COVID-19 2nd wave - Texas only - Stats and such

[Bookman 4639]

4 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

What in God’s holy name are you blathering about?

Article XIII, the one that applies to private companies.

[Dahobbs 17543]

50 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Actually, based on Cedar Point Nursery, the better question is whether Abbott's executive order barring businesses from excluding unvaccinated customers is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

You know, this is an interesting point. However, I'm not sure how this squares with civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against certain customers. I don't think anyone views that as a taking (and I'm not aware of any case law on this point, but there very well might be). Nor do I see it fitting within a typical taking analysis either under Arkansas Game and Fish, as a categorical taking, or under Penn Central Transportation for regulatory takings. Cedar Point involved a much more clear physical taking of property--California law gave labor organizations right to access to employer's property for a certain period of time for the purpose of soliciting unionization. Here, the business owner isn't being deprived of the right to use the space for their business or being forced to allow others to use the space for some other purpose. Finally, even if it were considered a taking, I'm not sure how you quantify the damages. I suppose you could argue that being forced to serve the unvaccinated decreased profits, but as a factual matter I would be dubious of that argument and it seems like evidence in support would be speculative. 

[MrBig 5404]

The Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness. But only the pursuit is guaranteed, not the happiness itself. So fuck it 

[Telegraph_it 3357]

36 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait are we talking about the United States Constitution or the bird one?

Yes. 
 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

52 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You know, this is an interesting point. However, I'm not sure how this squares with civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against certain customers. I don't think anyone views that as a taking (and I'm not aware of any case law on this point, but there very well might be). Nor do I see it fitting within a typical taking analysis either under Arkansas Game and Fish, as a categorical taking, or under Penn Central Transportation for regulatory takings. Cedar Point involved a much more clear physical taking of property--California law gave labor organizations right to access to employer's property for a certain period of time for the purpose of soliciting unionization. Here, the business owner isn't being deprived of the right to use the space for their business or being forced to allow others to use the space for some other purpose. Finally, even if it were considered a taking, I'm not sure how you quantify the damages. I suppose you could argue that being forced to serve the unvaccinated decreased profits, but as a factual matter I would be dubious of that argument and it seems like evidence in support would be speculative. 

The Civil Rights Act is very different--it is passed under Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation to protect suspect classifications.  So the Civil Rights Act's protection of people on the bases of race, sex, national origin, etc. has a separation constitutional basis that supersedes the takings analysis.

But query where that leaves the ADA's protection of disabled people or the ADEA's protection of those over 40.

This is exactly the same as Cedar Point Nursery.  The decision rests on the fact that the governmental regulation has taken away the right to exclude people from private property.  The right to exclude is one of sticks in the bundle that is property ownership; it "is 'one of the most treasured' rights of property ownership."  141 S. Ct. at 2073.  So when the government takes away the right to exclude people from your property, it commits a taking.  And it really doesn't matter whether the people who you can't exclude are union organizers or unvaccinated people or people who smell really bad--that's a taking.

I hear you on the issue of quantifying the damages.  And lost profits are not recoverable in a takings case; you only get the reduction in value to the property.  But if a restaurant could make more money if it only allowed vaccinated people in, then the property would be worth more if that right to exclude hadn't been taken away.  And I'm sure you could find a valuation expert to provide that analysis.

[Dahobbs 17543]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The Civil Rights Act is very different--it is passed under Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation to protect suspect classifications.  So the Civil Rights Act's protection of people on the bases of race, sex, national origin, etc. has a separation constitutional basis that supersedes the takings analysis.

I'd love to see a citation to support this. I agree it rests on a different constitutional basis, but I'm unclear how or why that would override the taking's clause. Both apply and have to be analyzed separately, i.e., the two questions are: (1) does the government have the power to do this under the constitution,  and  (2) if it can, does it have to compensate the property owner under the 5th amendment. 

Presumably every government action should have a constitutional basis. Many of those interfere with property rights to some degree. But its only when that interference reaches a certain point that a compensable taking has occurred. 

Quote

But query where that leaves the ADA's protection of disabled people or the ADEA's protection of those over 40.

This is exactly the same as Cedar Point Nursery.  The decision rests on the fact that the governmental regulation has taken away the right to exclude people from private property.  The right to exclude is one of sticks in the bundle that is property ownership; it "is 'one of the most treasured' rights of property ownership."  141 S. Ct. at 2073.  So when the government takes away the right to exclude people from your property, it commits a taking.  And it really doesn't matter whether the people who you can't exclude are union organizers or unvaccinated people or people who smell really bad--that's a taking.

I hear you on the issue of quantifying the damages.  And lost profits are not recoverable in a takings case; you only get the reduction in value to the property.  But if a restaurant could make more money if it only allowed vaccinated people in, then the property would be worth more if that right to exclude hadn't been taken away.  And I'm sure you could find a valuation expert to provide that analysis.

Cedar Point Nursery came out the way it did because it wasn't just a regulation on what someone could do on their property, but because it physically took that property (for a temporary amount of time) for the use of another purpose entirely. It's just like the government taking a building to house troops. Forcing a business to allow unvaccinated customers is more like my civil rights example. Run this through the factors in either Arkansas Game & Fish or Penn Central Transportation, I just don't think it qualifies as a taking under existing jurisprudence. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[52-80 19161]

Merry XMAS everyone.  Stay safe out there.

[Deej 76799]

21 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Which is also arguably unconstitutional 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'd love to see a citation to support this. I agree it rests on a different constitutional basis, but I'm unclear how or why that would override the taking's clause. Both apply and have to be analyzed separately, i.e., the two questions are: (1) does the government have the power to do this under the constitution,  and  (2) if it can, does it have to compensate the property owner under the 5th amendment. 

Presumably every government action should have a constitutional basis. Many of those interfere with property rights to some degree. But its only when that interference reaches a certain point that a compensable taking has occurred. 

Cedar Point Nursery came out the way it did because it wasn't just a regulation on what someone could do on their property, but because it physically took that property (for a temporary amount of time) for the use of another purpose entirely. It's just like the government taking a building to house troops. Forcing a business to allow unvaccinated customers is more like my civil rights example. Run this through the factors in either Arkansas Game & Fish or Penn Central Transportation, I just don't think it qualifies as a taking under existing jurisprudence. 

1) You're right that there's no authority for the proposition that the Civil Rights Act falls under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is actually contrary to The Civil Rights Cases (1883).  I'm just positing that The Civil Rights Cases would be overturned, if push came to shove.

The Civil Rights Act falls under Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel.  But nobody has every applied a takings analysis to that.

The real issue is that today, excluding black people or women or disabled people wouldn't increase your property values.  But I don't think that's necessarily true of excluding unvaccinated people.

2) Cedar Point Nursery holds that a regulation requiring a landowner to admit people is a per-se physical taking.  So the Penn Central factors don't apply (that only applies to a non-physical regulatory taking), and I don't see how Arkansas Game & Fish would result in anything other than a taking being found.

The property in Cedar Point Nursery wasn't "taken" for another purpose.  It continued being a nursery.  It's just that the right to exclude was eliminated.  It's no different from this scenario.

3) Let's be real clear about something though.  Cedar Point Nursery was all about the SCOTUS right-wingers' hostility to union organizing.  I have no doubt that if anybody tried to apply it to Abbott's edict that they'd find some way to distinguish the hell out of it.  

That's not to say that the distinction would have any merit.  It is to say that Roberts & crew are a bunch of fucking hacks.

[Caponata 151]

 

 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

1) You're right that there's no authority for the proposition that the Civil Rights Act falls under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is actually contrary to The Civil Rights Cases (1883).  I'm just positing that The Civil Rights Cases would be overturned, if push came to shove.

The Civil Rights Act falls under Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel.  But nobody has every applied a takings analysis to that.

The real issue is that today, excluding black people or women or disabled people wouldn't increase your property values.  But I don't think that's necessarily true of excluding unvaccinated people.

2) Cedar Point Nursery holds that a regulation requiring a landowner to admit people is a per-se physical taking.  So the Penn Central factors don't apply (that only applies to a non-physical regulatory taking), and I don't see how Arkansas Game & Fish would result in anything other than a taking being found.

The property in Cedar Point Nursery wasn't "taken" for another purpose.  It continued being a nursery.  It's just that the right to exclude was eliminated.  It's no different from this scenario.

3) Let's be real clear about something though.  Cedar Point Nursery was all about the SCOTUS right-wingers' hostility to union organizing.  I have no doubt that if anybody tried to apply it to Abbott's edict that they'd find some way to distinguish the hell out of it.  

That's not to say that the distinction would have any merit.  It is to say that Roberts & crew are a bunch of fucking hacks.

 

51 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'd love to see a citation to support this. I agree it rests on a different constitutional basis, but I'm unclear how or why that would override the taking's clause. Both apply and have to be analyzed separately, i.e., the two questions are: (1) does the government have the power to do this under the constitution,  and  (2) if it can, does it have to compensate the property owner under the 5th amendment. 

Presumably every government action should have a constitutional basis. Many of those interfere with property rights to some degree. But its only when that interference reaches a certain point that a compensable taking has occurred. 

Cedar Point Nursery came out the way it did because it wasn't just a regulation on what someone could do on their property, but because it physically took that property (for a temporary amount of time) for the use of another purpose entirely. It's just like the government taking a building to house troops. Forcing a business to allow unvaccinated customers is more like my civil rights example. Run this through the factors in either Arkansas Game & Fish or Penn Central Transportation, I just don't think it qualifies as a taking under existing jurisprudence. 

 

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

The Civil Rights Act is very different--it is passed under Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation to protect suspect classifications.  So the Civil Rights Act's protection of people on the bases of race, sex, national origin, etc. has a separation constitutional basis that supersedes the takings analysis.

But query where that leaves the ADA's protection of disabled people or the ADEA's protection of those over 40.

This is exactly the same as Cedar Point Nursery.  The decision rests on the fact that the governmental regulation has taken away the right to exclude people from private property.  The right to exclude is one of sticks in the bundle that is property ownership; it "is 'one of the most treasured' rights of property ownership."  141 S. Ct. at 2073.  So when the government takes away the right to exclude people from your property, it commits a taking.  And it really doesn't matter whether the people who you can't exclude are union organizers or unvaccinated people or people who smell really bad--that's a taking.

I hear you on the issue of quantifying the damages.  And lost profits are not recoverable in a takings case; you only get the reduction in value to the property.  But if a restaurant could make more money if it only allowed vaccinated people in, then the property would be worth more if that right to exclude hadn't been taken away.  And I'm sure you could find a valuation expert to provide that analysis.

 

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You know, this is an interesting point. However, I'm not sure how this squares with civil rights laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against certain customers. I don't think anyone views that as a taking (and I'm not aware of any case law on this point, but there very well might be). Nor do I see it fitting within a typical taking analysis either under Arkansas Game and Fish, as a categorical taking, or under Penn Central Transportation for regulatory takings. Cedar Point involved a much more clear physical taking of property--California law gave labor organizations right to access to employer's property for a certain period of time for the purpose of soliciting unionization. Here, the business owner isn't being deprived of the right to use the space for their business or being forced to allow others to use the space for some other purpose. Finally, even if it were considered a taking, I'm not sure how you quantify the damages. I suppose you could argue that being forced to serve the unvaccinated decreased profits, but as a factual matter I would be dubious of that argument and it seems like evidence in support would be speculative. 

I feel like I've just lost a lot of money, 15 minutes at a time.

[Dahobbs 17543]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

2) Cedar Point Nursery holds that a regulation requiring a landowner to admit people is a per-se physical taking.  So the Penn Central factors don't apply (that only applies to a non-physical regulatory taking), and I don't see how Arkansas Game & Fish would result in anything other than a taking being found.

I agree. I thought that was my point, Cedar Point Nursery is different because it is a physical, per se taking, not a regulatory one. 

Quote

The property in Cedar Point Nursery wasn't "taken" for another purpose.  It continued being a nursery.  It's just that the right to exclude was eliminated.  It's no different from this scenario.

The taking had nothing to do with it being a nursey. That is, the union wasn't given the right to come in and buy or sell product in the normal course of business, it was given a right to do something completely unrelated to the business: solicit union membership. And it was given the right to do that regardless of whether the business was open at all, which means the owners couldn't forbid entry by just closing up shop for the day. 

Quote

 

3) Let's be real clear about something though.  Cedar Point Nursery was all about the SCOTUS right-wingers' hostility to union organizing.  I have no doubt that if anybody tried to apply it to Abbott's edict that they'd find some way to distinguish the hell out of it.  

That's not to say that the distinction would have any merit.  It is to say that Roberts & crew are a bunch of fucking hacks.

 

Oh, sure, I can buy that. But I do think there is a difference between a law requiring access to a business for non-business purposes and a law that says if you operate a business, you can't reject certain types of customers. The latter law still gives a business the freedom to not open to anyone at all and thus retains right of controlling access. I think this is classically a set of circumstances that would be analyzed as a regulatory taking as it regulates how the property can be use. And I don't see it being found to be a taking under that analysis. The use is consistent with investment backed expectations, i.e., the business is still allowed to be used for the same purpose originally intended and likely has minimal or perhaps even positive economic impact. 

[Deej 76799]

26 minutes ago, Caponata said:

 

 

I'm not gonna lie. I'm a little aroused.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

7 hours ago, South Austin said:

 If I don’t like a law I’m just going to start saying it’s unconstitutional.

I mean, when you’ve got nothing and five pages left on the brief limit…

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

58 minutes ago, Caponata said:

 

 

The last line is key there. That is all a manifestation of her mental illness. Too bad. 

[Telegraph_it 3357]

57 minutes ago, Caponata said:

 

 

@PenelopeWitherspoon? I thought you would wear more formal attire to travel. 

I joke, I joke. Although I hope I am correct in that you respect travel (especially international) by not wearing sweatpants or open toed shoes on a flight. 

[Surly Bevo 24937]

II'll need to see her picture without all that shit on before I can pass judgment.

[Shaggy3.0 1695]

15 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

II'll need to see her picture without all that shit on before I can pass judgment.

I can pass judgement without such a pic.  Definitely wood bc BSC.  I love BSC.

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Shaggy3.0

[Caponata 151]

53 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

The last line is key there. That is all a manifestation of her mental illness. Too bad. 

Taking precautions means you're mentally ill?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19101]

58 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

@PenelopeWitherspoon? I thought you would wear more formal attire to travel. 

I joke, I joke. Although I hope I am correct in that you respect travel (especially international) by not wearing sweatpants or open toed shoes on a flight. 

Yes.  Since I am usually in First or Business when I fly international (or domestic to be fair), I tend to wear all black (generally black cigarette trousers or leggings that look like trousers and a nice oversized black sweater or sometimes a nice oversized white button down with a cardigan and loafers, ankle boots, or All Stars or Stan Smiths).  The key is looking chic but being comfy.  

[Hermanator 7052]

56 minutes ago, Shaggy3.0 said:

I can pass judgement without such a pic.  Definitely wood bc BSC.  I love BSC.

 

Big Scottish Cocks?

[Guest Lobo]

Is that the bar we're meeting at in Houston before the LSU baseball game?  

Fuck it...I'm in! 

[Anastasis 23473]

5 hours ago, bolverk said:

Texas data/stats only post:

I put together the following three maps based off the total number of confirmed cases and deaths listed here by the Texas Tribune and weighted counties according to their 2020 Census Count populations. Green=Good, Red=Bad, Light Yellow=Texas as whole  

I've seen various iterations of the first map but not of the second two, the first of which shows the overall severity of this virus through deaths on the local population and the other the severity of the virus for individuals (likely due to age, comorbidities, and access to healthcare) by local area. If you want numbers for a specific county, I'm happy to share.

 

So doing the case fatality rates here is very interesting. Thanks for sharing this. 

[bolverk 29683]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So doing the case fatality rates here is very interesting. Thanks for sharing this. 

Thanks. One problem with looking at the cumulative CFR is that we're not seeing how those rates have changed through the course of the pandemic (presumably for the better). Obviously, those counties that got hit earliest were hit the hardest as far as deaths are concerned. The data are out there, but I'm not inclined to spend a whole bunch of time doing that.

This was easy enough to slap together quickly as the table from the Tribune could be copied/pasted into Excel and lined up easily with Census data that could be downloaded into Excel. The trickiest bit was that Excel alphabetizes some of the counties differently than the Census (La Salle, the Mc counties, and one other I can't recall off hand).

It'd be interesting to look at over time though, say at 3-month increments. Maybe it exists, but I haven't seen it.

[Anastasis 23473]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Thanks. One problem with looking at the cumulative CFR is that we're not seeing how those rates have changed through the course of the pandemic (presumably for the better).

Yeah, this is an issue.  I think that cutting pre-feb 2021 and post-feb 2021 makes a lot of sense for an easy cut. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Harris county is rapidly approaching the daily count of new cases that was experienced during the worst points of the delta wave. And omicron is what, ~2 weeks old here?

you couldn’t create a worse case than a new pandemic wave starting to hit just as Xmas and family get-together are here.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

My dad is a primary care physician in the metroplex. Says the last 3 days have been busier wrt Covid than any 3 days in the pandemic. Tons of triple vaxxed patients getting it. None super sick, but it seems to get around vaccine immunity without much of a problem.

[Buzzrock 14921]

2021 emptying the magazine

 

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

Tested positive today. Felt like absolute ass for a couple of days now. Vaxed but not boosted yet. Was going to do it this week but I guess that’s not an option for a while.

[Buzzrock 14921]

22 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Harris county is rapidly approaching the daily count of new cases that was experienced during the worst points of the delta wave. And omicron is what, ~2 weeks old here?

you couldn’t create a worse case than a new pandemic wave starting to hit just as Xmas and family get-together are here.

I was supposed to host all the grandparents and some others for dinner tonight but that’s off since I tested positive yesterday. My daughter is super upset that two christmases in a row have been hosed. It really sucks for the kids being affected by this. 

[Buzzrock 14921]

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/12/21/22848453/fully-vaccinated-people-omicron-variant-super-immunity
 

“Dr. Marcel Curlin, associate professor of medicine (infectious diseases) in the OHSU School of Medicine, said this is likely the endgame for COVID-19.”

[Hpara759 1778]

24 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/12/21/22848453/fully-vaccinated-people-omicron-variant-super-immunity
 

“Dr. Marcel Curlin, associate professor of medicine (infectious diseases) in the OHSU School of Medicine, said this is likely the endgame for COVID-19.”

 

[Brisketexan 105151]

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/coronavirus/2021/12/21/22848453/fully-vaccinated-people-omicron-variant-super-immunity
 
“Dr. Marcel Curlin, associate professor of medicine (infectious diseases) in the OHSU School of Medicine, said this is likely the endgame for COVID-19.”

I certainly hope that turns out to be the case. Jury is still out, but there are some positive pieces of evidence developing.

I think we have pretty good certainty on the answer by the end of january.

[BrickHorn 18237]

It sure feels like we’re on a path where each subsequent wave proves less lethal. Whether that’s due to increasing immunity from vaccines and prior infections, evolutionary pressure that rewards lower virulence, or some combo of both, we’ll eventually get to a point where this thing is another seasonal flu. 

[Hate 20108]

Ok, who in the hell hijacked Brisket's account?

[Eastwood 4394]

Omicron is absolutely ripping through everyone. Thankfully it's mild, in my experience. I'm less than 24 hours in symptomatic territory and I'm already feeling about 80%.

[justhookit 4191]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I certainly hope that turns out to be the case. Jury is still out, but there are some positive pieces of evidence developing.

I think we have pretty good certainty on the answer by the end of january.

What have you done with the Brisket we all know? 
But yeah I hope so although i think it’ll be a few more months down the road. Maybe summertime. I’ll play the pessimist since you’ve relinquished your normal role and say no. We are just going to live with this crap forever. And that’s fine.

edit- ok protected against severe disease I agree.

Edited December 24, 2021 by justhookit
Read the actual article

[Brisketexan 105151]

What have you done with the Brisket we all know? 
But yeah I hope so although i think it’ll be a few more months down the road. Maybe summertime. I’ll play the pessimist since you’ve relinquished your normal role and say no. We are just going to live with this crap forever. And that’s fine.
edit- ok protected against severe disease I agree.

I’ve never been all doom-and-gloom about COVID. I’ve said from pretty early on that:

1) COVID-zero is impossible, this will be an endemic disease for a long time to come, and

2) our end-game should be getting it to a place where it behaves like a seasonal flu: occasional outbreaks, with a similar rate of serious illness/fatalities as the flu.

If we can get COVID to a place where it mostly feels like a cold, and where we’re seeing hospitalization/fatality rates along the lines of those for flu, we call it a win, and build our maintenance plan, which will included ongoing vaccine actions as needed (perhaps more refinement, so fewer boosters are needed), being smart about how we deal with sick people (stay home if you’re sick), and the flexibility to require masks in certain situations when there’s an outbreak (if there’s a big outbreak in NYC, they should be able to require masks on the subway and such for a while).

That’s it. That’s what normal will look like. If Omicron is the evolutionary winner, and it causes less serious illness, it could get us there.

[South Austin 52515]

I prefer Diet COVID over COVID Zero.

[justhookit 4191]

Those both suck, but still better than New Covid.

[Brisketexan 105151]

I prefer Diet COVID over COVID Zero.

But which one does your mom douche with?

[South Austin 52515]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But which one does your mom douche with?

Careful. You’ll throw your back out with a stretch like that.

[Buzzrock 14921]

32 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Omicron is absolutely ripping through everyone. Thankfully it's mild, in my experience. I'm less than 24 hours in symptomatic territory and I'm already feeling about 80%.

Don’t do anything dumb. I thought I was feeling better yesterday and I feel worse today (day 3). Worse sore throat, cough still sucks, just generally shitty. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

My daughter is super upset that two christmases in a row have been hosed. It really sucks for the kids being affected by this. 

I’ve tried to raise my kids as no nonsense as possible. My oldest is generally pretty tough overall, especially compared to her peers. But the cracks have recently started so show with the distancing, watching their friends get sick, etc. This shit is hard on them, and kudos to kids everywhere for holding it together. Hope you get to feeling better, and your little ones can salvage their Christmas knowing this shit will get better someday. 

[BrazilHorn 6609]

My BIL from Granbury has it. Just got positive test back today. Some friends in the hood all just got positive test back here in Austin (they just returned from Colorado). Shit is starting to run through people. 

[DDD Dad 14339]

Welp, DDD got her PCR test back today confirming the at home antigen test from yesterday.  Yay!

[Buzzrock 14921]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I’ve tried to raise my kids as no nonsense as possible. My oldest is generally pretty tough overall, especially compared to her peers. But the cracks have recently started so show with the distancing, watching their friends get sick, etc. This shit is hard on them, and kudos to kids everywhere for holding it together. Hope you get to feeling better, and your little ones can salvage their Christmas knowing this shit will get better someday. 

My kids understand it on an intellectual level, but they miss their grandparents and don’t like missing out on holiday gatherings with friends. Childhood years are short and few, and they are missing out on things they can’t get back. Or sucks. 

[Revolution512 1487]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

It sure feels like we’re on a path where each subsequent wave proves less lethal. Whether that’s due to increasing immunity from vaccines and prior infections, evolutionary pressure that rewards lower virulence, or some combo of both, we’ll eventually get to a point where this thing is another seasonal flu. 

Well that’s the nature of viruses, correct? I think we are already there.

[fattyflattie 4639]

15 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

My kids understand it on an intellectual level, but they miss their grandparents and don’t like missing out on holiday gatherings with friends. Childhood years are short and few, and they are missing out on things they can’t get back. Or sucks. 

I get it. I’m working with a younger set iirc, so explaining it was a challenge, too.  Hope they can see the grandparents soon. 

[BrickHorn 18237]

2 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

Well that’s the nature of viruses, correct? I think we are already there.

There’s no hard and fast rule that viruses evolve to be less virulent. There are pressures that would seemingly reward that. But there are other possible outcomes, too. For example, a virus might evolve to a state where it kills but nevertheless thrives because the way it kills is causing a few days of coughing fits that spew billions of viruses into the air. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by BrickHorn