http://co.mclennan.tx.us/1116/COVID-19-Updates

geewago said:

---

So now all the drinkers will have to go to Chilis, Applebees or Logans to get their fix. That'll sure stop covid dead in its tracts. Meanwhile thousands per day walk in & out of Wal Mart

---

BW3 says hi

Worth noting this is the state's rules and not Waco's with Covid patients taking up more than 15% of the hospital bed space in the area.

BaylorHistory said:

---

Worth noting this is the state's rules and not Waco's with Covid patients taking up more than 15% of the hospital bed space in the area.

---

Between 25 and 30% in Lubbock.

BaylorHistory said:

---

Worth noting this is the state's rules and not Waco's with Covid patients taking up more than 15% of the hospital bed space in the area.

---

So what we need to do is stick more non-covid people in the hospital?

Robert Wilson said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

Worth noting this is the state's rules and not Waco's with Covid patients taking up more than 15% of the hospital bed space in the area.

---

So what we need to do is stick more non-covid people in the hospital?

---

Now you're thinking!

BaylorHistory said:

---

Worth noting this is the state's rules and not Waco's with Covid patients taking up more than 15% of the hospital bed space in the area.

---

Absolutely..Hence I linked the McLennan County presser. County is not allowed to override Governor's orders.

Bear Doc said:

---

All of this is just the illusion of doing something for which really nothing can be done immediately for.

It is the equivalent of coming home and kicking your dog after a bad day at work.

The government's new motto should be "Don't just do something, stand there..."

---

Amen to that. I asked one of the few doctors I know if he thought the mask was really preventing covid. He said "Well it's like a placebo, it makes the people feel safe." Then he said, "Besides, what else can they suggest until they get approved medicines and vaccines?"

Bear Doc said:

---

All of this is just the illusion of doing something for which really nothing can be done immediately for.

It is the equivalent of coming home and kicking your dog after a bad day at work.

The government's new motto should be "Don't just do something, stand there..."

---

We are rain dancing.

And that would be an excellent governmental motto ... one that they would never adopt.

geewago said:

---

Bear Doc said:

---

All of this is just the illusion of doing something for which really nothing can be done immediately for.

It is the equivalent of coming home and kicking your dog after a bad day at work.

The government's new motto should be "Don't just do something, stand there..."

---

Amen to that. I asked one of the few doctors I know if he thought the mask was really preventing covid. He said "Well it's like a placebo, it makes the people feel safe." Then he said, "Besides, what else can they suggest until they get approved medicines and vaccines?"

---

It's just too much for us to admit that we can't control something...

They just released the numbers from the holiday weekend... most important in my mind is hospital census:

101 hospitalized in the county BUT...

66 are residents of the county.

Kind of sad that our hospitals taking people from outside of our local area results in the punishment of local businesses. Really not fair at all.

Bear Doc said:

---

They just released the numbers from the holiday weekend... most important in my mind is hospital census:

101 hospitalized in the county BUT...

66 are residents of the county.

Kind of sad that our hospitals taking people from outside of our local area results in the punishment of local businesses. Really not fair at all.

---

Does it identify the counties non locals are coming from, if so are those medical facilities in those counties at capacity and in same lockdown situation?

BBear77 said:

---

Bear Doc said:

---

They just released the numbers from the holiday weekend... most important in my mind is hospital census:

101 hospitalized in the county BUT...

66 are residents of the county.

Kind of sad that our hospitals taking people from outside of our local area results in the punishment of local businesses. Really not fair at all.

---

Does it identify the counties non locals are coming from, if so are those medical facilities in those counties at capacity and in same lockdown situation?

---

It does not and some may be in our same "Trauma Service Area" so for some it may not matter anyhow, but I am still not convinced this is a valid metric to punish local businesses by.

Bear Doc said:

---

They just released the numbers from the holiday weekend... most important in my mind is hospital census:

101 hospitalized in the county BUT...

66 are residents of the county.

Kind of sad that our hospitals taking people from outside of our local area results in the punishment of local businesses. Really not fair at all.

---

Bear Doc, I've been trying to make some sense out of the 15% capacity figure for Covid cases. I don't believe it's 15% just for McLennan County, but it's 15% for the 5 counties in our Trauma Service Area M. Those are Bosque, McLennan, Hill, Falls, and Limestone. Makes me wonder if some of these current 101 hospitalizations ( those above McLennan's 66 that you've mentioned) aren't from the other counties in our TSA? Perhaps these smaller counties are at or over capacity, and the two McLennan County hospitals are taking their "overload" ? I also wonder about the "opt-in certification" for bars...Not sure if this is done by each County Judge or not? I'm just "takin' a flier" and hoping if you are a physician, you might have knowledge of these state rules/orders. Thanks in advance if you can clarify any of this.

Bear Doc, my apologies for the redundancy. I should not have been so slow with my post.

Bear Doc said:

---

BBear77 said:

---

Bear Doc said:

---

They just released the numbers from the holiday weekend... most important in my mind is hospital census:

101 hospitalized in the county BUT...

66 are residents of the county.

Kind of sad that our hospitals taking people from outside of our local area results in the punishment of local businesses. Really not fair at all.

---

Does it identify the counties non locals are coming from, if so are those medical facilities in those counties at capacity and in same lockdown situation?

---

It does not and some may be in our same "Trauma Service Area" so for some it may not matter anyhow, but I am still not convinced this is a valid metric to punish local businesses by.

---

Pretty sure when they set up these TSAs no one expected this situation. Government is not very good at reacting to a crisis much like the PPP loans. The devil is always in the details but with the proximity of our cities and the mobility of our citizens there has to be a standard that looks at the whole and not the parts. Not fair but necessary nonetheless.

BBear77 said:

---

Bear Doc said:

---

BBear77 said:

---

Bear Doc said:

---

They just released the numbers from the holiday weekend... most important in my mind is hospital census:

101 hospitalized in the county BUT...

66 are residents of the county.

Kind of sad that our hospitals taking people from outside of our local area results in the punishment of local businesses. Really not fair at all.

---

Does it identify the counties non locals are coming from, if so are those medical facilities in those counties at capacity and in same lockdown situation?

---

It does not and some may be in our same "Trauma Service Area" so for some it may not matter anyhow, but I am still not convinced this is a valid metric to punish local businesses by.

---

Government is not very good at reacting to a crisis

---

"Officialdom can never cope with something truly catastrophic" (or that they treat as such)

- Camus (parens by RW)

Mask=condom...not a hard concept .neither are 100% but they do help

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Mask=condom...not a hard concept .neither are 100% but they do help

---

Um, no.

A better analogy would be masks = a broken condom. It gives the parties involved some piece of mind but it only marginally works, if at all.


Here's the reality -

If the higher-ups came out and said, "Look, masks are better than nothing but, in reality, don't work very well" then no one - businesses or individuals- would wear/require them. So, instead, those same authorities speak as if masks are highly effective when all the data clearly shows they aren't at all in order to give the appearance of action and peace of mind to the public when these authorities know they really can't do much to solve this issue.

It's the same thing with COVID case, hospitalization, and death announcements. Is COVID more serious than the flu? For a portion of the population, yes. For many, no. But if they minimize the severity of it (at least for the portion of the population less at risk) then there will be no fear. Without fear, they will not get compliance.

So, instead, they let the media - which already uses fear as a technique to drive viewership- drive fear and panic about the severity of this illness so they can get the public and local governments (as a result of public pressure) to comply. If they truly came out and said, "Hey, this is a serious illness but a vast majority of the younger portion of the population is going to be just fine and you only need to quarantine if you are an "at-risk" individual" then the public wouldn't comply and it would give the appearance of not doing enough.

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Mask=condom...not a hard concept .neither are 100% but they do help

---

Um, no.

A better analogy would be masks = a broken condom. It gives the parties involved some piece of mind but it only marginally works, if at all.


Here's the reality -

If the higher-ups came out and said "Look, masks are better than nothing but, in reality, don't work very well" then they no one - businesses or individuals- would wear/require them. So, instead, those same authorities speak as if masks are highly effective when all the data clearly shows they aren't at all in order to give the appearance of action and peace of mind to the public when these authorities know they really can't do much to solve this issue.

It's the same thing with COVID case, hospitalization, and death announcements. Is COVID more serious than the flu? For a portion of the population, yes. For many, no. But if they minimize the severity of it (at least for the portion of the population less at risk) then there will be no fear. Without fear, they will not get compliance.

So, instead, they let the media - which already uses fear as a technique to drive viewership- drive fear and panic about the severity of this illness so they can get the public and local governments (as a result of public pressure) into compliance. If they truly came out and said "Hey, this is a serious illness but a vast majority of the younger portion of the population is going to be just fine and you only need to quarantine if you are an "at-risk" individual" then the public wouldn't comply and it would give the appearance of not doing enough.

---

Well said.

You've got to wonder if the ensuing fear, panic, mental health issues, general decline in quality of life, etc, is worth whatever marginal result they think they are getting, or whether this rain dancing is not justified by its cost.

But I don't think they think that far. They really believe the intended consequences of their actions are always weighty and just and don't much at all consider the unintended consequences. Masters of the universe and all that.

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Mask=condom...not a hard concept .neither are 100% but they do help

---

Um, no.

A better analogy would be masks = a broken condom. It gives the parties involved some piece of mind but it only marginally works, if at all.


Here's the reality -

If the higher-ups came out and said, "Look, masks are better than nothing but, in reality, don't work very well" then no one - businesses or individuals- would wear/require them. So, instead, those same authorities speak as if masks are highly effective when all the data clearly shows they aren't at all in order to give the appearance of action and peace of mind to the public when these authorities know they really can't do much to solve this issue.

It's the same thing with COVID case, hospitalization, and death announcements. Is COVID more serious than the flu? For a portion of the population, yes. For many, no. But if they minimize the severity of it (at least for the portion of the population less at risk) then there will be no fear. Without fear, they will not get compliance.

So, instead, they let the media - which already uses fear as a technique to drive viewership- drive fear and panic about the severity of this illness so they can get the public and local governments (as a result of public pressure) to comply. If they truly came out and said, "Hey, this is a serious illness but a vast majority of the younger portion of the population is going to be just fine and you only need to quarantine if you are an "at-risk" individual" then the public wouldn't comply and it would give the appearance of not doing enough.

---

If "masks...don't work very well" means that they absolutely eliminate spread of the virus...then indeed, reality is that they don't work very well. However, wearing a mask certainly reduces risk of virus spread compared to not wearing a mask. I would like to see the studies that document otherwise.

The fact is, masks; even simple cloth masks--have multiple instances where the risk of transmission is documented to be reduced. This article citing multiple studies shows that the risk of transmission is reduced, in real world examples, by 70% vs. not wearing a mask. That is substantial.

CDC Article

I realize that the thread is more criticizing lockdowns/restrictions on business. I share the opinion that these measures are not effective...but to confuse ineffective restrictions with effective measures like wearing a mask is not going to help the situation. Will measures like mask wearing RESOLVE the situation? No. It will go a long way toward easing it though.

howhardcanitbe said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Mask=condom...not a hard concept .neither are 100% but they do help

---

Um, no.

A better analogy would be masks = a broken condom. It gives the parties involved some piece of mind but it only marginally works, if at all.


Here's the reality -

If the higher-ups came out and said, "Look, masks are better than nothing but, in reality, don't work very well" then no one - businesses or individuals- would wear/require them. So, instead, those same authorities speak as if masks are highly effective when all the data clearly shows they aren't at all in order to give the appearance of action and peace of mind to the public when these authorities know they really can't do much to solve this issue.

It's the same thing with COVID case, hospitalization, and death announcements. Is COVID more serious than the flu? For a portion of the population, yes. For many, no. But if they minimize the severity of it (at least for the portion of the population less at risk) then there will be no fear. Without fear, they will not get compliance.

So, instead, they let the media - which already uses fear as a technique to drive viewership- drive fear and panic about the severity of this illness so they can get the public and local governments (as a result of public pressure) to comply. If they truly came out and said, "Hey, this is a serious illness but a vast majority of the younger portion of the population is going to be just fine and you only need to quarantine if you are an "at-risk" individual" then the public wouldn't comply and it would give the appearance of not doing enough.

---

If "masks...don't work very well" means that they absolutely eliminate spread of the virus...then indeed, reality is that they don't work very well. However, wearing a mask certainly reduces risk of virus spread compared to not wearing a mask. I would like to see the studies that document otherwise.

The fact is, masks; even simple cloth masks--have multiple instances where the risk of transmission is documented to be reduced. This article citing multiple studies shows that the risk of transmission is reduced, in real world examples, by 70% vs. not wearing a mask. That is substantial.

CDC Article

I realize that the thread is more criticizing lockdowns/restrictions on business. I share the opinion that these measures are not effective...but to confuse ineffective restrictions with effective measures like wearing a mask is not going to help the situation. Will measures like mask wearing RESOLVE the situation? No. It will go a long way toward easing it though.

---

I have had enough of arguing mask effectiveness really, but this:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Is the highest quality evidence (a randomized controlled trial, not observational BS) we have regarding the current situation. You be the judge.

"Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection".

Wait...I just realized that beardoc and bear doc are two different posters.

beardoc said:

---

"Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection".

---

I read that...not statistically significant. OK. But masks did in fact result in fewer infections in every instance, in every way that they measured.

The same study also said this:

"The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection"

^^Which seems to be what you are doing?

BaylorHistory said:

---

Wait...I just realized that beardoc and bear doc are two different posters.

---

Yep, I just realized that as well.

howhardcanitbe said:

---

beardoc said:

---

"Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection".

---

I read that...not statistically significant. OK. But masks did in fact result in fewer infections in every instance, in every way that they measured.

The same study also said this:

"The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection"

^^Which seems to be what you are doing?

---

Edit: I believe it is Bear Doc implying that masks are not effective. I didn't realize until now that beardoc is a different poster.

The articles "conclusions" were somewhat two-faced. They did not address the question of source control, but certainly answered the question about them protecting the wearer.

How did this thread become one about mask wearing? The order in the OP is about closing bars.

The bars impacted are ones that cannot meet the 50% other sales requirement. In Waco, almost all of the bars are claiming now that they sell more food and merchandise than alcohol, so they stay open.

Every night my wife and I walk downtown. We pass Stumpy's, Waco Ale, Klassy Klass, Dichotomy and the Backyard Saloon. Sometimes Barnett's. People are in these places for long periods of time, without masks and not socially distanced.

It's just stupid. Really, really stupid.

Booray said:

---

How did this thread become one about mask wearing? The order in the OP is about closing bars.

The bars impacted are ones that cannot meet the 50% other sales requirement. In Waco, almost all of the bars are claiming now that they sell more food and merchandise than alcohol, so they stay open.

Every night my wife and I walk downtown. We pass Stumpy's, Waco Ale, Klassy Klass, Dichotomy and the Backyard Saloon. Sometimes Barnett's. People are in these places for long periods of time, without masks and not socially distanced.

It's just stupid. Really, really stupid.

---

At the 50% level...that's a sxxx load of Slim Jims, Microwave Ham Sandwiches, and Happy Hour Pizza. :-) I believe the new Mayor said recently enforcement would be based on complaints. What serious drinker complains about a bar bein' open? And awaaaay we go!

The people complaining about this are the same ones that didn't want to wear masks, socially distance, or avoid unnecessary large gatherings... And now that they've made it really bad again, are complaining the government is trying to slap bandaid on the problem.

We could have this under control, but many of you are the reason we don't. I think for sure churches should be shut down over bars, personally. Way bigger chance of being superspreader events.