Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OK, the Corona Virus Isn't Going Away. Now What?


Recommended Posts

Also from NPR:

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/21/839865567/milwaukee-claims-7-coronavirus-cases-tied-to-controversial-election

 

Not trying to be political but the headline is negative, the main thrust of the article is negative until you get to the very end:

 

State public health officials said they hadn't yet seen a spike in election-related cases.

 

"We have not yet seen indications of an impact from the election," said Andrea Palm, the state Department of Health Services secretary-designee.

 

My overall point here is not to quibble about the headline although it's pretty typical. The point is say it is 7. Say it's 10 or 15 or even 20. 200,000 people voted. Not to sound crass but as a society I think those are acceptable numbers.

 

To get back to what I said earlier I just got home from shopping. I developed a hot water faucet leak in the bathtub in my master bath adjacent to my bedroom about a week ago The weather here in SoCal just turned very toasty and last night I had to get up out of bed, go outside and turn the water off because the leak was making that part of the house like a sauna. I mean seriously warn and very high humidity because the leak was fairly severe, like DC in August with no AC. No turn off valve in or by the tub. Anyway to my point I went to the Depot to get some parts and as long as I was there did some more grocery shopping next door. In spite of my optimism I still did the whole thing, mask, gloves, sanitizer. It's almost second nature and really isn't a big deal. With no haircut and a mask I look like I'm about to rob the place but hey, so does everybody else. No TP or paper towels. I really don't get that at this point. In the beginning I understood it completely but now? Whatever.

 

I get it, nothing really definitive but the signs keep pointing to we're going to be ok. The next big shoe to drop after Wisconsin is Boeing. Give them another week and I'll go out on that shaky limb and say they will be ok too. Boeing is tougher because in spite of all their precautions I've already read that many times some workers are right next to each other in a cramped space in a wing or fuselage running cables, doing testing, etc. It gets close in those areas and it's very uncomfortable to keep the mask up so many are pulling it down and it's causing some friction between people. Other workers are at a more isolated terminal monitoring whatever. It will be a good test.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Also from NPR:

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/21/839865567/milwaukee-claims-7-coronavirus-cases-tied-to-controversial-election

 

Not trying to be political but the headline is negative, the main thrust of the article is negative until you get to the very end:

 

State public health officials said they hadn't yet seen a spike in election-related cases.

 

"We have not yet seen indications of an impact from the election," said Andrea Palm, the state Department of Health Services secretary-designee.

 

My overall point here is not to quibble about the headline although it's pretty typical. The point is say it is 7. Say it's 10 or 15 or even 20. 200,000 people voted. Not to sound crass but as a society I think those are acceptable numbers.

 

Both "sides" in the article could be correct. They may very well be 7 related corona virus infections; whether that counts as a "spike" is debatable.

 

But the issue isn't whether any number is acceptable, but why there were so many problems involved in voting by mail in Wisconsin. The same problems didn't happen with other states, which would imply there's no inherent problem with voting by mail, only with Wisconsin's implementation. Thousands of absentee ballots were thrown out because they arrived to voters after the voting deadline, so those votes weren't counted. There were also three tubs of undelivered absentee ballots from voters.

 

To get into it any further would require speculating as to whether this was due to voter suppression based on political considerations, or simple incompetence within various components of the voting system. Either one is unacceptable, so Wisconsin's plans not to make any changes in order to fix the problems that surfaced is also not acceptable. If a system has problems, you fix it, unless you don't want to for some reason.

 

There has been election chicanery from both parties for as long as I can remember. Why people insist on putting a partisan cast on it is beyond me. It's a bi-partisan problem, and both Republicans and Democrats should be hopping mad when votes from their party of choice or the other party don't count, aren't counted, or attempts are made to keep their votes from counting. If what happened in Wisconsin was indeed voter suppression to hinder Democratic candidates, Republicans should be just as angry, and demand the system be fixed. Otherwise, there's no guarantee for Republicans that Democrats won't do the same thing when they control the levers of power.

 

As Bob Marley sang, "Remember that, when the rain fall, it don't fall on one man's housetop." Whether we like it or not, we're all in this together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Both "sides" in the article could be correct. They may very well be 7 related corona virus infections; whether that counts as a "spike" is debatable.

 

But the issue isn't whether any number is acceptable, but why there were so many problems involved in voting by mail in Wisconsin. The same problems didn't happen with other states, which would imply there's no inherent problem with voting by mail, only with Wisconsin's implementation. Thousands of absentee ballots were thrown out because they arrived to voters after the voting deadline, so those votes weren't counted. There were also three tubs of undelivered absentee ballots from voters.

 

To get into it any further would require speculating as to whether this was due to voter suppression based on political considerations, or simple incompetence within various components of the voting system. Either one is unacceptable, so Wisconsin's plans not to make any changes in order to fix the problems that surfaced is also not acceptable. If a system has problems, you fix it, unless you don't want to for some reason.

 

There has been election chicanery from both parties for as long as I can remember. Why people insist on putting a partisan cast on it is beyond me. It's a bi-partisan problem, and both Republicans and Democrats should be hopping mad when votes from their party of choice or the other party don't count, aren't counted, or attempts are made to keep their votes from counting. If what happened in Wisconsin was indeed voter suppression to hinder Democratic candidates, Republicans should be just as angry, and demand the system be fixed. Otherwise, there's no guarantee for Republicans that Democrats won't do the same thing when they control the levers of power.

 

As Bob Marley sang, "Remember that, when the rain fall, it don't fall on one man's housetop." Whether we like it or not, we're all in this together.

 

A well considered response, thank you. I found myself unable to answer within the limits of acceptable discourse.

I fully agree with those limits, if you don't have them it cannot improve conversation and often ruins it.

 

I will say that we've had a very successful vote by mail procedure in place here in WA for quite a few years. Recently it evolved and postage is prepaid now. There have been incremental improvements over time.

There is considerable oversight by multiple parties at each step - providing accountability and integrity to the process.

I had my signature questioned at one point. I was able to confirm identity and validate my vote, it would have been a major effort for anybody but my actual self to do that. So I've seen the oversight and integrity in action. It would be pretty tough to get any significant number of fraudulent votes vetted.

 

Some costs are increased - printing and postage primarily. Some costs are reduced, we have drop boxes for votes in populated areas but no polling places, no logistics involving such, no volunteers to vet, no paid state employees to coordinate and implement etc.

 

It works well and has proven integrity. And, some folks are opposed to it. Too bad, so sad, call Dad!!! Cheers, Kuru

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire,Craig

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

 

Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.

 

Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature. Think of your signature card at the bank, or having two witnesses to verify your signature on your will or any number of official documents. Or in my position as a tax pro I can say there is a long history of the IRS going to court over what counts as a legal signature or them "receiving" either a tax return or other correspondence with a hard deadline date on it. After watching the "hanging chads" debacle during the Florida recounts in 2000 can you imagine what would have happened if that election was all vote by mail? As long as an election isn't all that close, fine no problem but if it's razor thin it would be an unholy mess. Millions of people having to show up to prove that was in fact their signature on the ballot? Make no mistake, if the issue is a signature thousands of lawsuits have been about the question is this a legal signature or not on that 10 million dollar check or grandpa's will or a contract or whatever.

 

Read this article about voter verification and think about a recount like what happened in 2000. Also what about the idea of Voter ID? Lots of folks hate that idea for many reasons yet that is exactly what mail in ballots will boil down to in a close, contested recount.

 

And then one final point. Do we really want to turn our elections over to the POST OFFICE?? That model of bureaucratic efficiency?

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/verification-of-absentee-ballots.aspx

 

EDIT

 

I see we were writing at the same time Kuru. I agree 100% with everything you said about mail in voting. It's simple and easy and if they have to verify the occasional signature, fine no problem. The problems come with recounts. This is the process with recounts in most states. First they have a machine recount which is fairly quick. If the machine recount is too close it has to be a manual recount. Then, if that is too close then lawyers insist on verifying EVERY. SINGLE. BALLOT. because the numbers keep getting closer. Florida in 2000 came down to a few hundred votes out of millions. In your case you had to verify your ballot so multiply that by every voter in Washington State. Yes, this is a worst case scenario that will probably never happen. But it did happen. And, what is your opinion about Voter ID especially in minority communities all over the country?

 

And then what happens to the concept of voter anonymity? Nobody is supposed to know how you voted unless you are willing to give up that right. During the Florida recounts nobody knew who the voters were, ballots only have their preferences on them, no names so the arguments were about hanging chads and partial or very light marks. Now with mail in ballots everybody knows how everybody else voted and they have to prove who they are with cameras and lawyers hanging all over their ballots? It's easy to say state law has taken care of those issues. Maybe, maybe not until the lawyers take over.

 

Most of us here are intelligent, technical types. I actually love the concept of electronic voting using a smartphone app until I realize we all know tons of folks who hate and don't trust the internet, don't have a smart phone or a computer and hackers are everywhere. Hmmm, maybe not such a great idea.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back to COVID 19 issues, this is a very interesting article about Army researchers creating their own N95 equivalent masks out of readily available materials found at a Jo-Ann Store.

 

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/04/army-research-shows-how-do-it-yourself-facemasks-can-be-n95s/164865/?oref=d-mostread

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back to COVID 19 issues, this is a very interesting article about Army researchers creating their own N95 equivalent masks out of readily available materials found at a Jo-Ann Store.

 

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/04/army-research-shows-how-do-it-yourself-facemasks-can-be-n95s/164865/?oref=d-mostread

 

Bob

 

Using something that repels water is key. I look forward to the full results of their study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, the linked article includes no links to information from the Federal Election Assistance commission that would support the claim. The only link was to an organization that "compiled" data from the EAC. That organization claimed sources from the EAC, but when I went to the Public Interest Legal Foundation site, the piece referenced in Real Clear Politics also had no supporting links to the EAC data on which they supposedly based their conclusions. The only link they had was to the EAC's definition of what's considered an "unknown ballot," which it seems as a matter of course the EAC would need to define.

 

Instantly, my BS detector went off. So, after finding I couldn't get answers from the organization interpreting what another organization interpreted from sources that aren't defined, I figured I might as well go to the source, and spent some quality time on the EAC web site.

 

It's fascinating, actually. It's FILLED with white papers and concerns about all aspects of voting. For example, yes, ballots may not be delivered - if someone moves, if there's a data entry error, forest fires, any one of a number of reasons. For example, Oregon has 2-3% undelivered ballots. Shocking, right? But in the year when around 1.8 million ballots were cast (IIRC, although the stats are fairly consistent from year to year), approximately 30K people moved into Oregon, and 20K people left. Interestingly, that's 2.6% of the voters. And that's not taking into account people who moved within Oregon, and changed addresses. Frankly, it's the responsibility of voters to register to vote and notify of a change of address, not the responsibility of the state to track them down. If I move and don't notify the post office, then not getting mail forwarded doesn't mean the post office is incompetent, or there's an inherent flaw in using the mail.

 

I understand that publications and organizations have partisan reasons for cherry-picking stats to buttress the candidate or philosophy they want to support, but we're better than that. I don't speak for anyone else on these forums, but I want to find out the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

I also looked up the credentials of the person who wrote the story. He has a definite political bias. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. But, it means he sees the world through a particular filter, and communicates through that filter, If you want stats and facts, go to the source - the EAC, the Oregon Secretary of State, etc. who issued the actual stats he interpreted, based on the interpretation of another organization, who may or may not want to put a spin on them, and whose research certainly appeared superficial at best. The EAC itself will tell you, in no uncertain terms, there are problems. But they do so in an apolitical, Excel-spreadsheet kind of way, propose potential solutions, and describe the steps they are taking to try and remedy those problems.

 

Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature.

 

Consider the following...

 

There's no need to have a single system for voting - using only mail-in ballots, only electronic, only voting machines, only whatever. All that's needed is for each system to work properly. All systems are hackable, going back to the days of paper ballots. Our job isn't to throw up our hands and say nothing works, our job is to figure out how to make it work.

 

Voting is voluntary, and people register to vote. When doing so, they should be able to specify which format they prefer for voting. It would be no different from some people saying they want their bank statements on paper, while others want them online. But voters also have to do their part, and keep the registrar of voters informed of when they change addresses, move, change names due to marriage, etc.

 

Software companies have figured out how to dissociate people from data. Having worked with Cakewalk, I do know that their analytic data on usage truly did not identify users, so it is possible. Yet each user had a unique ID.

 

Regarding Florida, I lived there during the 2000 election. I have no doubt it was incompetent at best, dishonest at worst. I knew people personally who went to vote and were told they couldn't because of their "felony conviction." Yet they had none. It was like when I go to a hotel and they say "Sorry, there's no reservation for you, Mr. Greg Henderson." And, the Florida recount depended on judgement calls as to voter intention. I have reasons to doubt the assessments were correct when Pat Buchanan won the predominantly Jewish section of Palm Beach by a handy margin.

 

You can point to any way of voting and find problems. By and large, I tend to think the majority of the issues stem more from incompetence and stupidity than malevolence. Incompetence/stupidity are clearly renewable resources, and there's plenty of both.

 

Now, let me point out that what I've said may appear political. It is not. I am not advocating right, left, up, or down. What I AM advocating is that it's necessary to think for yourself, whether it's an article about voting, a gear review, or your auto mechanic saying your drive train needs to be replaced. Do your own research, because with rare exceptions, the articles you see in ALL parts of the political and even social spectrum are written by people who often don't do enough research to write intelligently on a subject, or decide to cherry-pick whatever supports a foregone conclusion, or take stats or quotes out of context. If people on the left think only people on the right do that, or people on the right think only people on the left do that...they need to get out more :)

 

The human need to bond with a tribe is strong. That can be a good thing. Right now, I think it is being taken to extremes, and not doing anyone any favors. Overall, people seem more interested in trying to justify what they think than verifying the truth of what they think, and are too trusting of what they're being told by other members of the tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though this is WAY OT from the O*T, I think a lot about how people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. IOW, they hear about problems with the system (voter fraud in this case) and they act like it's completely corrupt and are unwilling to do things like add mail-in voting or whatever. I don't deny that entirely new systems are sometimes needed, but often it just needs an adjustment. As Craig said in his excellent post, "Our job isn't to throw up our hands and say nothing works, our job is to figure out how to make it work."

 

 

*Original

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, excellent post just above, thank you Craig!

 

Au contraire,Craig

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

 

Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.

 

Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature.

Bob

 

HUGE is HUGELY overstating a made-up "problem" as near as I can tell.

Perhaps you missed my post above where I speak of the system in WA, all voting is done by mail.

My signature was checked BEFORE my vote was validated. They saw a discrepency, contacted me and we straightened things out. THEN my vote was validated.

That IS how things are done here in WA. We've had no verifiable voter fraud, nor have we had a single candidate challenge any vote-by-mail election results.

 

Is it impossible to commit voter fraud? It never has been and never will be impossible. If one studies American history it becomes clear that it is much easier to prevent access to polling places as a means of preventing groups of people from voting than it is to change the outcome of an election that is done using the mail.

 

I searched the topic of voter fraud and will not link or quote any of several articles as they ALL exhibited significant political bias of one sort or another. As always, there is a human tendency to seek "facts" that verify and support beliefs rather than developing beliefs that are supported by facts. Cheers, Kuru

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying but facts presented with a political bias are still facts. Also, WA is a state that heavily leans towards one party, little chance of a highly contested recount so of course no problems with verifying ballots until if or when a contested recount comes up. There are a lot of what sounds like fact to me in that RCP article but it would take a week to track it all down especially things like illegal ballot harvesting and were 28 million ballots really lost or is that just spin? Craig did a great job of trying to track some of those points down and I commend him for the effort. To me it was a waste of time to even mention the author was biased though. Of course he's biased so is every person writing about virtually any hot button issue. They're all biased to one side or the other, just look at surveys of journalists asking who they voted for or what party they belong to.

 

It's our job to filter biases out but that doesn't mean everything they wrote is wrong. And, don't keep reading things that are biased to one side only. Even if it's from "official sources" in a state government. Lots of them are political appointees so even if it's on a spreadsheet that looks all scientific, who put that together? Were they under orders form the Governor or someone to put it out one way or the other? Were there dissenting opinions about it? That's why I specifically read stuff that is considered highly biased on both sides. To me that NPR article is biased yet the facts are still correct. It's a matter of what they chose to use for the headline. If they wanted to spin it as a somewhat good news story the headline would say "No spike in COVID 19 cases after the Wisconsin election" which was the conclusion at the end and supported by a quote from an official. Instead the headline was "Milwaukee claims 7 cases" which puts a somewhat negative spin on it. Not terrible and not even all that political, it's just typical news going for the bad to generate more attention or to promote a narrative that it was a bad idea to hold an in person election. And, here's a update on the election:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/494984-health-officials-say-36-coronavirus-cases-possibly-exposed-through

 

A somewhat negative headline that is not factually wrong but later in the article it says this:

 

Since officials only have data on positive cases, without a comparison group of people who were not tested or tested negative, Goodsitt said 'there is no way to know with certainty if any exposures at the polls that are reported are in fact attributable to COVID-19 illness.'

 

Overall this is a good article and it tells the story but again what headline should they have used? Who knows, it all depends on a readers individual biases towards this. To me, 40 cases out of 200,000 voters is a drop in the bucket considering we now know a good portion of those won't even have symptoms, some slight symptoms and a good chance that no one requires hospitalization. They're doing contact tracing and they will find some more cases but it doesn't look to me like 40 is going to balloon to a thousand or something. In other words it's an acceptable risk and in the big picture no big deal.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at The Hill website I found what to me is the best article I've read to date that basically supports everything I've been saying or writing or even thinking for over a month now. It's written by an MD and based on research from Stanford and other sources. People can still disagree but right now this is pretty much 100% of my feelings about it. Point #4 is especially important. I thought of that weeks ago and rarely hear a whisper about it but to me it's a big offset to the highly reported virus deaths. And, at age 74 I totally accept the fact that we (meaning the overall group of seniors) should not be holding back everyone else from getting their lives back together and getting this country going again. We had our day, I have no problem with having to take extra precautions for the next few years even and if it gets me, then it gets me. Anybody who reaches their mid 70's knows their time is limited anyway and I've never worried about it or what happens after for that matter. I'll find out soon enough.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying but facts presented with a political bias are still facts.

 

Yes, but bias can use facts to deliberately deceive. For example, if I say "Voter fraud is clearly rampant. X number of ballots were not even delivered" or "Due to changes of address, X number of ballots were not delivered," in both cases X is the same number. But the conclusions presented from that fact are VERY different. Now, to justify either opinion, the onus is on proving voter fraud, or proving that the undelivered ballots were due to changes of address. When I investigated further, given the number of changes of address, and the number of undelivered ballots, it seemed most logical to me that there was a correlation. I would modify that opinion in a second if a postal worker said he or she looked up houses on the voter rolls to try to determine which homes were occupied by Democrats and which were occupied by Republicans, and threw away the ballots going to the homes of the party he or she didn't like. Then I would change my opinion to thinking there was fraud involved.

 

Craig did a great job of trying to track some of those points down and I commend him for the effort. To me it was a waste of time to even mention the author was biased though. Of course he's biased so is every person writing about virtually any hot button issue. They're all biased to one side or the other, just look at surveys of journalists asking who they voted for or what party they belong to.

 

You missed the point of what I wrote, which is both left and right people are biased, you can't trust anyone, and to think for yourself. After I tracked down the facts, I became convinced that only a very, very small percentage of issues with mail balloting likely involved fraud. Yet that is the way some people want to cast it, to serve a particular agenda. I don't think the facts bear that out. Attributing the lost ballots to fraud is an opinion. My thinking not much is fraud is also an opinion, but I can provide links to back that up :)

 

It's our job to filter biases out but that doesn't mean everything they wrote is wrong.

 

Again, I specifically said:

 

I also looked up the credentials of the person who wrote the story. He has a definite political bias. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. But, it means he sees the world through a particular filter, and communicates through that filter.

 

Or in simpler terms...always consider the source. It's important to question whether your believing facts, or a belief system's interpretation of facts.

 

And, don't keep reading things that are biased to one side only.

 

Obviously, I don't. I read the opinions you cited from the right, and even sought out additional opinions from the more extreme right, and center (e.g., the Hill) you didn't reference. I didn't read any opinions from the left. I simply went to sites that contain actual statistics and drew my own conclusions, which is what I was recommending that everyone do.

 

Even if it's from "official sources" in a state government. Lots of them are political appointees so even if it's on a spreadsheet that looks all scientific, who put that together? Were they under orders form the Governor or someone to put it out one way or the other?

 

All we have to work with is the stats presented by people whose job it is to collect stats. Many of them serve under administrations of different parties. If the Governor said "hey, I know you found there were 200,000 missing ballots, but could you say 400,000 instead?," I can only hope at least one employee would have the integrity to blow the whistle.

 

But asking those questions invalidates your opinion, because if the articles you cited drew their conclusions from stats that you don't trust, you inherently cannot trust the conclusions reached in those articles. So, it makes no sense to link to them, if you believe the stats upon which they based their conclusions can't be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at The Hill website I found what to me is the best article I've read to date that basically supports everything I've been saying or writing or even thinking for over a month now.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

 

I find The Hill quite credible. First, they're good about correcting factual errors; when they report a lie as fact, they correct it. Second, right-wing people think it's biased toward the left, and left-wing people think it's biased toward the right. To me, that's the sign of a lack of bias colliding with peoples' filters and belief systems.

 

That said, hindsight is gorgeous. "Draconian" measures were undertaken when no one had a clue about what the virus would do. It had never existed before, and there was no precedent. Not erring on the side of caution would have been disastrous had the worst-case scenarios played out.

 

Also, in my opinion, ever since Hurricane Katrina disasters have been co-opted for political purposes. By now, it's a familiar playbook: "You should have anticipated what was coming." Well, yes, but I don't see anyone hardening the grid against X-Class solar storms. When one hits, we have no electricity for six months, all the reactors melt down, and millions of people die, whoever will be president at the time will be told "Hey, there was a guy on an internet forum for effing musicians who knew this would happen! Why didn't you?"

 

Over the last four months, we've learned a lot more about how the virus works. It's not true that young people are immune; they're just much less susceptible. It's not true that all old people die; they're just a lot more susceptible. And so on. There are course corrections being made every day, based on improved understanding of the virus.

 

What needs to happen now is a rational assessment of risk, but it HAS to be coupled with a sincere attempt to minimize those risks. Take the meat-packing plants, which have now become corona virus hotspots. True, closing them down will impact the food chain. But you can't open them up without testing the employees to see who is positive. Now it becomes a practical matter, which is finding enough tests to do this kind of thing...and we're kind of back to square one, because again, we don't know what we're dealing with, and we won't unless we have reliable tests. And we don't even know for sure if having the virus makes you immune. So if a zillion more people become affected, based just on the numbers, it won't only be old people in nursing homes who die.

 

I'm also not so sure that the thing won't have a few more surprises in store for us that we can't anticipate...we can only do the best we can, but "the best" requires keeping politics out of it, listening to a broad array of scientific opinions, and being flexible enough to pivot when things change instead of hardening positions based on obsolete data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.

Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature.

Bob

 

As always, there is a human tendency to seek "facts" that verify and support beliefs rather than developing beliefs that are supported by facts. Cheers, Kuru

 

There are a lot of what sounds like fact to me in that RCP article but it would take a week to track it all down especially things like illegal ballot harvesting and were 28 million ballots really lost or is that just spin?

 

They're doing contact tracing and they will find some more cases but it doesn't look to me like 40 is going to balloon to a thousand or something. In other words it's an acceptable risk and in the big picture no big deal.

 

Bob

 

Yeah, no reason to fact check.

Me either, facts are just pesky annoyances.

 

I wish you and yours the best - be well, be safe!

I shall now remove myself from this conversation. Cheers, Kuru

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, the question remains...now what? As usual, it's much easier to get into a difficult situation than get out of it.

 

For example, how is the concert industry going to come back? Will anyone go on a music cruise again? Will live sound engineers have to start delivering food for GrubHub? All I can think is that anyone who thinks they have the answer, doesn't have the answer :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, WA is a state that heavily leans towards one party, little chance of a highly contested recount so of course no problems with verifying ballots until if or when a contested recount comes up.

Bob, Washington state is just one example. Utah leans towards the other party and "vote at home" seems to be working quite well there. Arizona and Montana are going that way as well, as is California. I doubt that all these places that are going this route are ignoring the issues of potential recounts. Even if they are, all it will take is one for them to have problems and they'll all start fixing the issues.

 

Also note that you don't have to mail in your ballot, you can drop it off at a secure site.

 

Still, the question remains...now what? As usual, it's much easier to get into a difficult situation than get out of it.

 

For example, how is the concert industry going to come back? Will anyone go on a music cruise again? Will live sound engineers have to start delivering food for GrubHub? All I can think is that anyone who thinks they have the answer, doesn't have the answer :)

If the Oxford vaccine actually shows up this fall (NY Times link), we could get back to "normal" pretty soon. That being said, I personally hope that some lessons about lifestyle are truly learned from this. We've learned more people can work from home, and that we can reduce traffic, air pollution, water pollution, consume smarter, and more. To me, going back to the way things were would be a waste of this opportunity. JMO.

 

More specifically, here are two more links from NY Times about how live culture may be changing.

 

Witness the future of live culture

The arts world is finding inventive ways to welcome patrons again. Gallery openings have resumed in Seoul, South Korea, with attendants recording the name, address and phone number of visitors to trace potential exposure to the coronavirus.

 

In the U.S., the Barrington Stage Company in Massachusetts said it plans to hold live theatrical performances this summer â mostly one-person shows, with no intermission. It will remove 70 percent of the seats inside the theater, so each audience member will have plenty of space.

 

The one thing I keep thinking about with distancing in theaters is how do you accommodate groups? If they take out (or make unavailable) seats in any kind of theater so that each seat has six feet around it, that means I don't get to sit with my wife. Or in a movie theater, parents need to sit with their kids. The best idea I can come up with is an algorithm for theaters where you buy your seats in advance. Once someone selects seats, the computer can mark out the right number of seats around that person or group as unavailable, making a six foot distance. That can continue until the theater is "full." Other theaters could do this by hand.

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piano Weekly AKA Greg Spero has been doing a daily early morning stream since the virus stay at home and starting to do more interviews and not just playing piano. Todays was interesting he had a handful of publicists talking about how some of their clients are dealing and the monetization model. Also a new website trying to help musicians promote and stream and make a couple bucks doing it.

 

So if interested here's the link:

 

[video:youtube]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost did it again. This is my favorite musicians forum and I seriously respect and admire everybody here especially you Craig. I do have a weakness for certain other discussions and I'm stopping right here. Kuru, you're a good guy lets talk about music. I really am all about the music when I'm not working on taxes so with that said, back to "What's next..."

 

While I'm hopeful as I said earlier that this pandemic will work itself out sooner rather than later unfortunately I don't think that applies to us as gigging musicians. All I can say is the same thing that has been repeated for weeks now, until there are good treatments that make us feel safe enough to share a tight stage much less a mic with other people it's simply not happening any time soon. And that's just from my personal POV. I know there are plenty of members on this forum who have their own health issues or have close family members who do and they're not taking any chances. I can see some bands getting some gigs maybe by July but some individual players may pass on the gig so there will be subs and they may lose their seat permanently. That could be me because I'm the oldest person and I may pass on some gigs too. It's one thing to say I feel safe enough to go shopping as long as I take the common sense precautions but it's another to be setting up gear and performing right on top of three other guys crammed in a corner. As for commercial establishments I see big problems there too. Restricted seating? Dancing? Stop live music altogether? I have two different annual house parties and one is a very crowded living room and the other on a crowded pool deck. I doubt those are happening but have not heard from them yet and then maybe it's me who says no, it just depends. It's gonna be a hard year for sure.

 

I know one thing, I'm not playing with a mask so I've got to feel safe enough to play without one and that's assuming whoever is hiring me or us doesn't require it. If they want the band to wear masks, forget it.

 

Bob

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will likely be ways to have concerts under less-than-optimal circumstances, but I think DJs are really going to be in trouble. So much of that experience is based entirely on the DJ being able to interact with the crowd and form a feedback loop where the reaction determines the music, which creates a reaction, which determines more about the music's direction, etc. DJ sets aren't going to happen if people need to stand six feet apart, or sit in chairs.

 

The timing couldn't be worse. So many DJ sets are positive and all about having fun, and we sure could use some of that right now. I'm not sure it would translate into a streaming experience to the home..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has me motivated to learn more about statistics (my stats class in college being a long time ago). I hate to be manipulated by cherry picked stats and I hate to see others manipulated by them, but the cherry pickers take advantage of the fact that most will, if it satisfies their bias, not question what they read- after all, it's on the internet. The only blowback seems to come when what people are being fed doesn't jibe with what they are experiencing. Having said that, I am familiar with the RCP site and do not feel the article in question is a good representation of RCP, which skews right overall but makes a point of including opposing arguments.

 

Hope it is not taboo to ask this, but it has been alluded to: Do the elderly and the vulnerable, who's protection is largely a justification for the lockdown, have a say in all this? How much economic hardship- which as pointed out by the Hill article, itself costs lives- would they themselves wish to impose on the entire populace, for the sake of their (the elderly's) protection? I'm guessing that collectively, they would not want it to be so. Maybe a poll of MPN members, many of whom are seniors (although better educated ones) would reflect that.

 

I know that the problem with that is the ones who suffer from dementia and the loss of their reasoning facilities. The latter symptom, IMO, is just as likely caused by extreme political partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the problem with that is the ones who suffer from dementia and the loss of their reasoning facilities. The latter symptom, IMO, is just as likely caused by extreme political partisanship.

 

You mean like S....ARGGGH! No, no, no...

 

Bob

 

Your point about how many seniors want to seriously hold up the country on their behalf is a good one.

Hammond SK1, Mojo 61, Kurzweil PC3, Korg Pa3x, Roland FA06, Band in a Box, Real Band, Studio One, too much stuff...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm concerned about our fall and winter season. The majority of our yearly income comes between Halloween and Easter. 6 months = >80% of our yearly gross.

 

In the 12 years of playing at a small, outdoor restaurant on a weekday during lunchtime, they have been known to take in well over $3,000 in 3 hours. Tha'ts why we are the only band still here from the ones we started with 12 years ago.

 

http://www.nortonmusic.com/pix/x_Jim_water_Mary_Jane_Clark.jpg

 

If these people have to sit 6 feet apart, there is no way the house will be able to afford us.

 

This little restaurant is the original guard house for the US Navy SEALS which were formed here in Ft. Pierce FL during WWII. It's historic, therefore not modernized but still looking like the historic era.

 

As we do this on a weekday, we get a retired audience. Sometimes the crowds are so big, it spills out into the parking lot. Our 'regulars' know to bring lawn chairs if they want to be assured of getting a seat.

 

We also play a RV park where 600 RVs of French Canadians winter and another 300 US and English Canadians make camp for the winter. We play outdoors on a porch that at times is so crowded that people are shoulder to shoulder. Others come in their golf carts and crowd the parking lot. We do this twice a month.There is no way these folks are going to be able to be 6' apart.

 

The rest of our gigs are yacht clubs, country clubs, and retirement communities. It's a big audience here in South Florida and I moved to this genre when I turned 40.

 

What does that mean to me?

 

I need to adapt to survive.

 

Since 1992 I've had a small, part-time income writing style e-disks and fake e-disks for an auto-accompaniment app called Band-in-a-Box http://www.nortonmusic.com -- I've done this in my spare time, mostly working on new products in the slow months of August and September. It looks like my part-time, spare time gig is going to become a full-time gig. Not as satisfying as gigging, but survival goes to the adaptable.

 

In isolation, Leilani and I have been putting 16 hours per day into making new products. Hopefully we'll have a release in a month or two.

 

Since I do my own websites, it also means HTML code, shopping cart code, demo files, and so forth.

 

I'm also thinking about a couple of other things, perhaps a UTube channel.

 

But gigging is my bliss. I don't know how the gig scene is going to re-emerge, but when and if it does, I'll do my best to adapt to that as well.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much economic hardship - which as pointed out by the Hill article, itself costs lives - would they themselves wish to impose on the entire populace, for the sake of their (the elderly's) protection? I'm guessing that collectively, they would not want it to be so.

 

Two big problems with this.

 

Younger people might not want to lose their parents, and they should have a say in this too. Furthermore, a lot of the economy is being driven by people over 60. Look at average ages of CEOs, presidents, political figures, entertainment industry moguls, you name it. The country is not being run by kids; they contribute a not insignificant, but nonetheless finite, amount to the economy and our shared knowledgebase.

 

But the MUCH more important aspect is that the choice that's presented - preserve the economy and die, or be selfish and ruin things for everybody - reflexively assumes there aren't much better choices. There are. As more gets known about the virus, it will become ever-easier to protect the most vulnerable, while allowing the economy to continue at a normal pace for those who are not in danger, or statistically speaking, in much less danger.

 

We already do that with diseases that have a precedent. We know what to do with them. The current problem is that the world was caught off-guard by something that had never existed before, and no one knows what to do yet. However, we are learning.

 

It's kind of like asking me if I'd rather eat dirt or rocks for dinner, because we're standing outside in a place that has dirt and rocks. I'd point out that by simply walking a mile, we can go to a supermarket, and choose something way more appealing. Those who think that the only options are for older people to die, or they'll ruin it for everyone else, shows, in my opinion, either a failure of imagination, a prioritization of expediency over human life (which someone who's pro-life cannot adopt without being untrue to their beliefs), or an assumption that humans aren't smart enough to figure out a better solution. However, to forestall a continuation of this discussion where people disagree with me and feel the need to comment, it's entirely possible that I'm at best misguided, and as worst stupid, to think that humans have imagination, pro-lifers are intellectually consistent, and science/research will come up with answers (possibly sooner rather than later).

 

Yes, some people will suffer financially. I've lost gigs because of this, and had to pivot. But that happens in recessions, wars, and depressions anyway. It's not like it's never happened before, and if there's the will, there are enough resources right now to minimize that suffering.

 

Humans...can't live 'em, can't live without 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What does that mean to me?

 

I need to adapt to survive.

 

Or as David Byrne said, "same as it ever was." :)

 

Case in point: check out the MPN Shop! If companies aren't advertising, well, then we have to figure out some other way to pay for the site's servers and maintenance. If this doesn't work, we'll figure out something else. We want to keep the site going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much economic hardship - which as pointed out by the Hill article, itself costs lives - would they themselves wish to impose on the entire populace, for the sake of their (the elderly's) protection? I'm guessing that collectively, they would not want it to be so.

 

Two big problems with this.

 

Younger people might not want to lose their parents, and they should have a say in this too. Furthermore, a lot of the economy is being driven by people over 60. Look at average ages of CEOs, presidents, political figures, entertainment industry moguls, you name it. The country is not being run by kids; they contribute a not insignificant, but nonetheless finite, amount to the economy and our shared knowledgebase.

 

But the MUCH more important aspect is that the choice that's presented - preserve the economy and die, or be selfish and ruin things for everybody - reflexively assumes there aren't much better choices. There are. As more gets known about the virus, it will become ever-easier to protect the most vulnerable, while allowing the economy to continue at a normal pace for those who are not in danger, or statistically speaking, in much less danger.

 

We already do that with diseases that have a precedent. We know what to do with them. The current problem is that the world was caught off-guard by something that had never existed before, and no one knows what to do yet. However, we are learning.

 

It's kind of like asking me if I'd rather eat dirt or rocks for dinner, because we're standing outside in a place that has dirt and rocks. I'd point out that by simply walking a mile, we can go to a supermarket, and choose something way more appealing. Those who think that the only options are for older people to die, or they'll ruin it for everyone else, shows, in my opinion, either a failure of imagination, a prioritization of expediency over human life (which someone who's pro-life cannot adopt without being untrue to their beliefs), or an assumption that humans aren't smart enough to figure out a better solution. However, to forestall a continuation of this discussion where people disagree with me and feel the need to comment, it's entirely possible that I'm at best misguided, and as worst stupid, to think that humans have imagination, pro-lifers are intellectually consistent, and science/research will come up with answers (possibly sooner rather than later).

 

Yes, some people will suffer financially. I've lost gigs because of this, and had to pivot. But that happens in recessions, wars, and depressions anyway. It's not like it's never happened before, and if there's the will, there are enough resources right now to minimize that suffering.

 

Humans...can't live 'em, can't live without 'em.

 

1) I am one of those with an elderly parent that I do not want to lose, so understand that concern. If I didn't value her, I would not have taken her into my home 8 years ago. And I know most people feel the same way, even if they do not have the option of caring for their parent at home (she actually does need to be in a group home, but I'm glad I have not yet put her in one, for obvious reasons).

 

2) Framing the damage to the economy as "some people will suffer financially", IMO, drastically understates it. Perhaps I have been oversold on the damage a prolonged shutdown would do. But it's not a case of people with unimaginable wealth using their influence to force a reopening just so they can make their already unimaginable wealth even more unimaginable. It's a case of everyday people needing to feed their families and pay bills, who are skeptical that the government can or will keep them afloat forever. Those people should have the freedom to make their own choices, IMO. My own personal choice, with no children, is to not be around groups where I could be exposed and risk giving it to my parent.

 

3) There is a vast amount not yet known about the disease, but some things ARE becoming clearer. The much lower estimated mortality rate is one. Should we not alter our response at all, with that knowledge? Or is it not enough to go on? Also, it has been known for some time one sure way to protect the vulnerable- by isolating them from anyone who could possibly expose them to it. Should that be prescribed for everybody?

 

4) I fully understand that with each passing month, additional aspects of how to prevent contagion will become known, that will alter how we deal with the disease. So more time would be indeed be preferred. My business degree from a cow college doesn't make me an economic expert, so I don't know how much time we have before the economy is destroyed. I'm not sure the experts do either, but they do know more than I do.

 

5) You seem to jump to the conclusion that I, or the writer of the Hill article, stand in judgment of the original shutdown, when virtually nothing was was known about the virus. I don't and I didn't get that out of the article, either. I think it was entirely reasonable to take those actions, at the time. After all, WHO was citing a 2+% mortality rate and models were forecasting millions of deaths in the US.

 

6) Human nature is such as that people can only tolerate the isolation for so long, absent martial law.

 

7) One thing I have noticed is that the goalposts seem to be constantly moving. The original reason for the shutdown was "flattening the curve" to avoid overrun of our medical facilities, and avoid the tragic situation such as happened with Italy, where Doctors had to do triage and turn elderly victims away. As far as I know, that has been accomplished (I could be wrong). So now, people are citing other rationales (which have escaped me for now, sorry).

 

8) RE the US has the resources to support people's standard of living during many more months of resources, that's true- but how will that be accomplished, short of forcible confiscation? (maybe we will know, after November). I feel that the mega-rich should voluntarily give their wealth to the cause. If I were one of the mega-rich, that's what I would do. But if they were like me, they wouldn't be mega-rich.

 

You know way more about science and technology than I do so it is heartening to see your optimism. Maybe there is more of that than I realized out there. Thanks for the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So today my wife booked a new gig for June 5th, an outdoor show at a popular place outside of our town a short ways. We still have a booking for May 22nd that is not officially canceled and we decided that if the gig is a go we'll do it for free as a show of support for a business that's suffered badly like so many.

 

Restrictions in our state begin loosening up May 1st in 77 of our 99 counties. In the rest (ours included) restrictions have been extended until May 15th. Our state stopped short of a "shelter in place" order and I've continued working all along as an "essential" employee at an "essential" job as part of Mission Systems at a company with huge government/military contracts. My wife has continued her medical practice from home and hasn't been to her office at the university for weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why it's so difficult for people outside these forums to engage in constructive discussions :) Maybe we can infect them!

 

I'll keep it short.

 

2) It may be a drastic understatement, and yes, it's the poor-to-middle-class that gets hits the hardest (they do in any recession). But I see a lot of companies desperate to hire people right now. The problem is that not everyone is comfortable dealing with the public. In that case, it's the virus that's making people suffer, not whether the economy is open or closed. Even if it were all open tomorrow, I don't know anyone who's going to a packed theater any time soon.

 

3+4) What you're saying is the point I was trying to make: "As more gets known about the virus, it will become ever-easier to protect the most vulnerable, while allowing the economy to continue at a normal pace for those who are not in danger, or statistically speaking, in much less danger." We don't have all the answers yet, but if we can hold on a little longer, I think we will. Economies can collapse, but no one knows how long it takes, how deep it will be, etc. Your statement "I don't know how much time we have before the economy is destroyed" is farmore credible than what I hear from the "experts" :)

 

5) No, I think pretty much everyone (aside from those who dismissed that there was going to be any problem) agrees it was right to err on the side of caution initially. After all, we were dealing with something unknown and potentially very dangerous.

 

6) It's different in different places. Here in Tennessee, you're not forced not to go into the world, so people choose whether to be isolated. It's different when people choose not to go into the world, and most here are, because they don't want to take a chance, compared to being forced to do something. There are a lot of people outside, walking dogs, going to parks, etc. but they do practice social distancing - they're not hanging out in groups, churches do online services, etc. It's an acceptable compromise for most people.

 

7) The problem with "flattening the curve" is people thought that meant the virus would go away. You are correct that it was to avoid an overrun of medical facilities, people are just going to get sick on a more relaxed schedule. The problem right now is the USA is a big country, without a uniform strategy for solving the problem. So even though things are getting better on the east coast, they're getting worse in the midwest. It's very much like a forest fire. The main areas burn out, but then a spark gets carried by the wind, and flames start happening somewhere else. It could take a long time before the corona virus burns out. Or maybe not. No one knows. At the moment, based on what we know, the "re-opening" thing is a gamble. Like any gamble, you don't know the outcome.

 

But it's also important to remember that even if people don't die, you don't want them to get sick. Even the regular flu causes a big hit in productivity, and people who survive can still get very sick from COVID-19 (e.g., permanent lung damage). Even pneumonia can cause lung damage that can't be repaired.

 

8) I truly think by and large, people are generally good. The MIDI Manufacturers Association is about to start the "May Is MIDI Month" celebration, which has traditionally been used for fundraising to keep the free MIDI Association running, create educational materials, and assist schools. However, this year all the proceeds are going to COVID-19 relief through the Grammy Foundation's MusiCares charity. Other organizations are thinking similarly. The founder of Twitter is giving away a lot of money, Gates is contributing to creating a vaccine, etc. Churches around here are offering food. You're taking care of your mom. Some people think we're all in this together, and acting accordingly. I think there are enough of us...we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "new normal" will not be masks and distancing, it will be acceptance of 1.5% of the population getting seriously sick. We don't wear masks because of the 1918 Spanish flu, we moved on. People die of all kinds of things and we move on. I predict by the end of NEXT summer we'll be completely back to normal. Completely.

Dan

 

Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about extensive testing and tracking?

 

Would the cost of millions of testing kits be worse than the cost of a recession/depression? I don't know how much a test kit would cost if mass produced.

 

Would it be less than the cost of treating a second wave of cases to our health care systems and insurance companies?

 

Since we know there are asymptomatic people out there, sending everyone out to work without knowing if they are positive or not seems to be a recipe for disaster. Remember the lesson of Typhoid Mary and learn from that.

 

So how much would it cost to repeatedly test everyone and if necessary quarantine those testing positive?

 

To tell the truth, I don't know if this is practical or not, but sounds more constructive than giving millions of dollars to business like the LA Lakers, Ruth Chris Steakhouses, Trump hotels, Big Oil, and so forth.

 

I read that New Zealand, with an admittedly much smaller population (and also with fewer resources) has effectively stopped the virus with extensive testing and tracking. The Prime Minister said that by keeping their methods up, any new cases that might pop up will be handled quickly and the victim and close contacts will be isolated, tested, and/or treated.

 

I would like to see the US, one of the richest countries in the world at least make a study of this a priority and if practical, implement that instead of give-aways to big business.

 

I know putting people to work creating test kits sounds like an FDR/Democratic type work project, but the results of those projects brought us out of the great depression.

 

I'd love to go back to work if it didn't mean playing Russian Roulette.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...