How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[former player]

Do we have data on what roads the deaths occur on?  Because without that data we are just making stuff up.  If the deaths are on the high speed roads, then there may be a case to drop limits.  If the deaths are on lower limit roads, then the case falls apart immediately.

Have you tried asking Google?  Because the answers are (a) yes and (b) urban and rural roads create more casualties (c) urban and rural roads are often "high speed roads" - ie roads on which vehicles are driven too fast, and particularly too fast for the conditions.  Do please do the research to satisfy yourself on these answers.

Once again, the people here who are trying to argue that there should be no hygiene response to covid because people die on the roads are missing a boatload of points.  They are ignoring that there has been  a substantial response to road traffic deaths over the last 100 years, probably because that response is baked into their understanding of the world as it currently is and they cannot conceive of anything different.  Which may also be the problem with them accepting a hygiene response to covid - they are incapable of conceiving of change of the sort that is necessary to deal with the pandemic.  And they apparently consider that society's tolerance of a certain number of road deaths per year, a number which has been reduced to that level by massive and eye-watering levels of expense (compared to doing nothing) over decades has the logical corollary that they shouldn't be subject to minor and cheap inconveniences such as wearing a mask in public in order to  limit covid deaths (of which there have been more than half a million in the last year in the USA alone)

Perhaps I should go and beat a dead horse to make myself feel better.

[LaineyAZ]

Second info point, related to the topic, was a discussion on the radio of the statistic that 40% of Republicans have said they don't intend to get the vaccine.  If that's just their initial reaction, or if they will continue to flatly refuse as this pandemic continues, remains to be seen.

My point is that while the U.S. is frantically trying to vaccinate as many as possible while we all look nervously at Europe for what's happening with the Covid variants, these Covidiots are really making me think we'll continue to be in a pandemic up and down hell for many months to come.

"More than half of Black adults in the US remain hesitant to get the Covid-19 vaccine"......."Conversely, 31% of Black adults say they will not get the vaccine and 20% say they are unsure."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/health/vaccine-trust-black-adults-nfid-survey/index.html

Just curious if you considered these individuals as "Covidiots" also?

There are some groups that have very good reason to be skeptical of our medical system in the US. "Republicans" is not one of those groups.

Black people as a group being more vaccine-hesitant is entirely understandable because our medical system mistreats so many Black people currently relative to other racial groups and has done so for so long. The same is simply not the case for "Republicans".

Individuals have their reasons to not get vaccinated. Many are likely uneducated, perhaps have mistrusts, there likely some with personal religious beliefs, some may have outlying medical conditions, etc.

I already received the vaccine. My friend who is a "Republican" is declining hers. She had a bout with meningitis left her in a coma for 3 weeks. She is left with a TBI, gait imbalance, and 70% hearing loss. In your eyes she's an "idiot" based only on being "Republican". 

FYI: An "opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" is defined as Prejudice.

Oy vey.  We can trade anecdata all day long about those with conditions which preclude vaccination. 
My older sibling served in the military years ago where vaccinations were mandatory, including the one in the 70s for swine flu from which, according to him, he "almost died."  So he's not getting vaccinated for Covid-19 because he doesn't think he could tolerate it.  And even though he's also a borderline QAnon Republican, he's actually treated the disease seriously and has self-quarantined and been wearing masks for a year now. 

Neither your friend nor my sibling is foregoing the vaccination due to their political leanings.  But, as reported in the NY Times, there is a 27% point political gap in which Democrats are reporting more plans to get the vaccine or have already received it.  That's not prejudice, that's a fact.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Long Term Effects of Repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States.

Abstract
Objectives. We examined the long-term effects of the 1995 repeal of federal speed limit controls on road fatalities and injuries in fatal crashes.

Methods. We used a Poisson mixed-regression model to assess changes in the number of fatalities and injuries in fatal crashes between 1995 and 2005 on rural interstates, where all US states have raised speed limits since the repeal, as well as on urban interstates and noninterstate roads, where many states have raised speed limits.

Results. We found a 3.2% increase in road fatalities attributable to the raised speed limits on all road types in the United States. The highest increases were on rural interstates (9.1%) and urban interstates (4.0%). We estimated that 12 545 deaths (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8739, 16 352) and 36 583 injuries in fatal crashes (95% CI = 29 322, 43 844) were attributable to increases in speed limits across the United States.

Conclusions. Reduced speed limits and improved enforcement with speed camera networks could immediately reduce speeds and save lives, in addition to reducing gas consumption, cutting emissions of air pollutants, saving valuable years of productivity, and reducing the cost of motor vehicle crashes."

tl/dr: Just returning to the 1974 US federal 55 m.p.h. speed limit could save THOUSANDS of lives and prevent many more thousands of injuries, every. single. year. Even though going back to a national 55 m.p.h. speed limit would only lengthen most drivers' commutes by a tiny amount, and doing so would also have the added side benefit of preventing a HUGE amount of pollution and greenhouse gasses from being released into the atmosphere, it's still considered a bridge too far by many Americans.

One user upthread said changing the speed limit to 20mph would do nothing. I struggle to understand that logic. Surely you would agree that a speed limit of 20mph as opposed to 60mph means that if people follow the speed limit the force of an accident would be 1/9 as much (3^2). I suppose the theory is "people won't heed the law anyway" but that's a matter of enforcement - it's kind of like saying "you'll never get the whole population to wear face masks/not patronise restaurants". The answer is that even some compliance is better than nothing.

So I don't see how the speed limit analogy doesn't hold up. We could save lives by simply crippling the road network. We could save fewer, but still some, lives by simply making people drive at moderate speeds (say 35mph?) but we don't even do that.

Do we have data on what roads the deaths occur on?  Because without that data we are just making stuff up.  If the deaths are on the high speed roads, then there may be a case to drop limits.  If the deaths are on lower limit roads, then the case falls apart immediately.

Are you suggesting that you believe that a fair number of road deaths (and injuries, too) don't occur on, say, highways and rural highways, or other roads with a >40mph speed limit? I am sure I could google the contrary data, but the fact that you would try to suggest the dropping speed limits might not reduce deaths is ridiculous on a number of levels. But of course you're right - if all the deaths are occurring on residential roads with a 25-30mph limit and the 55-65mph highways are safe, then there's no point dropping speed limits. Not sure that jives with logic though...

[GuitarStv]

Do we have data on what roads the deaths occur on?  Because without that data we are just making stuff up.  If the deaths are on the high speed roads, then there may be a case to drop limits.  If the deaths are on lower limit roads, then the case falls apart immediately.

Are you suggesting that you believe that a fair number of road deaths (and injuries, too) don't occur on, say, highways and rural highways, or other roads with a >40mph speed limit? I am sure I could google the contrary data, but the fact that you would try to suggest the dropping speed limits might not reduce deaths is ridiculous on a number of levels. But of course you're right - if all the deaths are occurring on residential roads with a 25-30mph limit and the 55-65mph highways are safe, then there's no point dropping speed limits. Not sure that jives with logic though...

According to the research I've found, the average speed seems to be directly correlated to greater risk of death with cars in pedestrians¹ and with car occupants².

¹https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000145751200276X#:~:text=The%20average%20risk%20of%20death,Risks%20varied%20by%20age.
²https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf

The average risk of [pedestrian] death reaches 10% at an impact speed of 24.1 mph, 25% at 32.5 mph, 50% at 40.6 mph, 75% at 48.0 mph, and 90% at 54.6 mph.

the risk of car driver fatality in a [frontal] impact with a delta-v of 30 mph is approximately 3%, at 40 mph the risk is approximately 17%, and at 50 mph the risk is approximately 60%.

For a side impact with a delta-v of 30 mph, the risk of fatality is approximately 25%. For a delta-v of 40 mph, the risk of fatality is approximately 85%.

It appears that lowering vehicle speeds would reduce deaths regardless of the roads being driven - there are not too many residential roads where a driver would be doing 50 mph and not too many highways where people would be driving 30 mph and hitting pedestrians.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Thanks for the data, GuitarStV - that certainly accords with most people's common sense.

I've heard previously at 60km/h (40mph) is the point at which there's a 50/50 chance of dying in a bed accident.

[RetiredAt63]

I read someplace that a pedestrian will suffer more injuries from an SUV than a car, all other factors being equal, simply due to the taller profile of an SUV.  SUVs are also more dangerous to a car's occupants than another car in head-on collisions.

I don't know how it impacted injuries/deaths, but Quebec saw automotive accidents go down when they mandated winter tires.

[jehovasfitness23]

Thanks for the data, GuitarStV - that certainly accords with most people's common sense.

I've heard previously at 60km/h (40mph) is the point at which there's a 50/50 chance of dying in a bed accident.

Not sure what you're doing in bed to reach 40 mph, but my condolences to your spouse

[GuitarStv]

Thanks for the data, GuitarStV - that certainly accords with most people's common sense.

I've heard previously at 60km/h (40mph) is the point at which there's a 50/50 chance of dying in a bed accident.

Not sure what you're doing in bed to reach 40 mph, but my condolences to your spouse

. . . or perhaps congratulations are in order!  :P

[SunnyDays]

Thanks for the data, GuitarStV - that certainly accords with most people's common sense.

I've heard previously at 60km/h (40mph) is the point at which there's a 50/50 chance of dying in a bed accident.

Not sure what you're doing in bed to reach 40 mph, but my condolences to your spouse

LOL!  At that speed, a heart attack or stroke could certainly be fatal!

[RetiredAt63]

I forgot that you don't give a fuck unless the person dies.  :P

It doesn't matter what I care about. It comes down to what society as a whole cares about, and if a whole bunch of people aren't at high risk of death, they're not going to care.

Also, the "snarky Canadian" Schtick is predictable at this point. Might want to change it up :P

Oh, are we Canadians "snarky" now, instead of "nice"?  Or just GuitarStv?

Not all Canadians. You and most of the posters here conduct themselves respectfully, regardless of nationality, without letting discussions devolve into foul language, and thinly veiled insults dripping with moral superiority. Stv on the other hand has some clear tendencies

Actually I was being snarky there.  I guess Canadian snarky (or at least my snarky) is so low key it goes unnoticed.   ;-)

[Just Joe]

Spoke to someone in our social circle that we don't see often.

Casually mentioned we hadn't been to a restaurant in over a year at this point. Got lots of REALLY?!?!? over the phone. Perplexed quiet moments.

They've been going out during COVID despite their risk categories. DW and I agreed that friends's heads would pop if they heard how forum members here were being careful all around the globe.

DW and I look forward to going out - eventually. Not yet. State and county numbers are back to climbing.   

[OtherJen]

Fabulous, just fabulous. SO glad we fully opened up the schools and school sports and increased the restaurant and bar capacities in time for St. Pat's day.[/sarcasm]

From WXYZ Detroit (ABC affiliate): CDC: Michigan has worst COVID-19 infection rate of any state in the country

From Michigan Public Radio: COVID hospitalizations on the rise statewide, with a big uptick in the Thumb

And patients are getting sicker, he says. 15-20% of people who test positive for COVID-19 in the thumb region require hospitalization, a number that he says is alarming.

"So with the first wave we saw definitely older folks, in their 70s, 80s, who were coming in moderately to severely ill, required oxygenation, some intubation," Hamed said. "However, with this current wave, we’re seeing a lot younger folks: 30s to 60s, coming in with very atypical conditions."

The increased frequency of acute neurologic and cardiac complications with these patient is especially concerning: "Strokes, kidney failure, heart attacks, along with the pneuomonia and respiratory issues," he listed.

More younger people being hospitalized with COVID lines up with statewide data from the Michigan Hospital Association that people under 50 make up 30% of the state's hospitalizations. That's likely thanks to vaccines available to the older demographic that was so disproportionately impacted last year.

[jehovasfitness23]

Fabulous, just fabulous. SO glad we fully opened up the schools and school sports and increased the restaurant and bar capacities in time for St. Pat's day.[/sarcasm]

From WXYZ Detroit (ABC affiliate): CDC: Michigan has worst COVID-19 infection rate of any state in the country

last year.

[/quote]

Yeah I love how #s are back where they were in the Fall when schools were closed and now the whole media narrative shifted to "open schools", at the same time talk of more contagious variants was popping up.

the need to open schools once trump left (no trump fan) was laughable... even the year long 6' social distancing changed to 3' for kids b/c clearly 6' would never work in getting kids back in school. LOL

[former player]

This is worrying on the amount of "long covid" there could be -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56601911

That's a lot of additional disability in working age populations.  What price the so-called economic advantages in allowing more infection in those populations now?

[The 585]

This is worrying on the amount of "long covid" there could be -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56601911

That's a lot of additional disability in working age populations.  What price the so-called economic advantages in allowing more infection in those populations now?

I don't see anything particularly worrying there. Direct quote from that BBC article:

Most people who get coronavirus feel better in a few days or weeks, and the majority will make a full recovery within 12 weeks. But for some people, symptoms can last longer.

And what are those "long term symptoms"? From the NHS link within the BBC article:

Common long COVID symptoms include:

extreme tiredness (fatigue)
shortness of breath
chest pain or tightness
problems with memory and concentration ("brain fog")
difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
heart palpitations
dizziness
pins and needles
joint pain
depression and anxiety
tinnitus, earaches
feeling sick, diarrhoea, stomach aches, loss of appetite
a high temperature, cough, headaches, sore throat, changes to sense of smell or taste
rashes

Much of these symptoms also seem like they'd go hand-in-hand with depression and anxiety, which could inherently be caused by the lockdowns and restrictions themselves.

[former player]

20% of Covid suffers have symptoms after 5 weeks and one in seven have symptoms after 3 months. There have been over 30 million cases of covid in the USA, so that's 6 million people ill for longer than 5 weeks and over 4 million ill for 3 months or more.

The people most likely to report these symptoms are people of working age.

If you look at the ONS report there may even be a downwards bias in the statistics because some symptoms associated with long covid haven't been included -

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021#strength-and-limitations

Depression and anxiety could equally be linked to having had covid and long covid, so I don't see your point here.  All the people replying had covid and the symptoms reported (loss of taste and smell, shortness of breath, etc) are also clearly medically linked to covid.

So by all means feel free to deny the problem if you want, but covid denial hasn't looked like a good bet over the last year.
ww

[jrhampt]

This seems relevant here:

https://fortune.com/2021/03/22/texas-roadhouse-ceo-kent-taylor-suicide-tinnitus-covid/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2021/03/21/texas-roadhouse-ceo-suicide-post-covid-19-tinnitus-contributed/?sh=31f7edc72940

[sui generis]

On the hopeful side, in the last day I started seeing articles like this: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/31/982799452/mysterious-ailment-mysterious-relief-vaccines-help-some-covid-long-haulers

[mathlete]

We're not still arguing about lockdowns are we?

There existed no scenario where we could have gone without major intervention. We simply didn't have the infrastructure to handle that much sickness and that many dead bodies. Are there things we could have done better? Of course. We probably should have moved to open schools earlier, knowing what we know now. Throw money at the problem to add safety and appease teachers. Mark it down as lessons for next time.

And cars in and of themselves are not a public health crisis. If we want to make an apples to apples comparison with COVID restrictions, there's a lot of massaging we need to do to those death numbers. We should probably remove deaths resulting from a crash with a fixed object. These crashes kill only people who willingly engaged in driving or got into the car. Unlike a communicable disease, where reckless behavior puts the whole community at risk. That's 10K deaths right there. You could probably use the same logic to exclude deaths resulting from multi-vehicle crashes too. Anyone involved in a multi-vehicle crash elected to incur the risk of driving. That's another 16K.

That leaves around 10K killed in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. I'll go ahead and assume all of these deaths are the fault of the driver and all of them are the pedestrian or cyclist being killed. That's a ceiling of 10K deaths incurred by people who did not willfully engage in the use of motor vehicles. I'm amenable to adding some portion of the 16K of multi-vehicle deaths back in for people who willfully engage in driving, but who do so safely. i.e., people who weren't at fault.

So a soft cap of 10K and a hard cap of 26K. It's now worth noting that the United States takes these deaths very seriously. Look at the progress we've made:



How did we accomplish this? A lot of it, like COVID response, was restrictions of freedom. You cannot buy a car without airbags. You cannot buy a car without seatbelts. Driving without a seatbelt is ticketable in 49 states. Seatbelt compliance was estimated to have saved more than 300K lives in the last 50 years.

Distracted driving is responsible for a majority of collisions, with alcohol impairment accounting for 30%. There has been a massive awareness campaign around drunk driving since the 1980s, with DUI fatalities falling precipitously. For people who drive drunk anyway, there are significant penalties including the restriction of freedom. Jail time. License suspension. Interlock. etc.

A similar campaign around distracted driving and phone use has started up in the last ten years or so, with 48 states banning texting and driving.

A severe pandemic is a much tougher and more acute issue, but the approach is largely the same.

[windytrail]

We're not still arguing about lockdowns are we?

There existed no scenario where we could have gone without major intervention. We simply didn't have the infrastructure to handle that much sickness and that many dead bodies. Are there things we could have done better? Of course. We probably should have moved to open schools earlier, knowing what we know now. Throw money at the problem to add safety and appease teachers. Mark it down as lessons for next time.

And cars in and of themselves are not a public health crisis. If we want to make an apples to apples comparison with COVID restrictions, there's a lot of massaging we need to do to those death numbers. We should probably remove deaths resulting from a crash with a fixed object. These crashes kill only people who willingly engaged in driving or got into the car. Unlike a communicable disease, where reckless behavior puts the whole community at risk. That's 10K deaths right there. You could probably use the same logic to exclude deaths resulting from multi-vehicle crashes too. Anyone involved in a multi-vehicle crash elected to incur the risk of driving. That's another 16K.

That leaves around 10K killed in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. I'll go ahead and assume all of these deaths are the fault of the driver and all of them are the pedestrian or cyclist being killed. That's a ceiling of 10K deaths incurred by people who did not willfully engage in the use of motor vehicles. I'm amenable to adding some portion of the 16K of multi-vehicle deaths back in for people who willfully engage in driving, but who do so safely. i.e., people who weren't at fault.

So a soft cap of 10K and a hard cap of 26K. It's now worth noting that the United States takes these deaths very seriously. Look at the progress we've made:



How did we accomplish this? A lot of it, like COVID response, was restrictions of freedom. You cannot buy a car without airbags. You cannot buy a car without seatbelts. Driving without a seatbelt is ticketable in 49 states. Seatbelt compliance was estimated to have saved more than 300K lives in the last 50 years.

Distracted driving is responsible for a majority of collisions, with alcohol impairment accounting for 30%. There has been a massive awareness campaign around drunk driving since the 1980s, with DUI fatalities falling precipitously. For people who drive drunk anyway, there are significant penalties including the restriction of freedom. Jail time. License suspension. Interlock. etc.

A similar campaign around distracted driving and phone use has started up in the last ten years or so, with 48 states banning texting and driving.

A severe pandemic is a much tougher and more acute issue, but the approach is largely the same.

I see that your graph is taken from the Wikipedia article here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year). That's fine, but figures from 2016 are a bit outdated. To understand how that data is deceptive, you have to understand that cars have been getting safer for people inside cars while both cars and roads are becoming more dangerous for pedestrians.

Pedestrian and cyclist deaths as a proportion of all traffic deaths have been rising dramatically in the past decade.

Let's look at the share of pedestrian fatalities compared to all traffic fatalities:

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20-1319-AAAFTS_Pedestrian-Fatalities-Brief_FINAL-122220.pdf
Over the period from 2009 to 2018, pedestrian fatalities in the United States increased 53%, from 4,109 to 6,283, after decreasing for three decades (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2019; Schneider, 2020; Webb, 2019). The proportion of all traffic fatalities that were pedestrians increased from 12% to 17% over the same time period (Webb, 2019). Between 2010 and 2017, the U.S. experienced the largest percentage increase in pedestrian fatalities among 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development, 24 of which saw decreases in pedestrian fatalities (International Transport Forum, 2019).

Let's look at pedestrian deaths in 2018:

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-Pedestrian-Spotlight-FINAL-rev1.pdf
In recent years, the number of pedestrian fatalities in the United States has grown sharply. During the 10-year period from 2009 to 2018, the number of pedestrian fatalities increased by 53% (from 4,109 deaths in 2009 to 6,283 deaths in 2018); by comparison, the combined number of all other traffic deaths increased by 2% . Along with the increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities, pedestrian deaths as a percentage of total motor vehicle crash deaths increased from 12% in 2009 to 17% in 2018. The last time pedestrians accounted for 17% of total U.S. traffic deaths was over 35 years ago, in 1982

Now let's look at bicycle deaths in the past three years:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2409749/outside-cycling-deaths-2020#content   [graph included]
https://www.outsideonline.com/2420196/what-we-learned-tracking-cycling-deaths-year

In 2018, 857 cyclists died in crashes with drivers, the deadliest year for people on bikes since 1990. In 2019, while the total number of deaths dipped slightly, to 846, cities like New York recorded their highest number of cyclist fatalities ever.

Last January, in response to those disturbing numbers, we launched the #2020CyclingDeaths project, which aimed to track every person on a bike killed by a driver in the U.S. over the course of the year. In the end, we recorded 697 cyclist deaths.

Now let's look at total traffic deaths in 2020:

https://www.nsc.org/newsroom/motor-vehicle-deaths-2020-estimated-to-be-highest
For the first time since 2007, preliminary data from the National Safety Council show that as many as 42,060 people are estimated to have died in motor vehicle crashes in 2020. That marks an 8% increase over 2019 in a year where people drove significantly less frequently because of the pandemic. The preliminary estimated rate of death on the roads last year spiked 24% over the previous 12-month period, despite miles driven dropping 13%. The increase in the rate of death is the highest estimated year-over-year jump that NSC has calculated since 1924 – 96 years. It underscores the nation’s persistent failure to prioritize safety on the roads, which became emptier but far more deadly.

How can roads be becoming safer for people inside cars, while simultaneously becoming more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists? This article does a good job of explaining:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/five-ways-to-make-u-s-streets-less-deadly
People drive the speeds the roads “tell” them to drive. And they drive the cars that are allowed to be built.
[...]
Let’s talk about U.S. road design rules first. They prioritize one thing: speed. A design manual known as the “Green Book” plays a leading role. Never heard of it? That’s because it’s written without public input by traffic engineers at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The Green Book has been used for decades by the federal government, all 50 states, and countless municipalities. In general, it requires lanes that are too wide, which encourages cars to drive faster, and practically ignores pedestrians and bikers.

Fire codes, too, mandate overly wide streets, requiring 20 feet of unobstructed path for new or significantly improved streets. But city residents can’t get involved in drafting fire codes, either. They are primarily drafted by an organization of building code officials that recently sued a group who put the code online, so people could actually read it. Despite efforts in some cities to reduce fire-code-mandated street widths, these codes dominate street design nationally.

And then there is the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which governs signalization and, more importantly, speed limits. This manual is published by the Federal Highway Administration, a federal agency, which is a better alternative to the private rule-making of the Green Book and fire codes. But in one big way, it is deeply problematic: The MUTCD recommends setting speed limits that match the 85th percentile of actual free-flowing traffic, rounded up to the nearest 5 miles per hour. In effect, drivers breaking the law by speeding justifies raising speed limits even more. The MUTCD also standardizes signaling and pavement markings that often prioritize cars over all other road users.

Vehicle design regulations aren’t much better: U.S. safety regulators prioritize the people inside the vehicle, largely ignoring the non-passenger impact of passenger vehicles. Unregulated, car manufacturers have flooded the market with oversized SUVs and pickup trucks with huge frontal surfaces and poor forward vision — design features that would fail to meet Europe’s more stringent vehicle safety standards, and that make such machines more dangerous for pedestrians and those in smaller cars.

SUVs have contributed to the 81% increase in pedestrian fatalities between 2009 and 2018, and roads are deadlier for bikers and pedestrians than they have been in 30 years. Disproportionately represented among these fatalities are Black people, Native people and the elderly. Our laws value drivers and car passengers over everyone else who uses our roads.

[DaMa]

This is worrying on the amount of "long covid" there could be -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56601911

That's a lot of additional disability in working age populations.  What price the so-called economic advantages in allowing more infection in those populations now?

I don't see anything particularly worrying there. Direct quote from that BBC article:

Most people who get coronavirus feel better in a few days or weeks, and the majority will make a full recovery within 12 weeks. But for some people, symptoms can last longer.

And what are those "long term symptoms"? From the NHS link within the BBC article:

Common long COVID symptoms include:

extreme tiredness (fatigue)
shortness of breath
chest pain or tightness
problems with memory and concentration ("brain fog")
difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
heart palpitations
dizziness
pins and needles
joint pain
depression and anxiety
tinnitus, earaches
feeling sick, diarrhoea, stomach aches, loss of appetite
a high temperature, cough, headaches, sore throat, changes to sense of smell or taste
rashes

Much of these symptoms also seem like they'd go hand-in-hand with depression and anxiety, which could inherently be caused by the lockdowns and restrictions themselves.

These are also the symptoms of pretty much every auto-immune disorder, and it is believed (known?) that viruses can trigger those disorders.

[mathlete]

The chart stopped where it stopped. It wasn't to mislead. And an increase in pedestrian or cyclist deaths over the past few years doesn't materially change the conclusion that people care about deaths caused by motor vehicles and that deaths per vehicle mile traveled have plummeted.

The comparison to auto accidents is brought up because people question why we're willing to give up freedom to prevent COVID deaths, but there's this other large pool of deaths over here that we're seemingly unwilling to compromise on. But it's not the same thing.

America decided collectively over the past 100 years, just how many deaths and how much freedom we're willing to trade for all the benefits of automobiles. We restricted the freedom to drive by creating departments in every state responsible for mandating safety training and issuing licenses. The risk of death from unqualified drivers was too great, so we sacrificed some freedom. We made more decisions along this vector when we mandated seatbelts. We eventually decided that depriving drunks the ability to drive was worth lowering drunk driving deaths. Sometimes we even throw them in jail. Sometimes we throw the bartender in jail. Less aggregate freedom in exchange for lives saved. We also make these decisions every time our municipal governments hold hearings on a new stoplight.

We do this for guns too. In America, we've decided that the number of deaths we're willing to pay for gun freedom is somewhere north of 30K a year.

The optimal freedom/death/benefit mix for guns and cars was tacitly agreed upon over a hundred years in local and national conversations, in legislation and in courts. With COVID, we've really only had a year to sort all this out. It's an acute issue that we don't expect to be with us for decades to come. In the short term, we outsource our decision making to policymakers, bureaucrats, and experts on stuff like this. That's just how it works.

It became more of a conversation as time went on, with people petitioning their governments to open businesses back up or challenging decisions in court. But even in places that do open up, private businesses still have their say. As do schools and hospitals. You can't make someone work in a supermarket without a mask policy. You can't force doctors and nurses to work overtime to expand our COVID-strained healthcare capacity. You can't make teachers go back to work before they feel ready. And so on.

It was a big and messy thing to watch get sorted out in real time. But we all consented on one level or another, to the final answer.

[windytrail]

The chart stopped where it stopped. It wasn't to mislead. And an increase in pedestrian or cyclist deaths over the past few years doesn't materially change the conclusion that people care about deaths caused by motor vehicles and that deaths per vehicle mile traveled have plummeted.

The comparison to auto accidents is brought up because people question why we're willing to give up freedom to prevent COVID deaths, but there's this other large pool of deaths over here that we're seemingly unwilling to compromise on. But it's not the same thing.

America decided collectively over the past 100 years, just how many deaths and how much freedom we're willing to trade for all the benefits of automobiles. We restricted the freedom to drive by creating departments in every state responsible for mandating safety training and issuing licenses. The risk of death from unqualified drivers was too great, so we sacrificed some freedom. We made more decisions along this vector when we mandated seatbelts. We eventually decided that depriving drunks the ability to drive was worth lowering drunk driving deaths. Sometimes we even throw them in jail. Sometimes we throw the bartender in jail. Less aggregate freedom in exchange for lives saved. We also make these decisions every time our municipal governments hold hearings on a new stoplight.

We do this for guns too. In America, we've decided that the number of deaths we're willing to pay for gun freedom is somewhere north of 30K a year.

The optimal freedom/death/benefit mix for guns and cars was tacitly agreed upon over a hundred years in local and national conversations, in legislation and in courts. With COVID, we've really only had a year to sort all this out. It's an acute issue that we don't expect to be with us for decades to come. In the short term, we outsource our decision making to policymakers, bureaucrats, and experts on stuff like this. That's just how it works.

It became more of a conversation as time went on, with people petitioning their governments to open businesses back up or challenging decisions in court. But even in places that do open up, private businesses still have their say. As do schools and hospitals. You can't make someone work in a supermarket without a mask policy. You can't force doctors and nurses to work overtime to expand our COVID-strained healthcare capacity. You can't make teachers go back to work before they feel ready. And so on.

It was a big and messy thing to watch get sorted out in real time. But we all consented on one level or another, to the final answer.

Not speaking for anyone else, my specific point (raised upthread) was the hypocrisy of claiming that everyone should voluntarily burden themselves to protect the most vulnerable in our population by wearing masks. You have made my point in demonstrating that most Americans are happy with the status quo with respect to the safety of our roads, despite the disproportionate deaths and injuries suffered by the most vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

[jehovasfitness23]

The chart stopped where it stopped. It wasn't to mislead. And an increase in pedestrian or cyclist deaths over the past few years doesn't materially change the conclusion that people care about deaths caused by motor vehicles and that deaths per vehicle mile traveled have plummeted.

You have made my point in demonstrating that most Americans are happy with the status quo with respect to the safety of our roads, despite the disproportionate deaths and injuries suffered by the most vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Not quite as roads are redesigned based upon data that shows they can be more dangerous, that or new traffic patterns with stop lights etc. That along with the increased cost of cars to meet regulatory standards that are constantly evolving.

[mathlete]

Not speaking for anyone else, my specific point (raised upthread) was the hypocrisy of claiming that everyone should voluntarily burden themselves to protect the most vulnerable in our population by wearing masks. You have made my point in demonstrating that most Americans are happy with the status quo with respect to the safety of our roads, despite the disproportionate deaths and injuries suffered by the most vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Everyone should voluntarily burden themselves by wearing a mask and practicing distancing in the same way that we voluntarily burden ourselves to not drive distracted or drunk. The shame (and legal penalties) associated with the latter are much greater. There is no dissonance here IMO.

[mathlete]

None of this is to say I'm not concerned about an increase in pedestrian and cyclist death. And I know it's more than just distracted or drunk driving.

I'm really partial to the stuff about road design. It's really interesting.

But distracted driving and drunk driving account for a lot of accidents. And in those that remain, where the motorist was ostensibly making reasonable attempt at safe driving, we also have to consider the risk incurred by cyclists using roads that were clearly designed with cars in mind. I don't bike to work because the road to get to the office is a 45 MPH speed limit 3 lane parkway with no bike lane. It clearly wasn't made for cycling in mind. That sucks and we should change it if we can. But in the meantime, I think cyclists understand that they're incurring and bear responsibility for some of the risk.

[GuitarStv]

None of this is to say I'm not concerned about an increase in pedestrian and cyclist death. And I know it's more than just distracted or drunk driving.

I'm really partial to the stuff about road design. It's really interesting.

But distracted driving and drunk driving account for a lot of accidents. And in those that remain, where the motorist was ostensibly making reasonable attempt at safe driving, we also have to consider the risk incurred by cyclists using roads that were clearly designed with cars in mind. I don't bike to work because the road to get to the office is a 45 MPH speed limit 3 lane parkway with no bike lane. It clearly wasn't made for cycling in mind. That sucks and we should change it if we can. But in the meantime, I think cyclists understand that they're incurring and bear responsibility for some of the risk.

I'm often with you on your posts, but can't agree here.  It's some bullshit logic . . . and that becomes very apparent when we apply it to another scenario:

Why did that woman walk down that dark alley?  And while wearing high heels!  Clearly she should have stayed home.  That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.  People shouldn't be walking where they're legally allowed to without assuming responsibility for what happens when others break the rules and hurt them.  It sucks that dark alleys exist . . . but until we have police officers carrying flashlights on every dark street corner, women should clearly stay at home or accept responsibility for what others do to them.

For the record, I do my best to plan safe cycling routes.  Despite these efforts, there are rare occasions when I end up forced on a fast road because of lack of options (especially while cycling in unfamiliar locations or new routes far from home).  I'm well aware that risk is incurred in these occasions, but that risk is typically due to drivers on that road.  If motorists could be relied upon to follow the rules (not driving drunk, not driving distracted, not breaking speed limits, driving according to weather and road conditions) that risk would be reduced to near zero.

[Davnasty]

That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.

Wut?

[GuitarStv]

That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.

Wut?

Much like public roadways, the alley was designed for all people.  If rapists and murderers are hanging out there often, then the solution isn't to blame women for being assaulted, just as if vehicles are driving unsafely on roadways the solution isn't to blame cyclists . . . in both cases the solution is to immediately police the area better and maybe work long term to redesign the alley so it's less accommodating to those who are so comfortable breaking the law and putting others at risk.

[sui generis]

That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.

Wut?

Much like public roadways, the alley was designed for all people.  If rapists and murderers are hanging out there often, then the solution isn't to blame women for being assaulted, just as if vehicles are driving unsafely on roadways the solution isn't to blame cyclists . . . in both cases the solution is to immediately police the area better and maybe work long term to redesign the alley so it's less accommodating to those who are so comfortable breaking the law and putting others at risk.

Well, this isn't exactly apt in that public roadways were actually generally designed or improved just for cars.  It has been a battle royale to try to get municipalities and other government agencies to try to make the smallest adjustments to do much at all to accommodate anything other than cars. So, like if anyone had purposely designed alleys for rapists and murderers, then the public had, at great cost, convinced elected officials that rapists and murderers weren't the only legitimate users of alleys and couldn't there be some accommodation for non-rapists and murderers....nah, the analogy is just not a good fit.

[Longwaytogo]

That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.

Wut?

Much like public roadways, the alley was designed for all people.  If rapists and murderers are hanging out there often, then the solution isn't to blame women for being assaulted, just as if vehicles are driving unsafely on roadways the solution isn't to blame cyclists . . . in both cases the solution is to immediately police the area better and maybe work long term to redesign the alley so it's less accommodating to those who are so comfortable breaking the law and putting others at risk.

Well, this isn't exactly apt in that public roadways were actually generally designed or improved just for cars.  It has been a battle royale to try to get municipalities and other government agencies to try to make the smallest adjustments to do much at all to accommodate anything other than cars. So, like if anyone had purposely designed alleys for rapists and murderers, then the public had, at great cost, convinced elected officials that rapists and murderers weren't the only legitimate users of alleys and couldn't there be some accommodation for non-rapists and murderers....nah, the analogy is just not a good fit.

agree analogy makes little to no sense IMO

But then I'm not really following the traffic death to Covid analogy much either!

[GuitarStv]

That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.

Wut?

Much like public roadways, the alley was designed for all people.  If rapists and murderers are hanging out there often, then the solution isn't to blame women for being assaulted, just as if vehicles are driving unsafely on roadways the solution isn't to blame cyclists . . . in both cases the solution is to immediately police the area better and maybe work long term to redesign the alley so it's less accommodating to those who are so comfortable breaking the law and putting others at risk.

Well, this isn't exactly apt in that public roadways were actually generally designed or improved just for cars.  It has been a battle royale to try to get municipalities and other government agencies to try to make the smallest adjustments to do much at all to accommodate anything other than cars. So, like if anyone had purposely designed alleys for rapists and murderers, then the public had, at great cost, convinced elected officials that rapists and murderers weren't the only legitimate users of alleys and couldn't there be some accommodation for non-rapists and murderers....nah, the analogy is just not a good fit.

agree analogy makes little to no sense IMO

But then I'm not really following the traffic death to Covid analogy much either!

We design alleys for people.  Some of those people may use the alley to break the law and hurt others . . . just as some folks speed/text/drunk drive/distracted drive on a roadway and hurt others.  The key similarity comes from trying to shift blame to the person following the law who is injured by the illegal actions of others.

I don't believe that we should be OK with telling women that walking later at night makes them victims so don't do it.  Likewise we shouldn't be telling cyclists that they're at fault for the actions of motorists who drive unsafely.  This of course doesn't excuse dangerous behaviour by cyclists - but the act of riding a bike legally and following all rules of the road should not in any way be considered contributory to the cause of an accident.

[Longwaytogo]

That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.

Wut?

Much like public roadways, the alley was designed for all people.  If rapists and murderers are hanging out there often, then the solution isn't to blame women for being assaulted, just as if vehicles are driving unsafely on roadways the solution isn't to blame cyclists . . . in both cases the solution is to immediately police the area better and maybe work long term to redesign the alley so it's less accommodating to those who are so comfortable breaking the law and putting others at risk.

Well, this isn't exactly apt in that public roadways were actually generally designed or improved just for cars.  It has been a battle royale to try to get municipalities and other government agencies to try to make the smallest adjustments to do much at all to accommodate anything other than cars. So, like if anyone had purposely designed alleys for rapists and murderers, then the public had, at great cost, convinced elected officials that rapists and murderers weren't the only legitimate users of alleys and couldn't there be some accommodation for non-rapists and murderers....nah, the analogy is just not a good fit.

agree analogy makes little to no sense IMO

But then I'm not really following the traffic death to Covid analogy much either!

We design alleys for people.  Some of those people may use the alley to break the law and hurt others . . . just as some folks speed/text/drunk drive/distracted drive on a roadway and hurt others.  The key similarity comes from trying to shift blame to the person following the law who is injured by the illegal actions of others.

I don't believe that we should be OK with telling women that walking later at night makes them victims so don't do it.  Likewise we shouldn't be telling cyclists that they're at fault for the actions of motorists who drive unsafely.  This of course doesn't excuse dangerous behaviour by cyclists - but the act of riding a bike legally and following all rules of the road should not in any way be considered contributory to the cause of an accident.

Right...but as others have said most roads were designed for cars only and bikes/pedestrians were an afterthought

No one designed alleys for murderers/rapists only and then thought oh maybe law abiding citizens will walk these alleys to.

------

anyway, seems unrelated to Covid and curve flattening at any rate :p

[Plina]

None of this is to say I'm not concerned about an increase in pedestrian and cyclist death. And I know it's more than just distracted or drunk driving.

I'm really partial to the stuff about road design. It's really interesting.

But distracted driving and drunk driving account for a lot of accidents. And in those that remain, where the motorist was ostensibly making reasonable attempt at safe driving, we also have to consider the risk incurred by cyclists using roads that were clearly designed with cars in mind. I don't bike to work because the road to get to the office is a 45 MPH speed limit 3 lane parkway with no bike lane. It clearly wasn't made for cycling in mind. That sucks and we should change it if we can. But in the meantime, I think cyclists understand that they're incurring and bear responsibility for some of the risk.

I don’t know how it is in US but in Sweden the roads are for vehicules and a bike is considered a vehicule according to the law. The only place were it is illegal to bike on is highways but other slow moving vehicules such as tractors are also forbidden.

I regularly bike at roads with 90 km/h (60 mph) because if I didn’t do that I would be pretty limited in my biking. Some drivers clearly have a problem with bikers and my approach to biking is that everyone is out there to kill me. I bike as if they don’t see me. That have saved me tons of times especially in bike lanes and in city traffic. I actually find it safer to bike on country roads because most of the drivers keep their distance, while in the city you have to deal with cars, trams, buses, other bikers and pedestrians that step out on the bike path without any warning.

Actually, biking has increased during covid and the investments in bike infrastructure because people want to avoid public transportation. There were a bike shortage last summer in stores.

[mathlete]

I'm often with you on your posts, but can't agree here.  It's some bullshit logic . . . and that becomes very apparent when we apply it to another scenario:

Why did that woman walk down that dark alley?  And while wearing high heels!  Clearly she should have stayed home.  That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.  People shouldn't be walking where they're legally allowed to without assuming responsibility for what happens when others break the rules and hurt them.  It sucks that dark alleys exist . . . but until we have police officers carrying flashlights on every dark street corner, women should clearly stay at home or accept responsibility for what others do to them.

For the record, I do my best to plan safe cycling routes.  Despite these efforts, there are rare occasions when I end up forced on a fast road because of lack of options (especially while cycling in unfamiliar locations or new routes far from home).  I'm well aware that risk is incurred in these occasions, but that risk is typically due to drivers on that road.  If motorists could be relied upon to follow the rules (not driving drunk, not driving distracted, not breaking speed limits, driving according to weather and road conditions) that risk would be reduced to near zero.

Of course alleys aren't designed for rapists and murders. Most roads are absolutely designed around cars. Anyone navigating an alley making a good faith attempt not to rape anyone will 100% never rape anyone. Motorists driving on 45mph parkways making a good faith effort to drive safely will sometimes clip a cyclist.

Because the roads and the rules of the road were designed primarily around motorist going 45mph. And a motorist will primarily be concerned with that use case when it comes to taking safety into account.

This isn't a value judgement on bike safe streets vs. non-bike safe streets. It's just the way things are right now. If cyclists lobby to get a bike lane, that's great. But in a vast majority of places in the US, most people commuting and transiting on roads are using a car. The roads are designed around that use case.

[mathlete]

Much like public roadways, the alley was designed for all people.  If rapists and murderers are hanging out there often, then the solution isn't to blame women for being assaulted, just as if vehicles are driving unsafely on roadways the solution isn't to blame cyclists . . . in both cases the solution is to immediately police the area better and maybe work long term to redesign the alley so it's less accommodating to those who are so comfortable breaking the law and putting others at risk.

It's bonkers to say that roadways are designed around everyone. Nobody believes this.

[GreenToTheCore]

Motorists driving on 45mph parkways making a good faith effort to drive safely will sometimes clip a cyclist.

I'm probably going to regret asking, but in what scenario is this true?

I'm having difficulty forming words to communicate how incredibly ridiculously biased this sounds.
Couldn't possibly have slowed down. Couldn't possibly have waited to merge to make a safe pass. Couldn't possibly have followed behind. All things that cars do for other cars.
Nope, definitely needed to move my car in the same space as another person. Definitely needed to do exactly what I wanted when I wanted.
Nevermind the flippant word choice in "clip"... I didn't hit a person with my metal car, I just clipped them.

Please, take a moment before letting the common bicycle-vs-car-fight-mode take over rational thinking. It's incredible how many biases pop up in these conversations with otherwise logical people. It's like some strange Pavlovian response whenever car dominance is questioned.


ETA: Nevermind, I don't really want to be a part of getting this thread even more off-topic. Although, I do find conversations around cars vs bikes incredibly interesting.

Folks, just please take a moment to consider if the response to car-vs-bike topics is from our car-centric upbringings or if it's coming from a place of deeper understanding of all traffic users. I'll be the first to admit that a lot of my traffic "knowledge" was just a continuation of car behavior that isn't based on safety research until I became a cyclist and dived deep into benchmarking how we got to our current traffic situation. 
 

[GuitarStv]

I'm often with you on your posts, but can't agree here.  It's some bullshit logic . . . and that becomes very apparent when we apply it to another scenario:

Why did that woman walk down that dark alley?  And while wearing high heels!  Clearly she should have stayed home.  That alley was designed for rapists and murderers.  People shouldn't be walking where they're legally allowed to without assuming responsibility for what happens when others break the rules and hurt them.  It sucks that dark alleys exist . . . but until we have police officers carrying flashlights on every dark street corner, women should clearly stay at home or accept responsibility for what others do to them.

For the record, I do my best to plan safe cycling routes.  Despite these efforts, there are rare occasions when I end up forced on a fast road because of lack of options (especially while cycling in unfamiliar locations or new routes far from home).  I'm well aware that risk is incurred in these occasions, but that risk is typically due to drivers on that road.  If motorists could be relied upon to follow the rules (not driving drunk, not driving distracted, not breaking speed limits, driving according to weather and road conditions) that risk would be reduced to near zero.

Of course alleys aren't designed for rapists and murders. Most roads are absolutely designed around cars. Anyone navigating an alley making a good faith attempt not to rape anyone will 100% never rape anyone. Motorists driving on 45mph parkways making a good faith effort to drive safely will sometimes clip a cyclist.

Because the roads and the rules of the road were designed primarily around motorist going 45mph. And a motorist will primarily be concerned with that use case when it comes to taking safety into account.

This isn't a value judgement on bike safe streets vs. non-bike safe streets. It's just the way things are right now. If cyclists lobby to get a bike lane, that's great. But in a vast majority of places in the US, most people commuting and transiting on roads are using a car. The roads are designed around that use case.

All the studies that I've read indicate that when more cyclists take to the road, the percentage of cyclists who are killed by vehicles goes down significantly.  Why?  Do the roads magically become better designed for cyclists when there are more cyclists on them?  I don't think that's the case.

The reality of the matter is that accidents caused by motorists aren't "accidents".  If you're staring at your cellphone while driving and hit someone, that's not accidental.  If you're going too fast on a road, that's not accidental.  If you're overdriving your ability to see around a bend, that's not accidental.  If you're passing a cyclist too close, that's not accidental.  They're all predictable and very preventable by changes in behvaiour.  And motorists themselves have shown that they can and will change their behavior when enough cyclists are on the road that it makes their actions seem too anti-social.

I agree with you that the majority of people are travelling around on cars on the road.  A big part of the reason for that is that people often overestimate the risks of cycling.  They hang on to completely wrong and misguided beliefs that cyclist require their own expensive bike lanes at all times (ignoring the fact that there are many poorly designed bike lanes much more dangerous than cycling with traffic).  And when they do this, they create a feedback loop that actually increases danger for cyclists by discouraging folks from getting out and riding.

[Abe]

Cases are going up again and hospitalizations ticked up slightly. Deaths haven't yet, but we're in the lag window. Blah! The answer to the OP's question is now >1 year.

[windytrail]

I could go on forever about the hypocrisy of motordom in this country, but there's little chance of changing minds in this thread...

How about some good news? Here in CA, hospitalizations and deaths are way down, while vaccinations are way up:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/California-to-eliminate-tier-system-fully-reopen-16080761.php

California will retire its color-coded pandemic blueprint on June 15 and allow almost all sectors of the economy, in all 58 counties, to reopen at or near full capacity, state officials said Tuesday.

The move signals a dramatic shift in the state’s pandemic response, which since August has been largely focused on layered restrictions based on how much virus is circulating in communities, and was meant to prevent outbreaks and protect hospitals from being overwhelmed.

In eight and a half weeks, state officials expect to have enough vaccine that every person 16 and older in California will be able to make an appointment and get their shots in a timely manner. And they anticipate hospitalizations due to COVID-19 to remain very low. Those are the two key measures to reopening the economy, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, secretary of California Health and Human Services.

“We are at the stage where we’re ready to consider the next aspect of our pandemic response. ... Now we look at what it is beyond the blueprint that has been guiding Californians since August,” Ghaly said in a news conference Tuesday morning. “This means an end to our color-coded tiers. We can go to the movies and the beach and see family.”

The state’s mask mandate will remain in place indefinitely even as businesses and other operations reopen, state officials said. That’s largely to continue protecting those who will not be immunized by the summer, in particular children who are not yet approved for vaccines.

“There is no timeline for ending the mask requirement,” Ghaly said. “We continue to follow the data and science to make adjustments to that requirement down the road.”

Ghaly said he anticipates professional sports in stadiums, concerts and festivals to return at capacity with masking and other mitigation measures in place. Convention centers will require vaccinations and negative coronavirus tests until at least Oct. 1, Ghaly said.

Despite the national picture that shows new coronavirus cases plateauing or climbing back up in at least 30 states, Ghaly said California’s leaders are making their decisions “with a great deal of hope and optimism.”

Aside from the indefinite mask requirement, things are looking up here.

[GuitarStv]

We're closing schools again since covid variants are spiraling out of control and we have to date fully vaccinated only 2.24% of the province (17% with one shot).

:P

[RetiredAt63]

We're closing schools again since covid variants are spiraling out of control and we have to date fully vaccinated only 2.24% of the province (17% with one shot).

:P

The active (I.e. not living in a residence)  70+ crowd are finally getting vaccinated in Ottawa.  I met 4 people in my building today who just got vaccinated, one was literally just vaccinated and returning home.   And by 6:15 tonight that will be 5 of us, Pfizer coming to my arm at 6:00. 

I think we have all 3 major VOCs here.

[GuitarStv]

We're closing schools again since covid variants are spiraling out of control and we have to date fully vaccinated only 2.24% of the province (17% with one shot).

:P

The active (I.e. not living in a residence)  70+ crowd are finally getting vaccinated in Ottawa.  I met 4 people in my building today who just got vaccinated, one was literally just vaccinated and returning home.   And by 6:15 tonight that will be 5 of us, Pfizer coming to my arm at 6:00. 

I think we have all 3 major VOCs here.

Yeah, my dad and step mom are both in the Ottawa area 70+ and got appointments this week too.  Good luck and stay healthy!

[RetiredAt63]

We're closing schools again since covid variants are spiraling out of control and we have to date fully vaccinated only 2.24% of the province (17% with one shot).

:P

The active (I.e. not living in a residence)  70+ crowd are finally getting vaccinated in Ottawa.  I met 4 people in my building today who just got vaccinated, one was literally just vaccinated and returning home.   And by 6:15 tonight that will be 5 of us, Pfizer coming to my arm at 6:00. 

I think we have all 3 major VOCs here.

Yeah, my dad and step mom are both in the Ottawa area 70+ and got appointments this week too.  Good luck and stay healthy!

It's done, so far so good.  Come on, immune system, show me you are doing something!  ;-)

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

As a driving enthusiast, I'd agree that the vast majority of significant (injury-causing) accidents are caused by gross inattention. Not momentary, but extremely egregious inattention or rule-breaking. Indeed, accidents involving two vehicles not in parallel motion (for example, T-bone accidents and accidents at stop signs) generally require gross inattention by both motorists, whether or not one of them is legally 'in the right'.

How to stop this? I would suggest jail time or very harsh fines (say 10% of your yearly income?) for anyone whose fault causes an injury to another road user. If you don't want to risk the fine, either don't drive, or drive carefully.

I love my car so I drive very carefully - I've never even scraped a rim on the gutter on my present car (4+ years of driving it), let alone getting into an accident.

No doubt, people will say that's too harsh, etc. That people make mistakes, etc.

They never stop to think about why we let bad drivers continue driving.

So we just allow the spate of needless deaths and injuries to continue.

[former player]

I haven't found the original study on which this article was based, but covid-19 causing mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders in 24% of all people diagnosed with covid-19 is pretty alarming, as is a 0.7% dementia risk.  0.7% sounds low but is devastating if it happens to you or your loved one and 0.7% of total cases is a significant continuing health burden.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56650125

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

"Cause" is a stretch. The study explicitly cannot determine cause and effect because the (for example) anxiety or psychotic disorder might be:

- Entirely constitutional
- Caused by, or correlated with, some intrinsic factor which itself is also a covid risk factor (e.g. poor health, or obesity)
- Iatrogenic, i.e. caused by a covid patient's increased contact with the medical system as a result of covid.

None of the above implicates covid as an actual cause.

The article goes on to say that by doing the correlational study across multiple populations,

Sufferers were 16% more likely to develop a psychological or neurological disorder after Covid than after other respiratory infections, and 44% more likely than people recovering from flu.

In other words, if 24% of covid patients developed mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders, then about 20% of non-covid respiratory patients did the same, and about 17% of influenza patients. Therefore, the 'big story' here is not that covid is markedly worse in terms of outcomes, but that flu and respiratory patients have a lot of comorbidities that lead to a pretty grim prognosis overall.

[Abe]

I haven't found the original study on which this article was based, but covid-19 causing mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders in 24% of all people diagnosed with covid-19 is pretty alarming, as is a 0.7% dementia risk.  0.7% sounds low but is devastating if it happens to you or your loved one and 0.7% of total cases is a significant continuing health burden.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56650125

Found it here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00084-5/fulltext#tbl1

Worryingly, the rate of new diagnosis of dementia was 2.66% in patients older than 65. Overall well done study primarily due to the sheer numbers of patient charts included. I’d caution any conclusions for the very low incidence rates (<1%) because this is a primarily administrative dataset and the validity of the diagnoses are variable. 

[JGS1980]

As a driving enthusiast, I'd agree that the vast majority of significant (injury-causing) accidents are caused by gross inattention. Not momentary, but extremely egregious inattention or rule-breaking. Indeed, accidents involving two vehicles not in parallel motion (for example, T-bone accidents and accidents at stop signs) generally require gross inattention by both motorists, whether or not one of them is legally 'in the right'.

How to stop this? I would suggest jail time or very harsh fines (say 10% of your yearly income?) for anyone whose fault causes an injury to another road user. If you don't want to risk the fine, either don't drive, or drive carefully.

I love my car so I drive very carefully - I've never even scraped a rim on the gutter on my present car (4+ years of driving it), let alone getting into an accident.

No doubt, people will say that's too harsh, etc. That people make mistakes, etc.

They never stop to think about why we let bad drivers continue driving.

So we just allow the spate of needless deaths and injuries to continue.

I agree with Bloop Bloop!!!!

I would also add that ALL good drivers have to pay higher auto insurance cost because of ALL the bad drivers. That's how insurance works. A little more teeth in driving regulations might save lots of lives and trauma.

[sui generis]

As a driving enthusiast, I'd agree that the vast majority of significant (injury-causing) accidents are caused by gross inattention. Not momentary, but extremely egregious inattention or rule-breaking. Indeed, accidents involving two vehicles not in parallel motion (for example, T-bone accidents and accidents at stop signs) generally require gross inattention by both motorists, whether or not one of them is legally 'in the right'.

How to stop this? I would suggest jail time or very harsh fines (say 10% of your yearly income?) for anyone whose fault causes an injury to another road user. If you don't want to risk the fine, either don't drive, or drive carefully.

I love my car so I drive very carefully - I've never even scraped a rim on the gutter on my present car (4+ years of driving it), let alone getting into an accident.

No doubt, people will say that's too harsh, etc. That people make mistakes, etc.

They never stop to think about why we let bad drivers continue driving.

So we just allow the spate of needless deaths and injuries to continue.

I agree with Bloop Bloop!!!!

I would also add that ALL good drivers have to pay higher auto insurance cost because of ALL the bad drivers. That's how insurance works. A little more teeth in driving regulations might save lots of lives and trauma.

I don't disagree that we aren't doing the right things to stop the needless loss of life and trauma, but definitely disagree with harsher fines or any jail time.  The certainty of punishment is much more effect than the severity of punishment in deterring crimes generally.  And for sure, I think we all know that people are careless about this kind of thing not because they say, "I don't mind paying $20 here and there for my reckless driving" but because they are saying to themselves, "eh, nothing is likely to happen if I do a little reckless driving right now!" If we just had more consistent enforcement, with moderate levels of punishment, that would be much more effective.  People don't like getting caught at anything, not because they don't like the punishment itself, but getting caught is upsetting in and of itself.  Here are a couple of quick references about this phenomenon: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-019-01758-6 and https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf