Alcohol is again the culprit

It is “crystal clear” drunk people can’t – or won’t – socially distance, a police chief has warned after scenes showed huge crowds packed into Soho in central London.

John Apter, chair of the Police Federation, said he witnessed “naked men, happy drunks, angry drunks, fights and more angry drunks” while on shift in Southampton – and there were similar scenes across the rest of England.

Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, had warned reopening pubs was a “high risk” for spreading coronavirus ahead of the easing of lockdown restrictions which also saw restaurants, cinemas, hairdressers and museums open their doors on what was dubbed “Super Saturday”.

Here is the article (no further reason to click), via Matt Yglesias.


The Romans had a bad opinion of the Brits, thought them unfit for domestication.

Well, they have been totally domesticated by the post modernist intersectional whackos.

What is missing from this conversation is why is it OK to have regular flu seasons where 100's of thousands die from the flu but no shutdown or mask mandates? Do you understand that Covid-19 is a highly contagious disease and it will run it's course and infect 70% or so of the population with or without shutdowns and masks. So why the masks and shutdowns??? It is political.

Hmm. So you never saw anyone trying to minimize the impact of the seasonal flu?

No. How do you minimize the impact of the seasonal flu other than to get the flu shot?

But you seemed impervious to the point. Have you ever seen a mayor or governor shut down the economy for the seasonal flu?

That kind of answer that makes me feel old and tired all over.

You say "no," then you mention the flu shot campaign yourself. So you actually concede the point.

And and in March 2019 the CDC did talk about masks for flu

How far are you prepared to move your goal posts?

I missed the flu season where we shut down everything for two months and wrecked the economy.

Of course, last flu season, the leftists and their pedophiles at the tiller were still hanging their hopes on impeachment, so perhaps it's understandable to bring out the big guns at this, the eleventh hour.

Guess you missed the numbers, too.

I do not know whether it's just me or if everybody else experiencing issues with
your website. It appears as though some of the text within your
posts are running off the screen. Can somebody else please comment and let me know
if this is happening to them too? This might be a issue with my internet browser because I've had this happen previously.
Many thanks

What part of Idiocracy don't you understand?


The shutdowns were intended to prevent overwhelming the medical system. That's probably been achieved.

Masks still good because cheap and they don't hurt. :-)

No, that was yet another example of public health failure in the US. The point is not to "flatten the curve," but to bring R under 1. It may be that 70-80% of the population of the US will become infected, but that would be a dismal failure and would leave much human wreckage in its wake. It does not have to happen. See Australia, which just today locked down 3,000 people, with, it appears, no warning to them. Some countries are serious. Other countries are mesmerized by images. Which kind of country do you live in?

We live in the country which happens to be well into our transition from a high trust to a low trust society.

Lowering R0 to under 1 in the United States was always a fantasy.

The US has many well functioning systems of trust, they are just not universal. The educated left will listen to academia, the UN, the Democratic leadership (popular, not formal), and the odd social movement (e.g. BLM). The religious right will typically listen to their own denomination, Christian academia (e.g. Wheaton, Liberty), and the odd celebrity preacher (e.g. Tim Keller). The populist left tends to listen to SEIU, Krugman, and the Jacobin crowd. The business right (and for that matter the business left) tend to fall in line with Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, and the general Davos set. And on it goes.

The problem is that very, very few people are remotely willing or capable of speaking the language of value outside their tribe. If Trump took reopening the economy seriously, more seriously than his election, because he believed it to be the best good for the nation he and his surrogates would be out discussing T-cell immunity, how wonderful the American mask industry is, and all the wonderful contact tracing apps coming out of Silicon Valley. Yet Trump is incapable or unwilling to use the language of the left. Granted he is total PNG to the left, but I suspect some of his intraparty rivals and even close surrogates could have a lot more effect if they preached facing away from the choir.

And in like fashion, Biden, Pelosi, and company have been utterly abysmal at following the basic precepts of public health communications. Do not attack, diminish, or denigrate cultural leaders even when they disagree. Talk up areas of agreement and potential cooperation. Use language that is compelling to the minority group internally. Instead we get a Left that cannot begin to speak about religion except for citing telic verses to justify their particular means. And of course, in spite of this being a literal matter of life a death per these leaders, we see not an iota of compromise. We learned long ago in medicine that if the important thing is compliance with some public health article, do not engage with extraneous issues. Yet somehow in the midst of mass cancellations of "elective" surgeries to conserve PPE, we had to keep surgical abortions moving forward. Some non-negligible number of folks certainly saw their curable cancers change when we delayed excision, but preserving the PPE was worth it ... yet delaying a surgical abortion so that the mother has to place the child up for adoption (when the US couples waiting lists to adopt are at record highs) ... that was a non-starter. I mean the Democrats had to cry racism at "Wuhan flu".

It is not so much that we cannot, it is that our leaders, and I suspect our voters, will not. We are willing to trust those like us a great deal, but a huge portion of the country feels fine going all digital blackshirt on those who disagree with them.

When we can keep issues from becoming political, America can do many things. Yet I saw precious few, if any, politicians who did not immediately make Covid political.

"And in like fashion, Biden, Pelosi, and company have been utterly abysmal at following the basic precepts of public health communications."

What path did these people have? Did you want them to put on a show in the barn, like an old Mickey Rooney movie?

No, there was a structure in place, and an executive to coordinate it, and instead it was totally destroyed.

It is still surprising to me that supposedly smart people have this absurd need to keep everything in "balance" at all times, even when it clearly is not.

Trump saying he thinks Covid is overblown and acting like it is would perhaps be incompetent, but consistent and understandable.

Biden and company saying that Covid is the largest threat Americans are currently facing and being unable to change their politics or even their messaging is inconsistent at minimum. If I believe they are correct about the dangers of Covid, then they are choosing to let people die by, for instance, exempting abortion surgeries from bans on elective surgeries and burning PPE for a trivial number of QALYs saved. If they think other things are more important than Covid, then they are degrading public health trust solely for their electoral fortunes. If I believe their actions, they are scoundrels. If I believe their words, they are immoral abetters of death.

Having worked with other epidemics, what matters is not the org chart but the willingness to compromise and get buy-in. You can be a sole dictator, but absent society wide buy-in you are not going to stop spread. I can think of few more deadly things that Pelosi and company could have done than to turn this into a political fight and elevate Mr. Trumps comeuppance above establishing broad support for compliance.

So you are actually going to deny Biden the opportunity to do the correct motivational speech?

If you want big change, don't you in fact have to say "this is a big problem," before saying "but we can pull together and we can solve it as one?"

And certainly in that big motivational speech you can say "everyone listen to your doctor!"

You can say "don't self-diagnose."

You can say "don't be afraid to call your doctor if you think you have another problem."

Maybe this is a good point to remind that if we had impeached Trump as we should, and Pence was out there giving the correct speech, I would be fine with that.

My opinion of Pence has eroded a bit, but I think if he was on his own, he would be listening to the doctors more than Trump.

I think he'd be smart enough to give motivational speeches and refer to the experts on details.

Really, reading that the second time, it really comes across to me that you hate Democrats more than you hate coronavirus.

I hope you do have a couple beers in you, in this alcohol thread, because if that's cold stone sober, there is no excuse.

the Sure fello/a just made about a dozen solid rational assertions
you on the other hand are mostly f.o.s.
"you hate Democrats more than you hate coronavirus."

I have signed enough death certificates to know a bit about what works and what does not. If any medical school acted as culturally incompetent about something this important as the Democratic Party leadership has on Covid I would bounce them out and send a letter to their dean. It is public health malpractice to attack and denigrate cultural leaders, particularly when said cultural leaders are flat wrong.

I am sorry if I am holding Democrats to standards that I expect all of my people to meet. But if you cannot master these elementary bits of public health, you have no business being in charge.

None of this excuses Trump's errors, poor judgments, or the rest. But if you are telling me that you are the party of science. You are the party that cares about American healthcare. You are the party most serious about Covid. Then yes, be consistent and don't waste my patients' lives on political points.

I can stomach people being wrong a lot more than I stomach them knowingly trading off deaths for political points.

"I can stomach people being wrong a lot more than I stomach them knowingly trading off deaths for political points."

do any of the liberal public health experts have any second thoughts about their "unwavering support" for nationwide protests & riots in the middle of a viral pandemic?

Paragraph 1: Dems bad.
Paragraph 2: Dems bad.
Paragraph 3: Trump not great. Dems bad.
Paragraph 4: Dems bad.

We get it, Sure, you don't like the Dems and would rather side with Trump. Nothing wrong with that but just be upfront with it and don't pretend with the "both sides are at fault" BS.

Could be wrong but my mental model of Trump on Covid is that he has made a calculation that shutdowns are worse for the country (and for him) than the viral deaths. Particularly now that people have somewhat effective behaviors that they can choose their poison.

This may be in error, but it depends on a how things break for a lot of stuff like T-cell immunity and the current dip in hospitalized patient mortality being sustained. There is nothing inherently immoral or duplicitous in this stance. At worst he is totally ignorant.

When I look at the Democrats I cannot see such a benign explanation. Are they too ignorant to know that public health communication should not attack cultural leaders? Well they have talked up exactly that angle when combating Islamophobia. Are they unaware of how their behaviors will be perceived by 30 percent of Americans? I think not. Are they unable to do the QALY calculations for delaying surgical abortions a month or even until delivery with adoption placement? Given their healthcare rhetoric they appear to be able to do these basic things.

So I ask you what is the innocuous explanation for Biden, Pelosi, and the rest to both tell us that Covid is the greatest threat to Americans and then to promptly ignore best public health practices?

I may despise Trump, but I can see a consistent set of beliefs and actions where he might be doing what he thinks is best for the country. I do not see such a possibility for the Democratic leadership.

I don't think you can effectively single at Democrats here, anymore than people on the Left want to blame this on Trump. Both parties have shown dysfunction, the CDC/FDA have shown dsyfunction, the TSA has shown dsyfunction, etc.

There is a valid criticism of the American response, compared to say the German response. Though a fairer criticism is the comparison of the US versus Europe or the EU. In either case, we've handled the pandemic poorly. it's just that Europe also handled it poorly.

"I do not see such a possibility for the Democratic leadership."

The Never Trump Republican leadership hasn't been any better. The current pro-Trump Republican leadership hasn't been any better. We've all politicized the process. skeptical's comments about a Low Trust society seem to have merit.

The notion that Trump made a "calculation" on anything more difficult than multiplication tables is laughable.

All he has is impulses, and they are largely used in the service of assuaging narciciso injury.

He lies and lies and dodges and bullshits and insults anyone who disagrees.

There is no calculation here. Just a whiny child who measures success in TV ratings amd the DOW.

The Republicans were bad here too. It's clear both major parties were atrocious and cared more about the politics than they did about reaching he best compromise.

there was more than enough uncertainty about the novel virus for it to be bigly & willfully exploited by fringe politicians, fringe public health "experts" fringe rioters and most of the media (especially cuomo) to the
detriment of americans health.
somebody should stick big cotton up all their noses.
cornpops disclaimer
priorcornpops has no connection with orignalcornpops, cornpops, freecornpops, cornpopsrustyrazor, or cornpopsrustyrocket

I have no doubt that both sides played politics. But one side seems to believe that this existentially important and then act like it is politics as usual. The other side believes this is crisis, like many other crises before it, and is unwilling to sacrifice things worth more than the crisis.

The more important something is, the more you should be willing to sacrifice for it. The Democratic leadership is both telling me that Covid at least used to be more important than anything, but then was unwilling to compromise.

That is premeditated maleficence.

Trump and his ilk are wrong about many things, but their deeds match their stated beliefs. That is incompetence, at worst.

Neither side is a paragon of virtue and wisdom, but I am much more concerned about ones who believe that "any means necessary" are valid and then let their own private concerns trump their crusade.

Sure, it reminds me of the classic Green position:

Global Warming is an existential threat to human civilization, but we still need to close down those running nuclear reactors.

Versus, those that say I don't think Global Warming is an existential threat, but we should keep the nuclear reactors running because we already paid for them.

I understand there's a difference in level. But I'm careful to not frame an argument in which I want to see action as a purely partisan one. There's no surer way to make people dig their heels in, than to be seen criticizing their side and not to be willing to admit the flaws in your own.

Remember when Trump was predicting a maximum of 60,000 dead?

How many times has he claimed that they should slow down testing because it makes him look bad?

Every one of Trump's political problems are of his own making. Every. Single. One.

Flattening the curve is relatively cheap compared to bringing R under one. Maybe that's why I have forgotten about the latter.

Tradeoffs wherever you look.

"Which kind of country do you live in?"

Hopefully, not the kind of country that would lock up 3000 innocent, healthy civilians with nary a thought. I assume you are referring to the "hard lockdown" of 3000 civilians in public housing, enforced by police guards. Call me crazy, but I don't think I've committed a crime just because less than 1 percent of my neighbors happened to have tested positive, and I do think of using police guards to place me under house arrest to be a form of criminal punishment. Also, the fact that residents are disproportionately "culturally and linguistically diverse" doesn't make this action sound any better.

Question: If Australia has done such a great job crushing this virus, then why are they needing to resort to such draconian actions to contain this second wave? I thought that the criticism of FL, TX, etc. was that their laxity was going to cause them to have to deal with a second (actually first) surge. Are we saying that "serious" efforts like Australia's actually aren't any more effective at preventing second waves than FL's and TX's measures?

You seem to be under the impression that the purpose of putting 3,000 people under house arrest is to curb the spread of the virus. No, the point of putting 3,000 people under house arrest is to show you have the power to put 3,000 people under house arrest. You may notice that all of the solutions proposed by our leftist friends here and elsewhere take this same tack. The objective, as always, is control and subjugation.

I give up, as did many Americans when faced with the kid of intransigence that is all too evident on this blog. The world is watching in dismay. The point is control and subjugation of the virus. Your concerns are sort of understandable, and are to be found aplenty on the far left too (e.g., Giorgio Agamben). In Australia, as in Germany (see the FT article on putting aside the "bullshit" in favor of dealing with the virus), they were able to simply rise to the occasion. That may have something to do with low trust, high trust. I do not know. All I know is that it has been a disaster in the US, and another notch on China's belt.

Americans did rise to the occasion; they took the world's largest economy, in the middle of the longest expansion period in history, breaking record metrics, behind the woodshed. (Wonder what the Chinese thought of that?)

And what happened? The people who insisted on the lockdown, insisted it be continued indefinitely. Give the devil an inch, he demands a mile.

Again, it is alarming to me how often I have to explain the personal sacrifices involved in this action to you people. It has always been plainly obvious that no one here was particularly put out by having to stay at home. That might be expected, given this blog is run by two econ professors and similarly read by sheltered leftists, yet one might also expect a modicum of understanding that the proles out there are losing their jobs and otherwise enduring hardships that they didn't have to endure. They did it because the "experts" told them to, and look how they were rewarded! Governors in a half-dozen states turned nursing homes into slaughterhouses and the overlord class used it for political points. We got one round of cheesy and hollow #thanks ads from global corporations and it's right back to claiming the proles are uneducated idiots for not listening to the scientific experts who have been lying to them all along.

I don't particularly care what the world thinks, and neither does anyone else outside the coastal cities. Europeans, even Australians, have no expectation of liberty in their daily lives; they made that clear well before the virus was released. It's very much unsurprising that their governments push them around for not much in the way of results.

And this is all for a virus that has a fatality rate of virtually zero for anyone of working age (the very people who apparently needed to stay at home) and not much more than the flu for the population as a whole.

Fatality rate of zero unless you have problems like obesity and diabetes which of course in your fantasy land it basically zero.

And even for survivors, being on a ventilator for one or two weeks is hardly a nothing burger.

Like Trump, you're just trying to wish it away in favor of an election.

I'm not seeing in these comments a lot of attention to the fact - borne out at least in U.S. data, but perhaps other countries as well - that there are overlapping Venn diagram circles of 1) people who are higher risk of dying from this disease, due to other medical conditions and/or increased and regular exposure; 2) "essential" workers which means transit operators, retail workers, warehouse workers, health care workers, personal care workers; 3) lower-wage workers who are faced with the impossible choice of risking their lives at work or falling off the financial cliff, especially if they tried to get unemployment and it didn't work in their state; and 4) people of color (BIPOC). Saying "we need to keep open the economy and it's OK if a whole bunch of people get sick" has class and economic and race and other social implications that you can't ignore or just explain away as "inevitable collateral damage." Those policy choices also have consequences, and exacerbate existing issues we have with economic and racial equity. I'm not dismissing the real issues with shutdowns and the equity implications of that either. See: increased child maltreatment reports - or reduced reports, not because it isn't happening but because teachers aren't seeing kids in the classrooms or interacting with them in a safe space, kids who are seriously food insecure not accessing school or summer meals, etc etc. But if you are going to talk about risks and how to weigh the pros and cons of these economic decisions, you'd better be clear-eyed and upfront about who is most affected, how and why. Also interesting that these threads go to, essentially, "I don't want to be told what to do" versus "I'm concerned about the people who can't pay their rent" or "I worry about increased suicide rates among those in despair" or "I don't want to see children's access to education diminished if they don't have a safe place at home, food to eat and access to the Internet."
In short: lots of argument about government control versus personal freedom: who is supporting your personal freedom? What freedoms are they giving up, out of necessity, within the systems in which they have very limited choices? Can we give a bit more time to the reality of who is most impacted, and most likely to die, given what we know so far in U.S. infection and mortality stats?
Aren't we all in this together? How much choice, really, does the person who delivered your groceries for you, or packed up your online order, or is cleaning your house for you, or taking care of your elderly relative, have right now?
Unfortunately, our society seems to ultimately care about money more than people, again and again. Reopening the economy is ultimately about the flow of money more than anything, because that's how we decided to organize ourselves as humans and handle basically everything through transactional relationships. Otherwise we call it "charity" or "a handout" or - from some perspectives - inevitably stigmatize it because it came from the government. We assign prices and costs to everything because that is apparently the main or only way we measure value. What is the monetary value of a life? And if you answer in actuarial terms, you are missing the point.

mebbe you are missing the point.
the money from the government comes from people working in
the economy. if there is mostly no economy there is mostly no government money to redistribute.
in this context stigma is mostly another silly sociology buzzword

Florida and Texas have had over 3700 and 2600 covid deaths each. Australia, with population size between those of Florida and Texas, has had 104. We want to keep it that way. If the goal were totalitarian control the government would let the virus spread so as to have an excuse to lock down the whole country again. Instead they're using the minimal action you need in order to let people safely go about their business more or less as usual, which what people are able to do all across Australia right now. You can see how not-draconian the current action is by looking at this murdoch site report on it:

The slightly boring but wholesome box of Lego, colouring books, crayons etc. that each locked-down family with children gets doesn't strike Australians as OMG! MICHELLE OBAMA IS INDOCTRINATING OUR KIDS WITH VEGETABLE ADVOCACY! but YMMV.

"I do think of using police guards to place me under house arrest to be a form of criminal punishment"

It is severe but comparing it to criminal punishment is just a Randian condemnation of any use of government force outside the context of the night-watchman state. I pay more in taxes than in parking tickets every year: that seems like "criminal punishment" to me. What about the O.J. jurors who were sequestered away from their family, friends, and jobs for several months? What did they do wrong to deserve such punishment? Etc.

On the merits, there was a post here a while ago about centralized isolation and that may be a better approach for a place like Australia. I guess now they have to keep everyone in the building under lockdown but utilitarianism says they should test everyone as quickly as possible, isolate the people who test positive off-site (give them rooms with high-speed internet and nice TVs, too), and do a deep clean of the rest of the building and let everyone else get on with it. Your examples of Texas and Florida actually supports the Australian position. Miami-Dade county has a curfew and Texas is now requiring masks outdoors. I am sure these are unpopular measures that are viewed by (Republican) leaders as last-ditch efforts. And, indeed they are. Countries like Australia and South Korea that "violate" people's freedom when the infection starts picking up steam ultimately wind up with greater amounts of personal freedom in the long-run.

I expect I am too late to this discussion but what the heck. The Melbourne outbreak appears to have come from poorly enforced quarantine with hotel security staff getting infected and spreading it back into the community. The outbreak is still relatively isolated and hard measures are justified to stamp it out.

Get off your high horse. Alcohol is not the culprit - being British is the culprit.

Isn’t being British a good proxy for being a drunk?

You mean "pissed'.

I think "pfo" is a thing in the UK.

Yeah so...? Alcohol is moderation is not really the problem here, this is Tyler being a moralizing ninny as usual. British people routinely over drink but that's more an issue with being British than with alcohol in general.

And we Americans never overdo on the boozing front? Um, I have evidence from my own personal life that can easily refute that. No, a drink with dinner (as I did last night, at home) isn't a problem. But a night of serious partying in a crowded meat market nightclub?

"a drink with dinner (as I did last night, at home) isn't a problem"

I'm pretty sure Tyler thinks it is....

Indeed, when bars re-opened in Veneto there were very few issues. A couple of mayors said "Well, there were a few too many on the piazza, let's try and be sensible here."

A heavy chunk of the blame in England should be put on whoever decided to reopen them on a Saturday. Do it on a Tuesday or something with restricted opening hours, not just "Pubs are open this weekend lads, have at it!"

Now I know what causes people to attend Trump rallies. They are all drunk.

So the Prohibitionists got it all wrong. The sober ones burn buildings and riot in the streets.

Just another instance of inveighing against fun.

Alcohol is an excuse, as always, to socialize. Public policy needs to acknowledge that people are social animals and when the costs of socializing are an externality borne asymmetrically by those who don’t (at least publicly), a blanket ban, especially long-term ones, aren’t enforceable.


Eventually, the people get what the people want.

The one thing I miss the most about the lockdown is that the cost to this introvert by not socializing was greatly, greatly reduced.

Eric Voegelin, History of Political Ideas (vol. VI, ch. 4, "The English Quest for the Concrete", subsection 2b.--"Psychologization of the Self"):

"When the experience of substantial participation of man in the world is interrupted, doubts arise about whether the reality as it appears to the perceiving subject is indeed the reality of the external world", he asserts, arguing further that were the idea applied with philosophical consistency it would lead to "a strict solipsism of a stream of consciousness with complete annihilation of all reality outside the stream".

Alcohol or alcohol-fueled solipsism? (Voegelin spoke disparagingly of English gin consumption in the first half of the 18th cent. earlier in the same chapter.)

I wonder if Tyler has seen this and if he is subtweeting:

Perhaps lack of moderation is again the culprit.

The lesson here is that, contrary to popular belief, drinking alone is actually a good thing.

Alcohol does not spread the virus, people do.

Those are
Sobering thoughts.


Pithy poetic and ironic Bill is best Bill

It's Britain. Sh!tfaced is their default state. Helps them ignore the dental pain.

It's not alcohol, it's working class British culture.

Some folks seem quick to say it’s just the Brits. I guess East Lansing, Michigan, has a large British population;

From the same source:
Hydroxychloroquine saved coronavirus patients' lives, Michigan study shows

That's got to kill the TDS folks.

The caveat is in the title of article, "An Observational Cohort Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin for COVID-19." That means no random assignment of the treatment. WHO just came out with preliminary results from its SOLIDARITY randomized controlled trial and concluded, "hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care."

I can't make heads or tails of the hydroxychloroquine debate. First, there are a number of potentially useful drugs out there, some of which already have RCT evidence supporting their use and others for which RCT studies are ongoing. I don't know why we need politicians and other people without medical degrees weighing in on what the best treatment for people with SARS-CoV-2 is. If your doctor thinks hydroxychloroquine is appropriate for you based on known risks and in what stage of infection you are, then the doctor will go ahead and prescribe it and that's that. If the doctor decides it is not appropriate, he or she will surely explain why and will likely recommend other treatments out there.

We, Americans, probably should not be wagging our fibger, though. I really don't get it, guys. We put a man on the Moon. Why can't we deal with COVID-19 as well as Laos has managed to do under General Secretary Bounnhang Vorachith's correct leadership?

If pretense, lies, symbolic action, and image were all it took, the US would be right up there with Laos. Thanks for the example, Thiago.

So that is what we become, #1 in pretense, lies, symbolic action, and image...

Seriously. people, let's all heed Thiago's advice about wagging our "fibger."

Evidently, I meant "finger". This keyboard is too small for my hands. And I am Mr. Loughlin, a bank teller.

Philip Roth credited Jewish achievements in the arts, the profession and finance to "Going to bed sober".

Why did God create whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the earth.

I am told by experts that people should be weighing the risk of various activities against the rewards offered by them. If this is the foundational skill behind pandemic control, why on earth would we expect a drug known to specifically inhibit accurate measurement of risk and reward to be helpful? Further given that much alcohol is consumed in close quarters, in cramped environments, with loud ambiance, and not the best of hygiene to start with ... how exactly did we not expect there to be troubles?

Would anyone care to run the calculation for how much the externality of alcohol prolonging social distancing will cost society? Reducing economic activity for even a month or so is likely to be more cost to society than the total alcohol sin taxes for the year.

Meanwhile, new infections have soared in the Australian state of Victoria, thanks to state government incompetence. Companies put in charge of security in quarantine hotels were permitted to sub contract as cheaply as they could, so security guards would work a shift in an infectious location and then go work at their second jobs driving ubers or whatever or just hang out with families since the company wasn't going to pay to isolate them. As a result, whole apartment blocks with high infection rates are now being quarantined.

Okay, it may not be as stupid as reopening pubs in areas where the virus hasn't been eliminated (pubs are open in my state because the virus has been destroyed) but it's still very stupid.

Infection rates are mostly irrelevant, what is relevant is hospitalisation rates and death rates. If you want to cower in your home then be my guest, don't see why this decision should be forced on others when the evidence for this being a uniquely dangerous risk is slim at this point.

So far, everyone in my country who has died from COVID-19 has been infected first. This is because it acts slowly enough to for people to stop flying planes, operating heavy machinery, etc. before it significantly impairs their performance.

I don't see any benefit from cowering in my home, apart from the usual benefits cowering provides, as we eliminated the coronavirus here in South Australia. We eliminated the virus and then we opened the pubs. Getting the order right is very important.

That's not how they do it in 'Merica.

Too right. In America, the point with a lot of problems is not to solve them but to relitigate them endlessly in order to give meaning to life.

Poor Tyler - a die hard lefty who doesn’t drink.

Came here to say something similar -- 90% of sobernauts are clear-thinking people who lean right.

But Tyler is left as they come. And current events have him terrified to even hint otherwise.

He's gotta be a very, very lonely man.

You Nazis are really scared, aren't you?

+1 predictable ad hominem
+1 predicactable projection of fear
we notta nazis
we are cannibals with good social distancing and handwashing technique. all lives matter
does this fella/o look scared to you?

You Nazis are really scared, aren't you?

but you are a frittata
tell harvards finest gender theorist we are ready
for ze/zer/zem stabbing

Tyler's critical thinking tends to desert him when his teetotaling sense tingles. He's posted multiple times on here and on Twitter about the alarming rise in alcohol consumption under quarantine. I have no reason to doubt those numbers. So why, then, blame these gatherings on alcohol? Alcohol was apparently even more in supply while locked down, so what these revelers are after isn't drinks, but socialization. Unsurprising that three months of house arrest are followed by intense socialization.

can you spot any of the gaping flaws in your own reasoning and what you
just typed?

(1) the life-expectancy hit of drinking is higher for an individual than covid being endemic for the rest of our lives.

(2) the superspreader data suggests indoors, close proximity and loud talking/singing is risk factor for events where 10s of people catch (weddings, conferences, kareoke bars, choir practices).

Based of this sensible cost-benefit suggests it doesn't make sense to restrict other activities whilst not banning indoor drinking in pubs, bars and nightclubs.

That seems very anecdotal. According to Dr. Fauci, we must trust nothing that hasn't been proven by a double-blind, triple-backflip years long study.

that is quite a bigly mischaracterization of Dr. Faucis oeuvre

Forgive me Tyler for I have sinned.
Personally I have committed these acts-
1. I occasionally drive without wearing a seat belt
2. I have drank excessive amounts of alcohol
3. I have fucked without a condom
4. I have not wore a mask

5. In additions I am poor speler and bad at good grammer

Comments for this post are closed