willing to take a breath and say OK, we know this is a radical departure from the norm so as the scripture says, “Come, let us reason together” and come up with a solid plan to both save as many lives as possible and protect other values we hold dear. I also think another President could better rally us to truly mobilize and pitch in. Part of what I’m feeling is despite occasional lip service to the contrary I’m not fighting together with anybody so much as being forced to cower at home and pray the virus doesn’t get me.
I agree with you that it’s premature to open Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex Counties — with 17,589, 15,279, and 11,353 cumulative cases respectively — more than half of the state’s cumulative case count of 77,793 as of May 10 (a week ago).
OTOH, we don’t have to go to ME or MI to find lower counts.
Nantucket (11), Dukes (23), Franklin (294), Berkshire (475), and Hampden (676) counties together account for a total of 1,479 cases — about 1.9% of the state’s total.
I invite you to look more closely at Wisconsin (because you mention it). There are hot spots around Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Madison (none of those come close to Middlesex). The highest case count in any county in WI is 3,900 (Milwaukee). The rest of Wisconsin is in the single- or double-digit range.
I think we can relax at least some restrictions Nantucket, Dukes, Franklin, Berkshire, and Hampden counties, while keeping a careful eye on reported infection counts. People who live in places like Williamstown, Clarksburg, Adams, Charlemont, Shelburne Falls, Buckland, and so on are not going to spread this pandemic by going to their neighborhood grocery store without a mask.
I don’t believe that the residents of Nantucket put themselves or others at risk by going about their business. The count on Nantucket went from 11 to 12 in the last week. I don’t think that is enough of a public health hazard to merit keeping the entire island closed and locked down.
The economic burden of shutting down the entire state falls as much or more on those rural counties with almost no infection risk as it does on our hotspots here at the coast.
The desire to keep THOSE counties closed is not driven by any science that I’ve seen.
That analogy doesn’t work. Safe sex is a thing and has been for as long as AIDS has been around and sex education is better than abstinence. The equivalent here would be the lack of a vaccine and protection from this virus other than conducting safe citizenship by wearing masks and avoiding places where the virus can more easily spread.
I’m with the people who favor restoring outdoor seating as a dine in alternative, opening up all parks and beaches, and gradually bringing back services on a case by case basis. I’m not favoring an unlimited shutdown either, I am simply saying the human costs of reopening far outweigh the economic benefits right now.
Of course sex education is better than abstinence. My point is that way back in the 1980’s, the left and right together latched onto bromides like “safe sex” and “committed partners”. The first of those was DRASTICALLY overwrought as an AIDS/HIV prevention measure. The second was and is irrelevant to AIDS/HIV.
For most people, using condoms did NOT prevent HIV/AIDS. I’m not saying people shouldn’t use condoms. I’m saying that a vanishingly small number of heterosexual men and women who used condoms would have gotten HIV/AIDS without them.
The fundamental problem with our approach right now is that we are destroying our way of life in HUGE swaths of our nation because of the economic and social impacts of our nationwide lockdown. For nearly ALL of those areas, only a handful of people would have gotten the coronavirus anyway.
We are quite literally using sledgehammer to drive a tack. Yes, we MUST drive the tack. We don’t need a sledgehammer to do so.
It’s not a cheap shot against Christopher. He wants to fully reopen now no matter the consequences. The benefits to his personal freedom outweighs the cost to our society and to my students and my wife.
I share your disagreement with Christopher about reopening ANY part of the eastern MA mainland.
The part of your comment that I characterized as a “cheap shot” is “… why would we want them to go up?”
My take is that Christopher disagrees that stay-at-home orders are needed to contain the pandemic. He may have a higher tolerance for increased casualty rates than you or me.
I don’t think that means that he wants those casualty rates to go up. He is not a psychopath.
It’s more than just what I want personally, though it’s always easier to testify about personal impact. It’s about various principles as well as others I feel terribly for who won’t be able to mark major milestones for example, even though I personally have no connection to those. I’m also looking at big picture, in the sense that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Because they are likely to go up at least a bit regardless of when and how we reopen. We’re heading for a catch-22 where if cases are not going down people say we can’t reopen, but if they are going down people will say we shouldn’t mess with a good thing. At some point we have to just accept the risk and move on.
I’m done arguing with you until you provide scientifically verified sources that support your claims and conclusions. I’m more the. happy to send you a better mask if you need one. DM me. My sister in law loves making them and she does it for free. Godspeed and please stay safe.
You sound exactly like the Lt. governor in Texas who wanted to sacrifice old people to their deaths in the name of economic recovery for the rest of us. The risks are still too high even if you aren’t the one who thinks he’s at risk.
This is basic cost-benefit analysis for me.
So how many deaths are you willing to accept Mr. Malthus? Another hundred thousand? A million? What’s the number of innocent people dying you’re comfortable with so you can go back to church?
I guess I don’t know for sure any more than you do about acceptable levels to open, but it would probably have to be in the double digits percentage-wise.
So tens of millions infected nationally and tens of thousands locally? That’s still too high, far too high for our hospitals which were at capacity at the end of last month.
Keep in mind I’m starting with the premise that it’s not going to be that bad anyway. In other words, of course I don’t want lots of people to die – I just don’t think the vast majority of them will.
Lots of them already have. 86,000 and rising. I cannot believe you continue to call yourself a Christian and dismiss those deaths and the deaths of people close to those I care about. I spent a week of uncertainty about whether or not my wife had this. I’ve counseled students who lost their parents over the phone. Unlike us, she is putting her body on the line every day to fight this. Unlike us, I have students working to keep our thinly stretched food supply running.
Anyway you can go on living your life, I pray you don’t get this virus.
Well, a Christian believes in healing the sick regardless of who is “deserving” and I’m all for that. Why aren’t we doing more to help the very people you are referring to?
@Tens of millions:
The “tens of millions” is a cumulative case count over a multi-year period.
Certainly hospital capacity is the key constraint and is a more meaningful measure. One of the quantities that is still not being widely reported is current case count. It can be approximated by subtracting cumulative deaths and cumulative recoveries from cumulative cases. Not to belabor the obvious, but the number of patients currently requiring care is much more important than the total number of patients who have ever been infected.
In the absence of a vaccine, the best we can do is spread the distribution of whatever is going to happen anyway. Measures like masks and social distancing tend to slow rather than prevent the spread.
Assuming I’m interpreting you correctly the equation we need is A=C-(D+R):
A=active cases
C=cumulative cases
D=deaths
R=recoveries
For the US as of today per Google that means 1.54M-(90,694+289K) where M and K are obviously approximations. Plugging in those numbers I came up with 1,160,306.
Yeah so it’s still a pandemic, even if it has not yet affected you. Just as it’s still a depression, even though we might have jobs.
The tens of millions was directed to Christopher, since 86,000 deaths is apparently too insignificant to make him change his mind on wearing a freakin mask. Slowing the spread is still better than nothing and it’s the only option Trump has left us with.
I have a pair of twins in my 4th period class who reported that their grandfather is still positive, but his condition has improved enough that he has moved back into the Chelsea Soldiers Home. They think it is far too soon to reopen, and like me, and I suspect all of us, they are tired of quarantine. Nobody wanted this, but two 17 year olds can recognize that this is the lesser of two evils. Why can’t adults? Particularly the ones in power?
I check the stats multiple times a week for MA, US, and the world and the math consistently confirms that this is not all it’s cracked up to be. Any covering of a face is going to impact my ability to breathe.
That’s demonstrably false. They are only going up in places that either didn’t quarantine in the first place or have hastily reopened. They have gone done in Massachusetts and that’s a testament to this states belief in science and solidarity with those who suffer. I would hate to emulate Georgia and Texas on this one. WA is at almost no new cases. There is a light at the end tunnel if we all carry on and do our part and act like citizens in a community and not me first vigilantes.
Has WA reopened yet? If not, we don’t have a control for what you are claiming yet. As long as the virus is out there more people out and about means more targets for it.
I think we need to be very cautious about assigning cause and effect. I think epidemiologists will be studying the relationship between management strategies and infection rates for years to come.
The false premise that “fix broken windows” and “stop and frisk” caused a dramatic decrease in violent crime in NYC has been responsible for pervasive police brutality and widespread abuse of minorities — especially young black men. It was only when research showed that violent crime rates went down nationwide — both urban and suburban independently from police procedures — that we learned that policies like those advocated by Mike Bloomberg and Rudi Giulianini were case studies in confirmation bias accompanied by racism.
We do not yet know what the requirements are for reopening. CNN was reporting just last night that new studies seem to indicate that percentage of mask usage appears to have more profound impact on reducing infection rates than social distancing.
We must pay attention to the science. Particularly because our passions are so high, we must be VERY careful about confirmation bias.
There is more than one way to inadvertently become a “me first vigilante”.
We’re both in favor of the same things Tom. It’s a Christopher who is against social distancing and mask use and in favor of a premature reopening based on his personal feelings rather than science and the needs of the rest of society.
The tracking and tracing is only for those with symptoms to isolate them and make sure they do not spread diseases. Surely that’s a reasonable infringement on their liberty? Otherwise how could any quarantine work?
@ tracing is only for those …:
That’s not how these programs work. The necessary surveillance only works if everybody the designated individual comes in contact with is identified. That only works when EVERYBODY is traced. Every cell phone.
That’s how it works, that’s what’s being advocated, and that’s what we should not accept.
@how could any quarantine work:
Our first preference should be voluntary self-quarantine.
Any form of involuntary quarantine amounts to imprisonment and should be accompanied by similar restraints on its imposition.
So that’s not working. Revere rented out a 500 bed hotel and only 95 are using it despite 600 known cases. I think mandating it is the next inevitable step. If you and Christopher are serious about isolating it at the source, that’s the only effective way to do it.
I wish you would at least respect that this is a lot more than me, me, me. The two strategies you mentioned I object to in large part because they represent hysteria IMO. This time instead of everyone being a potential witch or potential Communist, now everybody is a potential COVID carrier, never mind that the stats say probably not.
It’s not hysteria since there is a freakin test to see if someone is positive or not. Comparing it to communism is a shot against science and health care. Unlike communists, this virus is a real and present danger to all of us. Unlike communism, there is an objective and relatively uninvasive swab to see if you’re sick or not.
We already mandate vaccines, we can mandate tests. In fact we have mandated tests in many occupations. My wife gets temperature tested on a daily basis in order to enter her workplace. It’s common sense, not an invasion of privacy, since she works in a hospital in the middle of a pandemic.
Calling that hysteria shows me you don’t actually get this since this virus has not affected you as closely as it has me. I know at least four people who have lost a relative, one person who lost a co worker, and had three students and two colleagues get the virus (fortunately they all recovered). So check your privilege and consider your good fortune you’re not affected yet. Oh and another thing-you definitely are not immune. No one is, so stopping the spread keeps this from going into the millions.
I’m all for more testing, but even among those tested my understanding is that the positive rate is pretty low. OTOH I’m not sure what good a negative test is since all that says is you don’t have it now, but doesn’t guarantee you won’t get it tomorrow. I never said anyone was immune. I have said the statistical likelihood is low and among those who do get it the statistical likelihood of being serious, or certainly fatal, is also low. I’m starting to think you are one of those people who is a bit too awe-struck by round number thresholds.
I mean you just said uptrend that’s the deaths so far are not a big deal and it’s all fake news anyway, what else am I to conclude?
I never said anything about fake news. Please at least keep my arguments straight.
I stole this from electoral-vote.com
Seriously we are talking about close to a quarter of a million people (best case scenario) who could die from this when all is said and done and suddenly it’s an attack on freedom to do basic solidarity on behalf of those victims and the patients who have a shot at survival?
Surely that’s a false dichotomy.
Some of us were absolutely appalled by the wholesale shredding of rights and liberties in the aftermath of 9/11 and said so loudly and repeatedly right here at BMG.
Your last paragraph distorts the concerns and reservations of those of us who advocate caution.
Many of the steps being proposed ARE attacks on freedom. The issue at hand is — or should be — whether those hopefully temporary restrictions are justified by the immediate and long-term threat.
Telling me that government WILL track my movements and record for all time who I meet with and when most certainly IS an attack on my right to privacy, my freedom to assemble, and my right to be protected from unreasonable search — it’s gaslighting to assert otherwise.
The question is whether such measures are justified. I suggest that we have not just a right but in fact a DUTY to have full, frank, and candid discussions about that. Discussions that ought to be informed by facts and science.
If you have symptoms Tom, the testing and tracing is a reasonable step to make sure you are cooperating with the quarantine. You are an objective threat to others if you test positive for this virus and go out anyway. My brother who came back from Florida right when we shut down and my students who came back from Italy self quarantined for two weeks following CDC guidelines. Most people would. But we have the Christopher’s and the right wing nuts who value themselves over others, and if they are sick the rest of us have a right to know and they need to be isolated from us.
My wife and I self quarantined from each other in our studio apartment until we got a test that proved she did not have the virus. I could not hug or kiss her while she was scared, I had to sleep on the couch and not in my own bed with her, and I brought her her meals upstairs like she was someone I was hiding away in an attic. It sucked. But we did it for the greater good.
Our ancestors had to go through far worse to win the world wars and overcome the depression. So I’m really tired of hearing you and Chris bitch about masks and social distancing. I’ve already sacrificed way more than either of you, my students and wife have sacrificed way more than me. Grow up and be a good citizen and think about those who you are saving by staying home and going out with protection.
You have not heard me “bitch” about masks and social distancing. You have not heard me EVER suggest that I should not wear a mask and practice social distancing when I go out.
I agree that testing of those who are symptomatic is vital. Voluntary contact tracing, as has been done with STD transmission for decades, makes sense.
Testing of those who are not symptomatic (“surveillance testing”) might well be counter-productive until we have much more data about the reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of these tests. In order to accomplish that, we have to know much more about the disease itself. When someone is symptomatic and has a positive test result, it is much more straightforward to calculate the likelihood that the positive result is authentic. When someone is not, that same calculation becomes much more difficult without some measure of how prevalent the disease is — in a population where the disease is not present, EVERY positive is a false positive.
Please be careful about adopting a self-righteous tone towards us. The sacrifices that you have made do not make you immune to inadvertent mistakes.
Where have I endorsed this? The testing and tracing is for those with symptoms and those exposed to them.
We’ve veered widely off topic, how do you feel about Bakers phased reopening? I’m with Tommy and a Charle, Christopher is with Brian Kemp and Ron DeSantis and Sean Hannity. Where are you?
I agree with Tommy that this order is driven by economic rather than scientific considerations. I think the motivation for demanding that every MA county be treated the same way is political rather than economic or scientific. I think every city and town should continue receiving daily updates about what is happening in their vicinity.
I am perfectly happy with the Governor and/or legislature establishing guidelines based on science, epidemiology, and current data for what steps are in place for each city and town. I think federal and state support should be focused on those cities and towns hit the hardest
I oppose the arbitrary imposition of statewide bans or relaxations by the Governor, the legislature, or any other entity.
@testing and testing is for those with symptoms…:
I’ve already explained how involuntary government-sponsored tracing can only be accomplished by violating the rights of everyone. The issue is how the government identifies the people that a particular subject interacted with. The only way to determine that is to know when and where each of those people — people NOT infected, tested, or even suspected of anything — has been. That means making the cellphone (or other) data of every person available to the government.
I think involuntary “contact tracing” like that absolutely shreds whatever is left of privacy and personal liberty. I think other mechanisms can accomplish the same end without a wholesale betrayal of our fundamental rights.
I think testing should done for each person who is symptomatic. I think tracing should be voluntary and should involve only the symptomatic subject. I do not think that government agents should be tracking third and fourth degree contacts of a symptomatic person. As I’ve said earlier, surely you appreciate the threat that such “contact tracing” represents to immigrant and minority communities.
Right now Covid is a bigger threat to those communities than ICE, but I agree the last thing they need is government agents swooping in. There has been so much trust broken over the last few years that’s it’s honestly making it much harder to contain the virus since people in those communities with symptoms have a greater need to work and avoid interesting with the safety net or public health agencies. That’s a strong point. Ditto police coming into minority communities.
I think the woman kicked off the MTA by force for not wearing a mask was in the wrong. I think we can do testing and tracing and mandate that the sick stay home without resorting to gestapo tactics. I think there’s a balanced approach to be had. The reluctance with easing restrictions on rural communities on my end has more to do with outsiders going there to escape restrictions.
A friend of means just did that in Colorado, which is nearly fully reopened and probably the only blue state to do so, but they also bought the time and have the space to do that. Perhaps Western MA is in that boat, but some parts will still need to be isolated. Cape and islands have lousy hospital access and capacity. I would hate to overwhelm the field hospitals at Otis on the UMD campus.
So again I think we are largely in agreement. Reopen on case by case basis once certain benchmarks are met, but the burden of proof should be producing the science to justify the reopening and not the other way around.
See and I think the burden of proof should be on those calling for a radical overhaul of how society operates, especially where constitutional issues are involved.