Is It Okay to Go to the Beach?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Is It Okay to Go to the Beach?
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/it-okay-go-beach/613849/
8 comments
Wow, we’re really caught up in yelling at each other. Seems convenient for the people in charge of our response over the past six months and the organizations that have spent decades preparing for pandemics.
> Germany is about to get rid of wearing masks in stores. That's like turning off the firewall because the attack is over. It's preventive, so you need to wear a mask before sth happens.
There were 140 new cases in Germany yesterday in a country of 83 million. In my city of 3,5 million there were 17 new cases. At what point would you say it's safe to not wear a mask in stores?
There were 140 new cases in Germany yesterday in a country of 83 million. In my city of 3,5 million there were 17 new cases. At what point would you say it's safe to not wear a mask in stores?
When it's been ZERO for a while. Obviously?
I don't understand this question at all. As long a there's >=1 case and little immunity the virus WILL spread.
I don't understand this question at all. As long a there's >=1 case and little immunity the virus WILL spread.
this is literally impossible and completely ridiculous
Wasn't it the goal all along to flatten the curve and gradually introduce herd immunity while softening the impact on hospitals?
No one estimates a vaccine any time remotely soon and even with one it would take years at best to achieve zero cases globally.
No one estimates a vaccine any time remotely soon and even with one it would take years at best to achieve zero cases globally.
> Wasn't it the goal all along to flatten the curve and gradually introduce herd immunity while softening the impact on hospitals?
No, suppression was the goal. At least, the study that turned the tide on policy concluded that targeting suppression was essential.
No, suppression was the goal. At least, the study that turned the tide on policy concluded that targeting suppression was essential.
The issue with herd immunity are the unknown long term risks. Just imagine this stuff wrecks your immune system a couple of months after infection. Or, that immunity goes away after some months.
There's no guarantee that herd immunity helps. On the other hand, we could be working all hands on deck to arrange our lifestyle AND protect from infection.
There's no guarantee that herd immunity helps. On the other hand, we could be working all hands on deck to arrange our lifestyle AND protect from infection.
Flattening the curve was the most immediate and important goal, because overloaded hospitals kill a _lot_ of people.
Herd immunity by everyone getting infected should _not_ be a goal. That's still going to kill many, many people.
The estimate for the US by that route was around 2.5million dead. You could probably scale that by population size and maybe reduce a bit as we get better at treatment for this disease, but that's still a big number.
I don't think we have much option other than to prevent the spread as much as we can while waiting for something like a vaccine and/or far better treatments than we currently have.
Zero cases globally will indeed be a while, if it ever happens.
Herd immunity by everyone getting infected should _not_ be a goal. That's still going to kill many, many people.
The estimate for the US by that route was around 2.5million dead. You could probably scale that by population size and maybe reduce a bit as we get better at treatment for this disease, but that's still a big number.
I don't think we have much option other than to prevent the spread as much as we can while waiting for something like a vaccine and/or far better treatments than we currently have.
Zero cases globally will indeed be a while, if it ever happens.
As long as there is a very volatile equilibrium, I'd wish we play safe -- because there is absolutely no cost associated with wearing masks.
We've seen that local outbreaks happen, and that local authorities hesitate to take action.
We've seen that local outbreaks happen, and that local authorities hesitate to take action.
[deleted]
The Atlantic tries to churn moral panic 24/7, and now they are trying to also churn anti-moral panic?
Stop getting science advice from op-ed magazines! I sympathize with 100% of the Atlantic's political views and completely hate their desperate and misguided attempts to remain relevant.
Stop getting science advice from op-ed magazines! I sympathize with 100% of the Atlantic's political views and completely hate their desperate and misguided attempts to remain relevant.
Is it possible that the Atlantic employs multiple writers that don't all share the same set of opinions?
It's just as likely they run op-eds from authors willing to have whatever opinion is necessary.
The business of op-ed and analysis pieces is pretty crappy, and it does not require any moral or intellectual honesty from the authors.
The business of op-ed and analysis pieces is pretty crappy, and it does not require any moral or intellectual honesty from the authors.
The author of this piece, Zeynep Tufekci (https://twitter.com/zeynep), has had a pretty consistent viewpoint throughout the epidemic: she called for early response, early mask wearing (when most western authorities were advising against it) and co-authored a review on the topic (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1), and has consistently said that closing outdoor public spaces is a mistake. Whether she's wrong or right, she's not just writing what the Atlantic's editors tell her to.
One could imagine that that might even be a good way to run a news paper.
Sure, but cursory editorial summaries of cursory science are not a part of your healthy science diet.
Being at the beach does not seem to be much of a threat, but going to the beach is a different story. Cramped, less than sanitary public restrooms, crowded food stands, parking kiosks that rarely get cleaned- this all adds up to lots of contact. Sweat is an interesting substrate which doesn’t get a lot of airtime, as are shared beverage containers.
There are worse things than going to the beach, but when hundreds of thousands of people go to them at once, things most certainly get transmitted. I shudder to think how much gets transmitted at Venice Beach on a normal day, let alone in a pandemic.
There are worse things than going to the beach, but when hundreds of thousands of people go to them at once, things most certainly get transmitted. I shudder to think how much gets transmitted at Venice Beach on a normal day, let alone in a pandemic.
At this point, don't we have quite a few examples of a lot of people getting infected in one place? Can't such outbreaks be categorized and summarized to get an overall perspective on where it's really hazardous?
My impression is that such events have been places like bars, restaurants, meat packing plants, and nursing homes, and not outdoors, but I haven't seen an article or study on it.
My impression is that such events have been places like bars, restaurants, meat packing plants, and nursing homes, and not outdoors, but I haven't seen an article or study on it.
The problem is all those people ALSO go somewhere else AFTER the beach.
Do they need to go to the bathroom? Do they all need gasoline for their cars? Snacks to go home? Are they all overloading the stores on the way out? Do they need to hit an ATM?
THAT'S where all the spread will occur. Especially amongst a bunch of entitled dipshits who also don't believe in wearing masks or washing hands.
Do they need to go to the bathroom? Do they all need gasoline for their cars? Snacks to go home? Are they all overloading the stores on the way out? Do they need to hit an ATM?
THAT'S where all the spread will occur. Especially amongst a bunch of entitled dipshits who also don't believe in wearing masks or washing hands.
You ask a lot of questions for which the answer may very well be “no”.
Only if people plan ahead and make some attempt to help contain the disease (wearing masks, limiting non-essential indoor stops, social distancing), which it's now been proven we can't rely on (at least in the US).
Unfortunately the people who feel most comfortable leaving the house are the people who are least likely to take precautions, which seems like a recipe for lots of super spreaders to me.
Unfortunately the people who feel most comfortable leaving the house are the people who are least likely to take precautions, which seems like a recipe for lots of super spreaders to me.
Only for locals.
For everybody who drives to the beach (the vast majority of beachgoers), empirical evidence from California beaches suggests that the answers to all those questions is "yes".
If you want to open the beaches only to those who can walk or bike to them, sure that's probably okay. Now, how do you enforce that?
So, we're back to simply closing the beaches completely because it keeps the idiots at bay and is easy to enforce.
For everybody who drives to the beach (the vast majority of beachgoers), empirical evidence from California beaches suggests that the answers to all those questions is "yes".
If you want to open the beaches only to those who can walk or bike to them, sure that's probably okay. Now, how do you enforce that?
So, we're back to simply closing the beaches completely because it keeps the idiots at bay and is easy to enforce.
[deleted]
TL;DR: probably, as long as you maintain physical distancing.
Germany is about to get rid of wearing masks in stores. That's like turning off the firewall because the attack is over. It's preventive, so you need to wear a mask before sth happens.
I'd be very happy if there was an experiment, just for 4 weeks everybody should wear the damn mask both in private and public, and see what happens.
How can so many people fail to grasp the concept of prevention?