My county is rural. Having more individualized management means that while we are on the governor's poopy list for increasing community spread, larger cities that are doing better per capita and with better hospital capacity aren't beholden to our lag in getting this thing.

I think for places that shut down before mid March, staying completely shut down except for "essentials" through Memorial Day was always going to be a hard sell.

I think, though, that the economic effects would be more localized and less on the level of mass supply chain disruptions and such. I think we come out of it better if we keep as much open as possible (like outdoor spaces and busineses that can limit capacity and such). I am like sassenach in that I'm somewhere in the middle, though, and some things like theaters, stadiums, etc., have to stay closed or so limited that it probably wouldn't be viable to open them. I think a county by county plan for dealing with this is better, at this point than even state level management, with adjoining counties working together like they did in norcal.

Doubtful. Especially if you ask my kids, lol.

In my case, I don't know anyone who has died, and the only people I know who have had it fit a higher risk profile but had extremely mild symptoms, like barely a cold symptoms. But that is not driving my behavior, rather, the fact that community spread is on the increase here is what is determining how I act and what I do.

I think it's more about perceived risk based on local conditions rather than knowing someone who died of covid. Knowing someone from NY who died while living in middle of nowhere Montana probably won't change behavior a whole lot. But a whole bunch of factors come into play in terms of personal risk management. You may know someone, or someoneS who died in a horrific car accident, but that wouldn't necessarily mean you stop driving places. (No, I am not saying traffic deaths are like covid, that is not the point of the metaphor)

I don't think that would ever be the case until there's a vaccine. I mean, what do you define as reasonably sure? NYers have done an awful lot of traveling during all of this, during the peak of the peak. Assuming they come back to town sometime in the near future, they might be bringing covid back with them, right?

Then you know they had volunteers lined up before the news cycle hit?

I have to admit that it is strange to me that a cheap, widely used drug with a good safety profile has become So Dangerous and also a huge opportunity for evil pharma to profit. I think more likely is Quill's original post. Kind of like masks...if this works prophylacticly, we don't want people hoarding it so that no one can get it if we need to use it on a more widespread level. Also, only tangentially related, but I'm pretty sure that fish tank cleaner lady poisoned her husband on purpose.

Did you read or listen to the article?

Yes, wealth does tend to get concentrated with the few when the government effectively mandates that people dont come to work so 40 million are on unemployment and then channels all consumer $$$ through a few select essential businesses that had the means or the infrastructure already in place to survive and even thrive something this. Most serious economists kinda saw this coming? I think I agree with your concern, but not sure how you would solve it? Because the drivers for more people to have more money, or for more of that money to be invested into startups or new hires or expansion isn't there and isn't going to be there for a long time. You could redistribute it, I guess, but that's kind of a one and done plan if we don't also have growth.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-nursing-homes-illinois-20200523-lgfa6k6htvdzpig6n2fa3g7wiq-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true NY is doing this too so people can't see nursing home deaths. Minnesota is having a serious nursing home problem too. More serious than elsewhere, I mean.

Well, the safety net (such as it is or might be) is funded from a productive economy, so that's where we get to begging the question I suppose. And I don't know about the indirect loss of lives. That will be something people will be analyzing long after this has passed.

I think some people see these issues as lives vs. economy and some people see these issues as lives vs. lives. There will likely not be a meeting of the minds where people think that one of the options doesn't involve a loss of life.

I got an Evenflo Litemax for this last baby. It's an infant bucket that goes to 35lb and it's one of the lighter seats on the market if she is tiny. I've been pleased, but I have small babies and don't have trouble with them growing out of infant seats too soon. Still, I like the stroller frame it can clip into so I dont have to lug it absolutely everywhere. But I definitely like having the bucket to snap in and out of the base.

They are all operating under the EA I think. In normal circumstances it takes years to get a test approved by the FDA.

I would love that I think and we've looked at jobs at INL too.

Has this been posted? It is fascinating. Talks about how the virus actually affects our cells and why the cytokine issues without recovery. I don't know enough to know how legit it is if someone wants to comment on that. https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/21/coronavirus-hijacks-cells-in-unique-ways/?utm_source=STAT+Newsletters&utm_campaign=bee97f4883-Daily_Recap&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8cab1d7961-bee97f4883-152331786

Maybe you can't predict that, but I have never been sneezed or coughed on by a grown adult in my entire life that I can think of just walking down the street. I'm sure there's going to be a dozen people now coming out of the woodwork to say that it happened to them, lol, but IMO, if someone is sneezing or coughing directly in your face while you're walking down the street then there are bigger issues going on. I'll put here what I accidentaly put in the other thread: Masks aren't exactly comfortable, though, IME, and I don't think they are necessary just for being outside given the sheer volume of air outside. I live in a place where it is routinely 100*+ outside in the summertime and masking in that kind of weather is punishing. I think it is worth discussing if it is necessary. I'm not arguing against masks. I would like a mask policy that makes sense and puts as few restrictions as possible on people because I think ultimately that gets you greater compliance overall when it comes to public health. I would like to not scare people into compliance because I think that ultimately backfires. I think we are still paying for the huge amount of messaging that went out in the beginning that told people healthy people shouldn't wear masks, so I think extra care should be taken with regards to any widespread messaging about actions that need to be taken by individuals. I think if we're talking about population centers where there are just masses of people walking down the sidewalk together shoulder to shoulder as a part of a commute (like NYC) then maybe it makes sense to have people masking routinely outside. Maybe. But in most places? Probably not necessary.

I thought this was a different thread and didn't mean to take over saraha's, so I'm deleting.

Yes, that can happen. Are we talking about a model of people's respirations and how they spread out, or a model of actually transmitting the disease? Because air movement is part of that, along with degredation of and dispersal of viral particles out of doors, along with viral load and how much virus one would have to directly inhale to get sick. I just feel like we're on the verge (or some people already are) of treating this thing like The Mist from a Stephen King novel coming out of people's mouths, and illnesses that spread via respiratory droplets don't really work quite that way out of doors. I am worried about places where air circulation is poor, non-existent, or recirculated, especially if I have to be in them for more than a few minutes. But to be worried about passing people on the street outside makes not a lot of sense to me with what I know about the science, unless they are coughing or sneezing on you as they go by. And before anyone asks, yes I do think there is a societal cost to a lot of people trying to stay 15 feet or 6 feet away from each other all the time, and viewing people's breathing or talking as problematic, but I already foresee the summary dismissal of mental health concerns, so no need to do that if you're gonna.

Do you mean indoors? Or do you know something about outdoor transmission that would make this true?

I feel like maybe they are just covering. They clearly didn't want to admit how bad it was from the beginning. I mean, isn't it curious that they didn't report one instance of the inflammatory disease in kids? Not one kid in Wuhan had this happen? And the longer-lasting cases of the virus popping up everywhere else, but China didn't have one case of that until recently? I don't buy it's a new mutation causing it, just like I don't buy that most new cases in China in the last few weeks were from people traveling in from elsewhere. They are locking down a region of 100 million people now for a few hundred cases? Not likely either.

This is the news segment: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/859261838/hydroxychloroquine-debate-interferes-with-recruiting-research-volunteers

I'm saying the doctor was saying he had a ton of volunteers for a hydroxy trial and after the reporting on it saying it was dangerous people decided not to volunteer. The doctor said that it's got a relatively known safety/risk profile but there was a lot of news out after the president said he was taking it that made it sound dangerous and risky. I'll try to find a link, but it was just a blurb on the news.