Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

wuhan - coronavirus

Recommended Posts

Just now, Michelle Conde said:

 

Setting aside for a moment that violating a quarantine order is not the same thing as active murder (you can draw parallels, but they are neither in fact nor legally the same thing).  We do not take basic constitutional human rights away without due process.  I support taking actual legal action against thenoncompliant individuals for their actual actions.

 

There is significantly less due process involved in states of emergency when people are willfully endangering public health.  And to be fair, he's threatening this, he hasn't actually filed for eminent domain over any houses of worship yet.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

There is significantly less due process involved in states of emergency when people are willfully endangering public health.  And to be fair, he's threatening this, he hasn't actually filed for eminent domain over any houses of worship yet.

 

I'm going to be surprised if this actually comes to pass, frankly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

Wouldn’t taking legal action against the individuals violating the quarantine order, up to imprisonment if necessary, make more sense than threatening unconstitutional illegal action that will affect congregants not currently choosing to attend, for years to come?


If we imprison someone for this, then we're taking someone who is very likely to be infected, and exposing LEO officers, and corrections officers who go home and risk their families. We're exposing other prisoners.   We're risking using up hospital beds.  

Either the church or synagogue or religious institution belongs to the congregation, in which case they are all responsible.  Or it just belongs to the leader, in which case taking his church or synagogue is reasonable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

NJ is doing very limited testing so I'm sure those numbers (scary as they are) aren't completely accurate. 

Are they? NJ is up to 30,000 tests, so it's actually not as limited as other places, I would think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I'm going to be surprised if this actually comes to pass, frankly. 

 

So will I.  But this virus has already widely spread through houses of worship.  Perhaps the threat will make leaders think about whether they will ever be able to get a job again if they lose their church or temple because they cared more about defying orders than they did about people's lives.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

There is significantly less due process involved in states of emergency when people are willfully endangering public health.  And to be fair, he's threatening this, he hasn't actually filed for eminent domain over any houses of worship yet.

 

What I would have written 😀

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

So will I.  But this virus has already widely spread through houses of worship.  Perhaps the threat will make leaders think about whether they will ever be able to get a job again if they lose their church or temple because they cared more about defying orders than they did about people's lives.

Some Orthodox Jewish people in Brooklyn threw the standard 500 person Orthodox wedding in Brooklyn here last week. That was really not cool.

ETA: Actually, checking, it was almost 2 weeks ago. But certainly late enough in the day that everyone was supposed to be avoiding large gatherings (schools were closed.)

Edited by square_25
  • Sad 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Yes it is, for at least three reasons off the top of my head. 

  1. It falls under eminent domain, which the supreme court ruled in favor of.  If something in a location doesn't serve the best interests of the city, local government can force it to be closed and sold. 
  2. Ignoring Quarantines and continuing to spread disease definitely isn't constitutional. 
  3. Several Attorneys General, both state and federal, have stated that willfully spreading CV-19 can probably be prosecuted under federal terrorism laws.

What he doesn't have the ability to do is change anyone's religion or prevent the same people from opening a religious institution in another location when this is over.  But he can certainly have them criminally prosecuted for all the lives who died because of their refusal to follow legal orders.

 

1.  Bill of rights takes precedence over eminent domain.

2.  Not arguing

3.  So prosecute them under laws that apply (though generally those terrorism ones have to show the willfully part.  So, you can apply them to the person who intentionally coughs all over the produce to try to spread it, but not to the families who meet up at the park despite shelter-in-place).

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

There is significantly less due process involved in states of emergency when people are willfully endangering public health.  And to be fair, he's threatening this, he hasn't actually filed for eminent domain over any houses of worship yet.

 

I don’t have a problem with a government-enforced shutdown during a state of emergency.  It’s the threat to punitively shut down religious institutions permanently that I think is completely out-of-line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

I don’t have a problem with a government-enforced shutdown during a state of emergency.  It’s the threat to punitively shut down religious institutions permanently that I think is completely out-of-line.

Again, right now it's just a threat. I'd leave the freaking out for when he actually tries to do it (spoiler: I doubt he will.) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

1.  Bill of rights takes precedence over eminent domain.

2.  Not arguing

3.  So prosecute them under laws that apply (though generally those terrorism ones have to show the willfully part.  So, you can apply them to the person who intentionally coughs all over the produce to try to spread it, but not to the families who meet up at the park despite shelter-in-place).

 

I don’t have a problem with a government-enforced shutdown during a state of emergency.  It’s the threat to punitively shut down religious institutions permanently that I think is completely out-of-line.

 

Permanently means indefinitely in this context.  How could they possibly know, when we don't now when this will end, the definite end date for the shut down.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

1.  Bill of rights takes precedence over eminent domain.

2.  Not arguing

3.  So prosecute them under laws that apply (though generally those terrorism ones have to show the willfully part.  So, you can apply them to the person who intentionally coughs all over the produce to try to spread it, but not to the families who meet up at the park despite shelter-in-place).

 

I don’t have a problem with a government-enforced shutdown during a state of emergency.  It’s the threat to punitively shut down religious institutions permanently that I think is completely out-of-line.

 

I'll agree to disagree about eminent domain, because the way the rulings have been interpreted don't tend to support that argument.  Especially with regard to buildings where infection is actively spreading in defiance of Quarantine laws meaning that location is actively creating immediate public health emergencies. 

I think the threat might skirt the line, but allowing 500 person weddings to continue among populations that have been shown to be the most vulnerable is a bigger threat than seizing a temple.  Would he actually follow through with this?  I think it's unlikely.  Will the people in charge decide to not risk it rather than continue to hold weddings with 500 people?  I hope so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CuriousMomof3 said:

 

Permanently means indefinitely in this context.  How could they possibly know, when we don't now when this will end, the definite end date for the shut down.  

 

 

That is not the meaning of the word permanently.  While we might hope that he actually meant indefinitely, it makes no sense to assume he meant something other than the meaning of the words he actually said, unless he had actually offered some additional comments indicating this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michelle Conde said:

 

That is not the meaning of the word permanently.  While we might hope that he actually meant indefinitely, it makes no sense to assume he meant something other than the meaning of the words he actually said, unless he had actually offered some additional comments indicating this.


Hmmm it's the dictionary definition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:


If we imprison someone for this, then we're taking someone who is very likely to be infected, and exposing LEO officers, and corrections officers who go home and risk their families. We're exposing other prisoners.   We're risking using up hospital beds.  

Either the church or synagogue or religious institution belongs to the congregation, in which case they are all responsible.  Or it just belongs to the leader, in which case taking his church or synagogue is reasonable.

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

 

That does NOT count as "services taking place" in any way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

 

Absolutely.  Without hesitation.  

If my congregation took steps that endangered my child's life (because that's what we're talking about.  We're talking about a situation where someone from that congregation walks into the hospital where my child gets infusion treatments, and my child dies), then I would want them closed.  And if that "permanently" turned out to be forever, that would be fine with me.  I certainly wouldn't step foot there again.  

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

 

I would.  Services can be held online or in other ways. We don't need to all be close together spreading infection that will kill people.  If 2% of the people at that wedding die from a virus they caught at the wedding, the people who made the decision to have that wedding are directly responsible for the deaths of ten people, not to mention the deaths of anyone they spread it to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

 

If people who are not the leader of the congregation are breaking in and holding services without a clergy person present or their permission, then I would change my answer.  I don't see anything in the original message that implies criminal breaking and entering.  

If those services are being held with the knowledge and permission of the church or synagogue's leadership, then yes, I think that the church should be shuttered indefinitely.  And frankly if that means it never reopens, or is sold to a different denomination and reopens as a different kind of organization, then I'm OK with that.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

At that point, they would not be in defiance of quarantine but of direct orders to disperse.  From politico:  

Quote

NYPD, FDNY and buildings inspectors will force congregations to disperse if they are found holding worship services this weekend, de Blasio said. If they refuse, they could face fines or have their buildings shuttered permanently.

If the members of my church decided to  disobey direct commands in the Bible and disobey the civil authorities and not live in peace with all men, then yes, they should have their church shut down indefinitely.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Absolutely.  Without hesitation.  

If my congregation took steps that endangered my child's life (because that's what we're talking about.  We're talking about a situation where someone from that congregation walks into the hospital where my child gets infusion treatments, and my child dies), then I would want them closed.  And if that "permanently" turned out to be forever, that would be fine with me.  I certainly wouldn't step foot there again.  

 

I sympathize with your feelings.  However, I am very wary of giving that power to government.  Giving government the ability to close religious institutions, not just as needed to protect public safety in a time of emergency, but permanently as a punishment for the constituents’ behavior—that sets a legal precedent that could have far-reaching effects.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

I sympathize with your feelings.  However, I am very wary of giving that power to government.  Giving government the ability to close religious institutions, not just as needed to protect public safety in a time of emergency, but permanently as a punishment for the constituents’ behavior—that sets a legal precedent that could have far-reaching effects.

 

Which is why I'd worry about it when they actually did it. We have bigger fish to fry than random, unenforced statements. 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

 

not who you were writing to, but yes.

 My church has only committed to being closed till end of March and I am deeply concerned that they might try to open for Easter and pre-Easter services. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

I sympathize with your feelings.  However, I am very wary of giving that power to government.  Giving government the ability to close religious institutions, not just as needed to protect public safety in a time of emergency, but permanently as a punishment for the constituents’ behavior—that sets a legal precedent that could have far-reaching effects.

 

I don’t think post emergency if court case were then started that it would continue . But I don’t think it is a new giving of a power. Rather an exercise of a power already there

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

I sympathize with your feelings.  However, I am very wary of giving that power to government.  Giving government the ability to close religious institutions, not just as needed to protect public safety in a time of emergency, but permanently as a punishment for the constituents’ behavior—that sets a legal precedent that could have far-reaching effects.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/close-churches/608236/

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

I sympathize with your feelings.  However, I am very wary of giving that power to government.  Giving government the ability to close religious institutions, not just as needed to protect public safety in a time of emergency, but permanently as a punishment for the constituents’ behavior—that sets a legal precedent that could have far-reaching effects.

 

That precedent is already there.  There are mosques in my area that have been closed indefinitely, for example.  

To be clear, in this situation we aren't talking about criminal behavior by individual constituents. When a church chooses to open its door and hold worship services, it is doing so as an institution.  So, we are talking about criminal behavior by the institution.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TracyP said:

That is a complete mischaracterization of some very well thought out replies on that thread. I may not agree, but geez.

 

In re the “well thought out replies” to me those are even sadder than the ‘because someone wants her hair colorized’ or ‘because others want to party hearty on the beach’ arguments.

To me the “well thought out replies” are part of a “let people die- it’s good for the economy” movement— which is totally chilling.

 And the more I think about it, you are right, it doesn’t deserve the light hearted reply I gave at all.

 It deserves ... I don’t know what. I had previously thought more highly of that person and am now utterly utterly  appalled.  

About 3 minutes in to:

https://youtu.be/BoDwXwZXsDI

there’s a good short rebuttal to that

 

or more at: 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Our Safeway grocery store has screens at checkout counters to protect the cashiers.  Some have masks and gloves and some don't.  I don't know if that is by choice or not.  (ie. I don't know if the masks and gloves are provided by the grocery store if they bring them from home.)

 

I'm so glad to hear this. My best friend is a cashier at Safeway in downtown Bellevue and she's over 60. I've been concerned about her but all I hear from her is she's fine and so glad she's essential. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DoraBora: you were right, Cuomo is not using ICU beds and ventilators synonymously. He ran a chart with daily intubations today, and the number of vents they are currently using is 1682, if I added right. The number of ICU beds in his charts was 2037. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, square_25 said:

There are cases in every state now. There’s NO POINT in locking down NY. The cat is out of the bag. Pandora’s box has long been open.

There needs to be a national strategy and need to be federal laws, like, yesterday. This is going to be an epic, unnecessary disaster. The longer we go on with toothless “guidance” from the national level (not to mention the misinformed reassurances that slow action), the worse it will be. 

I wondered about this because we are closing state borders here. (Soft closure) But I think the idea is to minimise travel.  It makes contact tracing easier and we are still doing that.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I wondered about this because we are closing state borders here. (Soft closure) But I think the idea is to minimise travel.  It makes contact tracing easier and we are still doing that.  

 

I believe closing state borders will help.

 More clearly so in Australia with fewer cases, but also in USA. 

I think that @square_25 is seeing this from an *inside* New York City perspective where it feels like it is too late.

But from *outside* of New York, closing borders makes lots of sense.  The first cases in my mother’s area were tourists from New York. 

New York will almost certainly get fairly high priority help in terms of supplies. Rural areas, and other states where infectious New Yorkers may take the virus won’t.  

Open travel from New York could easily spark off a few lines of exponentially growing transmission lines in my less favored, less well endowed state that at just a few thousand cases would be totally overwhelming.

I am extremely thankful that things are being shut. Otherwise, a nearby city would have been hosting the Olympic Track and Field trials shortly and I think that would have been devastating.  The economic boon to local businesses from the  convergence of tourists / spectators would have been completely overbalanced by the health costs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

But from *outside* of New York, closing borders makes lots of sense.  The first cases in my mother’s area were tourists from New York. 


I think it would make sense if there weren't SO MANY hot spots. If New York was the main place which could spread it then by all means, close the borders. But if you take a look at a county map, you'll see that there are cases absolutely everywhere. And we can't really close all of them. And a lot of the hot spots we don't even know about well, because of the testing issues. 

But I could absolutely be wrong about this one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I wondered about this because we are closing state borders here. (Soft closure) But I think the idea is to minimise travel.  It makes contact tracing easier and we are still doing that.  

I think you aren't as far in as we are. After a while, contact tracing has diminishing returns. They aren't even doing that in NYC anymore -- they just test people in hospitals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

So if, hypothetically, some members of your congregation chose to continue meeting in defiance of quarantine, you would support giving government the right to close your church permanently as a punishment?

Hell yes, if they were doing it as a church service in the sanctuary. (But it wouldn't be my church any more, because I would never consider staying in a congregation headed by people who would do that.) Obviously if they did it in somebody's house or another private venue, that's where the response would be directed.

My church service today had four people in the sanctuary, which has a capacity >600--a preacher at each side (probably 3 or 4 meters apart) down front, and a father and son up in the balcony running the camera/computer. Wednesday night was a video the pastor made at home, and they're offering some Zoom meetings.

Eminent domain is indeed (SCOTUS found in the case re: New London, CT) a constitutional due process for seizing property, even if for financial purposes--the argument for using it to keep people alive would hold up very well IMO.

Re: New York, let's recall that some essential workers don't live inside the city. People who run the traffic lights, for example, or the water system might live in in NYC itself, but quite possible some commute in from CT. Or some commuters might work for a company that does something essential and is not closing. (E.g., my DH is working from home, but his company--headquartered in another state--makes products that are essential right now nationally, so if he had to go into his office, which is in another county, he could.)

Did y'all read about the minister who claimed Covid19 was a hoax, and then he died of it? (Most reports of his death politely leave his denialism out.) I believe he died in Concord, NC, but lived elsewhere.

Edited by whitehawk
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, square_25 said:

Are they? NJ is up to 30,000 tests, so it's actually not as limited as other places, I would think. 

Really?  I'm surprised that there's that many.  The two locations that have been open a while are stopping at 500 a day.  All I'm hearing locally is people saying it's really hard to get a test.  I know there's a couple more locations opening this week, so I figured that would help.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:


I think it would make sense if there weren't SO MANY hot spots. If New York was the main place which could spread it then by all means, close the borders. But if you take a look at a county map, you'll see that there are cases absolutely everywhere. And we can't really close all of them. And a lot of the hot spots we don't even know about well, because of the testing issues. 

But I could absolutely be wrong about this one. 

 

The analysis for my state posted above somewhere iirc was that if state is closed to nonessential travel AND  if 9 out of 10 people stay home we can weather the CV19 situation for awhile, long enough to maybe have better treatments etc in place .

  Long enough to do a Hammer and Dance type approach maybe. 

If people are coming on in in an open way from outside OR if fewer than 9 of 10 Stay Home, we won’t.  And though we aren’t as big and important a good growing area as the Central Valley of California, we are important.  

Tossing the food growing regions to the viral wolves may yield more hunger in big cities down the road a little ways

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of the difference on feelings about crossing state lines has to do with where in the country someone lives.  I live in an area where state lines are very close together.  When I was working, I crossed a state line every day. On a typical week in the winter, last winter, members of our household would be in four different states, because we lived in one, had a standing medical/therapy appointment in another, and kids had after school activities in two others.  One of the family members who is picking up groceries and dropping them off at our house, while we are self isolating, lives in another state.  The nearest Walmart to my house is in another state.   If I had to take one of my kids to the ER with suspected COVID, I'd cross a state line, because the two nearest Children's hospitals are in two different states.  So, in my mind, closing state lines seems like an enormous step.  

On the other hand, if you live smack dab in the middle of state the size of Iowa or Texas, you might go for months without crossing a state line.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, square_25 said:


I think it would make sense if there weren't SO MANY hot spots. If New York was the main place which could spread it then by all means, close the borders. But if you take a look at a county map, you'll see that there are cases absolutely everywhere. And we can't really close all of them. And a lot of the hot spots we don't even know about well, because of the testing issues. 

But I could absolutely be wrong about this one. 

 

In our area particularly if they had far more tests, they could still effectively contact trace and quarantine.  Not perfect, but better than not trying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

 

In our area particularly if they had far more tests, they could still effectively contact trace and quarantine.  Not perfect, but better than not trying.  

Maybe. Or maybe you have quite a lot and you don't know yet. 

I think this would be a more interesting discussion if we had more tests. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

The analysis for my state posted above somewhere iirc was that if state is closed to nonessential travel AND  if 9 out of 10 people stay home we can weather the CV19 situation for awhile, long enough to maybe have better treatments etc in place .

  Long enough to do a Hammer and Dance type approach maybe. 

If people are coming on in in an open way from outside OR if fewer than 9 of 10 Stay Home, we won’t.  And though we aren’t as big and important a good growing area as the Central Valley of California, we are important.  

Tossing the food growing regions to the viral wolves may yield more hunger in big cities down the road a little ways

What state are you in again? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Maybe. Or maybe you have quite a lot and you don't know yet. 

I think this would be a more interesting discussion if we had more tests. 

 

Omg! I know we have a lot! I knew we had community spread when our government was pretending that we didn’t!

 

But a lot more than acknowledged, even 10-40 times more, which is what i suspect, or at least around 100-300 times the number of confirmed dead from it, is still far less than what would happen without the Stay Home rules in place!

 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

 

Omg! I know we have a lot! I knew we had community spread when our government was pretending that we didn’t!

 

But a lot more than acknowledged, even 10-20 times more, which is what i suspect, or at least around 100 times the number of confirmed dead from it, is still far less than what would happen without the Stay Home rules in place!

 

 

 

Well, I do agree that we should all stay home! 🙂I'm a fan of NY's orders. I'm a fan of every state that's doing shelter-in-place. My question is whether quarantining places would make much of a difference, given the rate of community spread and given that we don't really know where things are. 

But again, I'm not 100% on this, unlike some things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

 

Well, I do agree that we should all stay home! 🙂I'm a fan of NY's orders. I'm a fan of every state that's doing shelter-in-place. My question is whether quarantining places would make much of a difference, given the rate of community spread and given that we don't really know where things are. 

But again, I'm not 100% on this, unlike some things. 

 

Even dispersal through permeable membranes (where flow may tend to go from greater concentration to lesser) 

versus containment in non permeable containers

?

 

If I were the virus (entity)  I’d prefer free access to as many hosts as possible as quickly as possible.  In a contained area I might Peter out. 

 

————

Regardless of probable extreme underreporting of cases and fatalities in China, Do you think it would have been a better strategy to keep Wuhan open? 

Do you think it would be a better strategy to keep Italy open? 

Shall we reopen up to tourism flights from Milan to the New York City area?  Should New York City receive the passengers from Rotterdam and her sister ship? Does all that make no difference now because NYC already has so many cases there’s no point trying to keep out additional ones?   Like 60,000 each growing exponentially or 100,000 each growing exponentially makes no difference?  

I dunno. Maybe for New York it doesn’t-    I am sure that for my county 1000 cases versus 5000 is still a huge difference.  We have just barely got or not quite got the beds needed at the percentage of 1000 prob needing hospital . 5000 is into our catastrophe zone.  

And we really don’t even have places like Javitz center to convert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matrips said:

Wow!  That’s a lot of cancelled accounts 😳

 

Have people in China experienced individual economic fall out because of this, though?  I can imagine that if my family was struggling financially, and no one was going out, cancelling the kids cell phones, for example, would be one of the first things I'd do. 

I'd also want to know how often cell phones get cancelled in a typical 3 month period.  When I worked with families in poverty, people would get a new cell phone number every month or two.  Not a new phone, but they'd run out of minutes on their pay as you go plan, go for a week or two without a phone, and then when the new month started, maybe choose a different company or a different number.  Now that I think of that they probably did that so that I, their kid's teacher, would stop calling them.   

Anyway, my guess is that there are more cancelled accounts every month in the U.S., than most people would expect.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RootAnn said:

The call is going out for people with 3D printers to help by printing the frames for face shields. I've seen a few on YouTube. This one is for the area my DD attends college. I am hopeful when people work together to solve problems.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t-01gQS6AKU&feature=youtu.be

My oldest has been doing this here in Australia for a group of hospitals. They don't need the yet, but are getting ready

Edited by Melissa in Australia
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Even dispersal through permeable membranes (where flow may tend to go from greater concentration to lesser) 

versus containment in non permeable containers

?

 

If I were the virus (entity)  I’d prefer free access to as many hosts as possible as quickly as possible.  In a contained area I might Peter out. 

 

————

Regardless of probable extreme underreporting of cases and fatalities in China, Do you think it would have been a better strategy to keep Wuhan open? 

Do you think it would be a better strategy to keep Italy open? 

Shall we reopen up to tourism flights from Milan to the New York City area?  Should New York City receive the passengers from Rotterdam and her sister ship? Does all that make no difference now because NYC already has so many cases there’s no point trying to keep out additional ones?   Like 60,000 each growing exponentially or 100,000 each growing exponentially makes no difference?  

I dunno. Maybe for New York it doesn’t-    I am sure that for my county 1000 cases versus 5000 is still a huge difference.  We have just barely got or not quite got the beds needed at the percentage of 1000 prob needing hospital . 5000 is into our catastrophe zone.  

And we really don’t even have places like Javitz center to convert. 

 

The thing I wonder if it's a case of diminishing returns to quarantine places at this late date :-/. Like, they spent a LOT of energy containing the Westchester outbreak around here. It was, in fact, relatively contained. It did, however, turn out that the cat was out of the bag, anyway. It's possible the energy would have been better spent shutting things down earlier, for example.

It's also a lot harder to close state borders as opposed to country borders. How would you even enforce it? And what do you do with the fact that most states now have a hot zone? How big an area do you quarantine? Do you send in the military to patrol state borders? Is this even constitutional? Can you ensure that supplies can cross the lines? There are a lot of questions. 

I think the travel advisory is a good idea, anyway. I just wonder if there are better ways to spend energy than closing state borders or quarantining. Especially since most places are already locked down and very few people are flying as is. 

But again, I'm not vehemently against, except insofar that it seems like it'll take more energy than it's worth. 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...