Why do you say that? I think it depends on what data, 5-6 weeks to see a drop in hospitalization census and new deaths is probably accurate. New positive test results seems more like 2-3 weeks.Fitch said:
I wouldn't really expect any policy change one way or the other to show up as a trend in the data until maybe 5-6 weeks after the fact.
Or maybe it's both?David_Puddy said:HotardAg07 said:
Cases and positive test rate have trended down or flat for the last 1-2 weeks, so I think that's what we've seen.
Gee I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with the 3+ weeks of no protests in Houston or Austin, where 60k+ people were gathered in close proximity or one another. It's all because they closed the bars and reduced capacity at restaurants.
I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems like a lot of the doctors and contact tracers that are dealing with a high volume of COVID patients are saying that young people in bars and older people exposed to young people in bars seemed to be driving the increase, which is why the recent wave in Texas tended to be younger.David_Puddy said:HotardAg07 said:
Cases and positive test rate have trended down or flat for the last 1-2 weeks, so I think that's what we've seen.
Gee I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with the 3+ weeks of no protests in Houston or Austin, where 60k+ people were gathered in close proximity or one another. It's all because they closed the bars and reduced capacity at restaurants.
"But the protests" is just another attempt to make this virus political.Knucklesammich said:
At this point does it really matter, why do we keep pivoting back to the protests? Why not just focus on how to mitigate the outcome?
The bar argument is always refuted by, "but the protests". Ok I get it the protests can be mentioned but we haven't seen big protests in weeks yet continue to see spikes in populations and areas where there weren't a huge amount of protests.
Yes it can be argued that its dumb to have protests during a pandemic but I think the time to vent spleen over this is well past.
The same activity is going to happen before and after football games, tubing the river, going to beaches, etc.Keegan99 said:
It's not the protests themselves. It's the gatherings before and after the protests. Often at bars, restaurants, and homes. People didn't just show up to protest all by their lonesome and then go back home.
The protests spurred a lot of indoor social mixing.
HotardAg07 said:The same activity is going to happen before and after football games, tubing the river, going to beaches, etc.Keegan99 said:
It's not the protests themselves. It's the gatherings before and after the protests. Often at bars, restaurants, and homes. People didn't just show up to protest all by their lonesome and then go back home.
The protests spurred a lot of indoor social mixing.
While the protests may have contributed to some cases, I think the bigger effect may have been on behavior.Knucklesammich said:
I tend to generally agree with you here; though, I do think that it had to drive some of the spike.
In other words I think if I had to put percentages to it 25% protests and 75% young adults partying because its summer and then giving it to gram and gramps or mom and pop (via siblings or friends).
At this point does it really matter, why do we keep pivoting back to the protests? Why not just focus on how to mitigate the outcome?
Also isn't almost every super spreader event usually traced to the equivalent of a closed room where people are speaking, singing and in relatively close proximity?
The bar argument is always refuted by, "but the protests". Ok I get it the protests can be mentioned but we haven't seen big protests in weeks yet continue to see spikes in populations and areas where there weren't a huge amount of protests.
Yes it can be argued that its dumb to have protests during a pandemic but I think the time to vent spleen over this is well past.
Venture out this week to your favorite Mexican joint, and look at the bar. There's plenty of people there, jammed at that (relatively) small area. People still going to get their drink on.ElephantRider said:
There's a restaurant with a bar near where I live that does open mic nights. They are staying open for that and packing people in even after the restaurant closes.
ETFan said:"But the protests" is just another attempt to make this virus political.Knucklesammich said:
At this point does it really matter, why do we keep pivoting back to the protests? Why not just focus on how to mitigate the outcome?
The bar argument is always refuted by, "but the protests". Ok I get it the protests can be mentioned but we haven't seen big protests in weeks yet continue to see spikes in populations and areas where there weren't a huge amount of protests.
Yes it can be argued that its dumb to have protests during a pandemic but I think the time to vent spleen over this is well past.
LikeHotardAg07 said, the evidence points more towards bars than protests. Obviously there is spread in both, but indoors, drunk, singing, close proximity, if you're at a bar during a pandemic you're probably not being cautious about masks / distancing, etc...
On football, I just don't see that happening. Sitting in close proximity to people for 3 hours, yelling, mask or not...
I talked to one of my customers 2 or 3 weeks ago, had a few employees out sick with Covid . She said they were protesting, and closer to sunset they'd stop all that and hit the bars. Thirsty!!AgsMyDude said:HotardAg07 said:The same activity is going to happen before and after football games, tubing the river, going to beaches, etc.Keegan99 said:
It's not the protests themselves. It's the gatherings before and after the protests. Often at bars, restaurants, and homes. People didn't just show up to protest all by their lonesome and then go back home.
The protests spurred a lot of indoor social mixing.
Exactly. This is why the closed a lot of beaches down for the 4th. People whine and moan that getting outside is good for you but not when groups stay together at the condo, go bar hopping after the beach, etc.
I find it amusing that restaurants maintain a empty table between full tables for indoor tables but no such need outdoors. Yes, I know indoors can outdoors, but wife and I went to one restaurant and when we sat down there were the COVID reserved tables. By the time we were about to leave, the restaurant opened the large windows all along one wall and removed the COVID reserved tables because it was now "outdoor" space.David_Puddy said:ETFan said:"But the protests" is just another attempt to make this virus political.Knucklesammich said:
At this point does it really matter, why do we keep pivoting back to the protests? Why not just focus on how to mitigate the outcome?
The bar argument is always refuted by, "but the protests". Ok I get it the protests can be mentioned but we haven't seen big protests in weeks yet continue to see spikes in populations and areas where there weren't a huge amount of protests.
Yes it can be argued that its dumb to have protests during a pandemic but I think the time to vent spleen over this is well past.
LikeHotardAg07 said, the evidence points more towards bars than protests. Obviously there is spread in both, but indoors, drunk, singing, close proximity, if you're at a bar during a pandemic you're probably not being cautious about masks / distancing, etc...
On football, I just don't see that happening. Sitting in close proximity to people for 3 hours, yelling, mask or not...
I wasn't trying to make it political at all, but to to try and use logic and say that a gathering of that many people in close proximity of one another wasn't a major reason for the spike is foolish. I have a lot of friends in the bar and restaurant industry who are losing a f ton of $ right now and on the verge of having to shut down completely. I'm just tired of Governors deciding to keep places open while others can't. If people follow the mask order and the tables are spread out for social distancing, I don't see the difference. As the rules are now, you can sit at a table of 6 indoors at a restaurant but not do the same at a bar. How in the world does that make any sense? It's the same damn scenario. The people making it political are the Governors and mayors deciding what is allowed to remain open vs not and hurting the small business owners.
I don't believe closing bars was an arbitrary decision. The contact tracers and ER doctors and nurses are reporting that a majority of cases are young people who went to bars in the last couple weeks. I do feel the government should take care if bar owners financially during this period since they are making them close.David_Puddy said:ETFan said:"But the protests" is just another attempt to make this virus political.Knucklesammich said:
At this point does it really matter, why do we keep pivoting back to the protests? Why not just focus on how to mitigate the outcome?
The bar argument is always refuted by, "but the protests". Ok I get it the protests can be mentioned but we haven't seen big protests in weeks yet continue to see spikes in populations and areas where there weren't a huge amount of protests.
Yes it can be argued that its dumb to have protests during a pandemic but I think the time to vent spleen over this is well past.
LikeHotardAg07 said, the evidence points more towards bars than protests. Obviously there is spread in both, but indoors, drunk, singing, close proximity, if you're at a bar during a pandemic you're probably not being cautious about masks / distancing, etc...
On football, I just don't see that happening. Sitting in close proximity to people for 3 hours, yelling, mask or not...
I wasn't trying to make it political at all, but to to try and use logic and say that a gathering of that many people in close proximity of one another wasn't a major reason for the spike is foolish. I have a lot of friends in the bar and restaurant industry who are losing a f ton of $ right now and on the verge of having to shut down completely. I'm just tired of Governors deciding to keep places open while others can't. If people follow the mask order and the tables are spread out for social distancing, I don't see the difference. As the rules are now, you can sit at a table of 6 indoors at a restaurant but not do the same at a bar. How in the world does that make any sense? It's the same damn scenario. The people making it political are the Governors and mayors deciding what is allowed to remain open vs not and hurting the small business owners.
Not all bad news. New cases appear to have leveled off and positivity rate came down before leveling off. Still a ways to go, but Houston seems to be doing better than DFW where new cases is still growing.Tabasco said:
Not looking great for Houston.
