Those are rookie numbers! It’s not mischief until you’re having that beer at 8AM with your corn flakes.
Reminder that if you're in a lockdown or want to help prevent the spread of Covid, stay at home. Travelling to and using holiday homes still contributes to the spread even if you maintain social distancing.
No judgement on lesinski, I do not know the guidance or prevalence of Covid where they are, but this thread is explicitly about lockdown environments so I think it's important to re-iterate that these are sadly not suitable things to do for many of us.
I'm one hundred and ten percent on board with wearing masks and being cautious about what to do, but it's been a year of this already. It feels like renting a lakehouse for some much needed mental health recuperation is at the bottom of the barrel as far as risk factor goes. Considering California is seeing 30,000 a day Covid numbers, it feels like "stay home" when 50% of the country doesn't give a shit anymore is like throwing a cup of water on a house fire at this point.
Curious to hear at what point does your mental well being become more of a concern? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years of lockdown? while you have people in Florida going to nightclubs then flying elsewhere? I'm starting to feel like one of those people tying themselves to a tree with a "save the planet" t-shirt while other people walk by and laugh and continue to ignore the damage and live their lives. I'm not trying to sound defeatist, but I am seriously at a loss here.
Australia is a good example. Victoria had out of control community spread (~100 infections a day), so locked down for 3 months. This meant no visitors at home, no going to work unless one of a few specific reasons, no general retail, masks mandated at all times outside the house, no travelling more than 5k for any reason, no travelling for exercise.
They got rid of it. This is what lockdown means. This is what the science shows us is effective. Wearing a mask and office jobs being done from home is not a lockdown.
Saying badly implemented lockdowns don't work so why bother is the attitude that is killing thousands of people a day.
Australia is 7% of the population of the US. Barely a comparison
You may disagree with those freedoms but they are a matter of law. They cannot be erased when they are inconvenient, it would render the judiciary irrelevant.
Lockdowns have never been done in human history. They've never been possible, really; if there were no internet, it wouldn't even have been considered as a possibility. It takes a lot of hubris to claim that lockdowns were/are guaranteed to work. It is totally uncharted territory.
Lockdowns have been done repeatedly across the full time and space of human history. HN had a link just last week about one of the most well known, for bubonic plague, in Sardinia In 1582: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210107-the-432-year-old...
They've just been used incredibly successfully in AU and NZ.
If Trump had demanded a full lockdown in March like you're suggesting, it would have been opposed by everyone.
>Lockdowns were not unique to Alghero. "In Florence, for example, they imposed a total quarantine of the city in the spring of 1631," says John Henderson, a professor of Italian Renaissance history at Birkbeck, University of London. And just as today, rule-breaking was common.
>"Over the year from the summer of 1630 to the summer of 1631, I found something like about 550 different cases that people were prosecuted for, for various infringements of the public health regulations," says Henderson. For most of that time, the city wasn't in full lockdown, but people were expected to self-isolate for 40 days if a member of their household was suspected of having the plague, and taken to hospital. This is where the word "quarantine" comes from – "quaranta giorni" means "40 days" in Italian.
Lockdowns like this have continued to be a part in public health approaches to infectious disease around the world.
The fact that a majority of Americans, convinced of their exceptionalism in every way, would oppose such an approach doesn't mean that it is inherently impossible or nonfunctional.
There is no timeline where the American public buys into the lockdowns that would be necessary in February 2020, which is when they would have had to happen.
I don't buy that. Where do you live? I spent a couple of months over the summer in Texas (in a non liberal part) and there were like a grand total of 2 people who took any of it seriously. I think its evident based on what happened here that the majority didn't really care, but even if you happen to be right, we don't need a majority, we need 100%. Just go back to early February 2020 and remember that timeline. It only took 1-2 people, then there were 10, then 100, etc. It's exponential.
I think your only bet here with a majority (let's conservatively say 60% of people in agreeance with the severity of the virus) is to stop all international/domestic travel completely for a few months. Stop all flights, no interstate travel. Nothing at all, a complete military lockdown. That is the absolute only way to have stopped the spread, akin to what China did. And I simply don't buy that the USA in 2020 would do that without anything short of a revolt.
The outdoor dining in tents drives me up a wall. Like, there is no way that's better than eating indoors.
I do think that there's some non-trade-off potential here via the micro-targeting approach they started while I was there. I was living in Soho around the time that Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn were having outbreaks, and I really appreciated that neighborhoods super far from me with relatively little cross-travel (esp with the low subway ridership at the time) didn't unnecessarily fuck up my ability to go for dinner with a friend. By contrast, LA/CA tends to shut things down at a much higher level, so outbreaks in East LA affect policy in my parents' neighborhood on the Western border of LA County.
At the state level: https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&are...
It's a virus and doesn't spread outside very easily, especially during even a little wind.
Telling people to stay indoors is damaging to their physical health, damaging to their mental health, and is more of a political action than a scientific one.
Get outside as much as you can, go for walks, mask up if you walk through crowds or indoors.
Seriously, it's easy to think that sitting in a rental house for 3 weeks is harmless, but then you go shopping, and even with a mask you still have a ~10% chance of spreading it, and then you're spreading it to a community likely a significant distance from your own.
Look at Norway, they have very low numbers, but are not anywhere near this paranoid.
1. Planned a 1-hour prank on a coworker over Zoom
2. Left work early to play golf all afternoon
3. Had a beer at noon once or twice
4. Worked on a side projects for about 2-hours during "lunch" one day
5. Worked from a lake house I rented for 3 weeks
6. Worked from the beach one day
7. Finished all my assignments in a 4-day work week and spent the entire day Friday reading books
8. Ate extremely lavish takeout for breakfast or lunch
When you look back on this time, you'll be glad you did these things you would never otherwise do in an office.