Novel Coronavirus COVID-19

[Azincourt]

23 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

My pushback is partly against those who are pressing us to accept, as a permanent state of affairs, a "new normal" which empties the future of things many people hold dear (concerts and other types of large gathering).  However primarily it's a pushback against any notion that having in person communication with friends and family is some sort of privilege...as opposed to being a fundamental human right that it's a very serious matter to deprive people of.

 I understand the serious nature of this pandemic, and the importance of taking measures to limit its spread.  But I think we have to be on our guard against any mindset that perceives and treats fundamental human rights as though they're nothing more than the privileges of spoiled children.  

Who cares about concerts? Don't those bands have enough money to last them for a lifetime? Going to concerts are a great way to lose someone's ability to hear a few years from now, and concerts and other large gatherings are so sweaty and lack intimacy, and as for we're losing our rights by complying with new rules and behaviors to make sure we all don't die from covid-19? 

How is that going against fundamental human rights?

If ya'll feel like you've lived long enough, that's on you, baby boomers and Generation X dudes, but I've only been alive for 3 decades and a bit, and I plan on staying on this earth for at least 50 more years, thank you very much, and I'd rather stay as healthy and as fit as possible, which won't be possible if I get infected with covid-19, so let's avoid each other all of us and wear a hazmat suit if need be, to make sure we get out of this alive.

[Libby1]

1 minute ago, Azincourt said:

How is that going against fundamental human rights?

If ya'll feel like you've lived long enough, that's on you, baby boomers and Generation X dudes, but I've only been alive for 3 decades and a bit, and I plan on staying on this earth for at least 50 more years, thank you very much, and I'd rather stay as healthy and as fit as possible, which won't be possible if I get infected with covid-19, so let's avoid each other all of us and wear a hazmat suit if need be, to make sure we get out of this alive.

I seem to recall you saying at some point that you've been living a pretty much hermit like existence for ages...so you should be fine.  As far as fundamental human rights goes, just as an example there is a fundamental right to family life...which basically means the right to maintain contact with close family members.  During strict lockdown, there were people who weren't allowed to visit dying relatives.  That might be something you feel able to brush off, but plenty of other people find it a big deal.

I'll close with reference to a recent statement from our Equality & Human Rights Commission, which I think covers it quite nicely:

In lockdown we heard how those in residential care were being protected as much as possible from the virus, but we also heard how people were deprived of family when they needed them most. Staying at home to protect the NHS was a simple message but it may have stopped screening and the right to health care for those with other conditions such as cancer. Blanket approaches may well have other consequences. The virus isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and we have to make sure that our efforts to live free from coronavirus don’t come at too high a price.

“As more restrictions are considered, we’re calling on the Government to make sure that protections are proportionate, measured, and rooted in science and the law. Any changes that restrict our rights must be flexible, with review and end points, and remain open to challenge. If we want to protect public health and save lives, then changes need to complement or enhance our human rights, not treat them as optional.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/covid-19-restrictions-and-effect-human-rights

[Timshel]

12 hours ago, elaine567 said:

I think the sooner some come to the realisation that the old "normal" is not coming back, the better they will be.
 

I agree.  This is a disease that will cause death to a percent of population, even after a vaccine...and similar to the flu.  It is one more thing to be wary of and will be indefinitely. 

People will of course get back to doing the things they do and there will be a cost of loved ones. 

The old 'normal' will never come back, a person of reasonable intellect won't un-know prudence.

[CaliforniaGirl]

58 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

My pushback is partly against those who are pressing us to accept, as a permanent state of affairs, a "new normal" which empties the future of things many people hold dear (concerts and other types of large gathering).  However primarily it's a pushback against any notion that having in person communication with friends and family is some sort of privilege...as opposed to being a fundamental human right that it's a very serious matter to deprive people of.

 I understand the serious nature of this pandemic, and the importance of taking measures to limit its spread.  But I think we have to be on our guard against any mindset that perceives and treats fundamental human rights as though they're nothing more than the privileges of spoiled children.  

I wish people could see that:

1. A virus does not care about anybody's rights. It just does not care. 

2. If we would ALL pull together - ALL - this could have been contained months ago. We have all lost more than half a year of our lives instead. We never had to. 

[CaliforniaGirl]

35 minutes ago, Azincourt said:

Who cares about concerts? Don't those bands have enough money to last them for a lifetime? Going to concerts are a great way to lose someone's ability to hear a few years from now, and concerts and other large gatherings are so sweaty and lack intimacy, and as for we're losing our rights by complying with new rules and behaviors to make sure we all don't die from covid-19? 

How is that going against fundamental human rights?

If ya'll feel like you've lived long enough, that's on you, baby boomers and Generation X dudes, but I've only been alive for 3 decades and a bit, and I plan on staying on this earth for at least 50 more years, thank you very much, and I'd rather stay as healthy and as fit as possible, which won't be possible if I get infected with covid-19, so let's avoid each other all of us and wear a hazmat suit if need be, to make sure we get out of this alive.

My husband works in an adjacent industry and these people have lost their livelihoods and bands are breaking up. Just like every single other business category. Money to last a lifetime - do you know what a small percentage that is? Now they too have to figure out how to eat. They're losing their homes too, afraid for their kids' futures. What a cold thing to say.

[Ruby Slippers]

6 hours ago, Libby1 said:

However primarily it's a pushback against any notion that having in person communication with friends and family is some sort of privilege...as opposed to being a fundamental human right that it's a very serious matter to deprive people of.

I understand the serious nature of this pandemic, and the importance of taking measures to limit its spread.  But I think we have to be on our guard against any mindset that perceives and treats fundamental human rights as though they're nothing more than the privileges of spoiled children.  

AMEN. As John Adams said, "Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

[Philosopher]

9 hours ago, Timshel said:

I agree.  This is a disease that will cause death to a percent of population, even after a vaccine...and similar to the flu.  It is one more thing to be wary of and will be indefinitely. 

People will of course get back to doing the things they do and there will be a cost of loved ones. 

The old 'normal' will never come back, a person of reasonable intellect won't un-know prudence.

I am not convinced by this whole things are not going back to normal theory. In the UK restrictions where eased in the first half the summer and people did seem initially quite cautious in terms of going out, meeting others, etc. However as the summer went gone on, people have become more confident in going to pubs, restaurants and shops and by the end of the summer these places looked no less busy than normal. My gym I would say is now only slightly quieter than normal. Over the summer there were frequent reports of illegal raves in the media, which suggests there is still a market for nightclubs and crowded concerts. It could be argued that people should be more cautious given cases are high but it does suggest a high percentage of people do want things to go back to the way things where.  

I think people will remain cautious for a few years but eventually such as hugging, shaking hands, meeting in large groups will come back as it is human nature to do these things, particularly if a vaccine results in the death rate from this being a low or less than flu. Working from home, to me looks like to be most sticky change, but even here I do not think it will be as big change as it made out to be, perhaps it will go to half working from home and half office working. 

[Libby1]

8 hours ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

I wish people could see that:

1. A virus does not care about anybody's rights. It just does not care. 

2. If we would ALL pull together - ALL - this could have been contained months ago. We have all lost more than half a year of our lives instead. We never had to. 

Well, I don't disagree...and I'd point out that I employed strict social distancing measures before they were imposed and after they were relaxed.  I completely disagree with these anti-lockdown protests where people are going out shouting at the police, no masks...helping to spread the virus etc.

People here in the UK were very much pulling together in the early parts, but this was soon undermined by the very authorities who impose regulations on us.  For instance, when there was a shortage of masks, we were told that we didn't need masks.  That there was no evidence to show that they worked - and moreoever, if we wore masks we were depriving health care workers of much needed resources..  This advice changed once masks became available, but it's hard for governments to maintain public trust when they're chopping and changing their advice depending on non-scientific considerations like PPE availability.

Also:

When protests broke out against the coronavirus lockdown, many public health experts were quick to warn about spreading the virus. When protests broke out after George Floyd's death, some of the same experts embraced the protests. That's led to charges of double standards among scientists.

Why it matters: Scientists who are seen as changing recommendations based on political and social priorities, however important, risk losing public trust. That could cause people to disregard their advice should the pandemic require stricter lockdown policies.

https://www.axios.com/black-lives-matter-protests-coronavirus-science-15acc619-633d-47c2-9c76-df91f826a73c.html

It's hard for people to have much faith in a scientific community in which members very openly permit their scientific perspective to become tangled up with their political beliefs.  And I'm sure we haven't seen the last of that.  We'll see the same people continue to prioritise containment of the virus below the right to protest when they agree strongly with the cause, but then revert to prioritising containment above everything else when they're not so interested in the human right in question.  It's not realistic to expect the public to continue to respect arguments for containment being prioritised above their human rights when those arguments are employed so inconsistently and in such a partisan way.

To be fair to our Government, they were not happy about the protests and did try to discourage them.  Those protests were something the US exported very successfully to other parts of the world, in the middle of a pandemic.  Where I live, people had been adhering strictly and without much fuss (despite in some cases not having in person contact with some of their loved ones for months) to rules and regulations.  Suddenly they were being told that the rules they'd been so bound by could justifiably be flouted by protesters because of a police killing in another country thousands of miles away.  A country with an entirely different sort of culture and system of policing.  Once you've relaxed local restrictions to enable protest about a human rights issue occurring thousands of miles away, you can't easily go back to a situation where people are prepared to sacrifice in person contact with loved ones and their ability to make a living in the name of virus containment.

 

 

 

 

[Libby1]

20 minutes ago, Philosopher said:

I think people will remain cautious for a few years but eventually such as hugging, shaking hands, meeting in large groups will come back as it is human nature to do these things, particularly if a vaccine results in the death rate from this being a low or less than flu. Working from home, to me looks like to be most sticky change, but even here I do not think it will be as big change as it made out to be, perhaps it will go to half working from home and half office working. 

I think there will be some lessons from the restrictions that can be learned in a positive way.  I have never understood workplace cultures where people are expected to drag their cold or flu ridden bodies into the office so that they can cough and sneeze over colleagues.  A lot of work can be carried on at home, and one kind of "new normal" I could certainly get behind would be that people with colds are expected to stay at home instead of spreading it around colleagues.  Also, there are probably a lot of people out there who weren't very diligent about washing their hands before, who are paying more attention to that now. 

I think we need to be increasingly careful not to let US political discourse continue to influence our own.  We need to be able to trust medical experts here, and trust that their advice and judgement isn't influenced by partisan positioning and involvement in political causes.  We need to trust that restrictions will be applied fairly and consistently, rather than being influenced by movements that, while having some relevance here (more in some parts of the country than in others) were ultimately birthed in a very different sort of culture.

[elaine567]

42 minutes ago, Philosopher said:

In the UK restrictions where eased in the first half the summer and people did seem initially quite cautious in terms of going out, meeting others, etc. However as the summer went gone on, people have become more confident in going to pubs, restaurants and shops and by the end of the summer these places looked no less busy than normal.

That is because the virus was quelled and that "normal" seemed possible. he Govt wanted to prioritise the economy and if people got sick then so be it, less to get sick in the winter perhaps.
There was a feeling, also promoted by Govt. that the virus was beaten and that it would be all over by Christmas. 
All numbers were down and all was hunky dory... the economy could be saved. The public health people  could be ignored
Then they realised the virus was actually endemic in some places and with all this opening up the virus was back and now we are finding it is as big and ugly as ever.
Now there is "confusion" as they thought it was all over and now we are facing lockdowns again, how can that be?
It must be the Govt.'s fault.
But it is not the Govt. it is the virus just acting like the highly contagious and deadly virus that it is.
WE in the West have an inbuilt arrogance, we are so used to being on the winning side, we cannot hack failure.
We thus rail against the fact this virus is beating us hands down unless we bow down and accept the things we don't want to do...
We don't get to dictate.

[QuietRiot]

46 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

Well, I don't disagree...and I'd point out that I employed strict social distancing measures before they were imposed and after they were relaxed.  I completely disagree with these anti-lockdown protests where people are going out shouting at the police, no masks...helping to spread the virus etc.

People here in the UK were very much pulling together in the early parts, but this was soon undermined by the very authorities who impose regulations on us.  For instance, when there was a shortage of masks, we were told that we didn't need masks.  That there was no evidence to show that they worked - and moreoever, if we wore masks we were depriving health care workers of much needed resources..  This advice changed once masks became available, but it's hard for governments to maintain public trust when they're chopping and changing their advice depending on non-scientific considerations like PPE availability.

Also:

When protests broke out against the coronavirus lockdown, many public health experts were quick to warn about spreading the virus. When protests broke out after George Floyd's death, some of the same experts embraced the protests. That's led to charges of double standards among scientists.

Why it matters: Scientists who are seen as changing recommendations based on political and social priorities, however important, risk losing public trust. That could cause people to disregard their advice should the pandemic require stricter lockdown policies.

https://www.axios.com/black-lives-matter-protests-coronavirus-science-15acc619-633d-47c2-9c76-df91f826a73c.html

It's hard for people to have much faith in a scientific community in which members very openly permit their scientific perspective to become tangled up with their political beliefs.  And I'm sure we haven't seen the last of that.  We'll see the same people continue to prioritise containment of the virus below the right to protest when they agree strongly with the cause, but then revert to prioritising containment above everything else when they're not so interested in the human right in question.  It's not realistic to expect the public to continue to respect arguments for containment being prioritised above their human rights when those arguments are employed so inconsistently and in such a partisan way.

To be fair to our Government, they were not happy about the protests and did try to discourage them.  Those protests were something the US exported very successfully to other parts of the world, in the middle of a pandemic.  Where I live, people had been adhering strictly and without much fuss (despite in some cases not having in person contact with some of their loved ones for months) to rules and regulations.  Suddenly they were being told that the rules they'd been so bound by could justifiably be flouted by protesters because of a police killing in another country thousands of miles away.  A country with an entirely different sort of culture and system of policing.  Once you've relaxed local restrictions to enable protest about a human rights issue occurring thousands of miles away, you can't easily go back to a situation where people are prepared to sacrifice in person contact with loved ones and their ability to make a living in the name of virus containment.

 

 

 

 

When they were referring to flip flopping between not wearing masks due to a PPE shortage, they were more referring to the N95 masks. Actual bonafide PPE and pushed the face coverings of a standard piece of cloth worn over one's face and nothing more.

Also, it appears that the public's mistrust in the health organizations is due to their ignorance on how science works and that the virus is  "NOVEL". Meaning that it's a "work in progress", stuff that comes out will be evolving and ever changing as it goes a long. So chances are VERY high that decisions made regarding evolving is a work in progress.

[schlumpy]

1 hour ago, Libby1 said:

Why it matters: Scientists who are seen as changing recommendations based on political and social priorities, however important, risk losing public trust. That could cause people to disregard their advice should the pandemic require stricter lockdown policies.

Very good comment Libby and one strongly agree with. Whenever I catch a scientist changing or modifying their position because of who is providing the funding for their research, I toss the conclusions in the "Maybe" drawer and reassess any other conclusions they have to come to.

I sympathize because I've had to do things in my job that I knew were wrong but were necessary because of politics within the system. Sometimes if it involved overtime it was to my advantage. I don't know how any of us escape it. No one would be able to keep a job. I'd have to keep copy of my resignation ready at all times.

 

[Libby1]

11 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Very good comment Libby and one strongly agree with. Whenever I catch a scientist changing or modifying their position because of who is providing the funding for their research, I toss the conclusions in the "Maybe" drawer and reassess any other conclusions they have to come to.

I sympathize because I've had to do things in my job that I knew were wrong but were necessary because of politics within the system. Sometimes if it involved overtime it was to my advantage. I don't know how any of us escape it. No one would be able to keep a job. I'd have to keep copy of my resignation ready at all times.

 

I don't have a problem regarding racism as a public health issue, I have to say.  The problem is that there are many other things out there that can be defined as a public health issue, and the severity of those public health issues vary from region to region.  Somebody might say "I'm a doctor, and I'm telling you that racism is a pandemic as serious as covid-19"...but do they actually have the skill set and specialist background in all the relevant areas to comment authoritatively on that, or is it simply a case of "I'm a doctor therefore you should listen to my opinion on all medical and scientific matters"?  

In the early days of covid-19 I saw quite a bit of social media commentary along the lines of "my wife's a nurse, and she says this is no worse than the flu."  There are certain areas a nurse is going to be well equipped to comment on...but it was pretty obvious that a new virus which leading virologists were still in the early stages of studying wasn't something that your everyday nurse or doctor was going to be able to comment on with authority.  Mostly at that stage, they were issuing standard advice like "unless you're a healthcare provider who has been properly fitted with a mask, or a sick person who needs to wear a mask to protect others, you don't need to wear a mask.  It won't offer you any protection."  Which didn't seem to correlate with various studies about mask wearing...most of which indicated that while they couldn't guarantee protection, even a home made cloth mask tended to provide more (albeit limited) protection than wearing none at all.

So I think for a lot of us at that early point, who certainly were taking the virus very seriously, it became a case of doing our own research rather than treating as gospel whatever the official experts were telling us about things like mask wearing.  The advice we were getting was dictated by things like demand for/supply of PPE, preventing panic and preventing a sudden lockdown imposed not by the government but by people refusing to put their health at risk by going into work.   When the protests started up in summer, a lot of people were saying that they weren't high risk on account of occurring outside.  For me, I was pissed off because I did regard them as a health risk, and immediately after there was a protest in my town, people's behaviour changed dramatically (in terms of congregating outside).  By that point it had been drummed into us that even meeting friends outside was highly risky.  However, in the following weeks the infection rates in areas where there had been a lot of protests suggested that the people saying "there's not a high risk of infection outside" were correct.   

Being outside started to look a lot less hazardous than it had looked a couple of months previously.  But then, once the protests were done, people started to bicker about groups of young people meeting in the park or other outdoor locations - allegedly posing a health risk.  Which raised the question of how concerned those people were about the virus, and to what extent their complaints were perhaps influenced by irritation about the sort of noisy social gatherings that they'd ordinarily not be able to do anything about.  It's very easy for something like covid-19 to be abused by people who maybe have a gripe with their neighbours, or a gripe with other people generally, or who have a strongly authoritarian streak and welcome the opportunity to exert control over other people's lives.  All sorts of political and personal issues, resentments, beliefs, politics and prejudices can enter into and muddy the waters during a period like this.  Which makes it extra important for scientists to focus very hard on maintaining their scientific objectivity, and on refusing to let their skills and knowledge be used for partisan purposes.

[Weezy1973]

2 hours ago, schlumpy said:

Whenever I catch a scientist changing or modifying their position

 

Good scientists are always changing and modifying their positions. As new data comes in, the science changes. That should be expected. The fact that people think there’s some kind of conspiracy around changing science is a testament to the scientific illiteracy that runs rampant, especially in the US.

When COVID first broke out, our chief health officer made a point of saying things will change as we learn more. So that set our expectations. Perhaps that didn’t happen where you are.

[schlumpy]

14 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Good scientists are always changing and modifying their positions. As new data comes in, the science changes. That should be expected. The fact that people think there’s some kind of conspiracy around changing science is a testament to the scientific illiteracy that runs rampant, especially in the US.

When COVID first broke out, our chief health officer made a point of saying things will change as we learn more. So that set our expectations. Perhaps that didn’t happen where you are.

Nice try Weezy but the quote lifted was a bit out of context don't you think?

"Whenever I catch a scientist changing or modifying their position because of who is providing the funding for their research, I toss the conclusions in the "Maybe" drawer and reassess any other conclusions they have to come to."

Makes a difference when you read the whole thing.

 

[Weezy1973]

4 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Nice try Weezy but the quote lifted was a bit out of context don't you think?

"Whenever I catch a scientist changing or modifying their position because of who is providing the funding for their research, I toss the conclusions in the "Maybe" drawer and reassess any other conclusions they have to come to."

Makes a difference when you read the whole thing.

 

I left it out, as I suspect you actually have no idea why a scientist modifies their position. Assuming it’s because of who is providing funding vs data is the conspiracy theory thinking I was talking about. 

[Eternal Sunshine]

I just don't get people that talk about personal freedom in these conditions. Australian government was much stricter than UK. Yeah, lockdown sucked and we weren't allowed to see our family (and much more than that). On 2nd of September, my state of 6 million people had ~2000 active cases. Today we only have 200. On 2nd of September, we were recording ~700 new cases a day. Today we only recorded 7.

It has been repeatedly shown that countries that focus on economy and personal freedom over people's health and lives actually end up losing on all counts (they suffer worse economic decline).

I am so glad that I live in Australia and not Europe and particularly not US. I am speechless at mass murder going on in US that still has no sign of slowing down.

[Timshel]

@Philosopher, I agree with everything you have written.  I do think that people will get back to 'normal' by behavior out of necessity and that human beings are intrinsically social.  I also think that we will do so with knowledge of the risk of Covid and the potential consequences to ourselves and loved ones.  In that regard we will perhaps be more choosy with our hugs, social interactions and as you pointed out, our work environments.  Which is technically, a new normal.

[Azincourt]

I dunno about that, man. I'm not really seeing things returning to as normal as possible with the way things are. I'm not seeing any new romantic relationships  being formed and built on like they used to be pre-covid 19 era, and I have a feel lots of relationships that have run their courses will continue to exist because people are afraid of being alone, and feel like they won't meet new people they like who aren't infected with the virus.

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, Eternal Sunshine said:

I just don't get people that talk about personal freedom in these conditions. Australian government was much stricter than UK.

 

In the UK, the problem was not that the lockdown - when it came -  wasn't strict enough.  It was that social distancing guidance wasn't introduced early enough.  The emphasis was on discouraging panic rather than encouraging people to take preventative measures.   It's easy to forget how things were months ago, but back in late February, expressing concern about this pandemic was likely to get you laughed at or even berated for panicking.  I was laughed at by a checkout assistant back in February because I was masked up and dared to say I was starting to buy a few extra items during every shop, in anticipation of an eventual lockdown.  She evidently thought I was a bit of a crazy person.  I mean, it's hard to believe now, but that's what the mood was like.  

There was an outbreak in Italy back in February...and it wasn't long before people on ski-ing trips to Italy had taken Covid home with them.  In the UK we went into lockdown on 23rd March.  Here's a Sydney Herald article mulling over whether Australia should impose measures as strict as the UK's.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/should-australia-be-enforcing-a-uk-style-lockdown-20200324-p54di7.html

I'm not clear about why you think your lockdown was stricter than the UK's.  From what I understand, your funerals were restricted to 10 people whereas ours were restricted to 5.  Your weddings were limited to 5 people, whereas weddings here were banned altogether. Australia is a vast, geographically isolated country with a relatively small population which receives only a fraction of the number of annual visitors that the UK receives.  You have far more of an outdoor culture, due to the weather.  I'm not certain your information regarding what our lockdown entailed is all that reliable, if you're sure that you had a much stricter lockdown than we did.

 

 

[Haydn]

@Libby1

 

This is really how it stands...

 

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/todays-random-restrictions-by-region-20201001201048

[Ruby Slippers]

10 hours ago, Libby1 said:

I have never understood workplace cultures where people are expected to drag their cold or flu ridden bodies into the office so that they can cough and sneeze over colleagues.  A lot of work can be carried on at home, and one kind of "new normal" I could certainly get behind would be that people with colds are expected to stay at home instead of spreading it around colleagues. 

Amen to that. I guess it comes from controlling corporate culture, where they assume butt in chair = productivity, so people feel pressured to come in even when sick.

I used to work from home and never got sick. As soon as I went back to the office environment, I was bombarded with all the people dragging their coughing, sneezing, virus-ridden butts into the office, started getting sick at least once a year. I always knew who passed on their bug to me - the person sneezing and coughing all over everything. Even though I've switched to the nonprofit world, where they're much more sensible about sick time, people would still come in when they obviously shouldn't be there.

I hope one result of all this is that employers get a lot stricter about keeping sick people out of the office in general.

[Prudence V]

The head of the WHO has called strategies of “herd immunity” for Covid unethical. 
(Guardian report here) 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

14 hours ago, Prudence V said:

The head of the WHO has called strategies of “herd immunity” for Covid unethical. 
(Guardian report here) 

Louisiana and Mississippi are well on their way: 

Every parish/county in either state except one has documented upward of 2% of everyone having at some point tested positive for Covid-19.

 

In Louisiana...    Just 6 of 64 parishes have fewer than 3% of everybody having at some point tested positive.  (That's 1 out of 33 people having tested positive)

A couple are at 8%, and one parish there even has 9% (1 in 11) positive tests.

 

 

[Prudence V]

10 hours ago, SincereOnlineGuy said:

Louisiana and Mississippi are well on their way: 

Every parish/county in either state except one has documented upward of 2% of everyone having at some point tested positive for Covid-19.

Given that having had Covid doesn’t guarantee immunity, with several cases now of reinfection, it won’t matter if 80% of people have tested positive at some point. The risk will still be there.