Let’s hope you’re right, but I have the uncomfortable feeling that some of these arguments somewhat resemble desperation.
Bill Smythe
HUH??
What’s the difference between “for 28 consecutive days” and “daily for 28 days”? NONE.
And what’s the difference between “decrease” and “non-increasing”? NONE.
Well, let’s put an asterisk on that second one. If the count remains completely constant for 28 consecutive days (highly unlikely), then it is “non-increasing” but it is not “decreasing”.
So, what’s the difference altogether? VIRTUALLY ZERO.
Bill Smythe
You’re right, but when you play on a verbal playing field Kevin often talks in ways that seem circular to the rest of us. That’s why I’m asking him to demonstrate what he’s saying numerically.
That’s incorrect. The second indicates the item happens each and every day. The first indicates only that it happens across the period of 28 days.
If one were to spend a dollar during 28 consecutive days, one would spend a dollar.
If one were to spend a dollar daily during 28 days, one has spent $28 dollars.
Bill G mentioned this rate of hospitalizations
4/13 2076
4/14 2043
4/15 2058
4/16 2160
4/17 2157
4/18 2218
4/19 2288
4/20 2191
4/21 2147
The period 4/19 - 4/21 is short. It decreases both daily and over the period.
We have two more days since:
4/19 2288
4/20 2191
4/21 2147
4/22 2112
4/23 2048
------------ Let’s add some more assumed days
4/24 2040
4/25 2049
4/26 2047
4/27 2050
4/28 2046
The assumed data is murkier, but the trend since 4/23 is still level. But it’s not non-increasing daily.
This is a very short sequence, so it’s hard to convey the concept, but perhaps you get the idea.
The latest number (4/23) of 2048 is lower than the 2076 of 4/13, so we already have a 10 day period of decline. For the number to go significantly over 2288 on May 17 (or over 2076 on May 11) seems unlikely- far better chance it will be under 2000 on these dates.
Bill Goichberg
Mr. Bachler has a problem. He expects the state of Illinois to interpret its rules/guidance logically, where it will really do it politically. No matter the literal interpretation, the state will do what it wants to do.
Alex Relyea
These sequences of numbers illustrate the difference between Kevin’s interpretation and Bill’s. Thanks to both for clarifying.
Who is correct? Only the state official’s opinion matters. They won’t care what Bill or Kevin think it means. That said, if I were planning to run a tournament of this nature in Illinois, I’d have communicated with the state officials to get that interpretation long before now. Since Bill has been doing this for decades and I never have, I’d guess he’s a whole lot smarter than I am on this subject. Accordingly, I’d guess he has done his due diligence.
At this point, we can debate the meaning until the cows come home, or until the state does or does not change the status. That seems like the most sensible approach.
Ah, but you didn’t say “during,” you said “for.”
If one were to spend a dollar for 28 consecutive days, one would spend 28 dollars.
If one were to make a profit for 28 consecutive years, one would make a profit in each of the 28 years.
If one were to admit a new patient for 28 consecutive days, one would admit 28 patients.
If one were to post inane drivel on the forums for 28 consecutive days, one would post (at least) 28 times, and probably annoy a lot of people.
I imagine the hotel will also have some say in things, in that they may cancel an event that the state would have allowed (or perhaps allow an event that the state would have preferred that they cancel).
Yes, the hotel has a voice. Same principle though. The people who decide if you can hold the event have interpretations that matter. Kevin doesn’t, except of course for his own events.
Oh, I expect there to be some political interpretation, and some “smudging”. There should be some common sense involved because while these rules are a good indicator, it’s a stochastic understanding and as we sometimes say in my industry “actuarial art” not “actuarial science.”
Missing the point, because context can make a difference. “He crawled for 60 consecutive seconds” does not imply that the person crawled for each and every second. You cherry-picked several statements that each have a specific meaning to you to support your case, but that formulation cannot be generalized.
“For” can imply “per” or it can imply “during.” That is why saying things like “daily”, “day-by-day”, “a day” can clarify the meaning.
And no, in my experience not all people would see your above statements exactly as you meant them. One can argue “If one were to spend a dollar for 28 consecutive days, one would spend 1 dollar.”
The reason you tend to garner a certain meaning is due to the duration involved (days, versus seconds, for example.)
Expecting common sense from politicians is liable to result in disappointment, especially in Illinois.
The State of Illinois guidelines in the early days of the pandemic (mis)used the word consecutive that resulted in guidelines that, taken literally, were effectively impossible to meet. Given how noisy the data are, even if you use seven day averages to smooth out the day-of-week effects, almost no statistic that isn’t explicitly cumulative will be lower (or higher) each day than the previous day for 14 consecutive days (much less for 28 consecutive days). The more recent postings have removed the faulty language.
Both my wife and myself have been advised that we cannot take the vaccine. Yes I understand it is it is not a live vaccine, but is the judgement of more than one specialist that it would be a danger to us. At some point
you need to stick your neck out. COVID may be here forever, and I do not believe anything can done about it.
They’re already talking about possibly having annual ‘booster’ shots that deal with emerging variants of the virus that aren’t covered by the current vaccines.
And I believe the 1918 ‘Spanish’ flu is still with us, 103 years later.
The flu is basically “here forever” – but I still get a flu shot every year, and I don’t remember the last time I had a serious case of the flu. Of course, the vaccine doesn’t guarantee that, but it definitely improves your odds. I have also gotten my COVID vaccine (2 doses of the Pfizer), with no “side effects” other than having a sore arm for a few days (which also happened with the flu vaccine and the shingles vaccine). If COVID becomes a permanent thing like the flu, I will continue to get vaccinated every year just like I do for the flu. I can’t comment on your specific case because I don’t know your circumstances, but in general, an unvaccinated person is much more likely to experience negative consequences from getting COVID-19 than a vaccinated person is from “side effects” of the vaccine.
NOTE: I also wear a bike helmet whenever I ride my bike (and it has saved my life at least twice), and a seat belt whenever I get into a car. I don’t believe in “sticking my neck out” unnecessarily. Reasonable precautions are reasonable.
Clarify, COVID will be active forever. It seems to mutate quickly. A certain % of the population cannot take the shot. I and my wife have over-reactive immune systems. Any vaccine could cause more harm than good.
At some point, we may need to decide when to totally rejoin society
I will grant that you personally (and your wife) may be in a bind if you can’t take the vaccine. But in the post to which I was responding, you made the statement “COVID may be here forever, and I do not believe anything can done about it.” On a global level (looking at the forest rather than only a few trees), this statement is absurd. There are all kinds of things that can be done about it, including the use of vaccines. That they are not 100% effective doesn’t make them useless. You talk as if there is no middle ground between totally eradicating the disease and just giving up and doing nothing. There is, in fact, a huge middle ground. Maybe we can’t eliminate it, but we can control it. We can minimize the damage (as we do with the flu – it too mutates quickly, which is why we need a new vaccine every year). Immediately attempting to go back to life as it was “before COVID” would be highly irresponsible, and you can’t get there from here anyway. Millions of people dying and health care systems collapsing under the strain would not be anything like the old “normal”. No matter what we do, 2019 is never coming back. We can only choose between different “new normals”. I’m in favor of those that steer away from dismissing whole groups of people as disposable because “nothing can be done”.
Eradication is not simple and would take awhile. Getting 85% of the world simultaneously vaccinated is not an easy task, so of course boosters will be needed. A hope is that an improved vaccine may confer longer immunity. There are also new hopes of using the mRNA method to attack some diseases more effectively.
But I agree, we can never go back. The world is permanently changed.
One thing in the favor of mRNA approaches - mutations can be less challenging to the vaccine. How? For example, in this case, the mRNA causes the human body to make the same protein found in the “spike” in COVID-19. The body then makes anti-bodies based on this intruder protein.
But for variants of COVID to be as harmful, it’s likely (at least in the short run) that the spike protein will remain somewhat unchanged; if it changes significantly and can’t grab membranes in the same way, COVID may well be reduced to another common cold. So the spike is important and important for the continuity of the virus. That’s why we didn’t know for sure, but thought that the vaccines would likely do well against variants.