Anecdotal: My mom is a high-level admin at a larger hospital. She has seen suicide attempts triple in the last eight weeks. These are all people who have not lost income.

I wrote this response out a few hours ago and didn't get to post it, so this may have been said already. I'm not sure what your kids' ages are, but for us, as full-time homeschoolers, moving from an 1100 sq. ft house to a 2600 sq. ft house before my oldest hit teenage years (and we added more dogs) was a game changer! We have three kids, three large dogs, and more sanity now. We gave ourselves a Move Date and jumped when the market got more favorable. For the vehicle situation, we were opposite of you. I always use things until there is no possible way they are salvageable. Dh said he didn't want the older vehicle to break down with just me and the girls during one of our frequent long road trips. I had to dig that response out, though. The compromise was I got to pick the vehicle since I was the budget person and the one who would be the primary driver. We go on marriage retreats once every few years and there is always a good chunk of time spent on finances. The best advice I have heard that applies to us is: Usually there is one person who likes to budget and one who doesn't. Give the budgeting to the one who likes it most with the caveat that the other person must at least look over the budget every month. Since my husband knows too many people who have died suddenly, we have added to that: the bill information is in a central location and spelled out to a "t" so that if anything should happen to the bill payer, the other one can easily pick it up and carry on. Best wishes for a healthy discussion and agreeable outcomes!

That is why I linked this study and referred to the masks that I did. The doctors may be more aware of what different masking outcomes are in their setting (HCW) and extrapolating to the general population, not having any concrete data on cloth masking indoors v. no mask for the ordinary Joe. As far as the article you shared, there looks like there could very well be confounding factors at play, such as skin color (Asian v. Latino...if vitamin D has a role) and overall hygiene (masking v. working while sick). So you are right, we don’t know for sure. Also, and this is off-topic but calls attention to the reporting, it starts out about the similarities between the groups: “Both are high-density areas with similar socioeconomic profiles. They’re linked by the usually crowded No. 7 train. Nearly half of workers in both neighborhoods are employed in food service, construction, cleaning and transportation — jobs that New York State has deemed essential through the pandemic. Residents of both places typically have household income below the Queens median and a similar share of people who lack health insurance, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau. And almost half of apartments and houses in both areas have more than one occupant per room, the Census definition of crowded.” But then says near the end, “What’s happening right now with both Latino and African Americans is a good illustration of the power of the social determinants, economic, environmental and structural determinants of health. Things like poverty levels, access to food — especially healthy food. And right now, for many, many families it’s just food, any kind of food,” said Dr. Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, director of the UC Davis Center for Reducing Health Disparities.” So those things don’t matter if you’re Asian now? Only if you’re Latino or African American? I’m not asking you, specifically; just thinking out loud. I have enjoyed the discussions on this board 😉!

Maybe they had a study like this in mind? This study has two other studies linked, which refer to N95 and medical masks. PubMed has a rabbit trail of similar studies. “In the univariate analysis, all outcomes were significantly higher in the cloth mask group, compared with the medical masks group. After adjusting for other factors, ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) remained significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#!po=50.0000

We used this last year: https://www.christianbook.com/literature-cultural-influences-contemporary-voices-student/james-stobaugh/9780890516751/pd/516751?product_redirect=1&search_term=World litera&Ntt=516751&item_code=WW&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP A few of the lessons/concept builder activities are Christian, so you could just use it as another list for ideas or use it as a jumping off point to build a completely secular study. It was meaty, so we cut a book. I also assigned three of the longer books as summer reading, with assignments/discussions completed as they came up in the schedule throughout the year. If you have any specific questions, I still have the student book 🙂.

I should have not used a qualitative ("drastically") metric. 30% fewer people makes what kind of difference, quantitatively? Would you mind if we nerd-out and you share your calculations if 100% of the population gets it compared to 70%? And the numbers when a good treatment is found is all speculative, right? Because if we find it soon, then how much of the population will have had it under current conditions compared to the numbers under the new conditions? Right now, the CDC is reporting about 1,600,000/330,000,000 have been infected. If we can find a treatment soon, will the number even go over 1% under current conditions? 5%? All of the numbers, 100%, 70%, 5%, and 1%, are all speculative, but I think the lower ones are most likely to be the ones we eventually land at, considering our ingenuity. Let's say 5% of the population gets it under current conditions; where does that put the calculations? I would not bet that this is going to go through an overwhelming majority of the population under the current conditions. I would bet that we will get a handle on this by the time numbers reach low single-digits, making all of these estimates of 2,200,000 Americans dying a moot point.

Herd immunity will kick in at 60-80% depending on which "expert" you think is correct, so your numbers would change dramatically, correct? And if we happen to find some sort of standard treatment protocol sooner rather than later, that would also decrease the mortality rate? So to say that there is a 10% chance someone you know will die is only correct using numbers and treatments we have now and if 100% of the population is infected?

This is using the premise that 100% of the population will get it and that we find no meaningful treatments, correct?

I live about 60 miles outside of Seattle, WA. Not including the last week of March, all of the big chain stores have been full any time I've went out (about twice a week) and the traffic has been average with pre-virus levels. Our cases have not been high or have had any spikes. We entered Phase 1 on May 5 and are one of 10 counties that can apply for Phase 2 before June 1. Have fun on your RV trip!

"Combining the first two key figures of this study, anxiety from responses to Covid-19 has impacted 42,873,663 adults and will rob them of an average of 1.3 years of life, thus destroying 55.7 million years of life. Combining the third key figure of this study with data on Covid-19 deaths, a maximum of 616,590 lives might be saved by the current lockdowns, and the disease robs an average of 12 years of life from each of its victims, which means that the current lockdowns can save no more than 7.4 million years of life. In other words, the anxiety from reactions to Covid-19—such as business shutdowns, stay-at-home orders, media exaggerations, and legitimate concerns about the virus—will extinguish at least seven times more years of life than can possibly be saved by the lockdowns." https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_anxiety_lockdowns_life_destroyed_saved Another one: https://wellbeingtrust.org/areas-of-focus/policy-and-advocacy/reports/projected-deaths-of-despair-during-covid-19/

As far as the bathroom situation, where I live, the big chain stores, like Walmart/Target/big grocery stores, have the bathrooms open. The small businesses, like Mom and Pop's restaurants, don't have theirs open. Not sure about the gas stations because I avoid them after encountering many nasty ones.

Marriages are challenging in the best of times. Now, it's really challenging. Could you get a mediator? Some times it's helpful when needing to suss out a multifaceted issue, really get to the core issues, and find an agreeable compromise I am in the camp of "the science is not yet settled." To say one person (you) is 100% right and the other (him) is 100% wrong (or vice versa) is not, in my opinion, productive, especially when we know so little and are speculating about nearly everything related to this virus and the "right" things to do are constantly changing depending on which expert you ask at which time of the day. If his doctor and his sister, who have backgrounds in this, say he would be ok going, maybe you could talk to both of them and share all of the research you have with them in the hope that they will change their minds, thus changing your dh's mind? Or maybe they could put your mind at ease with different research? Or maybe he can go to a different MD and get a second opinion? I think if you agree to go, a contingency plan is important and that you are both the same page. A "battle plan" for being in the house might also come in handy, like maybe your immediate family could wear N95 masks while inside or stay in your rooms while inside with a really good air purifier and only socialize with extended family outside? Also, maybe keep an eye on the numbers to see if they spike without also a spike in testing: https://mymanatee.org/departments/public_safety/coronavirus_information. It sounds like your husband is very excited to go, but maybe that could change if his probability of getting it increases exponentially? It is broken down by zip code. Best wishes on an agreeable outcome.

1942 was the last time Congress declared war (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm). I thought this was an interesting read: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/. I'm fairly certain in times of high stress and multiple unknowns, rights are given to government officials and then the future generations have to deal with the fallout, which is a sentiment we should all keep in mind during the present crisis. From the link: "Take, for example, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964. As communist forces in Vietnam took increasingly militaristic actions against U.S. forces, Congress authorized the President, in sweeping but vague language, “to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.”17 In fact, despite engaging in conflicts in places like Vietnam and Iraq over the last 70 years, Congress has not declared war since 1942. Rather, the individual congressional AUMFs have been interpreted “as fully empowering the President to prosecute the wars,” according to law professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith.18"

I know what the headline said, but in the article it doesn't say she has any concrete evidence that she was fired for refusing to "manually change data to drum up support for the plan to reopen." It even says, "She provided no further details." There have been other scientists and doctors who have been sidelined/disregarded/lost income during this whole thing because they produced data which didn't fall in line with the science and numbers being pushed out by mainstream media. Science requires disagreements and free debate between peers. When people are shut down because they have differing data and interpretations, no one wins. When the media's output is, at best, bad journalism, no one wins.

Is it just the governor who decides when a state of emergency is declared? And if the governor can keep extending an order during a state of emergency without having to have legislation meet and vote to keep it in place, that sounds like there aren't any checks and balances, which sounds very un-American.

Is anyone following HR 6666? A non-profit I subscribe to just sent out a letter regarding this. In short, the group said the bill would violate the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th Amendments. It could also open the door for more tracking in the future. History has shown us over and over again that once a liberty is given to the government, it is usually not given back. If it is, it's not without a fight. In regards to the statement "To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person" are there definable parameters for which this should happen? Symptoms would not be a good indicator because a large portion with the virus are asymptomatic. The testing kits are not very reliable, so it would almost be luck of the draw to either not be taken into custody if you are positive and get a negative test back or, to a much smaller extent, be taken into custody if you test positive but are actually negative. Just coming into contact with a person with symptoms or who tested positive wouldn't mean that you have it. What happens to the 5th Amendment? The government officials in America should be made to operate within the confines of state Constitutions and the American Constitution. The best way to insure that happens is to have informed citizens. I'm glad to see that citizens in some states are making sure their rights are being upheld.

Which makes me wonder about what happens if a vaccine is out next spring (or even in the next 18-24 months) and mandated for medical professionals, law enforcement, teachers, grocery workers, etc.??? The margin for acceptable medical exemptions are extremely narrow for vaccines. There might be a significant amount of people changing career fields or being forced to take a biologic in order to eat. Doesn't the Nuremberg Code cover this?

Does anyone know how this factors into the total number of reported cases?

Sweden isn't doing poorly overall. Their numbers are middle of the pack and the hospitals have, at no point, been overwhelmed even though they have taken some preventative measures, albeit not stringent. Maybe we should be using Sweden as a barometer for preventive measures because they are taking a different approach and it still isn't decimating the whole population. They have some semblance of autonomy, and will probably hit herd immunity faster than other countries. That is an option worth discussing, but is being dismissed by most mainstream American media. As far as places where mask wearing is already normalized, like you said, it could be because of confounding factors, such as overall health. I know Americans take extremely poor care of their health/immune system and many have chronic diseases, autoimmune diseases, and cancer, which are sadly becoming the norm. The study you linked was a theoretical model. "Since little precise quantitative data is available on cultures where masking is prevalent..." I think it has been discussed fairly well on the boards how models are not the end-all, be-all deciding factor on which to make wide-sweeping policies that, once in place, are *generally not repealed*. Right now, culturally, people are shaming others for not wearing a mask even though we have only theories that it will help. At any given point, how many people have this virus and are protecting others by wearing a mask? Very few. I mean, how on Earth did humanity survive this long without everyone wearing properly fitting N95 masks and gloves and hazmat suits all the time?! The virologists, immunologists, MDs, etc. will get a handle on this just like they have gotten a handle on other diseases. Culture shapes behavior...well, for most..., no matter if the basis is founded or not. Which brings me to another point: in America, the legislative branch makes laws. Mask wearing can be made mandatory by a privately owned business, and people can choose to shop there or not (I know a few people who have not renewed their Costco membership), but in order for it to be a law, Congress must pass it and the President must sign it. All of this talk about "could" and "should" is theoretical until a study is done using hard data to see whether mask wearing, stratified into various types of masks and proper/improper usage, is statistically significant in decreasing morbidity and mortality. Until then, wear your mask if you so choose...or don't. I feel kind of all over the place in this post, but my brain is seriously fried. I hope everyone has a fantastic weekend.

Is there anything out there yet that looks at mortality rates from places where masks are mandatory v. not mandatory? "Sweden’s Public Health Agency, however, says that while masks are worn by healthcare staff in close contact with patients, they are 'not needed in the community.'" https://www.rt.com/news/488567-sweden-pm-face-masks-coronavirus/

This was amazing! Why are we not hearing things like this in mainstream media?

Where are the funds for unemployment benefits and [potentially] forgivable business loans coming from?

When I only had one dog, he picked fleas up outside at my mom's. He's a big English lab with a double coat. I went to the vet and got him some expensive flea treatment that was supposed to kill the fleas within several hours. It most definitely did not, so I went to the local natural pet store that afternoon and picked up Vet's Best. Within minutes of spraying, the fleas were flopping onto my kitchen floor. I use diatomaceous earth for vacuuming twice a day on the floors, vacuumed the couches daily, washed the bedding daily, and sprayed the dog with Vet's Best daily . Within a day or two, they disappeared as quickly as they showed up. I continued the tedious processes for several days after the little buggers were gone. Best wishes. Edited to add: I think we gave him garlic for a few months after that, too. Just be careful your dog isn't sensitive to it and it's the right amount.

We have three dogs totaling almost three hundred pounds. There are at least six large piles picked up daily in plastic grocery bags and dumped into our trash can. Trash is just plain stinky, dog poo or no dog poo. I, personally, wouldn't be upset about someone else using my empty trash can so they didn't have to carry the bag for the rest of the walk, but we have a mechanical handle on the truck that dumps the bins and are able to put our bins in a spot on the other side of the house away from the patio and we have dogs. I carry my dogs' poo bags and put them in my trash so I don't tick people off. Maybe a sign with NO POO, PLEASE would be helpful.

My oldest is 17. She was telling me about a shirt that said, " Question everything except your mother." My immediate response was, " I hope you question me. I don't know even a small portion of Everything. Question every one."