Do you think states should open back up?

[bolt.]

1 minute ago, Dreamergal said:

in a hypothetical world which I make decisions of public importance in my head  and in the real world, I am against reforming any system in a pandemic which was suggested. I am also against sending off unprepared kids to college who happened to have some advantage for the rest of the ones who need coaching which seems rather preposterous. I was schooled that AP classes are not needed for college. That was news to me. Everyone in my world is rather obsessed with them. This has been an education. Interesting.

Even though I too think that this is a poor time for a substantive approach to "reform" -- I can see that September is coming. I can see that something educational must happen. It will either be (1) a continuation of emergency distance education (2) a modified model classroom teaching with adapted curriculum and delivery plans, or (3) the standard, normal approach to classroom teaching, planning and curriculum. None of those are "reforms" to the system -- but I think (2) is more likely than (1) or (3). Therefore we are probably looking at modifications whether temporary or permanent. That's why it's worth remembering that the current local approach is not the only functional way to run a system of public education. It's okay to look outside the box.

[SKL]

5 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

We all have our priorities.  For me it is, an AP course is important. College is important as it will help them in the future. So I will scaffold. 

Just curious, since a higher education sooner is important to you, why are you against early college?  How old will your kid(s) be when they finish high school?

[SKL]

5 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

Why the hell should I  apologize. This is the way the system works here. My parents paid for private school in my native country to give me the best opportunity, we live in the best school district we can afford to give our kids the best. Take it up with the people who designed it. I should apologize for what ? For wanting the best for my kids by whatever legal means necessaryy ? Will you ? Will anyone on this homeschool board. then I will. 

Also, I am not sure why you are arguing about what's best for the USA when you apparently only care about what's best for the school your kid attends.  Sounds like you may live in a place that is privileged enough to give you what you want, so why not be happy and let the rest of us figure out what's to be done in the rest of the USA?  It's not like we are gonna come to your county and rob its treasury.

[SKL]

5 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

No I do not understand the American system. I am going to be blunt, what I see is a system that is seemingly set up to fair but inherently not. Money is always the game changer like every system in the world. My parents had to pay a school, I pay taxes. The "general good" never existed. If not why are there kids who get the only proper meal in a school ?Why are there kids who are shamed because they have lunch balance. My native country free food. It is called mid-day meal scheme in a government school. It is available for all poor kids. Poor kids suffer in America, the system is not fair. So why pretend. 

True, fairness is largely aspirational.  We are trying to discuss what would be helpful, although we know the actual reality isn't going to look like our utopia.  😛  But with enough intelligent discussion, some good ideas might be implemented.

Taxpayer-funded public school appropriate for all - especially those who can't afford other options - is a pretty basic value in the USA though.  There will always be funding issues and other reasons why we can't all have everything we want in the public schools.  But most of us aren't ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  And as others have noted - if we did, then you would probably be spending a lot more to get your kids that education you so value.

[kiwik]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

Just because a person doesn't have the inclination or ability to do advanced self study does not mean he needs or deserves a taxpayer-funded advanced course - especially in the late teen years.  It's a nice-to-have for times when districts have the resources for nice-to-haves.

Being smart is a huge advantage which kids got for free.  I have a kid like that.  She gets most of her assigned work done in minutes per day.  My other kid takes until close to midnight each day to finish the same work.

It is great if my smart kid gets a specially-tailored program that both meets her intellectual potential and compensates for the fact that she has little desire to do this for herself.  However, even before Covid, that was relatively low on the list of priorities for my home or my kids' school.  Yes, I put more into helping my other kid keep up, and I expect school systems to do the same.  My advanced kid is always welcome and encouraged to exert herself if she wants to develop her God-given advantages.  But I will not channel scarce resources away from more needy people to force still more advantages on a teen who doesn't care about them.

Being Gifted rather than just bright also confers a lot of unasked for problems that are anything but an advantage.  Being Gifted does not mean doing homework quickly or easily or getting good grades: it means a completely different way of learning.  That is why schools fail the brightest students as much as those with other special needs.

To the person who said you can't get an adequate second grade in 3 hours in a 15 kid class.  Why not?  Why is 5 hours with 30 kids (where I am) better than 3 hours with 15.  It sounds great to me.  Maybe all those spare halls could be used for art)sport/daycare for the other half of the day.  If the hours were morning and afternoon there would be no need to eat - or one acceptable snack could be brought from home.

 

When I was at school (NZ 1974 -84) the majority of kids left before the end of or at the end of fifth form (10th grade).  University entrance was taken in 6th form (11th grade).  Those people went on to Uni or the better jobs.  A very few about 1% of the school did the last year to sit scholarships exams to help them with tertiary.  Now most people stay all the way through so high school is on average 2 years longer.

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by kiwik

[Melissa in Australia]

18 minutes ago, kiwik said:

 

 

When I was at school (NZ 1974 -84) the majority of kids left before the end of or at the end of fifth form (10th grade).  University entrance was taken in 6th form (11th grade).  Those people went on to Uni or the better jobs.  A very few about 1% of the school did the last year to sit scholarships exams to help them with tertiary.  Now most people stay all the way through so high school is on average 2 years longer.

 

same here in Australia. Just about nobody completed high school . The majority left school after year 10 to go to work,Students  (mostly boys) who went into trade apprenticeships left school after year 9.

now just about everyone has to stay at school until they are 18. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Melissa in Australia

[kiwik]

10 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

No.Because it is not my job to pay for the best education for the children of the state. What I earn will pay for the best for my kids. No apologies. The state should find the money. This is a wealthy country. 

See I don't understand this attitude at all.  Education is a common good and with the police, hospitals and roading should be paid from national ( or in the US because of your size State level).  Every possible effort should be made to ensure that the level of education is as equitable as possible throughout the entire state.  Now totally equitable is not possible because of differences in how education is regarded and the fact the rich people can generally get their kids the help they need when poor people cannot.  Add in itinerancy an poverty and it is even less equal.

But I cannot understand not wanting to even try and not caring that there isn't any effort being put in.

You say the state should fund it.  Yes they should and the way they should do that is by having taxes leveled at the state level not the district level.  To be honest both - district does towards water, sewage, carparks, playgrounds etc in you district.  State goes to major roads, police, armed forces, hospitals and schools.  

[lewelma]

8 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

That is one more reason I am on this board. Because your kids seem to have diverse portfolios and I want my kid to have one too. I lurk a lot on the college board and do not contribute because I do not know. 

If you want advice on original, mind-expanding course ideas, start a new thread. There are a number of us on this board who have kids who have been accepted into top colleges with home-made courses.  

[KathyBC]

To get back on topic, the closer Canada gets to even discussing even partially reopening, *this* is what is floating around FB. People are absolutely terrified. It is disheartening.
 

[Matryoshka]

18 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No one here has advocated sending kids to college before they are prepared. Some 16 YOs are prepared to go to college. 

I graduated high school shortly after turning 17. I didn't feel ready to go away to college yet, so I took a gap year.  I did take a college course at a local university my senior year (during most of which I was 16) - it wasn't that I wasn't ready for the material, I just was young for my age in other ways and didn't want to leave home yet.

But two of my kids went to community college even earlier.  One was 14, the other 16.  Really no problems.  It was DE, and so double-counted for high school, but the classes were just the same as if they were older students.  They loved that they had a more flexible schedule, down time, could go outside between classes.  They'd both been homeschooled up till high school, tried it, and it felt much too regimented to them.  Get up at the crack of dawn, 4 min between classes, 20 min for lunch including standing in line, bathroom break, eating, and when the heck do you go to your locker - can't, carry it all around all day.  Then come home and study till rise and repeat. Vs. classes 2x/week and could pick to have them start at 10am, or the afternoon, or the evening - and walk outside between them. They're both now in regular college.  The one that ditched regular high school right away ended up with an Associate's by 18, entered college as a junior and will graduate with her Bachelor's at 20.  But lots of others who go this route decide to enter a 4-year school as freshmen to get the 'full college experience' and graduate at the 'normal' age - though having a lot of credits already often gives them much more flexibility in coursework than most kids.  But both paths are available.

I think lots of 16yos are ready for college, especially if it doesn't involve living away from home.

@Dreamergal, glad you're here and will echo others' recommendations to go peruse the high school as well as college boards.  There's so many different paths up the mountain, no need to get stuck in the AP arms race.  APs can be useful - my kids took some.  But it's not the be-all, end-all, they can be studied for without taking the classes (and only the test scores matter in the end), and there are so many other interesting and useful things a high school student can do do be well-educated and also make themselves stand out to colleges.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Storygirl]

There are people who are clamoring for things to open back up again. And we are seeing protests, etc. People want things to go back to normal. People need to be working again.

But also, people are scared. I'm scared. When restaurants open, I won't go. I was an avid movie watcher, but when the cinema reopens, I won't go. The mall will reopen, and I won't go. DD18 works at Chik-fil-A but has not been working for the past few weeks. When CFA offers to have more people start working again, I will be afraid for her to pick up hours.

So many people are going to be scared. My birthday was in mid-March. Restaurants in our state were not closed to dine-in eating until March 15. We went out to eat for my birthday on March 13, on a Friday night, and we were one of the only tables of people eating there. If people were avoiding restaurants before the closure order, won't they keep avoiding them for a good period of time after they are allowed to open back up?

It's going to take time for people to feel confident and safe again.

[Pam in CT]

re business model underpinning AP:

1 hour ago, Dreamergal said:

The AP is a non-profit ??? I am completely confused. I don't even know where to start or look. Please point me in a right direction. I thought I had an idea about the college process here because everyone I know is going to certain way but apparently not. 

Both the AP tests themselves, and the accreditation process by which schools are able to obtain "AP Class" status, are managed by the College Board, which also administers the PSAT/SAT and a bunch of other widely-used standardized tests.   College Board is a registered 501c3 with non-profit status and a declared mission to "connect students to college success."  It is also a multi-hundreds-of-million dollar industry with multiple lines of revenue generation with an extremely large vested interest in maintaining its (considerable) institutional influence.  A great many of the top-tier schools at both the high school and university levels have been moving away from its hegemony, and COVID is (to my mind, for the better) adding momentum to that already-underway movement.

 

re: The measures are working!  So we don't need the measures!

46 minutes ago, KathyBC said:

To get back on topic, the closer Canada gets to even discussing even partially reopening, *this* is what is floating around FB. People are absolutely terrified. It is disheartening.
 

 

I like this one myself:

[SKL]

45 minutes ago, Storygirl said:

There are people who are clamoring for things to open back up again. And we are seeing protests, etc. People want things to go back to normal. People need to be working again.

But also, people are scared. I'm scared. When restaurants open, I won't go. I was an avid movie watcher, but when the cinema reopens, I won't go. The mall will reopen, and I won't go. DD18 works at Chik-fil-A but has not been working for the past few weeks. When CFA offers to have more people start working again, I will be afraid for her to pick up hours.

So many people are going to be scared. My birthday was in mid-March. Restaurants in our state were not closed to dine-in eating until March 15. We went out to eat for my birthday on March 13, on a Friday night, and we were one of the only tables of people eating there. If people were avoiding restaurants before the closure order, won't they keep avoiding them for a good period of time after they are allowed to open back up?

It's going to take time for people to feel confident and safe again.

There will be a mix of people who are ready to go out when it opens and people who want to stay at home longer.  And that is fine.  It's good actually.  (Not so great for businesses, but overall not a bad thing.)

[KathyBC]

I like your 

53 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re business model underpinning AP:

Both the AP tests themselves, and the accreditation process by which schools are able to obtain "AP Class" status, are managed by the College Board, which also administers the PSAT/SAT and a bunch of other widely-used standardized tests.   College Board is a registered 501c3 with non-profit status and a declared mission to "connect students to college success."  It is also a multi-hundreds-of-million dollar industry with multiple lines of revenue generation with an extremely large vested interest in maintaining its (considerable) institutional influence.  A great many of the top-tier schools at both the high school and university levels have been moving away from its hegemony, and COVID is (to my mind, for the better) adding momentum to that already-underway movement.

 

re: The measures are working!  So we don't need the measures!

 

I like this one myself:

I like your cartoon better. If we are successful (and success still means many people suffer illness and die), it is supposed to feel like we overreacted. Right from the start the method promoted has been the hammer and the dance, managing that curve as best we can. The problem I see with the cartoon I shared is it polarizes people. Some have stopped thinking in terms of flattening the curve and begun thinking they can stop the coronovirus, if only we keep the most severe restrictions in place for the longest period of time possible. Any talk of any loosening strikes them as sheer madness, and even the most placid begin lashing out in surprising ways.

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

 

The giant economically diverse urban school system near me uses Singapore math.  I don't remember which version.  

 

There were a few schools using it in Seattle when DD was in 1st grade 8 years ago, mostly on the wealthier north end of town. Math In Focus may be used now, I still don't think it's especially common. At DS's middle school, they use "Big Ideas" math.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Exactly. I think many people are forgetting this. They think that the stay at home orders are lifted and everything goes back to normal but it's not that simple. I've already written here about how I expect a lot of emotional manipulation to get people to resume normal life too early because too many of will avoid these activities. There is such a strong desire to have everything go back to where it was that many will be angry at those of us who are still cautious. 

I keep repeating myself - things won't be back to normal until there is a vaccine. I know that's pretty scary and people don't want it to be true to they keep telling themselves that it's not true. 

I think someone can realize that thing will not be back to "normal" anytime soon.  That same person, however, can believe that stay-at-home orders should be lifted.  First, if everyone is going to stay home anyway because they are so scared, the stay-at-home orders are unnecessary.  Second, there is a difference in choosing to stay home and being told by your government that you are not allowed to; so on a philosophical basis, some are opposed to stringent stay-at-home and business closing orders.

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, KathyBC said:

I like your 

I like your cartoon better. If we are successful (and success still means many people suffer illness and die), it is supposed to feel like we overreacted. Right from the start the method promoted has been the hammer and the dance, managing that curve as best we can. The problem I see with the cartoon I shared is it polarizes people. Some have stopped thinking in terms of flattening the curve and begun thinking they can stop the coronovirus, if only we keep the most severe restrictions in place for the longest period of time possible. Any talk of any loosening strikes them as sheer madness, and even the most placid begin lashing out in surprising ways.

But the red line is totally hypothetical   We do not really know what it would have looked like.  That we can point to where we are on the green curve now does not show us how different we are relative to where we would have been without various measures in place.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think everyone understands that the stay at home orders have to be lifted eventually. 

And yes I know some are opposed to the stay at home orders on philosophical grounds. I would suggest these people educate themselves about how epidemics have been addressed in the past. They might be surprised about what they learn. 

ETA to call out the kind of emotional manipulation that we will see more of in the future. "f everyone is going to stay home anyway because they are so scared..."

People can be very educated as to how epidemics have been addressed in the past and be philosophically opposed to how they were handled in the past and how they are being handled now.  

[KathyBC]

11 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think everyone understands that the stay at home orders have to be lifted eventually. 

And yes I know some are opposed to the stay at home orders on philosophical grounds. I would suggest these people educate themselves about how epidemics have been addressed in the past. They might be surprised about what they learn. 

ETA to call out the kind of emotional manipulation that we will see more of in the future. "f everyone is going to stay home anyway because they are so scared..."

Oh. I had not foreseen that. Hmmm, not sure what to say now. It is a legitimate fear.

[KathyBC]

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think everyone understands that the stay at home orders have to be lifted eventually. 

And yes I know some are opposed to the stay at home orders on philosophical grounds. I would suggest these people educate themselves about how epidemics have been addressed in the past. They might be surprised about what they learn. 

ETA to call out the kind of emotional manipulation that we will see more of in the future. "f everyone is going to stay home anyway because they are so scared..."

Ok, so when is eventually? When there is a vaccine, in 18 months - 2 years - more? I thought what I read for phased re-opening seemed rational, and fully expect that if cases surge, restrictions will be reapplied. So what's with the push back?

[Sneezyone]

At some point, philosophy must yield to actual experience/data. That is science.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

At some point, philosophy must yield to actual experience/data. That is science.

What experience/data are you pointing to in this situation that philosophy must yield to?   Two people can look at the same data and have two different value judgments.  

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

What experience/data are you pointing to in this situation that philosophy must yield to?   Two people can look at the same data and have two different value judgments.  

HISTORY. literally the data and information that we have WRT past pandemics and the strategies that were effective. Also the emerging data that we have WRT what has worked with this one.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Sneezyone

[SereneHome]

While I have a lot of opinions on schools and education in general (none of which will be popular on this board) I'll stick to original question - yep, I think states should open up. Not bc I think it's a smart thing to do in terms of virus, not bc I think "govt can't dictate us what to do", but simply bc in my personal, anecdotal experiences people are not doing the smart and right thing anyway. So, keeping everything close just hurting businesses and hurting people's income.

In the last six weeks:

1. I left house 6 times -to go grocery shopping. We did try instacart once, it was a disaster and the "shopper' got so nasty, I got really worried that she had our address. Through this entire time people behaved in an incredibly stupid way in ALL the grocery stores I went to, both shoppers and workers

2. My kids haven't left our neighborhood but while riding their bikes met other kids who had no concept of any kind of distancing! And then made fun of my kids for saying something. 

3 My boss "closed" her office, ensuring that we can work from home. And then kept asking certain people to come in, "only two at a time". Well, her entire staff is 9 people, so not sure what that accomplished. Oh and while clients didn't go into the office, they still brought all their documents and such. So, still tons of interactions.

So, my point is - I don't believe anymore that keeping everything shut down would be beneficial. We need testing and treatments and vaccines.  People are not following instructions anyway, so, why ruin business and income and livelihoods

[Bootsie]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

HISTORY. literally the days that we have WRT past pandemics and the strategies that were effective. Also the emerging data that we have WRT what has worked with this one.

I think any data we have about what is effective is questionable.  Being effective at slowing or stopping an epidemic does not happen in a vacuum.  People can see the same data for that part of their life's experience but disagree on whether the advantages of handling an epidemic in a particular way exceed the things that have to be given up for that to be put in place. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Bootsie said:

I think any data we have about what is effective is questionable.  Being effective at slowing or stopping an epidemic does not happen in a vacuum.  People can see the same data for that part of their life's experience but disagree on whether the advantages of handling an epidemic in a particular way exceed the things that have to be given up for that to be put in place. 

Riiiigght. So, basically, science be damned. There can always be multiple explanations for various phenomena. That’s not new. Discounting strong correlations between social distancing and casualties because it may be impossible to isolate all other variables is certainly one approach. 

[mlktwins]

4 hours ago, Storygirl said:

There are people who are clamoring for things to open back up again. And we are seeing protests, etc. People want things to go back to normal. People need to be working again.

But also, people are scared. I'm scared. When restaurants open, I won't go. I was an avid movie watcher, but when the cinema reopens, I won't go. The mall will reopen, and I won't go. DD18 works at Chik-fil-A but has not been working for the past few weeks. When CFA offers to have more people start working again, I will be afraid for her to pick up hours.

So many people are going to be scared. My birthday was in mid-March. Restaurants in our state were not closed to dine-in eating until March 15. We went out to eat for my birthday on March 13, on a Friday night, and we were one of the only tables of people eating there. If people were avoiding restaurants before the closure order, won't they keep avoiding them for a good period of time after they are allowed to open back up?

It's going to take time for people to feel confident and safe again.

This will be us.  We will be home for quite a while.  Since March 13th, my boys have only been out in our yard.  It will be day 40 for them tomorrow.  We see a ton of people in our neighborhood out and about and not social distancing.  I have been out 2 times since March 15th.  Once to a closed bank because I needed to clean out my dad's safe deposit box (they were only open by appointment so we could clear out the boxes) and once to go to his apartment building to clean his apartment and do some stuff for him.  We have not eaten out.  I do have someone that I pay to shop for me - that was an added bonus.  

[SKL]

Nobody is willing to admit it, but healthy people getting the virus over and done with (without infecting vulnerable people) would be a good thing and might save more lives than many of the other measures being discussed, including a vaccine.

I want to get the dang virus (assuming I haven't already had it, which is actually a good possibility).  I want to make my personal contribution to herd immunity and be able to make other good things happen outside of my home.  I want to do this sooner rather than later.

Turns out "flatten the curve" was a lie, because we (like most of the country) did such a good job of it that our medical people are leaving our area to go work in NYC right now.  And we are still not allowed to expose ourselves to build immunity.

[SKL]

5 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

There isn't a "good possibility" that you've already had it unless you traveled to Europe or Asia or were in a hotspot. There is no evidence, barring that flawed Santa Clara study, showing there was widespread transmission in the US. 

Further, while the risk is much more significant for people with certain complications, there is no evidence that "healthy people" are not at risk. In fact, based both on what we know and on what we know we don't know, no one should willingly expose themselves to the virus. There is no evidence that it is risk free for anyone, except perhaps children and that is now in doubt due to the death of the little girl in Michigan. 

There is evidence of serious complications after suffering from COVID; blood clots, reduced lunch capacity, cardiac. And these things did not just happen to the people who were higher risk. 

I want to risk it though for myself.  If I wanted to be a chain smoker or drink to the point of drunkenness all day and night, I would have the right to do those things.  I have a right (actually an obligation) to drive, which kills tens of thousands of people every year.  I have a right to go swimming even though I could drown and take rescuers with me.

I can stay away from "at risk" people while the disease runs its course.  It would make a lot more sense to do that for 3-4 weeks (which I've been doing anyway) than for the next year and a half until the vax (which I don't plan on getting).

The logic that I am not allowed to make a choice that might not be best for me just does not work.  If you don't want to get exposed, then don't.  Just like I don't choose to smoke or drink, but we don't have laws preventing other people from doing those things.

Edited April 21, 2020 by SKL

[MEmama]

17 minutes ago, SKL said:

Nobody is willing to admit it, but healthy people getting the virus over and done with (without infecting vulnerable people) would be a good thing and might save more lives than many of the other measures being discussed, including a vaccine.

I want to get the dang virus (assuming I haven't already had it, which is actually a good possibility).  I want to make my personal contribution to herd immunity and be able to make other good things happen outside of my home.  I want to do this sooner rather than later.

Turns out "flatten the curve" was a lie, because we (like most of the country) did such a good job of it that our medical people are leaving our area to go work in NYC right now.  And we are still not allowed to expose ourselves to build immunity.

1. Please do not visit my state

2. It wasn’t a lie, that was the entire point. Aren’t you glad your hospitals aren’t currently overwhelmed? Why do people wish they were? Why is this so hard to understand? Will you feel better if/when your area looks like NYC and you or your children are dying in hospital hallways?

[MEmama]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I want to risk it though for myself.  If I wanted to be a chain smoker or drink to the point of drunkenness all day and night, I would have the right to do those things.  I have a right (actually an obligation) to drive, which kills tens of thousands of people every year.  I have a right to go swimming even though I could drown.

I can stay away from "at risk" people while the disease runs its course.  It would make a lot more sense to do that for 3-4 weeks (which I've been doing anyway) than for the next year and a half until the vax (which I don't plan on getting).

The logic that I am not allowed to make a choice that might not be best for me just does not work.  If you don't want to get exposed, then don't.  Just like I don't choose to smoke or drink, but we don't have laws preventing other people from doing those things.

Honest question, do you not understand how viruses work?

[SKL]

1 minute ago, MEmama said:

1. Please do not visit my state

2. It wasn’t a lie, that was the entire point. Aren’t you glad your hospitals aren’t currently overwhelmed? Why do people wish they were? Why is this so hard to understand? Will you feel better if/when your area looks like NYC and you or your children are dying in hospital hallways?

The point was that flatten the curve was never intended to prevent the virus from getting spread, it was only supposed to slow down the inevitable to prevent overflow.  Now all of a sudden nobody is supposed to have any tolerance for any risk at all.

The early spread was due to people not understanding how it spread.  A lot has been learned since then.  The risk isn't the same as it was.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

But your choice imposes risks for other people. You want to risk it and are okay with the (unknown) risks. Are you okay with receiving no medical treatment if you have a complication? If you get it and receive treatments, then you've increased the risk for other people. 

Even if you don't have any symptoms, you could be spreading it to other people who didn't willingly accept the risk. You say you will avoid "at risk" people but no one is without risk. We don't know enough about this virus to say with certainty that so-and-so has no risk. 

A virus is not comparable to smoking and drinking. If you smoked and got cancer and received treatment, there is no evidence that the people who treat you have greater risks because of your choice to smoke. This is not the same. 

I say if you don't get the vaccine, then maybe you don't benefit of being able to work in public or send your children to school. I'm not comfortable with bearing increased risks because you made that choice. 

No, I'm cool with keeping it to myself / my household once I catch it.  We aren't going anywhere anyway.

[SKL]

What about the increase in my family's risk that is being caused by the refusal to pursue herd immunity?

I worry about my parents who will eventually have to go out of their house.  You all want me to worry about that for a minimum of 18 months because you say you don't like risk.  It makes no sense.

[ktgrok]

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

Nobody is willing to admit it, but healthy people getting the virus over and done with (without infecting vulnerable people) would be a good thing and might save more lives than many of the other measures being discussed, including a vaccine.

 

How do you make sure you don't infect vulnerable people? Given that anyone you come into contact with could get it, and then spread it to others, who may be vulnerable, etc etc?

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I can stay away from "at risk" people while the disease runs its course.  It would make a lot more sense to do that for 3-4 weeks (which I've been doing anyway) than for the next year and a half until the vax (which I don't plan on getting).

 

40% of the adult population in the US is "at risk". And many of those risk factors are invisible. How on earth would you manage to avoid anyone with diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc? AND avoid anyone who has contact with those people? That is pretty much impossible. 

OH, and of course, also avoid seeking medical treatment from anyone who might have those conditions themselves. Or treat other patients that do.

And make sure no one else in your family, who has been exposed to you, contacts any of that 40% of the population?

How on earth do you propose that?

[MEmama]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

The point was that flatten the curve was never intended to prevent the virus from getting spread, it was only supposed to slow down the inevitable to prevent overflow.  Now all of a sudden nobody is supposed to have any tolerance for any risk at all.

The early spread was due to people not understanding how it spread.  A lot has been learned since then.  The risk isn't the same as it was.

Huh? I have no idea what this means.

Literally, everyone has been saying we need to slow it down (ie flatten the curve) so our hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. Literally everyone credible has also been saying that this virus is going to be with us for a very long time, perhaps always. I’ve certainly never heard anyone, anywhere say we should be adverse to all risk. How does that even make sense? 
 

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

No, I'm cool with keeping it to myself / my household once I catch it.  We aren't going anywhere anyway.

But if you are one of the many who have no symptoms, how will you know when you caught it? And even if you do get symptoms, you can spread it before those show up. So ???

And if you don't go anywhere, how will you catch it? Like, go to the local hospital and ask to rub your face on a patient, then head home and stay there for weeks?

Edited April 20, 2020 by Ktgrok

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

How do you make sure you don't infect vulnerable people? Given that anyone you come into contact with could get it, and then spread it to others, who may be vulnerable, etc etc?

40% of the adult population in the US is "at risk". And many of those risk factors are invisible. How on earth would you manage to avoid anyone with diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc? AND avoid anyone who has contact with those people? That is pretty much impossible. 

OH, and of course, also avoid seeking medical treatment from anyone who might have those conditions themselves. Or treat other patients that do.

And make sure no one else in your family, who has been exposed to you, contacts any of that 40% of the population?

How on earth do you propose that?

Well my family has been avoiding those people (bold) for the past month, so it isn't that hard to do on a short-term basis.

As for medical staff, once they have the right equipment (I believe that is the case here), they should not be at risk.  In the unlikely event any of us even goes to the doctor.

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

You're fine with developing complications and not calling 911 if someone develops breathing complications? Not going to the hospital to receive any kind of treatment? 

Well...that's interesting. I guess if that's how you feel then go ahead and risk it. 

Although I'm not really comfortable with your decision to forego medical treatment for your minor children. They are incapable of consenting to the risk with no possibility of medical treatment. So we're back to the possibility of increasing the risk for others. 

Which means, that in the interest of the common good, you shouldn't be allowed to make such an irresponsible choice. 

None of us should be allowed to drive, either (given that logic), but we are.

Edited April 20, 2020 by SKL

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well my family has been avoiding those people (bold) for the past month, so it isn't that hard to do on a short-term basis.

As for medical staff, once they have the right equipment (I believe that is the case here), they should not be at risk.  In the unlikely event any of us even goes to the doctor.

ok, but then how do you get exposed? You'd have to go out and about to catch it. And stay out and about among other people, purposely not using PPE, until you get it. But you won't know when you get it, until after you have symptoms, if you get symptoms, so? Are you going to continue going out and about with no PPE until you have symptoms and then stay home? Knowing that you would already have been needlessly exposing people in the asymptomatic period? And if you don't get symptoms, just keep going out and about in hopes of getting it, no knowing if you'd already gotten it and, due to not using masks, etc, been spreading it to others?

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Some of us realize we live in a society and that means we must evolve beyond "you can't tell me what to do!" Also, knowledge of history means that we know that all governments have rules for the common good. 

I may not be so concerned about being what I am told to do, but I may also be concerned that I do not think, especially in this particular situation, that other people should not be told by the government that they cannot do particular things.  History shows governments implementing many rules for the common good that have been opposed by intelligent, thinking people.  Prohibition was the government making rules, telling people what they couldn't do, for the common good.  Even someone who didn't want to drink alcohol personally could by philosophically opposed to that.  The government had rules regarding interracial marriage for the common good--even someone who was not concerned about the government telling them they could not marry the person they wanted to could by opposed to other people being told that for the common good.  I am very glad that history has shown people not accepting that just because the government says a rule is for the common good that they have accepted it. 

[Paige]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

The point was that flatten the curve was never intended to prevent the virus from getting spread, it was only supposed to slow down the inevitable to prevent overflow.  Now all of a sudden nobody is supposed to have any tolerance for any risk at all.

 

I feel that you are correct in that we all thought we were trying to flatten the curve to prevent healthcare collapse. The problem is that we haven't made much progress in getting hospitals prepared for the overflow as far as I can tell. We aren't much better off than we were on March 1. Maybe testing is better?  But it's not where it needs to be. 

We still don't have enough PPE to cover the needs for anyone's healthcare workers in the event of a surge. We still don't have effective treatments although there is some promise that a few of the ones being tried will come through. We still don't know if you'll get immunity if you recover and if so, how long it will last. There's still no effective cooperation with states and feds to get people supplies. In March I really thought we'd use this time to prepare for outbreaks and be ready for cautious, slow openings by now, but I don't think we are there. I think the White House's plan to reopen is good but has any state met the benchmarks for core state preparedness responsibilities that are written in the plan? I know ours hasn't. 

 

[MEmama]

24 minutes ago, SKL said:

None of us should be allowed to drive, either (given that logic), but we are.

You are honestly comparing a worldwide pandemic—on a scale not seen in over 100 years— to car accidents?

[Pam in CT]

re if we are successful with precautions, it is supposed to feel like we overreacted:

3 hours ago, KathyBC said:

.. If we are successful (and success still means many people suffer illness and die), it is supposed to feel like we overreacted. Right from the start the method promoted has been the hammer and the dance, managing that curve as best we can. The problem I see with the cartoon I shared is it polarizes people. Some have stopped thinking in terms of flattening the curve and begun thinking they can stop the coronovirus, if only we keep the most severe restrictions in place for the longest period of time possible. Any talk of any loosening strikes them as sheer madness, and even the most placid begin lashing out in surprising ways.

That's true, even for emergencies that happen regularly and with a degree of predictability, like hurricanes and floods and tornadoes.

The difference I suppose is that if folks blow off evacuation advisories/ orders in those sorts of emergencies, they are only endangering themselves.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

There isn't a "good possibility" that you've already had it unless you traveled to Europe or Asia or were in a hotspot. There is no evidence, barring that flawed Santa Clara study, showing there was widespread transmission in the US. 

Further, while the risk is much more significant for people with certain complications, there is no evidence that "healthy people" are not at risk. In fact, based both on what we know and on what we know we don't know, no one should willingly expose themselves to the virus. There is no evidence that it is risk free for anyone, except perhaps children and that is now in doubt due to the death of the little girl in Michigan. 

There is evidence of serious complications after suffering from COVID; blood clots, reduced lunch capacity, cardiac. And these things did not just happen to the people who were higher risk. 

 Indeed.

As of 4p today (April 20), there've been 3.9M tests conducted in the US, which represents a little more that 1% of the total US population.  

The vast majority of those tested so far have either presented with symptoms, or are living in a household or aggregate facility with someone who's tested positive.  (I'm living in one of the early hotspots, and while testing is much more available now than a month ago, you still need a doctor's order to get one, and those are generally the parameters for getting a doctor to order one. So in addition to the 3.9M being a tiny cohort compared to the total US population (and that indicator also includes a small number of folks who've been tested multiple times, even daily, like our good friend who's a front line pulmonary physician who is tested daily to insure he's not infecting others in the hospital... or folks like White House staff who are tested daily to ensure they're not exposing the POTUS, or various other special circumstances... so even within that tiny 3.9M there is some degree of double- and triple- and hundredfold counting of a small number of people, though I don't think (?) that adds up to more than noise)...

...Anyway, of that 3.9M tested, "only" 776,513 -- or 19.9% -- have tested positive, a rate that roughly tracks other nations, even though you'd expect the cohort in the US able to get access to still-limited testing would be selected towards higher incidence, since very little truly random testing has been conducted and most people still need a medical rationale (i.e., flu-like symptoms, or living with someone who's tested positive) to be eligible for testing.

 

We all want to get to herd immunity.  Whatever happens with SIP measures, there will be no "normal" unless/ until we get there.  There will be ongoing food supply interruptions as workers get sick; there will be be whole industries that will be unable to attract customers, and there will -- obviously -- be ongoing illness and deaths. 

Herd immunity will require that BOTH of 2 factors are true:  

1. that COVID immunity actually "holds" for a sustained period of time  (an issue on which the data is not yet determinative), so once folks are either exposed/recovered or immunized, the immunity actually does protect for a sustained period; and
2. that 70++% of the population is either exposed or immunized.  At this point only about 20% of a *seriously non-representative sample* of *only a little more than 1% of the population* is demonstrated to have been exposed.  

And there've been 42K+ deaths, in two months, with SIP measures, in the US.  That is 14 times the number of deaths in 9/11, that is 3/4 the US soldiers who died in the whole duration of Vietnam.  

We all want to get there.  We are not close yet.

[Paige]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

 

At some point it's not wrong to recognize that the risk to one's self for something serious is really pretty small.  Now, please note I am not talking about spreading to others, I am addressing the idea of SKL not being very concerned about complications.  That isn't an unreasonable assumption, given how few people in her age group who are confirmed with it actually end up hospitalized.  

We still don't know the long term risks. There's concerning info that even asymptomatic people may have lung damage. It will be years before we can know what to expect. Everyone who gets it early is part of a poorly run experiment.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Nobody is willing to admit it, but healthy people getting the virus over and done with (without infecting vulnerable people) would be a good thing and might save more lives than many of the other measures being discussed, including a vaccine.

I want to get the dang virus (assuming I haven't already had it, which is actually a good possibility).  I want to make my personal contribution to herd immunity and be able to make other good things happen outside of my home.  I want to do this sooner rather than later.

Turns out "flatten the curve" was a lie, because we (like most of the country) did such a good job of it that our medical people are leaving our area to go work in NYC right now.  And we are still not allowed to expose ourselves to build immunity.

There was a good article by a scientist out of Australia posted in the main thread about the dangers in taking a herd immunity approach to the virus. The results would likely be devastating.

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Here's a question I have that goes with what SKL is saying.

 

HOW MUCH risk is actually acceptable?  The vast majority of people who are under the age of 65, who actually are confirmed to have this do not have serious illness.  Some do, but especially as people get younger, EVEN with underlying conditions, most people do not have any complications or require hospitalization.  Ohio is publishing data by age group in a downloadable spreadsheet.  In the 20 to 29 yr old category, less than 5% of people who have tested positive are hospitalized.  Now, if you get into the 70 to 79yr old age category, just under 50% of people who get it in that age group are ending up hospitalized.  But the likelihood that SKL and her kids will end up with complications/hospitalized is pretty small.  

At some point it's not wrong to recognize that the risk to one's self for something serious is really pretty small.  Now, please note I am not talking about spreading to others, I am addressing the idea of SKL not being very concerned about complications.  That isn't an unreasonable assumption, given how few people in her age group who are confirmed with it actually end up hospitalized.  

I've seen data from some areas (forget which state it was) that of those hospitalized, the spread was pretty even across age groups. quick search found this - note that about half the ICU admissions were under 65 yrs old. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-young-people-hospitalized-covid-19-chart/

Of the more than 500 people known to be hospitalized, 18% were 45-54 years and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Of those admitted to intensive care, 36% were aged 45-64 years and 12% were aged 20-44 years. 

[Paige]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I think though that some places in this country ARE there.  Some, clearly, are not.  But I suppose that's why it's a state thing rather than national.  

Really? Are there states where nurses have access to the same quality and amount of PPE we'd have expected them to have for contagious patients back in Dec? Do they have enough in storage to handle a surge? Are they not reusing single use masks or using homemade ones?

Are there states where it's really true that anyone who has symptoms can get a test AND where they are routinely screening for asymptomatic people at "sentinel" points?

I'm not arguing with you but from my state that seems like some sort of mythical utopia that can't exist? If it is true, I'm going to be angry about whatever kind of inequity has allowed some states to have all the things while others are suffering. It's like we're in the Hunger Games and some states are in the Capital district and the rest are district 12 and 13.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Here's a very fit 41 year old's experience with COVID 19.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/20/nick-cordero-leg-coronavirus/

Trying to get this disease is like playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. 

[SKL]

26 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Here's a question I have that goes with what SKL is saying.

 

HOW MUCH risk is actually acceptable?  The vast majority of people who are under the age of 65, who actually are confirmed to have this do not have serious illness.  Some do, but especially as people get younger, EVEN with underlying conditions, most people do not have any complications or require hospitalization.  Ohio is publishing data by age group in a downloadable spreadsheet.  In the 20 to 29 yr old category, less than 5% of people who have tested positive are hospitalized.  Now, if you get into the 70 to 79yr old age category, just under 50% of people who get it in that age group are ending up hospitalized.  But the likelihood that SKL and her kids will end up with complications/hospitalized is pretty small.  

At some point it's not wrong to recognize that the risk to one's self for something serious is really pretty small.  Now, please note I am not talking about spreading to others, I am addressing the idea of SKL not being very concerned about complications.  That isn't an unreasonable assumption, given how few people in her age group who are confirmed with it actually end up hospitalized.  

And the hospitalization rate is based on actual tests, when in Ohio only certain people who have symptoms or high risk factors are being tested.  Asymptomatic healthy people are not being included in the denominator.