disobeying social distancing, or not.

[Frances]

4 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

Do you assume that everything the government asks you to do is morally right?

Do you think it is morally right to not obey the stay home orders and put the lives of others at risk? No one is getting arrested or fined unless they will not disperse after being told to do so.  Providing an easy way to report means 911 won’t be jammed with unnecessary calls. People who are not obeying the restrictions are acting in an immoral and unpatriotic way.  As the spouse of a healthcare worker who is putting himself and our family at risk, especially given the shortage of PPE and tests, I’m extremely upset with those who will not get with the program. I wish we had the luxury of just all staying home. I’m extremely envious of those who only have to stay home.

[gardenmom5]

25 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

SERIOUSLY?!?!?! Saying you have to stick to individual sports and exercise for the time being, in order to slow the spread of a pandemic, is the equivalent of internment camps? Being told by the police to go home, and if you refuse to stop playing your fun game of basketball or whatever, getting a fine, is equivalent to a Gestapo state??

It is totally consistent with social justice to care about 'the least of these" and want to protect the rights of those who are at risk. You know, rights like the right to being alive. That seems to trump the right to have a kegger on the beach, or a barbecue at the park. And no one group is being singled out, unless you include selfish as a group. 

when someone says that - they have zero understanding of what went on in internment camps and have lost the right to have anyone listen to them.

[Pen]

On 3/27/2020 at 1:51 PM, Paige said:

I'm having a hard time convincing my parents not to visit me as planned for Easter. They'd be traveling 500 miles and are both high risk. They're actually mad that I think they should put it off. 

In my town I had to go somewhere today and was surprised to see roads as busy as ever and parking lots full. Our hospital is already running out of masks and other PPE. ☹️

 

Tell them that they *may not* come.  You are having No guests during the pandemic. You can say how terribly sorry you are, how much you will miss them etc., then if they are not too mad  spend time visiting by phone. 

 

 

[gardenmom5]

27 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

  27 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

So do you support an HIV-positive patient's right to have sex with someone without disclosing their HIV status?

 

27 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

My opinion there is moot. Those are laws, enacted by State legislators that are elected by the people of their states; or likewise DAs (generally elected) choosing not to prosecute cases in their state as they aren't perceiving it to be a Public Health risk. Much like going to work with the flu isn't prosecutable- at least right now. Maybe that'll change next year?  But clearly the states that are no longer prosecuting it have their reasons, and me agreeing or disagreeing with is isn't really material to anything. 

you'd better get an opinion.  In my state the legislature just downgraded it from a felony to a misdemeanor.  other states will do the same thing because they don't want to deal with it.  no one has the right to play Russian roulette with another person's life. 

as regarding this virus - people can be symptomatic and carry it, and pass it on to someone else.  those of us at higher risk still have to go out for groceries and rx.  we're staying home too.

[Kassia]

8 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

My area of Ohio is still doing just fine.  Just came out of Kroger and all the carts and screens were being sterilized, people were masked or keeping distance from one another, or both.  Wasn’t too crowded, supplies were good even for eggs and canned fruit. Can’t complain.

 

I'm also in Ohio and we aren't doing as well.  So many items are still out of stock.  If they are in stock, you are limited to one.  No grocery pick up and no delivery that I know of.  But the stores seemed clean and not mobbed.  I just wish stock was better so I wouldn't have to make multiple trips to get what I want/need. 

[Sneezyone]

I’m a landlord too. I don’t share the money or bust line tho so I guess I don’t count.

[Selkie]

13 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Oh, well, as long as we have the Zoom! Really? 

Yes. I am fine. Are all of the small business owners who have lost their businesses in the last two week? Nope. They aren't. Are the charities who serve the at risk people we all purport to care about so much fine? Nope. They aren't. Many of the people who worked there are now unemployed, and the people who they were there to serve are no longer being served and are being left out in the cold to fend for themselves for issues that a food pick up by the county or city aren't going to help. 

If my .02 is what you want, then I think they should have had at-risk populations self-isolate. I have said that from the get go. And then have the Federal, State and local Governements  incentivized companies to continue paying the at-risk workers who had to stay home while they got actual numbers on this thing and could make some sort of actual, informed decision based on science. I am not "quarantine the world until they find *a cure*" proponent. That model doesn't work. Nor do long term shut-ins or whatever PC term they are using to keep from using the term quarantine.

It is not realistic to shut down huge segments of the country without an end game in sight. It is also not good for Public Health to release numbers of people from jail early due to COVID, nor is it to stop prosecuting actual crimes during all of this. Even Cuomo has walked back the quarantine plan, so I am hardly the only one seeing this. Forcing people into "staying at home" from their jobs while still having them be able to be out and about at stores, etc. meanwhile schlepping a zillion college students cross country to go live with their parents was a truly, truly, horrible idea. 

I have said it more times that I can count here- Half Measures Don't Work. They don't. There is nothing scientific about it. If you close Jenny's shop, freak everyone out and have them congregate by the 100's at the local Kroger, and then panic them all into every Tom, Dick and Harry thinking they have a "deadly virus" so that they all descend en masse to the local urgent cares and ERs in droves was nothing short of a cluster fuck. If they wanted to shut it down- then shut it down- I'd have more respect for that tbh. If you want to leave it open, then leave it open.

But this half-assed, let's keep some "essential businesses" open (random) while destroying others at the flick of a pen, while letting people group hysterically into stores, fly within the country without health screenings, etc. while slowly choking in the drag net over weeks is nothing short of imbecilic. And then yes, while you're at it- report your neighbors with our handy app! Omg. I cannot believe this is what is has come to. 

How do you define at-risk populations? Where I live, the majority of confirmed cases are not elderly - they are in the 41-60 age range. I am reading many news stories of otherwise healthy people of all ages who are hospitalized or have died. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by Selkie

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Ummm, SERIOUSLY having your business shut down and your customers being diverted by a County Judge who doesn't even have a law degree or a Governor on data that is a long way from being sound is a MAJOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS.  But, I guess only business owners and landlords care about those types of things and if they do they are blood lusting, heinous people. 

I mean, why worry about them, or the kids stuck home now with abusive parents, or the people stuck home with abusive partners, or the suicide rate and OD's that are already increasing at an alarming rate during this little unscientific experiment. You know what is REALLY bad for Public Health? Poverty. Actually, poverty is about the #1 predictor of most health outcomes and these little stunts just earned us over 3 million people unemployed in a week- and that hardly captures the full picture since a lot of people are ineligible and/or cannot file. 

Ok, I was talking bout basketball because I was replying to a post about basketball. 

26 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

 

If my .02 is what you want, then I think they should have had at-risk populations self-isolate. I have said that from the get go.

About 40% of the adult population in the USA is in the high risk category. 

Also, who takes care of those high risk people - it is young, lower risk people that work in the nursing homes, that work in the doctor's offices giving chemo infusions, that deliver the groceries, etc etc. If we increase their exposure we are also increasing the exposure of the at risk population, even if they are self isolating as much as they can. 

And there was a projection done looking at isolating just the highest risk people - and it DID dramatically lower the number of cases and deaths...but projected exceeding hospital capacity by 800%. The only option that looks to contain things below hospital capacity is what we are doing now. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Selkie]

29 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, heck we have had babies die.  We are all at risk.  Plus, some people like my husband and two of my three children have asthma so I guess technically an underlying condition.  My daughter only uses her inhaler during pollen season.  My husband when he is mowing.  Son excercising.  No one here has been hospitalized with asthma.  They are all healthy in my view, but probably not in view of the virus.  So if we quarantine everyone with asthma, diabetes, etc that is an awful lot of people and there wouldn't be enough to work.

Yes, a baby just died in my state.😞

From what I'm seeing, physicians on the front lines are saying it is a fallacy that only certain groups are at risk. 

[Pen]

 

 

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/coronavirus/doctor-tent-garage-orange-county-irvine-california-covid-19-coronavirus/2335884/

 

 

 

 

"So, here it is. My home for the next __???__ weeks or months. You can help me and other healthcare workers become un-homeless by STAYING HOME. JUST DO IT. Nobody is too cool to stay home. Nobody is too healthy to get sick. STAY HOME and help stop the spread of this virus. Countless doctors, nurses, and other health care workers are working hard to save YOUR LIFE. The least you could do is stay home so that we, too, can go home to our loved ones one day.”

[Donna]

58 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

It is not realistic to shut down huge segments of the country without an end game in sight. It is also not good for Public Health to release numbers of people from jail early due to COVID, nor is it to stop prosecuting actual crimes during all of this. Even Cuomo has walked back the quarantine plan, so I am hardly the only one seeing this. Forcing people into "staying at home" from their jobs while still having them be able to be out and about at stores, etc. meanwhile schlepping a zillion college students cross country to go live with their parents was a truly, truly, horrible idea. 

I have said it more times that I can count here- Half Measures Don't Work. They don't. There is nothing scientific about it. If you close Jenny's shop, freak everyone out and have them congregate by the 100's at the local Kroger, and then panic them all into every Tom, Dick and Harry thinking they have a "deadly virus" so that they all descend en masse to the local urgent cares and ERs in droves was nothing short of a cluster fuck. If they wanted to shut it down- then shut it down- I'd have more respect for that tbh. If you want to leave it open, then leave it open.

But this half-assed, let's keep some "essential businesses" open (random) while destroying others at the flick of a pen, while letting people group hysterically into stores, fly within the country without health screenings, etc. while slowly choking in the drag net over weeks is nothing short of imbecilic. And then yes, while you're at it- report your neighbors with our handy app! Omg. I cannot believe this is what is has come to. 

I hear what you are saying.

DD and I were discussing this during our walk tonight as we walked past two homes (one with a group of eight 20-somethings sitting outside partying for the second night in a row and the other with 10 cars parked outside obviously having some sort of get-together/bbq). Half measures are only going to prolong the problem and cause so many issues with people's lives/economy. If they truly believe isolating people will work then shutting everything down would deal with the issue and get it over with. If only it were realistic for everyone to be tested and those who test negative allowed to return to work/normal while those who test positive (and those caring for them) are quarantined until negative. I find it ridiculous that liquor stores are on the random list of essential businesses. I find it ridiculous that, in our state in particular, the "stay at home order" is set for three days from now...so everyone is out and about together in stores stocking up. Not like stores will be closed during the order or anything. 

We have been self-quarantined for over two weeks now except for DH who does food delivery and he is taking every precaution he can. We do not want to see health systems overwhelmed so we have hundreds dying every day like Spain and Italy so we are not disobeying the orders but are frustrated by the lack of leadership/decision-making to end this as quickly as possible. I know it is easy to have 20/20 vision in hind-sight and nothing like this has been seen in our lifetimes but imagine if drastic decisions had been made two weeks ago by those at the top...maybe fewer would be sick/have died and life could now be headed back toward some semblance of normal.

Not quite sure how this eventually plays out and what life looks like after.

[katilac]

35 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

  Shut down public transportation (which they aren't doing here either). 

How would people without cars get to the doctor and the grocery store? 

[Pen]

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

POSTED ON FRIDAY, MAR 27, 2020 1:14PM BY S. ABBAS RAZA

Tomas Pueyo in Medium:

Summary of the article: Strong coronavirus measures today should only last a few weeks, there shouldn’t be a big peak of infections afterwards, and it can all be done for a reasonable cost to society, saving millions of lives along the way. If we don’t take these measures, tens of millions will be infected, many will die, along with anybody else that requires intensive care, because the healthcare system will have collapsed.

 

 

criticism of Hammer and Dance approach:

https://www.fiphysician.com/criticism-hammer-and-dance/

Edited March 29, 2020 by Pen
Added summary from 3quarksdaily.com. And addition of a contrary view

[Corraleno]

29 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I mean, seriously. What brain trust said let's close ALL of the colleges and send everyone off campus. I know people who have great family relationships and 18 year olds may have in cases been fine with this, but that doesn't fit a huge amount of college students in this country. And now they are displaced. Meanwhile the same people who were tsk-tsk-ing the Spring Breakers, applauded the decision to heap a vast numbers of extra young people onto planes and trains to get them home, with no look to what risk that brings. 

The only students who had to "go home" are those who were living in dorms — any student living off campus can obviously stay there if they want. The last year that DS spent in the dorm he was constantly sick — every virus and bacteria that hit his dorm seemed to go through the whole population. The idea of letting hundreds of thousands of students continue living in close proximity, sharing bedrooms and bathrooms and classrooms and sporting events, while a pandemic spreads throughout the country, would have been totally irresponsible. The majority of students in the US live within driving distance of their college, and the small percentage that had to use some form of mass transit to get home spent a few hours, on a single day, in a plane or bus — that is still much safer than continuing to live and study 24/7 in crowded conditions for months more. When my son's uni announced they were closing campus, they did not have a single case. A few days later they announced 3, and a few days after that they announced they had multiple additional cases but would not no longer be releasing numbers and would not announce further cases. I am VERY glad that DS is self-isolating at home and not still at school. So yay for the "brain trust" who made that decision.

[Pen]

Just now, WendyAndMilo said:

I actually agree with keeping liquor stores open.  If you prevent alcoholics (casual or serious) from easy access to liquor, you are going to have ER's full of DTs which is really not what we need right now.  Plus, liquor taxes will keep some money flowing in.

I think that if our county/state leadership could answer the question of what is going to be done in the long-term, we wouldn't have a new what-if scenario being published every other day.

 

I also do for a different reason— ability to but alcohol for herbal tinctures and diy hand sanitizer.  

Plus I think your point is also reasonable.  And I would prefer people to be able to get some alcohol for home use rather than to be congregating in bars/pubs/ etc

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Wow, I'd seen on some of the other forums some people mention y'all had gone full Gestapo here so I had to come check it out for myself.

Crazy to see how many of you would be Pro-Japenese Internment camp "for the safety of the Country" with your justifications of denying people of rights and due process- you are using the exact same arguments. Y'all are truly terrifying, and also why governments get away with oppressing people in numerous circumstances.

*Oh we are so social justice minded except when it's a risk that might actually affect us and then, by all means, take everyone's rights away!*

 

Oh geez. Wth? Your logic is crap.

You realize that in your example the elderly and the others who are at high risk would be the ones in Japanese internment camps, right?! Those would be the vulnerable minority demographic facing isolation and high risk bc the majority has decided it’s just too much trouble to do the right thing, they’d rather be okay with deciding millions are expendable for the sake of patriotic capitalism.

 

[GoodGrief]

16 minutes ago, StellaM said:

While I'm opining, I think there's been some incredibly unsafe discussion of suicide and hopelessness on this thread, and I acknowledge I did it myself upthread.

Suicidality is complex; media guidelines suggest that it never be attributed to a single tipping event or source. I think it's irresponsible to talk about people committing suicide because of lock down. There will be suicides, as there are in non-pandemic times, and lock downs will tax people's coping resources. However, people with mental illness are also capable of being incredibly resilient and resourceful, and many people with mental illness will find new ways to manage their mental health. Support remains available by phone or by video - it's not as good as in-person, but it is there.

Where there are (massive gaps) in mental health provision, these have existed prior to lockdown. People with mental health issues have experience dealing with these road blocks, and are well placed to draw on their experience in navigating lock down specific blocks.

There will be an end to this thing. It will not go on forever. Nobody should be indulging in talk of 'may as well shoot themselves'. It will be hard, and dealing with mental illness makes it harder. That's true. But it's untrue there is no hope of change.

All of the above, btw, are things I would tell my dd with a mental health diagnosis - who is nursing, and living alone, and who cannot have her family to stay or visit atm. She is in difficult circumstances, and I am full of hope and trust in her that she will find a way to manage. 

 

 You may or may not remember that my daughter survived a suicide attempt (was on a ventilator herself at that point) and I have multiple family members with mental illness. Mental health is a passion of mine these days.

I do see many people with known mental health issues who are not doing so well currently. It's less about the economic situation specifically, and more about the rapid rate of drastic change and constant media coverage. I'm not sure that this will lead to more suicides necessarily, but there are certainly higher levels of dysfunction now, at least in my larger circle.

I am not so optimistic about the state of mental health care when we come out of this crisis. The resources were already severely limited and I can't see that the stressed economy is going to do anything but worsen the availability of care.

[marbel]

6 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Each and every additional infection post-social distancing requests, pleas, orders is proof of someone’s selfishness.

I am fully onboard with social distancing; my family is working, schooling, job hunting, shopping all from home. I believe playgrounds and other places where people may congregate and/or touch equipment should be closed to avoid contamination.  And I am sad for every person who is sick with it. 

With that out of the way... this kind of statement worries me greatly.  I believe that rhetoric like this, once enough people start believing this way, is going to lead to violence eventually.

By all accounts, this virus is highly contagious. People can carry it without knowing, and that means they can pass it to someone else without knowing.  There are people who are working in essential jobs/industries (pharmacy, grocery store to name a very few) who are being as careful as they can, and are certainly not being selfish, who may unknowingly pass it on to another.  Unless every single person can stay 6 feet away from every other person, all the time, everywhere... people will catch this virus.  

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by marbel

[GoodGrief]

5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Exactly because dorms tend to have a super high level of contagion, it makes zero sense to disperse everyone to the four winds with no testing. They could have moved to the online class model, disbanded the sporting events etc. without mandating they all be sent home. Then parents who chose to have their students come home had that option, meanwhile the people who wanted to stay on campus had that option too. That would have a been a much lower risk enterprise. 

 At my daughter's East Coast school, an hour from NYC, with known positive cases and 100% of the undergraduates living on campus, they cleared the dorms of all but those who could not return home (primarily international students.) They were required to clear their rooms before leaving. Not only were students dispersing across the country, in many cases family members were coming to the school to retrieve belongings, and then returning home. I'm certain that this was not the only school where this occurred. Cuomo even commented that this was unlikely to be a wise decision in retrospect.

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Exactly because dorms tend to have a super high level of contagion, it makes zero sense to disperse everyone to the four winds with no testing. They could have moved to the online class model, disbanded the sporting events etc. without mandating they all be sent home. Then parents who chose to have their students come home had that option, meanwhile the people who wanted to stay on campus had that option too. That would have a been a much lower risk enterprise. 

The vast majority of campuses shut down BEFORE they had any cases — that was the biggest complaint from students and parents: "We don't even have a single case, why are they shutting down???" The whole point was to get everyone out of the dorms before people got sick. 

 

[marbel]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

I'm pretty sure sneezy meant the gratuitious gatherings, like the beach parties we saw here on the weekend, and not essential workers travelling to and from work. Essential workers are not being selfish by being in public, and being unavoidably, at times, close to others.

Maybe so, but how would anyone know? That's the problem.  It was a strong statement, made without qualifications.   

[Pen]

12 minutes ago, GoodGrief1 said:

 You may or may not remember that my daughter survived a suicide attempt (was on a ventilator herself at that point) and I have multiple family members with mental illness. Mental health is a passion of mine these days.

I do see many people with known mental health issues who are not doing so well currently.

 

 

I spent an hour on the phone today with someone I know who has mental illness and depression issues.  I can’t help everyone with that, but I can do one small piece of helping to reduce one person’s pain and isolation. And if many people did it would add up, I think. 

[GoodGrief]

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I still absolutely refuse to infantilise all people with mental illness by indulging in imaginative hopelessness on their behalf, and irresponsible discussion of suicide continues to be harmful, before the pandemic, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic.

Hope your dd is doing OK now. 

I couldn't have picked worse conditions for my dd to launch into adult working life, but I will not despair pre-emtively on her behalf.

I don't know that it is infantilizing so much as being realistic. I'm definitely seeing people sliding further down into the hole.

My daughter is doing quite well. She's reached a place of independence and functional behavior that is so gratifying to see.  But she will be the first to tell you that it wouldn't have happened for her if we had not hovered for a few years there, much like one might do for an infant.

I guess we will see how this all plays out. Too soon to tell, but I am rather pessimistic.

[GoodGrief]

6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

I spent an hour on the phone today with someone I know who has mental illness and depression issues.  I can’t help everyone with that, but I can do one small piece of helping to reduce one person’s pain and isolation. And if many people did it would add up, I think. 

It helps to an extent, certainly, but consistent quality treatment is what is required, much like with any illness. Resources were hard to come by before this disaster, and will likely be more strained afterward. One of my daughters moved to a new city and has been on waiting lists for a year to get a new therapist. Fortunately she is quite stable at this point, but obviously there are new stressors now.

[Selkie]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The vast majority of campuses shut down BEFORE they had any cases — that was the biggest complaint from students and parents: "We don't even have a single case, why are they shutting down???" The whole point was to get everyone out of the dorms before people got sick. 

 

This is what my boys' university did and I was very grateful that they shut down before the virus hit campus. I cannot imagine how anyone could think it would be a better scenario to have dorms packed full of sick kids.

[Corraleno]

Just now, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

If they weren't testing........how did they know what they did and didn't have? They didn't. They did it because there were afraid of getting sued most likely. 

Unless colleges were expected to house students throughout the summer so they would never have to return home, they would have to go home in another month or two anyway — when things are expected to be far worse. So you can send them home at the very beginning of the pandemic, when few if any students are sick, or you can keep them in conditions that are guaranteed to spread the virus as much as possible and then send them home later when many are already sick and the pandemic is even more widespread. Most schools chose to close right before or after spring break, rather than have spring breakers return to college and bring potential infections with them. DS's university extended spring break by a week and then had students sign up for a specific move-out slot, with times staggered over the course of a week. Only one person was allowed in the room at a time. Since it's a state university, the vast majority of students live in state and they either drove themselves or were picked up by parents. Only a very small percentage had to fly or take a bus. Closing the universities when they did was much safer than leaving everyone in the dorms until hundreds were infected and then sending them home.

[marbel]

19 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Essential workers don't congregate on the beach? 

🙂

 

Well maybe some do.

My point is, unless a person comes into contact with only one other person in some unknown period of time, how would they know how they got it?  Was it from the cashier at the grocery store?  The fast-food worker handing the bag of food into the car?  The person who picked up and put back a container of something at the grocery store?  A person they pass in the grocery store maybe a little too close? Or the last person to touch the payment terminal?   It isn't necessarily a person who was just playing a game of pickup basketball or someone just back from spring break at the beach.  It could have been me, going to the grocery store after working in an office, despite all my efforts to disinfect everything and touch nothing except what I actually bought.  

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by marbel

[GoodGrief]

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Just not to the extent of talking about people being better off ending things now, kwim? And not to the extent of blaming suicides on physical distancing. When people suicide, physical distancing may be one factor among many. 

 

I do agree there. I think the bigger issue will be interruption of treatment due to the crisis.

[ktgrok]

24 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Exactly because dorms tend to have a super high level of contagion, it makes zero sense to disperse everyone to the four winds with no testing. They could have moved to the online class model, disbanded the sporting events etc. without mandating they all be sent home. Then parents who chose to have their students come home had that option, meanwhile the people who wanted to stay on campus had that option too. That would have a been a much lower risk enterprise. 

And once there was a positive case in the dorms, then what? 

[katilac]

20 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I don't know but public transportation is likely a major conduit with the types of surfaces involved. So again- if you aren't going to shut it all down and leave a massive conduit open, then what is really the point of shutting just some of it down, but leaving the riskiest stuff open? 

Strictly as a layperson, I guess the point would be fewer points of contact overall. Necessities seem to require keeping some risky stuff open, including public transit and grocery stores because people have to eat. But they don't need to add non-essential points of contact like my health club, which brings many people who would never otherwise see other into contact. 

[ktgrok]

FYI, speaking of at risk, 30% of those hospitalized in Canada are under 40 yrs old. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-03-28-20-intl-hnk/h_3451ba9d1f849e02d0fd196baed542e1. 

 

[marbel]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Unless colleges were expected to house students throughout the summer so they would never have to return home, they would have to go home in another month or two anyway — when things are expected to be far worse. So you can send them home at the very beginning of the pandemic, when few if any students are sick, or you can keep them in conditions that are guaranteed to spread the virus as much as possible and then send them home later when many are already sick and the pandemic is even more widespread. Most schools chose to close right before or after spring break, rather than have spring breakers return to college and bring potential infections with them. DS's university extended spring break by a week and then had students sign up for a specific move-out slot, with times staggered over the course of a week. Only one person was allowed in the room at a time. Since it's a state university, the vast majority of students live in state and they either drove themselves or were picked up by parents. Only a very small percentage had to fly or take a bus. Closing the universities when they did was much safer than leaving everyone in the dorms until hundreds were infected and then sending them home.

Judging from comments on college parent pages, colleges could do no right here.  Keep them at school, send them home, keep their stuff, make them take their stuff...  No matter what they did, people were going to be dissatisfied.  (I'm fine with the way  my kids' schools handled things, though they did not do the same things. Because there is no perfect way.)

[Junie]

3 minutes ago, marbel said:

Judging from comments on college parent pages, colleges could do no right here.  Keep them at school, send them home, keep their stuff, make them take their stuff...  No matter what they did, people were going to be dissatisfied.  (I'm fine with the way  my kids' schools handled things, though they did not do the same things. Because there is no perfect way.)

Ds19's school gave everyone the choice of staying or going home.  His job on campus is considered essential personnel, so he stayed (and was happy to do so).

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Then they deal with it pretty much like they are in NYC and other places with closed quarters living where they are having positive cases!  You have to be able to shift with knowledge as it's collected- but throwing people en masse out and about- and further yet- expecting young people to stay home long term, not pop out and about, was an unrealistic pipe dream. 

So trap all the students in the dorms, with the positive people, knowing they are positive? Or isolate them, but know that they already exposed and likely infected dozens more who infected dozens more, etc etc? You can't really stay 6 ft away in a dorm room, and they are not self contained with kitchens, etc in them, like in a home. I don't like them going home and spreading it, but don't see a better option, other than doing it even earlier. 

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, marbel said:

Maybe so, but how would anyone know? That's the problem.  It was a strong statement, made without qualifications.   

 

One would know based on the title and context of the whole thread and the fact that my own DH is an essential worker.

[katilac]

Building on my last post, I don't see how you close public transport if that leaves people with no access to food or medicine. However, I do think that contingency planning would improve things a great deal. Even before this, "if our city/state/country is swept by a deadly and contagious illness, how do we keep residents safe and fed and as productive as possible?" would not have been a crazy question for government officials to ask. 

[barnwife]

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

I 100% get where she's coming from, and I know there are others here who won't say anything because of how they'll be treated by those who disagree. When you start chipping away at rights, and this isn't chipping away, they fall away quickly. My Catholic friends are very upset that they can't actually legally have confession right now. 

(I don't necessarily believe in your rights stop where my rights start, either, though, so I'm probably not the best person for this discussion.)

Um, what? I know of no place where this is true. Yes, many public Masses are suspended. And yes, that makes my heart hurt. But that's a completely different ball of wax from Reconciliation/Confession. Our priest is still offering Confession (after all, it's not a large group). If a car is already by the church door, you wait in your car. You can choose to enter into the church and confess with appropriate spacing between you or he will come out and stand outside your car for your confession. 

My thoughts regarding other things have been said by others, so I'll leave things at that.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I am guessing that many aren't seeing that this isn't about parks and yoga. This is about people losing their jobs and businesses among other things, like, oh you know- freedom of assembly and worship. This isn't simply shutting down "public spaces". This is forcing entire industries to close down and severing social networks. And then getting you to applaud them for doing it. Meanwhile, have you asked where the tax money is going to come from for your municipality next year for schools, infrastructure and everything else? Have you called your favorite charities to see how many people they had to lay off last week?

Also, again simply stunned to see people who three months ago were very concerned about things like the border, migrant rights, voting rights etc. suddenly be BURN IT ALL DOWN! We don't care!  Who needs to vote in a primary- or a general election if this keeps up! As long as we don't personally get the coronavirus, the rest doesn't matter. 👍

 

None of this would have been necessary if we had competent leadership and government at the highest levels. Airport screenings, unlimited rapid tests, and adequate protective gear would have allowed normal public health measures time to work. This was a choice that was made several years ago. 

[Frances]

Just now, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I agree with one caveat which is it is even more important to have competent leadership and government at the state and local levels, as they are who really hold the vast majority of the legal cards here when it comes to public health. 

I do agree. But they weren’t allowed to do testing on their own without approval. The site in Washington that saw the handwriting on the wall and developed their testing early was shut down by the feds. The feds completely failed on the testing end and they also should have implemented nationwide traveler screening at airports for international travelers. State and counties can’t practice public health if they lack the most important tools. New Richelle was able to bring things pretty much under control fairly quickly with few hospitalizations due to extensive testing.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

Re isolating at-risk populations for extended periods of time.

Do not the same concerns re work, health, rights and mental health apply to at-risk populations?

To me, the suggestion that only the at-increased-risk need to modify their behaviours is just a way to marginalise the elderly, the chronically ill, the disabled, the sick, the poor, the indigenous, the homeless, the inadequately housed...the list goes on, really.

To me, the requirement that isolation be an individual's responsibility only, and if you don't do it well enough and get sick, too bad, is as abhorrent as unlimited authoritarianism.

 

 

 

:sarcasm: nope _____ “rights”  to have hair roots colorized on schedule is more important than at risk and medical worker populations’ rights to live  :sarcasm:  🙄  

 

54 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Exactly because dorms tend to have a super high level of contagion, it makes zero sense to disperse everyone to the four winds with no testing. They could have moved to the online class model, disbanded the sporting events etc. without mandating they all be sent home. Then parents who chose to have their students come home had that option, meanwhile the people who wanted to stay on campus had that option too. That would have a been a much lower risk enterprise. 

 

Afaik that’s the approach our state flagship U Took at least initially ...

it then moved to tighter restrictions after the state “Stay Home Stay Safe” mandate.  It is still open for people who need it open, but in a limited way. 

So you are simply incorrect in your belief that some “

Brain trust said let’s close ALL the colleges...”

 

Quote

I mean, seriously. What brain trust said let's close ALL of the colleges and send everyone off campus. I know people who have great family relationships and 18 year olds may have in cases been fine with this, but that doesn't fit a huge amount of college students in this country. And now they are displaced. Meanwhile the same people who were tsk-tsk-ing the Spring Breakers, applauded the decision to heap a vast numbers of extra young people onto planes and trains to get them home, with no look to what risk that brings. 

 

My alma mater universities (for undergrad and grad degrees) did close and at least one sent an email explaining the decision to members of its wider community such as alumni. 

The decision was made by the university leadership in consultation with experts inside and outside of the University .  They may have made some errors, but I expect it was as well thought out a decision as they could make. And they sounded far brainier and more rational than you are sounding. 

The other alma mater includes an excellent medical school with all the brains there to aid in its decision making. 

Neither seemed to have been forced or coerced into their decisions by some conspiracy group or gestapo. 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Pen

[katilac]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

So trap all the students in the dorms, with the positive people, knowing they are positive? Or isolate them, but know that they already exposed and likely infected dozens more who infected dozens more, etc etc? You can't really stay 6 ft away in a dorm room, and they are not self contained with kitchens, etc in them, like in a home. I don't like them going home and spreading it, but don't see a better option, other than doing it even earlier. 

I do think a lot of schools gave students too little time to upend their lives and move out, and that actual space didn't always seem to be a consideration. Both of my dds' dorms are single room suites with common areas, and one of them has a kitchen. They actually could stay 6 ft away from suitemates, but we aren't doing that with the people we live with anyway. 

I'm glad my OOS kid is home and she has been social distancing in full (her friends are all far away, that helps, lol). My local kid works part-time at a restaurant. It's take-out only now, but I seriously doubt she is strictly adhering to social distancing with co-workers or friends who may come in. She does the strip and shower thing when she comes home. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Selkie said:

How do you define at-risk populations? Where I live, the majority of confirmed cases are not elderly - they are in the 41-60 age range. I am reading many news stories of otherwise healthy people of all ages who are hospitalized or have died. 

And many healthcare workers are at risk, including my spouse. If they all self isolated we would have even worse shortages then we do now. At least in my state, I haven’t heard of any healthcare workers at risk being allowed not to work. In fact, they are recruiting retired workers.

[ktgrok]

Just now, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I am not a logistics expert and am not pretending to be one- but if they are saying that the grocery stores need to limit the number of people who are in them at any one time to reduce transmission risk, and then reduce the number of trains and subways running and shove everyone closer together- this makes no sense. If they want to apply social distancing rules into other businesses, then they should do it consistently and not simply foist the burden on private businesses while the local government agencies like Metro or whatever, run status quo and let people crowd in like cows into a shoot. That is hypocrisy at it's finest. If the concern is social distancing, then they need to address the public transits. They don't have to shut it down, but it does need to be addressed. Pretending it's not a risk conduit isn't doing anyone any favors, and is also further muddying the waters on what works and what doesn't. 

I am pretty sure that part of the idea was that by reducing what businesses were open, and where people could do, and telling people to stay home other than for essential needs, that would reduce the number of people on public transit at any given time. If people who can stay home would, that would make it safer for those who do have to be out. 

[marbel]

24 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

One would know based on the title and context of the whole thread and the fact that my own DH is an essential worker.

It's a long thread - 380+ posts, with a lot of range, as most long conversations have. And I did not know or did not remember that your husband is an essential worker; again, long thread.

Sorry, still believe that that sort of unqualified statement, while not dangerous here on this board, has the potential to be in the right (wrong) setting. Sorry if that upsets you. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I define at risk as anyone who is told or deemed by a physician that they are at risk. Risk isn't isolated to age. It's also inclusive of health conditions and/or certain medications. ETA- among other factors. 

I can't speak to anywhere outside of the US, but for the US- they could have easily (for a lot less than that gazillion dollar bill) incentivized a good many companies to keep workers on payroll who were home self-isolating as designated by their physicians, on the payrolls indefinitely while sorting it out. Likewise, they could have incentivized landlords etc. for rent easement to these populations in a similar fashion. Instead they are handing some people- not even all of the people affected- a single 1200 check. What good is that really going to do long term? 

I’m not sure enough people in this country get regular enough health screenings to know whether or not they are at risk. That strategy might work in a country with some sort of universal healthcare, I’m not sure it would work here.

Whike far less money could have been spent early on by focusing on getting unlimited rapid testing and airport screenings, the bill does include extensive increases in eligibility, dollar amounts, and duration for unemployment.

[katilac]

1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I am not a logistics expert and am not pretending to be one- but if they are saying that the grocery stores need to limit the number of people who are in them at any one time to reduce transmission risk, and then reduce the number of trains and subways running and shove everyone closer together- this makes no sense. If they want to apply social distancing rules into other businesses, then they should do it consistently and not simply foist the burden on private businesses while the local government agencies like Metro or whatever, run status quo and let people crowd in like cows into a shoot. That is hypocrisy at it's finest. If the concern is social distancing, then they need to address the public transits. They don't have to shut it down, but it does need to be addressed. Pretending it's not a risk conduit isn't doing anyone any favors, and is also further muddying the waters on what works and what doesn't. 

I didn't address limiting the number of people in grocery stores, I said they needed to be open so people could have food. 

I also said nothing about reducing public transit and shoving everyone closer together?? I said it needed to be open so people could have access to food and medicine. 

I said both of those things as a response to you saying to close public transportation down. 

Never did I say I don't think government should address ways to mitigate the risk and exposure. Absolutely, that's a great idea! It would make far more sense to increase public transit, so people aren't sitting so close together. I'm sure there are other things that could be done as well. If I understand my local RTA correctly, they have reduced  capacity in the sense of eliminating certain routes. I'm hoping this means they kept routes that get people to grocery stores and hospitals and eliminated routes that get people to more recreation-oriented sites, but I don't know the routes well enough to be sure. 

They have also eliminated fares, which will reduce the amount of time getting on, reduce touching the money thingie, and reduce touching money itself. That seems good. 

 

[HeartString]

1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Not to mention- the international students who just got kicked to the curb with an alarmingly short amount of time to get home. Because, you know, the virus would wait the 72 hours for arrangements to be made and them to be back in their own country. 🙄

At least in VA international students were allowed to stay. They can stay until the end of the semester, when they would have left anyway. 

The college I’m connected to really did not want to have a scenario with a bunch of really sick kids in the dorms.  They also did not want the student to come back from spring break with the virus and pass it all around, which seems prudent after all the spring break videos.  So they made the decision to just not have them back after spring break, with a system set up for kids who needed waivers to stay.  

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

PSA- While I'm at the self-immolation here- I would encourage those of you who share a similar viewpoint as to the one I am espousing to call your various local and state representatives who are making the various restrictions in your towns/cities and encourage a bit of disclosure and leadership on what the hell their actual long term "plan" is and what it's based from. As far as I can tell no one seems to have one. They are also knee jerking to the media and the other squeaky wheels who are contacting them, so you might as well add to the squeak. 

Until we have unlimited rapid testing, I’m not sure there can be a plan. Normal public health measures can’t be implemented without it.

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Alright, well I'm off to watch Tiger King. Happy quarantining everyone. It's been real. ✌️🖖or whatever we're supposed to do these days! 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just now, katilac said:

That’s closer than six feet...