Am I the only one not overly worried about Covid19?

[Ausmumof3]

41 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't honestly understand how this would work here in the US. Contract tracing is fine for a small number of cases, but if you have unknown community spread? Mass testing is only valuable as a glimpse, IMO, because I could be tested negative today and catch it 3 days from now in another state if I travel or if someone travels to me.

Well ideally it should have been done 3 weeks ago instead of head in the sand approach.  But we can still try.

[ScoutTN]

4 hours ago, StellaM said:

(I wish they'd cancel the buses here. Germ traps. I have to ride them every day. If they were cancelled, I'd have to stay home from work, and work would have to pay me. Win for my health!)

 

This strikes me as terribly selfish.  Many people, including some of my neighbors,  depend on public transportation to get to work. If they cannot get to work, they will not have money to eat or pay rent or utilities. They are paid hourly, not salaried and would likely lose their jobs if they couldn't get there on a bus. Great that you can work from home, but millions of people cannot. 

[Pen]

19 minutes ago, Paige said:

Short answer, yes. Flu mortality rate for over 65 is about .83%, covid is 14.8. That’s without even parsing it out by preexisting condition. 

 

Another way to look at those numbers is that cfr for high risk groups with influenza is lower than the cfr for non high risk adults with CV19. 

Or an average person is around 4 times more likely to die from CV19, than a high risk person is likely to die from flu. 

[EmseB]

12 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well ideally it should have been done 3 weeks ago instead of head in the sand approach.  But we can still try.

I don't understand. I mean, my head was not in the sand, but AFAIK we would have had to stop flights from China much sooner than we did to avoid it getting into communities here, but there was a huge outcry when we did it that it was an overreaction and xenophobic and too soon, at least in the media here.

[Corraleno]

14 minutes ago, Pen said:

Which is why there should be less elective non necessary travel 😉

Also all unnecessary shopping, sports, church, eating out, visiting friends, etc., should be eliminated, correct? Anyone who has access to a grocery delivery service has no reason to leave the house unless they're heading to the hospital. Cancel all kids activities, skip church, don't visit any friends or relatives, just hunker down at home for as long as it takes until a vaccine is developed a year or more from now. Of course if everyone stopped flying, stopped staying in hotels, stopped eating out, stopped shopping, etc., for the next year, millions of businesses would go bankrupt and millions of Americans would lose their jobs (and their insurance). And Covid-19 would still be endemic.

I bought a new car last September and in 6 months I've put less than 500 miles on it.  I shop once a week or less at Trader Joes, and I always go on a weekday when they first open, so it's usually empty. I do a Costco run every 2 months or so for paper products, detergent, etc., and I go to Target maybe once a month; I order most things I need online. The last time I saw a doctor, they had to pull my records out of long term storage because it had been more than 3 years since my last visit. I would be willing to bet that even with the amount of traveling I do, I actually spend LESS time interacting with the public than many of those making snide remarks about how no one should even think about traveling.

Maybe the government should limit every person to X number of hours per week they're allowed outside the home. Then the people who want to use their allotted hours to go shopping, go to kids activities, church, school, etc., can do that, and I'll just save up my hours so I can go see my kid and help Southwest employees keep their jobs.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, EmseB said:

I don't understand. I mean, my head was not in the sand, but AFAIK we would have had to stop flights from China much sooner than we did to avoid it getting into communities here, but there was a huge outcry when we did it that it was an overreaction and xenophobic and too soon, at least in the media here.

Yes here also and I also thought they should have been stopped two days earlier.  The mistake I believe was made here is they limited testing to only people with travel history from Wuhan.  Should have tested anyone coming from China with symptoms and they should have expanded testing criteria much faster in response to cases coming out of Iran.  They are still mostly limiting testing on Australia to people with travel history or known contacts.  This is stupid.  My state are testing all respiratory samples sent in for testing which is good.  
of course US had the whole faulty test kit debacle as well.

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't understand. I mean, my head was not in the sand, but AFAIK we would have had to stop flights from China much sooner than we did to avoid it getting into communities here, but there was a huge outcry when we did it that it was an overreaction and xenophobic and too soon, at least in the media here.

Also I mean to say when I’m saying head in the sand I’m not talking individuals.  I’m talking about health departments etc.

i do think WHO are somewhat culpable 

[madteaparty]

nm

Edited March 9, 2020 by madteaparty

[Just Kate]

4 hours ago, importswim said:

I'm not worried about the virus. I AM worried about DH's job: He's an airline pilot. If people aren't traveling that's not good for his job security.

I'm already assuming that we'll get Covid19. I have a hurricane supply kit (we live in FL) so already have food/water/everything we'll need for a small amount of time. If I didn't I'd probably pick up some things in my regular shop. 

I’m also worried about my dh’s job - he works as a Field Engineer in the Oil & Gas industry. His company just had its first round of layoffs so we are both pretty nervous. 

[ktgrok]

 

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am self isolating right now. I am on the start of week three of a respiratory thing that is not going away. No fever. No cough. But so tired and out of breath and feel like crap. I won’t be tested with those symptoms so I am going to look out for myself because no one else will.

The advice here from the government is to look out for ourselves and I think that ultimately that is the best advice. If I couldn’t hunker down I would be masked (I have them from previous years) and would be washing hands after touching surfaces and not touching my face until I could do so. 
 

My reasoning behind my self quarantine is that even if I have some other kind of virus, I am most certainly not in a position to add anything else for my body to deal with. And I want to avoid hospitals at all costs. 

oh no! Have you had an xray to check for pneumonia? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

oh no! Have you had an xray to check for pneumonia? 

Nope. My doctor is keeping me away from all doctor offices if possible. I have an inhaler but keep hearing conflicting information on whether I should use it. I will use it of course if I have too hard a time breathing, but I also have hbp which gets worse with the inhaler so it’s a balancing act. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

Nope. My doctor is keeping me away from all doctor offices if possible. I have an inhaler but keep hearing conflicting information on whether I should use it. I will use it of course if I have too hard a time breathing, but I also have hbp which gets worse with the inhaler so it’s a balancing act. 

Ugh. Do you have a way to monitor your SpO2 at home? You probably know this but relying on just your perception can lead to under treating or overestimating lung function. Having an ability to monitor your oxygen saturation would give you a much better idea of if you should use the inhaler, need to go in to be seen, etc. 

[prairiewindmomma]

Hugs, Jean.

[mathnerd]

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

I don't understand. I mean, my head was not in the sand, but AFAIK we would have had to stop flights from China much sooner than we did to avoid it getting into communities here, but there was a huge outcry when we did it that it was an overreaction and xenophobic and too soon, at least in the media here.

FYI: the flights that were stopped from China were only those from wuhan city. Until today, 2 flights from china are flying in to SFO airport every day and there are more flying in to other airports in the US. These 2 flights to SFO are from other chinese cities (like beijing) and not from wuhan. So, there were flights coming into the US from china all along. Guess how many millions of people fled Wuhan to escape the quarantine? Some estimates say 6 million. It is anybody's guess how many of those 6 million escapees from Wuhan took a flight to SFO from Shanghai or Beijing or some other city in the past month. This disease has been virtually impossible to contain from the beginning.

BTW, I am not overly worried about getting the Covid virus anymore, because, I think that my family and I already got it in some form in the past month because we were ill with flu like symptoms in January (but this flu or cold was harder to get over than usual for my family) and then we recovered. We frequent music classes with shared equipment, sports classes, university classrooms, restaurants, public restrooms and other such germ infested places that we are the early adopters of all flu/cold pathogens in our community. My county has many cases of Covid and I am 100% sure that the disease has been around since december/january here, undetected and undocumented and it is only in february that the media and public interest picked up.

Edited March 9, 2020 by mathnerd

[Ausmumof3]

23 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Thanks so much friend whose name I cannot type on my keyboard and can't quote for some reason.

The definitions were really useful; I realised I'm using social distancing wrong. I thought it meant reducing the number of social activities you engage in - basically going out less for a period of time and avoiding all non-essential travel. And that's why I was confused. I didn't actually know about the keeping a certain distance thing. It is definitely hard to keep everything clean as we go about our days, whether we are 2ft apart or 6ft.

I wonder if asking people to voluntarily reduce their non-essential travel and social engagement for a time is worthwhile.

I still get the feeling that some people think the elderly and the chronically unwell are a fair price to pay in order to keep the economy turning, and that's why they object to any form of - idk what to call it - social quarantine? elective partial quarantine? - or maybe I am 100% wrong about that, and they care desperately about the elderly and the chronically ill, but know that them staying home, whether or not they are asymptomatic carriers or mildly affected carriers, is a pointless sacrifice. At this point, I'm detecting a certain callousness to those who will be in the 20% of severe symptoms, and it makes me uncomfortable. But maybe I'm imagining it ? Idk.

Dd2 is studying pandemics this semester for her Public Health Policy degree!! Maybe she'll be able to explain in language for toddlers!  why assuming that fewer people out and about means lower risk is incorrec, cos I honestly still don't get it. Sorry to be dense 😞

Much appreciated!

 

To be fair it has been used both ways in lots of things I’ve seen.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/php/185/185_factsheet_social_distancing.pdf

for one example

 

[Pen]

11 hours ago, EmseB said:

For a lot of reasons I don't think what happened in Wuhan or what's happening in Italy will happen here. Will local healthcare systems be stressed? Yes. But there are so many factors and differences in our health care systems, demographics, etc. I don't think people grasp how awful Chinese medical systems are, or that Italy's isn't that great either and their population is older than ours for the most part.

 

My father who was a former United States Public Health Officer, and is a retired MD with an additional Masters in Public Health and who normally is quite blasé about potential epidemics    Is not being blasé about this one—even beyond his own personal likelihood of having it be what ends his life, he is deeply concerned for the world situation and USA situation and world and local medical systems. 

I think we will get through this same as world got through 1918-19. But unless some amazing luck happens with the virus itself soon mutating to cause less significant illness, or an amazing lot of progress on relatively easy, less medical worker intense treatments (like a medicine that rapidly restores lung functions, rather than ventilators), I think we are in for a rough ride for a year or two.

Quote

When the H1N1 pandemic occurred in 2009 no one declared an emergency until 1,000 people already died from it here in the US. Something like 60,000,000 people got it. Yes, covid is a different animal, my point is that there is a certain element to this that is induced by a complete firehose of highly complex medical data and information being consumed by the general public that can't digest it properly. I know I can't!! I think that involves people who don't know health systems, infectious disease, epidemiology, etc., gathering info from everywhere on the net and trying to extrapolate to some sort of educated conclusion. I saw a viral thread on Twitter with a food science engineer talking about "back of the napkin" calculations of what would happen based on cases doubling every six days and people taking it as gospel. People reading headlines about hospital beds and not understanding how a hospital system can flex for something like a really bad season of illness. That sort of thing is scary to me because it induces panic.

 

I have no interest in inducing panic.  Please don’t panic.  

Small changes in how things are done over a scale of many people making the small, but meaningful changes can have a huge impact.  

For example, how Easter gatherings are handled may make a huge difference. How closely people congregate, whether there’s a lot of kissing, etc. 

Changes do need to be made if we are to come through this well. 

The rate of transmission of cases does need to be slowed down for hospitals not to be overwhelmed.  

Yes, schools and convention centers can flex and become make shift hospitals, but they cannot become sudden intensive care units.  

Hospitals in Washington state are already working on “flexing” to convert floors and wings to negative pressure units for the moderate cases who need hospital.  (Elsewhere too, hospitals are preparing, but Seattle area already is reaching point to need it.) 

Here too, slowing the virus down by practicing voluntary social distancing can help give time for theses conversions.  We (most countries) aren’t China who can build new big hospitals in a week.

The USA has around 65,000 critical care beds. Many in use at any time from illness and accident, but normally at a number that can handle the typical seasons of need because they are built to correspond to typical need.  They aren’t built to correspond to pandemic level need.

But if the spread rate is slowed much can be done to make this an easier situation.

It isn’t just coming up with a vaccine.

It is also setting up negative air pressure hospital rooms. Wings, floors. 

It is ramping up production of personal protective gear and getting emergency responders and medical staff equipped and trained so we aren’t losing our firefighters, medics, nurses, pulmonary specialists  doctors and others to quarantine or death. 

It is a multitude of preparations. 

We are a resourceful country. That can be done. 

Many other countries are resourceful too. 

Some are currently better able to rapidly mobilize and are ahead of us. 

But we are capable of great things. If a war demanded that tanks not cars be produced, that could happen.  If it turns out that airline workers would be better allocated by producing personal protective equipment or mobile extra icu stations, that could probably happen as well.  

 

Quote

That said, now it's my turn, lol. My personal theory is that a lot of people have gotten covid and it has been circulating in the US for awhile and stressing some community health systems already.

 

That seems very likely. 

Quote

At least since December. A lot of people have gotten it and recovered. Some have gotten it and docs couldn't diagnose when they ran respiratory panels. There are a lot of influenza like illnesses floating around and some people get pneumonia and can't recover. It is not nothing but I think it's been happening and mass testing is likely to induce more panic because of a rapid rise in confirmed cases. I think it's worth it to tell people this is serious, if you have trouble breathing get seen. Wash your hands. Get your flu shot to reduce the overall burden on the system. But threatening with Wuhan like conditions and people dying in the streets isn't helpful or super realistic, IMO.

 

That is possible. Yes. And that is likely the current actual official ( I don’t mean official in sense of admitted, but the behind the scenes decision that officials whether government or private are actually taking.  To say all is well, that things are good, under control, to keep people calm) approach being taken. 

Try to keep people calm. Try to keep society functional. While also trying to get the spread slowed to give time to accomplish the many preparations that are in progress already, or that need to be. 

 

Quote

I am worried about catching this. I'm worried about elderly relatives catching it especially.  I'm not not caring. But I am also worried about inducing panic and anxiety that results in people being isolated, abandoned, and without resources unnecessarily.

 

I agree with you.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Pen

[ktgrok]

No, it isn't two names for mild vs severe infection. He's saying that SARS--CoV-2 is the name of the VIRUS and COVID-19 is the name of the DISEASE. Sort of like how HIV is the virus but AIDS is the name of the disease. The disease is always COVID-19, regardless of severity. 

caused by SARS-CoV-2 was recently termed COVID-19 by the WHO, the new acronym derived from "coronavirus disease 2019. "

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2500114-overview

a coronavirus group from the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for naming new viruses, proposed designating the novel coronavirus as SARS-CoV-2,

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/11/disease-caused-by-the-novel-coronavirus-has-name-covid-19/

Edited March 9, 2020 by Ktgrok

[ktgrok]

6 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I am not the right person for you to direct this lecture to, as I also rely on the bus to get to work, and work for an hourly wage, not a salary.  I am not able to work from home.

 

But didn't you say that you wish the busses would shut down so that you could stay home and they would have to pay you? 

[ktgrok]

22 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Well, what I actually wish is that I lived in a society that prioritised the wellbeing of all citizens, and not the almightly shareholder profit and the blessed surplus, so that the many, many casual, temporary and precarious employees could actually access sick pay and stay home if at risk.

Excuse my stupid daydream  that if the buses and trains are shut down, the government and employers might be forced to compensate those of us who need to stay home, but can't work from home and don't have access to paid leave. As it is, so long as we're officially capable of getting there, employers couldn't care less for our health. 

Fyi, not that it's anyone's business, but I get 2 days of paid sick leave over my 12 month contract.

Super privileged, clearly.  

 

 

Ok, but we didn't realize it was a daydream. You said you wished they would shut down the busses so you could stay home and your work would have to pay you. We thought you were actually saying this and meaning it, and we pointed out that a lot of people wouldn't get paid if that happened. We had no way to know you wouldn't either, since you just said you would 🙂

19 minutes ago, Plum said:

? First post of the morning....I thought that’s what I said.?  I clarified my post that the infection comes from the virus but in Covid the D stands for disease. Pneumonia is a lung disease caused by infection most likely from the flu. They are two different things. Not everyone that get the flu, get pneumonia. That’s the point I was trying to make. 

SARS-CoV-2/NCoV-SAR2 (which sucks to type out on an slow iPad)

Ok, so AIDS is a bad example, just using the one used in the articles. 

A better one is the measles virus, which is not called measles, but Rubeola. So if you are infected with the rubeola virus and get spots, you have measles. If you are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and have a fever/cough/etc, you have COVID-19. You don't have to be severely sick to have COVID-19, or in the hospital or whatever. 

[Pen]

 

Covid-19 can be asymptomatic under current definition.

WHO could decide to change that — perhaps to make the numbers look better.

 

 

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

3 days ago · For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe ...

 

Someone has Covid-19 illness when infected by the virus SARS-CoV-2 even if asymptomatic.  In an infection that is transmissible even when there are no symptoms that seems important and sensible. 

 

[SKL]

Are people giving any thought to the damage that would be done if everyone stayed home just because they could?

The vast majority of people who are going to get this bug are going to get through it just fine.

Wuhan has a population of 11 million people and less than 1% of them have been reported to have gotten the virus, even though supposedly nobody even knew it was spreading until it had plenty of chance to infect everyone.  The majority of Wuhan cases have recovered and to date only 4% of reported cases (probably far less when you include unreported cases) have died.

Personally I go about my business every season knowing I'm probably going to catch something unpleasant.  The wellbeing of the nation (health and otherwise) depends on people continuing to live life as they can.

People citing death rates from the flu - it depends on what flu you're talking about.  There have been various flus that have had higher death rates.  I have never in my 53 years seen recommendations for well people to stay home (unless certainly exposed to something like ebola).

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

Are people giving any thought to the damage that would be done if everyone stayed home just because they could?

<snip>

People citing death rates from the flu - it depends on what flu you're talking about.  There have been various flus that have had higher death rates.  I have never in my 53 years seen recommendations for well people to stay home (unless certainly exposed to something like ebola).

 

Yes, many people are, which is why so many people are choosing to downplay this virus.  There are economic and political ramifications if it is as serious as it appears to be, and apparently the lives of the fragile aren't important enough to take those risks.  Many selfish people would rather the vulnerable die rather than upset the economy.

Do you have a reputable source for any flu other than the 1918 that is worse or has higher death rates, or are you just trolling?

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

Yes, many people are, which is why so many people are choosing to downplay this virus.  There are economic and political ramifications if it is as serious as it appears to be, and apparently the lives of the fragile aren't important enough to take those risks.  Many selfish people would rather the vulnerable die rather than upset the economy.

Do you have a reputable source for any flu other than the 1918 that is worse or has higher death rates, or are you just trolling?

Well the top 8 employers in my county are all focused on health / human services (#1,2,3, and 7 in health care) or government administration.  Pretty sure only one of those 8 is a for-profit entity.  A little bit down the list is the most popular grocery store.

I think in this case it makes more sense for vulnerable people to take the safety measures (which they should be doing anyway with all the flus, colds, and strep going around), and let the rest of us keep things running.  People who do get sick need to be able to order home delivery of necessities, which requires the economy to be running.

As for flu stats, I don't have them offhand, nor do I actually think flu stats are ever accurate.  I have never reported anyone in my family having the flu or pretty much anything else.  However, I have heard even earlier this season (pre-coronavirus) of a bad flu that was killing supposedly healthy, young people in addition to the elderly/sick.  With the coronavirus, it seems everyone has stopped noticing anything else.

ETA a little googling brings up a lot of pre-US-corona-outbreak articles, including one that said the 2019 flu could be the worst in 2 decades.  This is a CNN article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/health/flu-deadly-virus-15-million-infected-trnd/index.html

Edited March 9, 2020 by SKL

[ktgrok]

51 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Ugh, hubby had to fly to DC today for a meeting with the district inspectors on a set of plans that cannot be delayed further. But I admit I’m not excited about him having to travel for work at the moment, between two airports and public facilities and an area where I’m pretty sure some cases have just popped up.  But it is what it is, and the trip was already delayed twice and this is the only date the government had available.  Sigh.

Will he be willing to wipe down his room with cleaning wipes or even a soapy wet washcloth? And maybe order room service and invite collegaues to his room for drinks/discussion whatever rather than any crowded restaurants or bars or whatever? That would be my thought on how best to handle it. 

DH was out of town last week, before it got as bad, and future trips are now canceled, and I'm not sorry about it. 

But he's hosting a conference (he's president of the board) here in town in a few weeks - ugh. Most the attendees are local, but not all. And half the speakers are from out of state, and it's on a college campus, etc. 

[mlktwins]

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Ugh, hubby had to fly to DC today for a meeting with the district inspectors on a set of plans that cannot be delayed further. But I admit I’m not excited about him having to travel for work at the moment, between two airports and public facilities and an area where I’m pretty sure some cases have just popped up.  But it is what it is, and the trip was already delayed twice and this is the only date the government had available.  Sigh.

It's just starting here :-(.  2 in DC, 3 in NoVA, and 5 in MD (near DC).  Lots of people from NoVA and MD commute to DC :-(.   I hope he gets back soon and safely!

Edited March 9, 2020 by mlktwins

[Mbelle]

Well I have some worries about what all is going on, but mostly it is the reaction of people and govt that is causing me the biggest worry.  I know where I live that they can only go so far with the quarantines because I'm pretty sure there will be a revolt and almost every citizen is armed.  No, I just can't see it working.  

For us the biggest thing is to keep our economy going forward.  We did suffer greatly in the 08/09 crash and we will do whatever it takes to make suer that never happens again.  We ordered chinese food on the weekend on purpose just to help out that particular sector of the economy.  

We do have ons person in the house on immunosuppressant so we have already been taking extra precaustions for months.  It is no different now.  

I think too when you have a chronic illness in the family and have been in and out of hospitals over and over again and you know very personally that you can't control everything or even much of anything that you let go of some pie in the sky thinking about how life should be and just live the best you can.  If you sit around and worry about death and dying (and for goodness sakes toilet paper) you will not have LIFE anyway.  So we take precautions, but we do not worry  and we don't let it control our decsions on travel or work or going out of the house.  However, I am worried about what I consider all the paranoid people out there and how the fear is a bigger viral threat than the actual coronavirus.  The threat of breakdown to the economy, the education systems and civil liberties is a serious concern. 

[importswim]

15 hours ago, Just Kate said:

I’m also worried about my dh’s job - he works as a Field Engineer in the Oil & Gas industry. His company just had its first round of layoffs so we are both pretty nervous. 

I'm so sorry. DH flew helicopters for O & G in the GOM for 3 years. I know a little bit about the anxiety related to oil prices and jobs/layoffs. I will be praying that both of our DHs can keep their jobs through this year and beyond. Hugs, hugs, hugs.

[ktgrok]

10 minutes ago, StellaM said:

OK, I have my answer, from the last lot of posts.

The vulnerable are an acceptable price to pay for the economy to keep pumping out profit to shareholders. 

What matters isn't that, say, my kids lose their dad, and quite probably their mum, but that shareholders don't have to take a hit,

Therefore, nobody in the 80% needs to change a damn thing. Go forth merrily and spread one's germs to the wind, fly away on holiday safe in the knowledge that 'only the worthless sick and aged' are in any danger anyway.

God forbid we should put people's health ahead of a temporary downturn.  It's funny, I was thinking about how the kids' dad could lose his job easily if people stay home...and how losing your job and then having to find one again is so much more preferable to being dead.

I agree 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

OK, I have my answer, from the last lot of posts.

The vulnerable are an acceptable price to pay for the economy to keep pumping out profit to shareholders. 

What matters isn't that, say, my kids lose their dad, and quite probably their mum, but that shareholders don't have to take a hit,

Therefore, nobody in the 80% needs to change a damn thing. Go forth merrily and spread one's germs to the wind, fly away on holiday safe in the knowledge that 'only the worthless sick and aged' are in any danger anyway.

God forbid we should put people's health ahead of a temporary downturn.  It's funny, I was thinking about how the kids' dad could lose his job easily if people stay home...and how losing your job and then having to find one again is so much more preferable to being dead.

 

This makes zero sense.  You say this has though the most vulnerable don't also happen to be the same people who suffer the most from so-called "economic downturns."  Many people expressing concerns are doing so not because of the cost in and of itself, but because of who is most likely to suffer from the cost cutting.

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

OK, I have my answer, from the last lot of posts.

The vulnerable are an acceptable price to pay for the economy to keep pumping out profit to shareholders. 

What matters isn't that, say, my kids lose their dad, and quite probably their mum, but that shareholders don't have to take a hit,

Therefore, nobody in the 80% needs to change a damn thing. Go forth merrily and spread one's germs to the wind, fly away on holiday safe in the knowledge that 'only the worthless sick and aged' are in any danger anyway.

God forbid we should put people's health ahead of a temporary downturn.  It's funny, I was thinking about how the kids' dad could lose his job easily if people stay home...and how losing your job and then having to find one again is so much more preferable to being dead.

If we're talking about halting economic activity, the shareholders will end up just fine probably no matter what. No one posting here is worried about people with a lot of resources.

I mean, this is why I usually regret engaging here. You and others think so little of the people here posting that you think their actual stance is that they don't care about the vulnerable, medical and otherwise. Fellow mothers, daughters,  sisters, etc., who differ in opinion want the medically vulnerable to die for money or shareholders. Okay. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by EmseB

[Valley Girl]

2 hours ago, importswim said:

I'm so sorry. DH flew helicopters for O & G in the GOM for 3 years. I know a little bit about the anxiety related to oil prices and jobs/layoffs. I will be praying that both of our DHs can keep their jobs through this year and beyond. Hugs, hugs, hugs.

I hear you. It's not just health worries. My DH has been unemployed for months. We're approaching the cliff. Now I worry it will be even harder for him to find a job--if he even can--if businesses shut down in response to the virus. So lots of sleepless nights here, too.

[Ausmumof3]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

Are people giving any thought to the damage that would be done if everyone stayed home just because they could?

The vast majority of people who are going to get this bug are going to get through it just fine.

Wuhan has a population of 11 million people and less than 1% of them have been reported to have gotten the virus, even though supposedly nobody even knew it was spreading until it had plenty of chance to infect everyone.  The majority of Wuhan cases have recovered and to date only 4% of reported cases (probably far less when you include unreported cases) have died.

Personally I go about my business every season knowing I'm probably going to catch something unpleasant.  The wellbeing of the nation (health and otherwise) depends on people continuing to live life as they can.

People citing death rates from the flu - it depends on what flu you're talking about.  There have been various flus that have had higher death rates.  I have never in my 53 years seen recommendations for well people to stay home (unless certainly exposed to something like ebola).

WuhAn literally welded people into their apartment buildings to stop the spread.

[EmseB]

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

WuhAn literally welded people into their apartment buildings to stop the spread.

And people who died because of that aren't exactly having their story told, right? But I'm sure Chinese authorities were really taking care of those welded in juuust like they claimed.

Idk, is it ableist to talk about the 80yo non-driving widow who won't get their meals on wheels or prescriptions delivered when a shutdown of their community happens? Who ministers to their needs despite the very real danger of infecting them? Who knows they are sitting in their apartment?

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, EmseB said:

And people who died because of that aren't exactly having their story told, right? But I'm sure Chinese authorities were really taking care of those welded in juuust like they claimed.

Idk, is it ableist to talk about the 80yo non-driving widow who won't get their meals on wheels or prescriptions delivered when a shutdown of their community happens? Who ministers to their needs despite the very real danger of infecting them? Who knows they are sitting in their apartment?

Which is why it’s critical to shut down non essential things so the essentials can keep running as well and long as possible.

[EmseB]

21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, people like my kids' dad who might lose his job if the city shuts down for the next month, or die if it doesn't.

I know which the kids would prefer. I know which he'd prefer.

It's a false assumption that those who may lose jobs are not also people at risk of severe illness and death. 

Even if they weren't parr of that same group (and of course they are! health is an expression of socio-economic status!) it would still be entirely unaccpetable to consider them neccessary collateral to save other people's jobs.

This is the kind of attitude that pro-lifers rail against (but aren't here for some reason) and why people, me included, reject euthenasia for the elderly. Consistency would seem to suggest that one values the literal life first and foremost, regardless of age or disability.

There are a ton of people who can't take care of themselves without others going to work. I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

[Murphy101]

25 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, people like my kids' dad who might lose his job if the city shuts down for the next month, or die if it doesn't.

I know which the kids would prefer. I know which he'd prefer.

It's a false assumption that those who may lose jobs are not also people at risk of severe illness and death. 

Even if they weren't parr of that same group (and of course they are! health is an expression of socio-economic status!) it would still be entirely unaccpetable to consider them neccessary collateral to save other people's jobs.

This is the kind of attitude that pro-lifers rail against (but aren't here for some reason) and why people, me included, reject euthenasia for the elderly. Consistency would seem to suggest that one values the literal life first and foremost, regardless of age or disability.

I’m as prolife as a gal can get and that’s hogwash. No one of any sense or Christianity wants any collateral.  No one of any sense or Christianity is thinking who cares if X demographic dies.

But the world doesn’t stop turning no matter how much we want it to.  I’m not talking about your husband not having a job.  I’m talking about nursing homes not having janitors and cafeteria workers or CNAs. I’m talking about farmers deciding they’ll just not have their produce driven into town.  There are literally millions of people who depend on millions of “non-essential” workers to leave their home and go to work.  It isn’t pure economics that makes it a unstable scenario to suggest they all stay home.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Murphy101

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, kand said:

as we did not use the past 6-8 weeks we've had to prepare to do that the way we should have. We should have the extra hospitals and supplies and testing infrastructure all ready and waiting at this point. If we had all that and were prepared, that would be the biggest reason of all for people not to panic.

And those things likely would have helped greatly to stabilize the economy. Markets and people hate chaos. And unfortunately chaos is all this bumbling administration has been able to provide so far. 

[Ausmumof3]

9 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m as prolife as a gal can get and that’s hogwash. No one of any sense or Christianity wants any collateral.  No one of any sense or Christianity is thinking who cares if X demographic dies.

But the world doesn’t stop turning no matter how much we want it to.  I’m not talking about your husband not having a job.  I’m talking about nursing homes not having janitors and cafeteria workers or CNAs. I’m talking about farmers deciding they’ll just not have their produce driven into town.  There are literally millions of people who depend on millions of “non-essential” workers to leave their home and go to work.  It isn’t pure economics that makes it a unstable scenario to suggest they all stay home.

There’s a middle line here.  Even with the lockdown in Italy people can move between areas for essential work.  That’s what we’re talking about.  A soft shutdown of some non essential things now could prevent things getting so bad that everything falls over.  No one wants to see things done like China.  

[EmseB]

17 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Which is why it’s critical to shut down non essential things so the essentials can keep running as well and long as possible.

But what is non essential to you provides an income that is essential for someone living paycheck to paycheck who becomes isolated with no resources when non essential things are shut down. I understand that not getting and spreading covid is better. I just don't think it's simple, or that anyone disagreeing wants the vulnerable to die.

[Murphy101]

6 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There’s a middle line here.  Even with the lockdown in Italy people can move between areas for essential work.  That’s what we’re talking about.  A soft shutdown of some non essential things now could prevent things getting so bad that everything falls over.  No one wants to see things done like China.  

Of course there’s a middle. I think the problem is that some are acting like the middle is tantamount to doing nothing and writing off casualties as collateral damage.

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But what is non essential to you provides an income that is essential for someone living paycheck to paycheck who becomes isolated with no resources when non essential things are shut down. I understand that not getting and spreading covid is better. I just don't think it's simple, or that anyone disagreeing wants the vulnerable to die.

Which is why better social security systems are a good idea.  

[Ausmumof3]

And I’m just going to put this here.  I think it was Arctic Mama who said it would be interesting to see how it went in Italy 
 

Antonio Pesenti, head of the Lombardy regional crisis response unit, told the Corriere della Sera newspaper the health system in Lombardy was "a step away from collapse" as intensive care facilities came under growing strain from the new cases.

"We're now being forced to set up intensive care treatment in corridors, in operating theaters, in recovery rooms. We've emptied entire hospital sections to make space for seriously sick people," he said.

this is from a hospital in Lombardy.  Apparently they have the best hospitals in Italy.

they just moved the first patient from intensive to sub intensive care.  He’s been in a severe condition since 21 Feb.  over two weeks in intensive care.  He’s 39.

[Ausmumof3]

6 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Of course there’s a middle. I think the problem is that some are acting like the middle is tantamount to doing nothing and writing off casualties as collateral damage.

I don’t think what’s being done is getting close to middle ground yet.  The lack of testing is very concerning.  We are getting multiple cases exported to Aus from the US

[MercyA]

Has this already been posted? Excellent and informative article, updated daily:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/dont-panic-the-comprehensive-ars-technica-guide-to-the-coronavirus/

Edited March 10, 2020 by MercyA

[Pen]

45 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I don’t think what’s being done is getting close to middle ground yet.  The lack of testing is very concerning.  We are getting multiple cases exported to Aus from the US

 

And that has been a typical tip off that local transmission (in this case in USA) is substantial—like when other countries were getting cases originating in Iran.  

I agree, the lack of testing here is very disturbing— and adds risk to other places too.  

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

And what of all the children who literally only have food from schools. There is a whole lot in this group, and if their schools close, they won't eat. 

I think planning should be thinking about these scenarios now.  I know some schools were sending ready to eat food bags home with kids when they left.  
In Italy parents are being given a childcare payment to stay home and care for the kids.  Doesn’t help with neglect drug issues obviously but helps if finance is the problem. 
they should also start thinking about prisons to avoid doing what Iran have (releasing 70,000) or Italy - 7 dead in prison riots after visiting hours were slashed and guards held hostage.

[Terabith]

Our school superintendent made a robo call where she said she was getting lots of calls from parents about coronavirus, and they were following all guidelines, etc.  But we have a very high percentage of kids in poverty.  The "kids won't get food" is a huge calculus when they're deciding whether or not to close schools for snow.  She said something like, "We will deal with the nutritional needs of children if schools close.  Somehow."  Wasn't exactly reassuring.  

[Matryoshka]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think planning should be thinking about these scenarios now.  I know some schools were sending ready to eat food bags home with kids when they left.  
In Italy parents are being given a childcare payment to stay home and care for the kids.  Doesn’t help with neglect drug issues obviously but helps if finance is the problem. 
they should also start thinking about prisons to avoid doing what Iran have (releasing 70,000) or Italy - 7 dead in prison riots after visiting hours were slashed and guards held hostage.

And we have by far the largest percentage of our population locked up compared to any other country on Earth, and in very overcrowded conditions.  Oy.

[Ausmumof3]

8 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Seeing as there actually are safety nets that provide money for food for children in this country, I have no faith that the government just giving more money will help. These kids will not get food if their schools close, and there is no rosy picture around that. Talk about the most vulnerable. 

I have to be honest you seem to have a very aggressive CPS over there I don’t get how so many kids are still in homes where parents have the financial means to provide food and choose not to.  I’m not saying I don’t believe you at all it’s just one of those things that seems so bizarre.  It is a growing problem here but not on that scale.  I guess schools where that is an issue will have to look at reducing assemblies and extra cleanings . What we can’t afford to do is just hope it goes away by itself.  We need to think it through and plan.

[Matryoshka]

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have to be honest you seem to have a very aggressive CPS over there I don’t get how so many kids are still in homes where parents have the financial means to provide food and choose not to.  I’m not saying I don’t believe you at all it’s just one of those things that seems so bizarre.  It is a growing problem here but not on that scale.  I guess schools where that is an issue will have to look at reducing assemblies and extra cleanings . What we can’t afford to do is just hope it goes away by itself.  We need to think it through and plan.

It's not that so many kids are in homes where parents have the financial means to feed them but choose not to, but that so many families don't have the financial means to feed their children adequately.  They don't want to give money to families, so they feed the kids (crap cafeteria meals) at school to 'solve' the problem.