Do you think states should open back up?

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

You are right, we don't quite know the actual risk.  But as I said before....that's really how we have always lived life.  Every disease that anyone can get can carry long term risks. 

But as you also said, we are "managing" those risks to an "acceptable extent."  What does "acceptable extent" mean?  I honestly believe that THAT, really, *has* to be a question that each person has to answer for themselves, when discussing what risks they are willing to take with this disease (or any other.)  And again, the public health aspect, the spread to others, particularly at a time where we are still learning, and in this initial phase where we haven't built out a good enough "emergency fund" of medical supplies in all areas.......THAT is a different type of risk than I am discussing.  

This is a novel disease.  Novel diseases don't come along all the time.  And previous novel viruses like H1N1 and even the original SARS ended up not being as bad as this one.  This one is being treated differently because it is different.  It's not like all the governments all over the world had some weird group think borne out of irrational panic or a sudden desire to take over the rights of their citizens. 

[GoodGrief]

1 hour ago, MEmama said:

Honest question, do you not understand how viruses work?

She seems to understand. I certainly understand viruses, as the daughter of a retired CDC epidemiologist,  former USPHS officer myself, married to a 30 year USPHS officer.

I agree with her.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

You are right, it's new.  We actually don't know "how bad" this one is because the data, quite frankly, is like ALL over the place.  

But that really doesn't change the fact that people should generally be allowed to examine the data we DO have and make their own risk determination for themselves.  (I do think this is true for all sorts of risks.)

It depends on what you mean by "make their own risk determination".  We are already doing that.  Some people are masking at the grocery store.  Some are not.  Some are not going out at all.  Some are going out daily.  But the government absolutely has a right to make rules during a public health crisis and your right to make your own risk determination ends if it means breaking those rules because those rules are there to protect all of us. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

And once again I will repeat....I am NOT talking about the public health issues, risk to others, etc etc.  I have said that several times.   I am specifically referring to the idea that SKL wants to just get exposed and get it over with because the likelihood of complications to her and her kids is small.  The risk to her and her kids IS very small.  Most people who get it in their age groups do not have complications.  It's not unreasonable for her to believe the risk is small and to therefore be willing to take that risk.  That's a very separate thing than the public health and disease spread issues.  So, just in case it was missed the other several times I have said it........................I am not referring to the public health and disease spread issues of the concept.  

I'm pretty sure that SKL is 50 or very close to 50.  The risk is not all that small. 

[Sneezyone]

FTR- I'm totally fine with people playing Russian roulette with their own lives, just not with the lives of minors and non-consenting adults. I do think it would be helpful for them to wear a sign advertising their lackadaisical attitude tho so the rest of the populace can exercise their freedom to avoid them too. A #DNR on that sign would also be great for the medical community. If it's not necessary (the DNR), win-win.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Sneezyone

[livetoread]

Seems to me, a 20-25% chance of ending up in the hospital is not low risk. What other activities have that high a risk of hospitalization if you do them over a couple of weeks? It only seems low risk compared to other age groups with higher rates of hospitalization. 
Editing to add I agree with the above 😄. Posting at the same time.

Edited April 20, 2020 by livetoread

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Reasonable is not subject to opinion. Someone else's idea of "reasonable" might be wrong. Someone might decide that wearing a seatbelt is unreasonable but that's against the law and their insurance carrier might not cover them. 

It is hard to determine reasonableness but it is not impossible. 

I believe that reasonable is subject to opinion.  I think it is reasonable to allow my children to walk to the park down the street, other people do not think that is reasonable.  I do not think it is reasonable to ride a bike without a helmet; other people this it is reasonable to do so.  

What is the criterion for determining reasonableness?  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Also based on what we know now, throwing precautions to the wind and willingly exposing yourself to COVID is not reasonable. Too much is unknown about the risks of having COVID. Compare that to willingly exposing yourself to someone with a cold. We know much more about that risk. 

I am definitely not of the mindset that I want to willingly expose myself to COVID.  But, I know I have some college students who say they would, especially if that meant that they could go back to work and on with their life.  They don't see a vaccine on the horizon.  They see that we are beyond a point of eradication.  They see it as simply a matter of time before they get it.  They don't see it as reasonable to just sit around waiting for something that is inevitable to happen,  The costs of waiting to get it are high and the risks associated with getting it at their age are low. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Except it's not....it's take 3 of you who are already showing serious symptoms.  And we already know that most cases aren't even serious enough to be tested.  We *know* this.  

And to the second bolded....my family is already on 2+ weeks of no income.  We got the stimulus, but yeah, 2+ weeks of no income is ALREADY HERE for me and mine.

 

 

Add at least $35,000 to that for the hospital costs of being in the hospital.  

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, I really wish people would stop telling me that like a trump card.

Samesies.

Still able to prioritise public health.

 

Seriously. My uncle was JUST released from a ventilator, not the hospital, after three weeks. He teaches SPED in Seattle. Write him off if you want to. He's valuable.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Doesn't that already happen in many places all the time anyway?  I mean......that's certainly been my experience?

 

No. People do  not typically code/die in hospital hallways. Waiting for care is not death.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

So was my MIL, who died 10 yrs ago, of the flu, back when no one cared about social distancing, masks, gloves, or putting millions of people out of work to save vulnerable populations like her.  No one cared about any of that back then.  But because she didn't hang on 10 more years to be at risk of this, clearly, her death didn't matter as much then as it would have today.  The risks back then were obviously irrelevant.  

 

Yah, no. The difference is the lethality and the lack of therapeutics.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

????

It happens all the time?

 

No. It doesn't. Did you die waiting? Did anyone else while you were there? In your lifetime of ER visits, maybe? This is not normal. It doesn't happen all the time.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

Right, so, we are ONCE AGAIN....right back where we started.  

What level of risk is acceptable.  What level of lethality?  What level of medications?  

Like REALLY ACTUALLY....what is acceptable?  

 

Of course. I think it's very hard for some people to accept, however, that they are NOT on the more common end of the spectrum. This is one of those times. Not that those perspectives are valued, valuable, and necessary to keep our worst impulses in check, but that they are largely unfavored. For myself, I've allowed that maybe INDIVIDUALS should be allowed to lay on the later of doom (while accepting no healthcare). I don't really know how much further I can, personally, go.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes, it does.  I have seen it as my own kid sat on her own stretcher in the hall of a major city hospital waiting for care.  

 

The death was a result of an hours long delaY? I'm so sorry. I don't think that is a common experience tho. That shouldn't have happened. Hopefully triage has improved since then. I've been to the hospital five times with my kids/DH. None of us died waiting. Your assertion is that this happens all the time. This is assertion is unsupported.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Sneezyone

[TCB]

26 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

IOW, you believe that it's ok for government to mandate the actual acceptable risk and that people are incapable of determining it for themselves.  Gotcha.

 

The risk to me not wearing a seatbelt is actualy really low.  First, it's important to remember that seatbelts only mitigate risk, and the ACTUAL risk is the accident itself.  And I take other steps to avoid accidents.  Such as driving very little.  Driving at safe speeds. Following all the laws regarding things like stoplights and so on.  Not driving under the influence or while distracted.  Rarely driving at night.  All of these bring down the risk of the actual accident itself, all the seatbelt does is mitigate the risk *if the accident occurs.*  And certainly an accident *can* still occur.  I can't prevent them all..

But also it's important to note one specific thing I said.  I said "it's easy to do."  Putting a seatbelt on requires approx. 15 seconds of my time and pretty much never has any complications or other issues.  It doesn't require hours of my time for what I determine to be very little actual benefit.

The trouble with this situation though, is that it's not just personal risk that you're taking. If that were so I would be all do whatever you want. You are also imposing risks on others. The risk of passing on the illness. The risk of so many people needing hospital care that no-one gets good care. The risk that the system is so tied up with Covid patients that you suffer or die unnecessarily from  some other illness. We have not been here before in our lifetime.

Take the hospital I work at. We are in the middle of the country and social distancing, or something,  has slowed things down and we can cope with the number we have. We have not lost a single patient yet on our ICU. If the numbers go crazy who knows what will happen. On a personal note, I am 56 years old - that increases my risk, although I am thankful I'm a woman which decreases it somewhat. Every day that I have been at work for the last 3 weeks I have been working on the Covid end of the ICU. The more I'm exposed to the higher the risk for me personally

We have to figure it out so that people can work and not starve but surely there's a way of doing this without adding so much risk.   

[Paige]

When you know that the nurses, doctors, respiratory therapists, EMTs, and even the people who clean your room, take your blood, and do absolutely anything in the hospital don't have the protection they need when they care for patients, and you choose to increase you risk of infection knowing there's on average a 20% chance that you'll need them, you are choosing to risk their lives along with the lives of their families. 

Once they have the equipment they need, it's a different risk calculation- it's back to only putting yourself and immediate family at significant risk. Georgia is opening things up while my nurse friends are wearing homemade masks? It's insanity.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

My kid wasn't the one who passed.  My kid was sitting in the hall with approx 10 other people.  My kid was there for something non communciable.  However, she was in the hall with people with all manner of things, including the man who passed in the stretcher next to her after spending not 1 but more like 4 hours, hacking and couging and alternating that with attempts to "flirt" with the nurses.  My 3 younger children were there and I straight lied to them saying that he was fine and was being taken to his own room.  

 

Ah, again, I'm sorry. I still don't think that's a typical occurrence that happens al the time.

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'll give the same answer I gave you several pages ago - nobody knows. It's too soon to answer that question. 

But it's not a decision that any person can make in a vacuum because our decisions affects others. Again - not a radical concept. That's pretty much the whole idea of public health. What do you affects others. What others affect you. It's not just you or me making a decision about what risk we're comfortable taking. 

What information would you need to know to answer the question "What level of risk is acceptable?"  

I don't see that you need to know particulars about COVID to answer that question.  Whether or not we are at that point with COVID would depend on knowing specifics about COVID.  

[kiwik]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Ah, see, I actually believe that people should be allowed to choose whether or not to wear their seatbelt.  I *only* wear mine because a) it's against the law not to and b) it's not a difficult thing to do.  If wearing my seatbelt meant that I had absolutely no way to pay my bills for 4 to 6 weeks....I wouldn't wear it.  

If you choose not to wear a simple proven safety device should the rest of the country (NZ) be expected to pay for your medical treatment and ACC pay our or in US should your insurance pay out.  Insurance companies expect you to take reasonable care.  So if you deliberately and against advice expose yourself to a virus and need medical care why should your insurance company pay for your care and why should you be given resources that may be needed by someone who caught the virus through no fault of their own?

[TCB]

10 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Because here in the US, we have never ever denied emergency/lifesaving care to people simply because their life choices have put them a greater risk (even very much greater risk) and I should hope we never ever start doing so.  Chemo should never be denied to those who have lung cancer due to those who spent decades smoking, ER services have never been denied to drunk drivers who are critically injured in their single car accident....there is absolutely no reason to ever consider this to be different.  

We do however deny care to people who can't afford it. Think that's not true, I see it all the time at work. I've know diabetics who take insulin that is for animals  because they can't afford the kind made for humans.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Specifically I was addressing these sorts of comments

Of course there is *SOME* risk.  But given that the risk is LOW, it's not unreasonable to presume, given the information we have right now, that SKL and her kids are probably at low risk, and given that, it's not unreasonable for her to decide for herself what risks she is willing to take

Why should she have to be?  Do we deny medical treatment to those in sky diving accidents?  Sky diving is actually pretty low risk, but accidents happen and the people involved in those chose to take the risk.  Should we be denying medical treatment to anyone who takes ANY risk?

Again, why should she have to be?  We have always been ok with medically treating people who engage in low risk activities and end up injured anyway.  What would make this any different?

People who get hurt skydiving don't put their medical care givers and others at risk. 

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

75% to 80% of people who have tested positive for this currently in SKL's age group do not need hospitalizations.

If that's not "low risk" than what is?  It goes right back to the first question...............what level of risk is acceptable?

Seriously? I see people on here saying a vaccine for this would be too high risk, and I am pretty positive we won't be putting a vaccine out that has a 20-25% chance of putting you in the hospital. 

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I am definitely not of the mindset that I want to willingly expose myself to COVID.  But, I know I have some college students who say they would, especially if that meant that they could go back to work and on with their life.  They don't see a vaccine on the horizon.  They see that we are beyond a point of eradication.  They see it as simply a matter of time before they get it.  They don't see it as reasonable to just sit around waiting for something that is inevitable to happen,  The costs of waiting to get it are high and the risks associated with getting it at their age are low. 

Do they realize that by getting infected they also risk spreading it to others who are not as low risk as them?

45 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So was my MIL, who died 10 yrs ago, of the flu, back when no one cared about social distancing, masks, gloves, or putting millions of people out of work to save vulnerable populations like her.  No one cared about any of that back then.  But because she didn't hang on 10 more years to be at risk of this, clearly, her death didn't matter as much then as it would have today.  The risks back then were obviously irrelevant.  

Lots of people care about the flu and precautions regarding it. I know I do. I've posted on here about how irresponsible it is for my neighbor to send her asymptomatic kid over when the other was just diagnosed, and how terrible it is that attendence policies and sick leave mean people are going to work and school with flu, etc. We've had whole conversations about it on here. 

[ktgrok]

So wait, people think the chance of hospitalization for weeks on end, with kids unable to visit, possibly sedated on a ventilator with Covid 19 is low, but the risks of the flu vaccine are high?

[Wheres Toto]

As someone in the 50's age group, with a husband in the 60's age group, a mom in the 70's age group, and a MIL in the 80's age group, 1 in 4/1 in 5 people hospitalized seems like an awful lot to me.  

Even 1 in 4/1 in 5 people showing some symptoms.  How many people are currently showing some form of respiratory symptoms?  I am.  I have bad allergies and seasonal allergies are starting up here.   It's also the tail end of cold and flu season.   All those things are still happening so I would guess that the percentage of people showing some form of respiratory symptoms right now isn't exactly low.  

Edited April 21, 2020 by Where's Toto?
MIL in 80's not 70's

[SKL]

3 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

My DH turns 50 this year.  I have been watching the 50 yr old group closely.  It's fluctuated between 20% and 25% hospitalized, which means 75% to 80% of those symptomatic cases, in Ohio, are not ending up hospitalized.  

That is the hospitalized rate of people testing positive, not the hospitalized % of total people who get the virus in that age group.  Most likely the majority of people who have the virus aren't getting tested, even in my age group.  If half of the people are not sick enough to get tested then the 20% becomes 10%.  If 3/4 of them aren't sick enough to need a test then the 20% becomes 5%.  And the majority of those people are individuals with risk factors I don't have.

We've known for months that a large % of infected people in all age groups are not getting sick enough to need medical attention.

[SKL]

Also - I wonder what all of you will be saying if you find out the vax they come up with has a similar or higher rate of complications for your age group than the virus itself.  Which is really not unlikely under a certain age.

About the novelness of this - there are new strains of the flu every year, which are not covered by the flu vax.  We have never considered that to create an unacceptable risk, even though we know flu kills tens of thousands of people annually even with flu vaxes freely available.  The mindset we are applying to covid is different in a way that is not rational.  I think it's because this is the first time in many of our lives that we were asked to actually think about this.  People don't really talk much about the number of flu deaths or traffic deaths etc.  Or suicides for that matter (which are currently on the rise thanks to the response to this virus).

But my original point which nobody wants to consider is - we are not actually making the world safer by hiding low-risk people from this virus.  We are letting this virus rule our lives and possibly kill more people in the long run.  The obvious fact is that most people are not gonna shelter in place until there is a vax.  Most people can't.  And if most people did, we'd basically all starve.  It doesn't matter that you are doing it because you care about people if the policy actually ends up killing more people.

Flatten the curve means a lot more - probably most - of us are gonna get this before there is a vax.  How long are we gonna lock people up before we are ready to deal with that?  Because deal with it we will.

[Teresa in MO]

My family and I do not get the flu shots. My late dh had to get it because he worked in hospitals.  Until this year, my kids who are in their late teens and early 20's have never gotten the flu.  This year they had type A flu.  I know of families who regularly get the flu shots and seem to come down with the flu every few years.  And I too, do my research as far as vaccines.  No, I do not have medical experience or training.  I have had extensive conversations with my PCP and she is perfectly fine with my educated decision.  I also had conversations with my dc's pediatrician.  Yes, she recommended the flu vaccine, but again she respected my decision.  I was able to give both the reason why I chose not to get the vaccine.  These are two highly respected doctors.  Not every medical doctor agrees that everyone get vaccinated.

[Teresa in MO]

10 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

She's humoring you. Many doctors have given up debating vaccines with their patients. So you tell her about your "research" (based on what exactly?) and she nods her head. It's not worth arguing with you about it. But don't mistake that for agreement with your choice. 

That is a huge assumption on your part. And a false one. You have no idea the conversations that we had, so to make that judgement when you weren't part of those conversations is wrong.  All doctors are not all pro vaccines.  

[Pen]

13 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

This is a weird argument for not getting a flu shot

 

The only time I have gotten flu was after I got a flu shot.  

Vitamin D has worked better for me to avoid getting flu. 

 

https://www.imedpub.com/articles/vitamin-d-or-flu-vaccinebenefits-over-adverse-effects.php?aid=22080

Edited April 21, 2020 by Pen

[Pen]

3 minutes ago, kand said:

Most of the world has been in lockdown, yet still in just a couple months, the number of deaths from covid19 is rivaling annual flu deaths where everyone is going about their normal business. If the world had continued like usual, experts agree the rates of death and hospitalization would be exponentially higher. It’s apples and oranges to compare the number of deaths under lockdown conditions to the number of deaths not under lockdown conditions and say the viruses are equivalent.
 

 

Yes. Thank you. 

3 minutes ago, kand said:

As for suicide rates, I keep hearing people saying this, I can’t help but have noticed that the people saying it are all people who said before this all started that we were going to see a spike in suicides if we close things down. So I just went looking to see if there are any data being published on this yet, and I found a few things. So far Im bit finding that other than people’s speculation and anecdotes that the numbers are going up. Because again, the people saying it are people who were saying that already, when we were just starting to discuss closing things down, so their anecdotal reports aren’t so trustworthy. Almost seems like they’re hoping to be proven right?? I do see stories about calls to suicide hotlines  being up, but not actual suicides.  

https://www.woodtv.com/news/kent-county/suicide-rates-steady-despite-added-stress-of-coronavirus/

https://www.kxly.com/kcso-viral-post-about-idaho-suicide-rates-during-pandemic-are-false/
 

 

 

Well, also, if people tend toward depression, I am not sure whether they would be less depressed to be able to go get their hair colored, or whatever, but then have their neighbors dying.   I would think a lot of deaths would be depressing to people who tend to be depressed. 

 

[SKL]

18 minutes ago, kand said:

Most of the world has been in lockdown, yet still in just a couple months, the number of deaths from covid19 is rivaling annual flu deaths where everyone is going about their normal business. If the world had continued like usual, experts agree the rates of death and hospitalization would be exponentially higher. It’s apples and oranges to compare the number of deaths under lockdown conditions to the number of deaths not under lockdown conditions and say the viruses are equivalent.
 

As for suicide rates, I keep hearing people saying this, I can’t help but have noticed that the people saying it are all people who said before this all started that we were going to see a spike in suicides if we close things down. So I just went looking to see if there are any data being published on this yet, and I found a few things. So far Im bit finding that other than people’s speculation and anecdotes that the numbers are going up. Because again, the people saying it are people who were saying that already, when we were just starting to discuss closing things down, so their anecdotal reports aren’t so trustworthy. Almost seems like they’re hoping to be proven right?? I do see stories about calls to suicide hotlines  being up, but not actual suicides.  

https://www.woodtv.com/news/kent-county/suicide-rates-steady-despite-added-stress-of-coronavirus/

https://www.kxly.com/kcso-viral-post-about-idaho-suicide-rates-during-pandemic-are-false/
 

 

A fellow boardie is a first responder who says that attempted suicide calls are far higher than she's ever seen them.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Because here in the US, we have never ever denied emergency/lifesaving care to people simply because their life choices have put them a greater risk (even very much greater risk) and I should hope we never ever start doing so.  Chemo should never be denied to those who have lung cancer due to those who spent decades smoking, ER services have never been denied to drunk drivers who are critically injured in their single car accident....there is absolutely no reason to ever consider this to be different.  

 

Injured drunk drivers don’t especially put the medical staff at risk.  

So it is different. 

 

[Pen]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Risk factor to health care workers is different (ie blood borne things vs respiratory things.)

Difference in *ACTUAL* treatment and/or denial of treatment, not so much.  

Or, are you actually saying that because someone chose to drink and drive, that ER folks should have the choice of treating that person when they come in on the ambulance?  Generally, most people in the US choose to have the person treated in the ER, even if the reason that person ended up there is because they drank a 5th of vodka and smashed their car into a tree.  

 

I’m saying there aren’t doctors isolating in tents in their garages because of treating drunk drivers.

There’s no particular likelihood that my nephews may end up orphans because of their parents needing to treat drunk drivers. 

Drunk drivers are a big risk to other drivers   pedestrians, and can get criminal penalties for drunk driving.

I think people violating SIP orders are also putting other people potentially at risk (medical workers included but not exclusive to whom is put at risk) and should be likewise subject to substantial civil and criminal penalties.  

I don’t have a lot of compassion for people violating SIP or Stay Safe type regulations.  They can voice their complaints and petition for redress of grievances by means that don’t require crowds 

 

[SKL]

As far as not deserving medical treatment, nearly anyone who has Covid19 right now (other than people in nursing homes and medical staff / first responders) has it because of choices they made.  So that's really not relevant.  We do need to make sure medical folks have protective equipment and aren't overworked.

Where I live, they have shut down hospitals and sent a lot of our medical people to help with outbreaks elsewhere.  Clearly they have capacity.

[SKL]

So what is the actual proposal for preventing the spread between now and the time a safe vax is available?

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

 

About the novelness of this - there are new strains of the flu every year, which are not covered by the flu vax.  We have never considered that to create an unacceptable risk, even though we know flu kills tens of thousands of people annually even with flu vaxes freely available.  The mindset we are applying to covid is different in a way that is not rational.  I think it's because this is the first time in many of our lives that we were asked to actually think about this.  People don't really talk much about the number of flu deaths or traffic deaths etc.  Or suicides for that matter (which are currently on the rise thanks to the response to this virus).

 

1. This virus is killing, in about a month, the same number of people as a full flu season, even with social distancing and lockdown. So different. also more contagious, so different. 

2. Where on earth do you live, and who do you associate with, and what news do you consume, that people don't talk about those things? Traffic deaths are nightly news. Flu deaths and flu cases and how best to avoid the flu are discussed on the news during flu season and a common topic of conversation. Suicide is something that has been discusses a lot in recent years, including here on this board. Books are written on it, the increase recently was discussed over and over again. 

[hopeallgoeswell]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

You think someone who has been vaccinated poses the exact same risk as someone who hasn't?

"Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Vaccination was not associated with coarse-aerosol or NP shedding (P > 0.10). The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A (P = 0.03) but not for influenza B (P = 0.83) infections (Table S4)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5798362/

 

[kiwik]

4 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok, so this is where we will likely have a fundamental difference and probably why you will never consider those who think differently that you on this subject as reasonable.

Because you believe in "benevolent betters."  Obviously, there are more people who aren't smart enough to think for themselves so the government has to do it for them.  And I simply do not believe it that.  

Which doesn't make me stupid, just someone who has a very fundamentally different belief about people and human nature.  

I am one those people who has tended my whole life to question instructions and not assumee others know better because they are in authority.  The exceptions to this are emergency situations.  If the guy with the jaws of life says to stay still, the firefighter says jump or the ministry of health says to stay home I do because there is s time and place for trusting that experts do know better.  Now it helps that the person running the show is calm and consistent and authoritative but I think all of our Prime Ministers have been reasonably rational.

[kiwik]

I have a solution though.  People who want to get the virus can pay to stay in a hotel for 6 weeks.  During that time they can be exposed.  If they get the virus and recover they can be marked in some way (fluorescent semi permanent in on their forehead ?).  This will allow them to associate with other marked people. If they don't survive they will get their fees refunded to pay for burial.  Any medical will be provided upon payment. The hotel will be guarded by armed guards with orders to shoot escapees.  

On a serious note at this point we are not sure whether having had it confers immunity and if so for how long.

Edited April 21, 2020 by kiwik

[linders]

8 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Because here in the US, we have never ever denied emergency/lifesaving care to people simply because their life choices have put them a greater risk (even very much greater risk) and I should hope we never ever start doing so.  Chemo should never be denied to those who have lung cancer due to those who spent decades smoking, ER services have never been denied to drunk drivers who are critically injured in their single car accident....there is absolutely no reason to ever consider this to be different.  

Yesterday, DH and a long-time friend who is a libertarian had this discussion (on speaker phone) for two hours. Friend lives in Seattle and thinks all the shutdown rules violate his civil rights (he is retired and well-to-do...the shutdown is not affecting his income, just his ability to go out.) DH firmly believes (as do I) that we all have a responsibility to take actions to protect the whole community, so it was a really fun discussion.

Friend said he has the right to choose to  get exposed - when he gets sick and is hospitalized, that is on him, and he (or his insurance) should pay all healthcare costs. And everyone else should have the same choice with the same consequences. Essential workers? Healthcare workers? They "chose" those professions, so same logic. People without insurance? They should have "chosen" better jobs for better insurance.

The discussion devolved to motorcycle helmet laws (if you choose to go without a helmet and are in accident with head injuries, you have tacitly agreed to no medical care), seatbelt laws, lifestyle choices, even your choice to have children (you want children, you pay for their education). There was absolutely no recognition of the community good.

[linders]

We live in SC, just across the border from Georgia, and usually with travel there often (the closest Costco, Whole Foods). Can't wait to see how the Georgia "reopen now" experiment  pans out. Hard to imagine how hair and nail salons, massage therapists, etc will maintain social distancing. I can see a way to do so theoretically at theaters - sit every 3rd or 4th seat, every 2nd or 3rd row - but doubt theaters will enforce such rules and that it will be cost-effective for theater owners.

Planning to skip Georgia for a while, although I fully expect our own governor to follow suit soon. 😬

[Pawz4me]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

 

About the novelness of this - there are new strains of the flu every year, which are not covered by the flu vax

I'm not yet fully caffeinated, and I've only been lightly skimming this thread. But I believe the above is false and equating two totally different things. I do NOT think there are new (novel) strains of flu every year. The last time we had that was in 2009-2010 with H1N1. There are known strains of flu that circulate every year that aren't covered by that year's vaccine, due to the vaccine needing to be formulated months in advance.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, linders said:

Yesterday, DH and a long-time friend who is a libertarian had this discussion (on speaker phone) for two hours....

There was absolutely no recognition of the community good.

And this is why I don't hang out with libertarians. But hey, I keep meaning to  get one of those, "Hate Socialism? Buy your own road!" bumper stickers so they probably don't want to hang out with me either. 

[ktgrok]

Regarding low risk, it is important we realize that "not dead" and even "not hospitalized" doesn't equal "not a big deal" or "safe". 

We don't know yet the long term damage this virus does. But given that it appears to cause everything from neurological complications to kidney and liver damage to vascular problems, AND that it can cause serious pnuemonia without actual symptoms of shortness of breath (potentially meaning long term lung damage) is seems unwise to assume tht someone who thinks they are doing fine is actually doing fine. 

For that matter, we think people under 20 do really well. But do we know that kids  are not going to have cognitive delays from the neurological effects or that teens are not going to have permanent but asymptomatic kidney or lung damage? We don't. We can't know that yet. So as much as people say, "oh, I don't think it is safe to get a vaccine that hasn't been studied long enough" that goes double for the virus. We don't know yet, and people saying they hope they get exposed are, I believe, operating on the news reports that this is not serious in young people. But we don't know that, not when you talk about hidden damage. Sort of the same argument they give about vaccines. Except moreso. 

[Pam in CT]

double post

Edited April 21, 2020 by Pam in CT

[Matryoshka]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

Perhaps they could work sans PPE in a nursing home wing  where those with the virus are quarantined.  At least some good will come out of it before they need a hospital bed and, if they are in the twenty percent who live, follow on care for life for the lung damage.

That sounds like quite a practical idea. With so many carers already out sick, they could use willing volunteers.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Pam in CT]

9 hours ago, kiwik said:

I have a solution though.  People who want to get the virus can pay to stay in a hotel for 6 weeks.  During that time they can be exposed.  If they get the virus and recover they can be marked in some way (fluorescent semi permanent in on their forehead ?).  This will allow them to associate with other marked people. If they don't survive they will get their fees refunded to pay for burial.  Any medical will be provided upon payment. The hotel will be guarded by armed guards with orders to shoot escapees.  

On a serious note at this point we are not sure whether having had it confers immunity and if so for how long.

This.

This is what ALL our hopes to return to anything even vaguely approximating normal hinge upon.

Whether you believe the best way to get there is by rapid mass exposure, near term deaths and long term pulmonary damage be damned... or whether you believe the better way to get there is to keep things dialed back to something approximating wartime-hardship conditions until a viable vaccine is deployed at scale...

Makes.No.Difference.

"Herd immunity" via get-it-over-with widespread exposure, or "herd immunity" via orderly management until there's a vaccine -- EITHER WAY.  Will depend. On whether or not immunity holds. Which is not yet clear.

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Pam in CT

[TechWife]

13 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, the insurance companies do (which is a huge ultra mega gigantic problem....most my my opninions of which don't belong in this thead.  Suffice to say that you won't find much disagreement from me on this point.  It's just a different point.)

Even so, I am pretty sure it's the law that emergency life saving treatment in the emergency room is never denied due to ability to pay and certainly never ever due to "life choices."

You are correct about emergency treatment not being denied. However, “life saving treatment” is denied all the time - insulin, some surgeries, cancer treatments, transplants, medication - the list goes on.  All can dependent upon the person’s ability to pay. So, that is something for you to think about before you decide it’s okay for you to intentionally put yourself and others at risk for an illness known to cause permanent lung damage. 

10 minutes ago, TechWife said:

You are correct about emergency treatment not being denied. However, “life saving treatment” is denied all the time - insulin, some surgeries, cancer treatments, transplants, medication - the list goes on.  

 

Exactly!  For example, most hospitals won't offer a lung transplant to a patient who still smokes.

[Jaybee]

20 hours 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. "If everyone is going to stay home anyway because they are so scared..."

Bolding mine--I have seen this so much in the area where I live, and it really really bugs me. I'm not "scared," so much as I just want to be wise, and sensible, and loving to my fellowman, etc. But I've heard the "those who are scared can stay home" statement more than once, and it irritates the living daylights out of me! (Sorry, not sorry, kind of gets me on my high horse!)