"Italy Re-Closes Cinemas Amid Coronavirus Surge"

[Marcel Birgelen]

A problem, of course, is the risk of those at lower risk infecting those at higher risk, hence politicians urging us to vote by mail and cancel family gatherings at Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. But again as you point out, lockdown novelty has been replaced by lockdown fatigue, with public responses ranging from simply ignoring the diktats to significant civil unrest, as we have seen in several European cities, and here in Philadelphia, in the last few nights. Added to that is the economic damage and loss of employment, and all the mental health problems that flow from those. Bringing this back to topic, I can't help but wonder if public leisure activities that the statistics have shown to be relatively low risk, of which cinemas are a prime example (as Steve Guttag has pointed out numerous times, there has not been a single, even alleged, incident, of mass C19 transmission linked to a movie theater), were allowed to reopen properly, then that would alleviate the latter at very little cost in terms of C19 transmission risk.
.

I personally know about 6 people that have died from COVID-19, or at least, COVID-19 played a big part in it, or let it put that way: If there was no COVID-19, chances are very high, they would still be around and for the foreseeable future. I doubt they would've died from this year's flu, at least not all six of them. Four of them also were in pretty good health, one of them was in his 40s and didn't have any complications I knew of.

This whole virus is yet one big mystery. I've spoken to some healthcare professionals in my family. One thing that came up was that while we've learned quite a lot in the last few months and our methods at treating infections have become better, this still doesn't explain the much lower death rate observed during the "summer months" compared to the earlier months. One of the theories is that there are multiple strains, and some may me far more deadly than the other, but chances of them popping up and spreading increase, once the virus starts to pop-up again.

I can understand that people are getting tired of the constant string of corona news and the constant strings of restrictions, people don't like to be "imprisoned", but what happened in Italy, Spain and New York is real and Belgium is currently on the edge of having the same happening to it. I know this, because it's just around the corner and many of my colleagues and friends live and work there. Yesterday, the government even decided to allow already infected health-care workers to continue to work with COVID-19 patients, as long as they're capable to do so, because they're simply at the end of their resources...

So, again, this isn't any normal seasonal flu. Even if the majority of those hit are "old folks", who are we to judge their life to be less important than that of those less affected? Keep in mind that the risk groups in our western nations are considerable. We're all very grey nations, many of us are obese and many of us suffer from some form of chronic illness like diabetes, many of us have had some form of cancer in their past. We may be way more vulnerable than we think we are.

And always keep in mind: Dying is only the worst outcome, we still know very little about the long-term effects of this thing, other than that many people who've had it, still have problems in all kind of severity ranges even months after officially being healed from the infection itself.

We really should try to set politics aside for a few months. Use our collective minds to try to solve this in a far more unanimous way. Nobody knows how this will end, but those kind of events can be large turning points in history. We need to find a solution to save both our humanity and economy...

[Leo Enticknap]

Agreed completely, and I'm sorry that you've been personally affected by this.

I suspect that where we differ is that I'm not convinced that governments can provide the solution, because if they try to do so in the form of rules and regulations, the governed will only put up with that for so long before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Even in the final years of World War II (he wrote, invoking Godwin's Law...), there are numerous accounts of both British and German civilians defying air raid blackout regulations, obtaining rationed food illegally, listening to pirate broadcasts, and in the case of Britain, even electing communist MPs at by-elections as a form of protest. After five years of it, everyone had had enough. Returning to the topic, one of my relatives in the UK was recently telling me about plans being made to drive through back roads in the middle of the night to visit family members at Christmas if "total lockdown" is reintroduced.

When their life could be at stake, people as a general rule are not stupid, and evaluate risks relative to other risks. I try to do one large supermarket shop a week rather than multiple visits, to minimize unnecessary contact. I wear a mask on service calls, use hand sanitizer wherever I find it, etc. etc. I recently decided to drive rather than fly to an out-of-town job in northern Nevada (492 miles in each direction), to avoid coming into close proximity with hundreds of strangers during the journey. I am conscious of the fact that I visit my in-laws (in their 80s) each weekend, and take my temperature immediately before each of these visits. Of course, there are a minority who couldn't care less and deliberately do risky activity, but if you govern to the lowest common denominator, the collateral damage that causes will make the cure worse than the disease. We could set the freeway speed limit at 20mph and enforce it ruthlessly, but we don't, and there are good reasons why we don't.

My local paper's website's lead story yesterday was that C19 is now the third leading cause of (unnatural) death in Riverside County. One of the commenters at the bottom noted that no-one has ever argued for shutting the economy down in response to the first two (cancer and road accidents).

[Geoff Jones]

I suspect that where we differ I'm not convinced that governments can provide the solution, because if they try to do so in the form of rules and regulations, the governed will only put up with that for so long before the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

Jacinda Ardern would differ with you on this as well.

One of the commenters at the bottom noted that no-one has ever argued for shutting the economy down in response to the first two (cancer and road accidents).

This is a false equivalency for 3 reasons. 1. No one has argued for "shutting the economy down." 2. New legislation has been passed regularly for decades to reduce the number of cancer and automobile deaths. (In 1923, 21.65 people died from automobile deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles. In 2018, that number was down to 1.22. Source) 3. Anyone can take multiple steps to significantly reduce their personal risk of dying from cancer and automobile deaths. With Covid 19, an individual can only do so much to reduce their risk and still function in society. Because of the nature of this disease and our communal society, we are dependent upon those around us taking steps as well. The "minority who couldn't care less and deliberately do risky activity" are the problem, and not enough is being done about them.

I'm glad to hear you are taking steps to reduce your risk and the risk of those around you.

[Lyle Romer]

few people comparing Covid-19 and 'the flu' take into account the full spectrum of flu variations, and especially the fact that there are known medications/treatments and vaccines against 'the flu', but none against Covid-19 yet. We have 100 years of experience with influenza, but not a single year of experience and research about Covid-19.

While there is a vaccine against three strains of the flu each year, it doesn't provide nearly full protection. Also, I assume you are referring to Tamaflu with regards to medications. I've been told by multiple doctors as well as two different people at two different pharmaceutical companies that Tamaflu is pretty much useless.

The main difference between COVID-19 and influenza is that the human species has been exposed to variations of the influenza virus for at least hundreds and probably thousands of years. Therefore, we have some level of training for our immune system to fight it.

Still, influenza manages to kill a not insignificant number of people each year.

[Steve Guttag]

So sure are you that people cannot affect their personal risk? How about one's general health (being overweight). It isn't that being fit is a guarantee that you will have a better outcome but when it comes to the numbers...it significantly betters your odds. And, even with that, what is the current mean age of mortality with C19? I think I saw something like 83 but consistently the charts show a significant rise in those over 65 and another rise over 75.

Another pressure that comes to bare is the mortality as a size of population versus the effects of government mandated shutdowns.

Governments are good at painting with a broad brush but are typically poor at fine detail...hence the cinema industry gets lumped in with unrelated businesses like sports stadiums or even live theatre. Without a single study that shows cinemas to be less safe than other indoor businesses, we got categorized and for some categorized out of business.

Some in Switzerland are noticing that cinemas are not in the same league as other indoor establishments when it comes to the spread (you'll need to translate if you don't read French):

https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/alle...angereux-sante

[Leo Enticknap]

Jacinda Ardern would differ with you on this as well.

She is another example of exceptions that prove the general rule. I don't know and haven't researched this, but would guess that one of the reasons she was re-elected after imposing some of the most draconian C19 restrictions of any government in the world (China included) is that a lower proportion of New Zealand's population worked in occupations that were directly affected by those restrictions than is the case in most of North America and Europe, where we've seen the highest resistance to the governmental use of economic destruction to fight the disease. I'd be interested to know the proportion of jobs lost per head of population there compared to, for example, the USA and a typical western European country. The only significant employer I've read about there that has cut a significant number of jobs is Air New Zealand.

Anyone can take multiple steps to significantly reduce their personal risk of dying from cancer and automobile deaths.

As with C19, some mitigation is within your control, but other factors are not. You can reduce your risk of cancer by stopping smoking, and reduce your risk of being killed in a road accident by driving while sober and well rested, maintaining your car properly, etc. etc. But you can't improve the poor air quality if you live in an inner city, or avoid being rear-ended by a big rig at 40mph while stopped at traffic lights, because the driver was texting, and you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In that respect, C19 is just like any of the other risks to our health that we recognize and manage in our everyday lives, the objective being to mitigate the risk as far as possible, until the point at which the mitigation strategy causes an unacceptable level of damage itself.

[Geoff Jones]

So sure are you that people cannot affect their personal risk?

If this comment is directed at me, please read my comment again. I never said "cannot affect their personal risk." My exact words were:

an individual can only do so much to reduce their risk and still function in society

I don't know and haven't researched this,

Don't let that stop you from throwing out a bunch of assumptions.

the governmental use of economic destruction to fight the disease

This phrase is laughable tinfoil conspiratorial nonsense. Change the channel, man.

In that respect, C19 is just like any of the other risks to our health

This statement is dangerously fallacious and should be deleted, rather than allowed to remain and perpetuate a false narrative. Cancer and car crashes are not contagious. Good fucking grief.

[Steve Guttag]

Yes Geoff, and

an individual can only do so much to reduce their risk and still function in society

can be applied to both Cancer and car crashes too. In all three, one has a degree of control on their outcome (e.g. not smoking may not prevent cancer but it betters your odds, how you drive (technique and sobriety), if you drive, what sort of car and its safety features will alter your outcome in many situations, and for C19, how your general health is through via diet/exercise/lifestyle, what one chooses to expose themselves to, how sanitary one is)...all plays into one's probable outcome. My comment towards you stands. But, if you want to get into a discussion over semantics, it will be a one-sided one.

[Lyle Romer]

C19 is just like any of the other risks to our health that we recognize and manage in our everyday lives, the objective being to mitigate the risk as far as possible, until the point at which the mitigation strategy causes an unacceptable level of damage itself.

Thank you Leo, that is very well said. Of course, the debate will continue to be what that point is...

[Marcel Birgelen]

In most European countries, the discussion of closing down large parts of the economy is far less political than in the U.S. Yes, there are movements against it and even those idiosyncratic QAnon conspiracies are popping up over here too (thanks Facebook!), but in general, the decisions taken are based on input from doctors and scientists and are weighted against their projected fallout. No halfway sane government wants to close down the economy and lock people up in their homes if it isn't entirely necessary. Keep in mind: those people need to live in the same society and everything they say and do is under constant observation. They're also locking themselves up.

I think what we've witnessed is that it's difficult for people, which are in their very essence social creatures, to keep living under such strict "hygienic protocols". While people generally tend to adhere to the rules at the beginning, you'll see a progressive form of laxity automatically appearing. People will start to mingle with more people, masks and protective gloves are easily forgotten and the 6 ft. social distancing perimeter is more often incurred. Combine this with less favorable weather and the virus will do what it's programmed to do. And with an estimated R0 of 2.5, once the opportunity for the virus to spread has been established, it will do so at a breakneck pace. Given the fact that your detected infections always lag at least 10 to 14 days behind, this means that if you only steer on current numbers, you're already behind the facts.

Personally, I'm in favor of VERY HARD local lock-downs and contract tracing. Where we not only politely ask infected people to stay indoors, but actually put them into active isolation and test and re-test everybody they possibly have contacted. This way, you can keep outbreaks isolated. Unfortunately, most governments have botched this up. They allow knowingly infected people to roam the streets and mingle with others, their contract tracing is either completely overwhelmed or a joke to start with. As a result, once this whole thing gets so far out of control, that serious cases start to overload the healthcare system in such way that they have to triage patients based on their survival rate, the only thing governments can do is to pull the emergency brake. And if you have a criminally incompetent government, they will only pull the emergency brake once the public is about to do it for them... That's when you get situations like in Bergamo.

So, those new lockdowns we're seeing are simply the last-resort solutions. Governments and the people they serve simply have failed at all other measures to contain it. For all those considering those measures to be political games please consider Hanlon's Razor for a minute: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Stupidity and incompetence are, in my humble opinion, interchangeable. Most of you around here don't fit the category of "spring chicken" anymore, so your own experience will probably confirm that Hanlon, just like Murphy, pretty much had a point.

[Ed Gordon]

Upton Sinclair quote.jpg

[Eric Thuemmel]

Michigan's theaters, most of which just reopened at the start of October, are all being forced to shut down again for "3 weeks" starting Wednesday. I don't expect we'll be open again until sometime in 2021.

[Steve Guttag]

And still...not one traceable case to any cinema anywhere in the world.

[Frank Cox]

Here's an interesting article about locations for community transmission.

This is for Saskatchewan, though I don't imagine it would be much different anywhere else.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ewan-1.5814429

The list is specific to community transmission and excludes households and "close contacts," which the SHA says are the most common source of infection.

SHA's Top 10 community transmission venues

• 1) Recreation/recreational facilities (e.g., ice rinks, bingo halls, bowling alleys, casinos) — 25 per cent.
• 2) Gatherings (e.g., weddings, funerals, house parties, celebrations, break rooms) — 17 per cent.
• 3) Group homes, shelters, outreach programs — 14 per cent.
• 4) Educational institutions (cases more likely in teachers/staff; in students, test positivity is higher in 14 to 19 year olds) — eight per cent.
• 5) Food services establishments (cases more likely among co-workers) — eight per cent.
• 6) Long-term care, retirement and personal care homes — seven per cent.
• 7) Fitness centres — six per cent.
• 8) Transportation and trades (e.g., taxi drivers, medical taxis, meat packing facilities) — six per cent.
• 9) Nightclubs — five per cent.
• 10) Places of worship — two per cent.

[David Bird]

FWIW, as reported last week. Canada: About 300,000 "cases", 10,947 covid "related" deaths, all but 166 have happened in Long Term Care homes (avg age 83). Otherwise, about 4 per million in a country of 37,700,000.