Elrich: We will have fewer activities open @ beginning of this summer than last summer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely agree with a cautious approach.

And if a few kids commit suicide because we’re telling them to stay in their houses all summer, who cares right?

Calm your tits. No one said stay in the house. You do know that kids can ride bikes, go for hikes, swim, play kickball or jump rope outdoors, outside of the context of organized sports?

Oh wait...your kids only get outside when there are carpool, referees and designated crap snacks involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely agree with a cautious approach.

And if a few kids commit suicide because we’re telling them to stay in their houses all summer, who cares right?

Calm your tits. No one said stay in the house. You do know that kids can ride bikes, go for hikes, swim, play kickball or jump rope outdoors, outside of the context of organized sports?

Oh wait...your kids only get outside when there are carpool, referees and designated crap snacks involved.

Oh STFU.

My kid isn’t even in any organized sports. She’s been in preschool this entire time, so she’s gotten plenty of socialization, and she plays outside otherwise.

I’m pushing back against the people on this thread who think 2021 is at all comparable to 2020, when we had ZERO vaccines. It’s just asinine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is cautious because the emergence of more transmissible and more deadly variants are throwing a wrench in the re-opening plans. No one knows exactly what impact the UK, S. African, Brazilian, and apparently New York variants (California variant apparently isn't as dangerous) will have on Covid trends, but it's wise to be very cautious at this point in time.

Please don't worry, OP and others. If it turns out we can open more, we most assuredly will! I hope you all understand that politicians are very worried about continued economic impact of closures. The default is to keep things open as much as possible. The fact that they're not tells you it's still a very high-risk situation.

There are multiple studies showing strong efficacy from all three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using against at least the UK, South African, and Brazilian variants.

It’s simply untrue to say that no one knows.

That's partly true (the Astra Zeneca used by many countries is not efficient), but the more concerning issue here is that more transmissible and/or deadly new variants are appearing at a much more rapid clip than before. That's because the virus is now rampant across the globe, and populations are trying to suppress it, leading to perfect conditions for maximum evolutionary pressure.

So we have to stay extremely vigilant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is cautious because the emergence of more transmissible and more deadly variants are throwing a wrench in the re-opening plans. No one knows exactly what impact the UK, S. African, Brazilian, and apparently New York variants (California variant apparently isn't as dangerous) will have on Covid trends, but it's wise to be very cautious at this point in time.

Please don't worry, OP and others. If it turns out we can open more, we most assuredly will! I hope you all understand that politicians are very worried about continued economic impact of closures. The default is to keep things open as much as possible. The fact that they're not tells you it's still a very high-risk situation.

There are multiple studies showing strong efficacy from all three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using against at least the UK, South African, and Brazilian variants.

It’s simply untrue to say that no one knows.

That's partly true (the Astra Zeneca used by many countries is not efficient), but the more concerning issue here is that more transmissible and/or deadly new variants are appearing at a much more rapid clip than before. That's because the virus is now rampant across the globe, and populations are trying to suppress it, leading to perfect conditions for maximum evolutionary pressure.

So we have to stay extremely vigilant.

I specified the three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using. We are not using AZ and probably will never be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely agree with a cautious approach.

And if a few kids commit suicide because we’re telling them to stay in their houses all summer, who cares right?

Calm your tits. No one said stay in the house. You do know that kids can ride bikes, go for hikes, swim, play kickball or jump rope outdoors, outside of the context of organized sports?

Oh wait...your kids only get outside when there are carpool, referees and designated crap snacks involved.

Oh STFU.

My kid isn’t even in any organized sports. She’s been in preschool this entire time, so she’s gotten plenty of socialization, and she plays outside otherwise.

I’m pushing back against the people on this thread who think 2021 is at all comparable to 2020, when we had ZERO vaccines. It’s just asinine.

What's asinine is you trying to play the "kid suicide" card when...NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO STAY INSIDE, AND NEVER HAS BEEN. And yours has been in preschool, so WTF? Shut up and live your privileged life. Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely agree with a cautious approach.

And if a few kids commit suicide because we’re telling them to stay in their houses all summer, who cares right?

Calm your tits. No one said stay in the house. You do know that kids can ride bikes, go for hikes, swim, play kickball or jump rope outdoors, outside of the context of organized sports?

Oh wait...your kids only get outside when there are carpool, referees and designated crap snacks involved.

Oh STFU.

My kid isn’t even in any organized sports. She’s been in preschool this entire time, so she’s gotten plenty of socialization, and she plays outside otherwise.

I’m pushing back against the people on this thread who think 2021 is at all comparable to 2020, when we had ZERO vaccines. It’s just asinine.

What's asinine is you trying to play the "kid suicide" card when...NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO STAY INSIDE, AND NEVER HAS BEEN. And yours has been in preschool, so WTF? Shut up and live your privileged life. Bye.

My privileged life, being an essential worker who has been in person this entire time? Sure. What privilege.

[Anonymous]

summer (outdoor) activities do not spread covid.

[Anonymous]

The people who can’t see the difference between summer 2021 and summer 2020 have the critical thinking skills of a snail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:summer (outdoor) activities do not spread covid.

Tell that to Elrich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely agree with a cautious approach.

And if a few kids commit suicide because we’re telling them to stay in their houses all summer, who cares right?

Calm your tits. No one said stay in the house. You do know that kids can ride bikes, go for hikes, swim, play kickball or jump rope outdoors, outside of the context of organized sports?

Oh wait...your kids only get outside when there are carpool, referees and designated crap snacks involved.

Oh STFU.

My kid isn’t even in any organized sports. She’s been in preschool this entire time, so she’s gotten plenty of socialization, and she plays outside otherwise.

I’m pushing back against the people on this thread who think 2021 is at all comparable to 2020, when we had ZERO vaccines. It’s just asinine.

What's asinine is you trying to play the "kid suicide" card when...NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO STAY INSIDE, AND NEVER HAS BEEN. And yours has been in preschool, so WTF? Shut up and live your privileged life. Bye.

My privileged life, being an essential worker who has been in person this entire time? Sure. What privilege.

Show me exactly when and where people were required to stay inside. I'm all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely agree with a cautious approach.

And if a few kids commit suicide because we’re telling them to stay in their houses all summer, who cares right?

Calm your tits. No one said stay in the house. You do know that kids can ride bikes, go for hikes, swim, play kickball or jump rope outdoors, outside of the context of organized sports?

Oh wait...your kids only get outside when there are carpool, referees and designated crap snacks involved.

Oh STFU.

My kid isn’t even in any organized sports. She’s been in preschool this entire time, so she’s gotten plenty of socialization, and she plays outside otherwise.

I’m pushing back against the people on this thread who think 2021 is at all comparable to 2020, when we had ZERO vaccines. It’s just asinine.

What's asinine is you trying to play the "kid suicide" card when...NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO STAY INSIDE, AND NEVER HAS BEEN. And yours has been in preschool, so WTF? Shut up and live your privileged life. Bye.

My privileged life, being an essential worker who has been in person this entire time? Sure. What privilege.

Show me exactly when and where people were required to stay inside. I'm all ears.

Show me how Elrich is being guided by “the science” in his decision-making. I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is cautious because the emergence of more transmissible and more deadly variants are throwing a wrench in the re-opening plans. No one knows exactly what impact the UK, S. African, Brazilian, and apparently New York variants (California variant apparently isn't as dangerous) will have on Covid trends, but it's wise to be very cautious at this point in time.

Please don't worry, OP and others. If it turns out we can open more, we most assuredly will! I hope you all understand that politicians are very worried about continued economic impact of closures. The default is to keep things open as much as possible. The fact that they're not tells you it's still a very high-risk situation.

There are multiple studies showing strong efficacy from all three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using against at least the UK, South African, and Brazilian variants.

It’s simply untrue to say that no one knows.

That's partly true (the Astra Zeneca used by many countries is not efficient), but the more concerning issue here is that more transmissible and/or deadly new variants are appearing at a much more rapid clip than before. That's because the virus is now rampant across the globe, and populations are trying to suppress it, leading to perfect conditions for maximum evolutionary pressure.

So we have to stay extremely vigilant.

I specified the three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using. We are not using AZ and probably will never be.

That's the problem. If there are reservoirs of hosts elsewhere in the world, the virus can still mutate and keep producing new variants that will reach these shores, and for which we have limited immunity.

Hence the boosters that vaccine-makers are currently exploring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is cautious because the emergence of more transmissible and more deadly variants are throwing a wrench in the re-opening plans. No one knows exactly what impact the UK, S. African, Brazilian, and apparently New York variants (California variant apparently isn't as dangerous) will have on Covid trends, but it's wise to be very cautious at this point in time.

Please don't worry, OP and others. If it turns out we can open more, we most assuredly will! I hope you all understand that politicians are very worried about continued economic impact of closures. The default is to keep things open as much as possible. The fact that they're not tells you it's still a very high-risk situation.

There are multiple studies showing strong efficacy from all three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using against at least the UK, South African, and Brazilian variants.

It’s simply untrue to say that no one knows.

That's partly true (the Astra Zeneca used by many countries is not efficient), but the more concerning issue here is that more transmissible and/or deadly new variants are appearing at a much more rapid clip than before. That's because the virus is now rampant across the globe, and populations are trying to suppress it, leading to perfect conditions for maximum evolutionary pressure.

So we have to stay extremely vigilant.

I specified the three vaccines the USA is or soon will be using. We are not using AZ and probably will never be.

That's the problem. If there are reservoirs of hosts elsewhere in the world, the virus can still mutate and keep producing new variants that will reach these shores, and for which we have limited immunity.

Hence the boosters that vaccine-makers are currently exploring.

Then we’ll get a yearly COVID booster. That’s not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Show me how Elrich is being guided by “the science” in his decision-making. I’ll wait.

I'm a research scientist in virology and related fields, and yes, Elrich is being guided by the best scientific advisers: our brain trust at NIH. We're a lot more cautious than the CDC, which is continually pressured to be as pro-opening as possible on all sides.

[Anonymous]

Good for him. I agree with him and disagree with OP.