Just got an email, Illinois is moving back into Phase 1 as the infection rates are rising.

COVID really does suck. 

Perfect timing to get some FEMA/DHS/TEEX/CDP training done online. Or that wonderful AGH video that I think I'm up for renewal on too!

Or netacad if you're feeling adventurous about technology.

Wisconsin is close to the same. It's the times.

There are 9 Wings back at P1 (I think that's actually changed in the last hour).

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/covid-19-remobilization

Can anyone tell me from whence the 10 persons per meeting in Phase I comes from... other than someone in NHQ said so? Seems to me if you screen, mask, and maintain social distance, how many people you have in a meeting is irrelevant.

Quote from: AirDX on December 23, 2021, 08:33:08 PMCan anyone tell me from whence the 10 persons per meeting in Phase I comes from... other than someone in NHQ said so?

Wings submit(ted) their remediation plans and NHQ approved them.  I would guess "10" is a WAG
intended to get a small number doing "something" while basically still encouraging virtual meetings.

One could also conjecture that in many units, 10 people is what generally shows up, especially now.

Were I a CC, I can't imagine why units would want to "hybrid meet", just stay virtual again until the smoke clears.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2021, 08:51:34 PMWere I a CC, I can't imagine why units would want to "hybrid meet", just stay virtual again until the smoke clears.

That's easy, because virtual killed a lot of squadrons. It worked out ok at first because no one was going to school, malls, theaters, or anywhere else for that matter. But once ANYTHING opened up, virtual meeting attendance plummeted and people started leaving.

As a commander, I will not go full virtual until I'm told I absolutely have to. I will do everything possible to maintain an in-person presence, even if it is limited to a small group (or multiple small groups spread out over time and space), because that's the only thing keeping us going.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 23, 2021, 08:51:34 PMWings submit(ted) their remediation plans and NHQ approved them.  I would guess "10" is a WAG
intended to get a small number doing "something" while basically still encouraging virtual meetings.

10 was in the template that NHQ put out, and I'm told they would (will) not budge from that. In March 2020 it may have made some sort of sense as we scrambled. Now... we can screen, social distance, mask, and sanitize, and that's pretty much state of the art. We should be able to meet with as many as we can get into a space and yet maintain the above.

We're losing our cadets to activities that can and do meet and conduct their business in person, with appropriate restrictions.  Tell the cadet he/she has to meet virtually... after they've spent the day on the school bus, in school, and sports and other extracurriculars are going on, albeit with some changes. They will not come.

Quote from: AirDX on December 23, 2021, 08:33:08 PMCan anyone tell me from whence the 10 persons per meeting in Phase I comes from... other than someone in NHQ said so? Seems to me if you screen, mask, and maintain social distance, how many people you have in a meeting is irrelevant.

Ten in a trailer vs. ten in a vast hangar, same answer via policy, but really the question is will commanders apply logic in application of the policy (I can't tell you that).

You are asking a great question. What you are looking for is an answer based on sound analysis using the scientific process resulting in evidence based conclusions. Unfortunately, you won't find that, because the scientific process today is invoked (like a religion) rather than followed as a logical process when making policy.

The answer you are left with is: "because" coupled with "comply". Which is what I've been forced to tell my commanders, sadly. I wish we had better answers for you.

V/r
Spam

So hopefully, you only have 8 cadets max,  because you need 2 seniors. Any more than that and you have to pick and choose who attends.

The gap between P1 and P2 is straight up ludicrous. 10 to 50. WTF. 20-25 for P1 seems fine.

I need to recruit because I'm sitting on a bunch of cadets that hit phase II and phase III over the last year or two. This garbage of bouncing back and forth is making it hard to build a unit that actually does what the CP is supposed to do.

I know NHQ people read this board. This is for them: you need to stop worrying so much about getting sued and start taking input from the line units. That applies to more than COVID.

Why are we using case count as our metric?

Quote from: JohhnyD on December 24, 2021, 03:41:50 PMWhy are we using case count as our metric?

What metric would you rather see used and why?

Cases/per 100k people are a common easy to understand number that doesn't require any special analysis. Cases per capita quickly show relative severity mean the same thing in Idaho as it does in Texas or New York.

And strictly speaking, we aren't, we are using a combination of daily new cases per 100k people and infection rate.

Quote from: Jester on December 24, 2021, 07:22:15 AMSo hopefully, you only have 8 cadets max,  because you need 2 seniors. Any more than that and you have to pick and choose who attends.

Not really, you just have to set up cohorts. Is it more work, yes; does it allow cadets to stay engaged, yes; is it worth it to keep cadets and seniors engaged, absolutely!

Quote from: undefinedThe gap between P1 and P2 is straight up ludicrous. 10 to 50. WTF. 20-25 for P1 seems fine.

First off, abbreviating offensive words is still offensive.

Second off, and this is just my personal opinion, I agree that the gap doesn't seem to make sense. Id personally rather see the phase 2 limit somewhere around 30 with a phase 3 limit of 50.

Quote from: undefinedI need to recruit because I'm sitting on a bunch of cadets that hit phase II and phase III over the last year or two. This garbage of bouncing back and forth is making it hard to build a unit that actually does what the CP is supposed to do.

I agree that bouncing back and forth between phases makes it very difficult to grow (or even sustain) a unit. That's why it's so important to set up those small cohorts so that we can keep cadets active in phase 1. It's also important to remember that, while NHQ approves each wings re-mobilization plan, it's the wings that come up with it. If you're upset by the plan, first get in touch with your wing's re-mobilization team.

Quote from: undefinedI know NHQ people read this board. This is for them: you need to stop worrying so much about getting sued and start taking input from the line units. That applies to more than COVID.

I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure (at least with Covid) they're less concerned about lawsuits than they are keeping people safe and healthy and not being the source for a new outbreak.

New York Wing has gone to Phase 1 as of 24 Dec 21.

Quote from: jeders on December 24, 2021, 08:12:21 PM

Quote from: JohhnyD on December 24, 2021, 03:41:50 PMWhy are we using case count as our metric?

What metric would you rather see used and why?

Cases/per 100k people are a common easy to understand number that doesn't require any special analysis. Cases per capita quickly show relative severity mean the same thing in Idaho as it does in Texas or New York.

And strictly speaking, we aren't, we are using a combination of daily new cases per 100k people and infection rate.

How about adding hospitalization rates and mortality? Omicron case rates are sky-high - hospitalization rates very low and death rates effectively ZERO. How do the current metrics deal with the changed nature of the now endemic China Virus?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10325955/Rising-Omicron-cases-not-matched-hospitalisations-figures-show.html

Figures suggest rising cases of feared new Covid strain have not led to an increase in hospital admissions... despite public bracing for lockdown

Quote from: JohhnyD on December 24, 2021, 09:11:20 PMhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10325955/Rising-Omicron-cases-not-matched-hospitalisations-figures-show.html

Figures suggest rising cases of feared new Covid strain have not led to an increase in hospital admissions... despite public bracing for lockdown

I'm not sure that a British tabloid is the best source for pandemic data...

Funny,  that's not the ground truth here.

My co-worker does per diem work at the local hospital. Two weeks ago,  they had more hospitalizations for COIVD than they had at the "height" of the infections in 2020. They've started moving patients out of the negative pressure wards as they get better into the orthopedic wards, which is not what they did last year.

Death rate isn't a solid gauge, either.  Matter of fact,  it's a trailing indicator. And kind of the wrong one.

 Imagine if safety said "doesn't matter if our flying accident rate went up by three times last year, we're only killing pilots at a slightly higher rate, so crack on, lads"?

Quote from: NIN on December 25, 2021, 03:43:58 PMTwo weeks ago,  they had more hospitalizations for COIVD than they had at the "height" of the infections in 2020.

Localized anecdotes are no better. Moreover, we see reports like:
"The emergency department at the Rutland Regional Medical Center has been overwhelmed with asymptomatic folks."
https://wcax.com/2021/12/22/covid-positive-vermonters-with-no-symptoms-clog-up-ers/

"asymptomatic folks" are people who do NOT need to be hospitalized. So why are they? Fear. Fear mongering and really bad data have driven this crisis. And it is driving many of our members away.

Worse any effort to discuss this gets shut down. I expect this thread and my comments to go "poof" at any time.

BTW Merry Christmas to all!

I'm not a mod here, but from my POV, it is not the discussion of the issues that gets the thread shut down, but the triggered personal attacks from people that can't hold in their behavior.  If we can keep the discussion based on evidence and rational debate, we shouldn't have an issue. 

R/s
Spam