Jump to content

Menu

Is the goal FLATTEN THE CURVE or ELIMINATE COVID?


Ottakee
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

The lawn furniture factory would potentially be deemed essential here.  There’s a very liberal definition of essential going on.

 

Here too.  

We never had very full closures. 

I think some people are in places where there really were more full closures, but I also hear people complain about things having to close down and the horrible economic burden of it, when that thing isn’t closed at all. 

 

i

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

In SA? 

Yep, not allowed in NSW, unless you already have 9 other people in your household.

Yep.  I was trying to remember the exact wording.  The federal government gave “directions” re social distancing and no more than two people but the state decided police wouldn’t enact the directions unless the situation got worse.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Our numbers are in single digits each day, is the difference. 

And the states that are opening up a little now have had only 1 each day, or 0.

But I absolutely hear you on the lack of trust.

 

 

That’s the bigger reason you may be relatively okay going back to work. Even with lack of trust. Australia really does seem to have its situation hugely improved. Under control. 

But Georgia in USA isn’t in that sort of situation.  It had some 10 times as many new cases yesterday as all of Australia, and has 10 times the cases per 1000 population — known about.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I can't imagine what states, towns, countries - whatever, wherever - are thinking of by having sudden re-openings before they have the virus at suppression levels.

I’m fortunate in that my officials aren’t looking to go that route, but many citizens are mad about it.

My governor put out his plan for county qualifications. My county is at more than 3x that checkpoint despite weeks and weeks of “life sustaining only” orders. But, hey, what do giant teams of professionals know better than the average Joe?

(For whatever it’s worth, I happen to be a naturally critical skeptic of all types of authority. But my head isn’t so far up there that I don’t know when I’m out of my depth.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I understand that but this is happening right now. The Fed did this in 2008 and they are doing it again now. The Fed is buying securities but not paying what they are actually worth. 

There is also the issue of some states paying more in federal taxes than their citizens get back in federal services. So how does the State of California "run out of money" when its citizens pay more in federal taxes than its citizens actually get back from the federal government. 

ETA - the Fed is printing money but it's making choices in how to allocate that money. Why are they making those choices? Could they allocate that money differently? In 2008 and now, corporate losses are socialized but profit is not. Why is that? What does money mean (and I know that sounds stupid) when corporate losses are socialized? 

The Federal Reserve is not allowed, by law, to print money and then allocate it by giving it to people.  Government spending choices are made elected officials (Congress and the President). the Federal Reserve is a separate entity than the U.S. Treasury. 

The Federal Reserve is entering into some unusual transactions that are reserved for emergency times.   These emergency operations are meant to stabilize financial markets (as opposed to stimulate the economy).  So, the Federal Reserve, in cooperation with the US Treasury has set up a Primary Market and a Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility, through which investment grade corporate bonds may be purchased;  this is only authorized through September 30, 2020.  With the secondary market  facility, the purchase price would be based upon current market price that all other purchases are paying for those bonds.  For the primary market purchases, the bond prices will be "informed by market conditions"--which means that they should be comparable to other bond prices in the market place; in addition, the company issuing those bonds has to pay a 1% fee to the Federal Reserve for the right to use this service.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

There will be ways the economy shifts as what people want to purchase shifts, but that will not protect the economy from faltering.  Much of what your seeing as changes, such as restaurants marketing their takeout more (most already had takeout), are at the retail delivery level.  While those are the parts of the economy we come in contact with during our day-to-day life, and what has been most visible to us as we have had to change our daily lives, much of the economic activity occurs before retail sales to customer.  

If the lawn furniture company cannot have its production line running, it does not matter of people would spend money on lawn furniture rather than going on a vacation this summer, the lawn furniture will not be available.  The lawn furniture company cannot have its workers in its production facility.  The lawn furniture company cannot get a new machine to make its furniture because the machine maker cannot have its workers in its facility.  In order to make more lawn furniture the company has to buy a new factory, but what bank is going to lend money during an economic recession?  What company is going to expand at a time of economic uncertainty?  Added risk makes it hard for companies to attract the capital they need.  

This is a very valid point, although the skeptic in me says we don't buy american made furniture anyway, lol. 

But even still, there are the distribution centers, warehouses, etc. 

We could, however, prioritize testing and PPE for these places, and I see them opening up sooner than some other things. Same with meat packing plants, etc. I'm much more worried about those things than the local beauty salon, from a societal point. But I fear that opening them up (the ones that closed) won't fix the problem, because what was shut down to prevent illness could be shut down due to illness - like what we see in the meat packing plant. 

45 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Here too.  

We never had very full closures. 

I think some people are in places where there really were more full closures, but I also hear people complain about things having to close down and the horrible economic burden of it, when that thing isn’t closed at all. 

 

i

Right, seeing a lot of that. There is confusion as to what was mandated by the government to shut down, versus what shut down due to lack of PPE or other supplies, versus what shut down due to illness. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

There will be ways the economy shifts as what people want to purchase shifts, but that will not protect the economy from faltering.  Much of what your seeing as changes, such as restaurants marketing their takeout more (most already had takeout), are at the retail delivery level.  While those are the parts of the economy we come in contact with during our day-to-day life, and what has been most visible to us as we have had to change our daily lives, much of the economic activity occurs before retail sales to customer.  

If the lawn furniture company cannot have its production line running, it does not matter of people would spend money on lawn furniture rather than going on a vacation this summer, the lawn furniture will not be available.  The lawn furniture company cannot have its workers in its production facility.  The lawn furniture company cannot get a new machine to make its furniture because the machine maker cannot have its workers in its facility.  In order to make more lawn furniture the company has to buy a new factory, but what bank is going to lend money during an economic recession?  What company is going to expand at a time of economic uncertainty?  Added risk makes it hard for companies to attract the capital they need.  

Even if the lawn furniture company is producing its product, customers who have lost jobs... customers who fear losing their jobs... customers who have had a pay cut... customers who have jobs but are digging out from the debt accrued while they were unemployed... customers who just feel terribly insecure about their economic future... probably aren't going to be in the market for lawn furniture or much of anything else anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re Mandated closures vs closures for other reasons

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

...There is confusion as to what was mandated by the government to shut down, versus what shut down due to lack of PPE or other supplies, versus what shut down due to illness. 

Right.

CT still, sigh, hasn't peaked.  My own county (the closest to NYC) appears to have peaked, but transmission has moved north, and as a whole state (we are a TINY state) we still haven't peaked.  Here is a nice summary of the several orders in place. (a great many of which aim to expand unemployment, Medicaid coverage, rent protection and other safety net elements; others to allow for non-physical court appearances for non-criminal and some criminal proceedings, to postpone our primary back to August, to impose mandatory reporting on nursing homes and other non-hospital medical providers, and to ensure safe labor precautions in still-open essential businesses... so not about CLOSURE per se).  

  1. Mandated closures:  The schools and non-essential businesses are mandated to stay closed through May 20.  (All the districts in my own county, as well as my daughter's private school and all other private schools that I know in the area, have closed through the end of the year, but that is (at this point) a judgment by local/school officials, not a mandate.)  
  2. Pullbacks by medical providers due to lack of testing/PPE: The state has made no effort to designate what medical procedures are "essential" vs postponable; that discretion has been left to hospitals and practices.  Many professionals able to serve the COVID crisis have redirected to do so (see H, below).  Providers of some non-COVID services have carried on, but with tremendous angst that they're transmitting COVID and, often, at the personal cost of an inability to live with their families due to concerns about transmission (see S, below).  Many providers of services *they* (not the state) deem as postponable have opted to close, not because they're mandated to do so but because, in the absence of regular fast-turnaround testing and PPE, to open would mean they could not live with their families (see E, below).  That's not the state mandating closure, that's the lack of testing and PPE effecting closure.
  3. Businesses whose labor force is swept by illness:  High-profile sudden onset closures in crucial supply chain centers like Smithfield have shut down because the virus swept through the labor force.  Those closures are directly attributable to ILLNESS.
  4. Businesses recognizing, on their own, that demand for their product or services has collapsed: Restaurants maintaining the stepped-up workplace safety precautions to protect employees are free to deliver or do curbside or otherwise innovate to sell toilet paper and produce along with prepared meals... and some are so adapting, some of them with remarkable agility and imagination. But many others are judging that even though they CAN operate, the demand is too weak to make it profitable.

The state government could change #1 by edict: but that is a tiny percentage of the whole state economy.  The state government has much more work and far less leverage over #2; the state government has no influence whatsoever on #3, and #4 ultimately is an effect of the public's willingness to sally forth.  Sadly, it will be a very long time before *this family* re-engages in activities we very much love, like in-person movies and theater, traveling to distant locations, baseball games.  

 

True Stories dispatched from the medical profession:

On the pulmonary frontline: Our friend H is a pulmonary specialist with a practice affiliated with hospitals in both Stamford and NYC.  Ordinarily his practice specializes in cystic fibrosis, but in the early weeks of COVID he shifted full-time to the NYC hospital doing COVID work full-time.  In those early weeks all providers doing any hospital care without remotely adequate PPE, everyone treating COVID patients *knew* full well they were at risk both of contracting COVID and of transmitting it throughout the rest of the hospital and bringing it home to their families. H stayed at the vacant NY apartment of a friend so as not to infect his family.  Meanwhile his wife G, also a physician with the CF practice, attempted to hold it together by telemedicine consults since the LAST thing they wanted already-immunocompromised CF patients to do was to COME INTO A HOSPITAL where they would, at that point with certainty given the absolute lack of PPE for non-COVID patients, contract it.  

Six weeks later, the Stamford hospital has sufficient PPE, and the NYC hospital with whom they're affiliated has sufficient fast-result tests, that G is considering opening the Stamford practice one day a week to see patients.  If so, she AND her nurse AND each patient will need to be tested upon arrival in their cars, wait ~20 minutes for results, walk briskly and with spacing through a separate entrance.  She will have to oversee, herself personally, substantially stepped-up sanitation procedures at the end of each open day. She will have to manage, herself, all billing and insurance issues that arise (which she's already largely done during the telemedicine interval since her work has become so far removed from the ordinary hospital back office).

H has moved upstate to provide his services to a hospital there; as the case surge has shifted.  He's staying in a hotel near the hospital, which has devoted a full floor to medical providers They haven't laid eyes on each other for weeks.

 

On the oncology frontline: Our friend S is an oncology physician with a practice affiliated with the same hospital in Stamford and a different hospital system in NYC.  The second week of March his partner fell ill with COVID.  In those early days the hospital networks had not yet developed their own tests; S got a test on the basis of his direct contact with a confirmed case, but had to wait 5-7 days for results.  Having worked side-by-side with his partner, he had to presume he too was carrying COVID.  It's an oncology practice: all their patients are immunocompromised. As his partner lay in a COVID bed, and neither testing nor PPE was available for those without known contact with known cases, S decided to give his staff the option of continuing to work and to inform all their patients in both NYC and CT that S was unconfirmed but likely to be carrying, and that patients could choose between continuing treatment or suspending.  Well, cancer is fatal too: many patients who were already IN treatment rounds opted to continue.  Those who had been getting treatment in NY had to come up to CT and stay in a hotel near the hospital. S and many other hospital staff stayed there as well on another designated floor so they did not transmit back to their families. Although patients who had not yet started treatment rounds mostly opted to defer starting, for weeks S -- who somehow managed not to contract COVID -- managed the caseload alone of what had been four doctors spread over two locations.

Six weeks later, his NYC-centered partners are back to the practice after their ER deployments, but their sick partner is still slowly recuperating and unable to resume work.  Although S works in the same CT hospital as H, he's in a different research hospital network; and unlike H he (still) does not have sufficient quick-result tests to test every patient for COVID before entering the building. (This is a quirk/ failure of the system.) So although he's operating a limited practice and seeing a scaled-back number of patients to whom he laboriously attempts to describe the risks, and although his (skeletal) staff get tested every morning and mostly have PPE as they directly work with patients, there's sufficient exposure in the general hospital environment, and sufficient unknown about transmission, and a sufficiently immunocompromised person living in his household that he's imposed a sort of middle-ground half-isolation protocol with his family: he's moved back into the house, but he's limiting himself to an in-law apartment with a separate entrance and half-kitchen and bathroom.  His wife prepares him a dinner that she leaves in the foyer, and they sort of wave at each other as he's in the driveway.  They haven't touched each other in weeks.

 

On the dental frontline:  My dentist E, whom I adore, has a solo practice with one hygienist and one business manager, in a stand-alone building. Her practice has been entirely closed for the duration, not by mandate but by her own discretion based on exposure risk, financial/liability risk, and the needs of her own and her two staff members' families; with dental emergencies referred to a larger practice associated with a hospital with surgical capability.

She has two small children, whose schools are closed until the end of the year. She has no access to fast-result testing and insufficient PPE for DENTAL WORK entailing literally hours of patients literally opening their mouths and breathing onto their providers. Opening would require not only that she expose her patients to the risk of exposure from one another, but also her family and her longtime employees (Iwho, also, have children). It is not knowable what kind of stepped-up sanitation protocols would actually sterilize tools and chair and bathroom between patients.   There are liability concerns which are, at this point, also not answerable. 

She has not been closed by mandate.  She's been closed by the nature of the virus.

She cannot be opened by mandate either.

Edited by Pam in CT
omitted words
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Here is the thing. We currently still have a need for food, shelter, medical care, etc The things money buys. 

We have less of a market right now for certain things, like eating out, sports, theater, etc. Some of the things, like eating out, are somewhat balanced by buying more groceries and more take out, etc. Others, like sports, theater, etc don't have a current equivalent that fits with social distancing. But is that money/spending that goes away or does it move to some other area - people buying better home theater equipment, home gym equipment, nicer furniture since they are home more, yard projects, etc? Which leads to a shift in the jobs that are available?

And other things, like retail shopping for clothes, etc there is still a need for, but we haven't found a way to do it yet. Some is shifting online, but we will need to shift more before all is said and done. 

So...I wonder, if left to itself, could the things people spend money on, and how they spend it, shift in such a way that the economy changes, rather than faltering? Not quickly, not overnight, but it is an interesting question (to me, anyway). That said, I'd rather it be a thought experiment than one I live through!

 

13 hours ago, regentrude said:

I doubt it, because many of these things people can't spend money on now are things that satisfy the human craving for communal experiences. Drinking beer alone sitting on fancy new patio furniture is no substitute for hanging out at the pub with friends.  Watching a recorded play in one's great expensive home theater is not a substitute for the experience of a live performance at community theater.  
I do not think that the human need to spend time with other people sharing a variety of experiences can be satisfied by purchasing more stuff. 

Which is also why restaurants offering takeout and selling groceries is a drop in the bucket for the owners, since good restaurants are about so much more than just the food. The places that do that here have let go of almost all staff; it's just enough to help the owners a bit - but it is not an alternative business model.

While I agree that stuff can't replace human contact, people around here seem to be willing to try.   I'm seeing a lot of people buying outdoor toys and furniture, putting in pools, buying furniture or tvs or sound systems, getting new subscriptions for online services, etc.    Many of our restaurants seem to be doing a fairly brisk business with curb side delivery.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just checked and our state dental authority has mandated the shutdowns except for emergencies.  The word "mandated" is used in our practice's voice mail greeting.  I understand it's because the state doesn't want dental offices or other "non-emergency" practices using PPE that could be saved for COVID19.  Of course most of the things they need for COVID19 are not used for routine dental visits, but I guess masks might be an issue temporarily.

I called Saturday because my daughter's spacer is now cutting into her cheek and causing pain.  (This child has a very high pain tolerance, so if she says it hurts, it hurts.)  So far no call back.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

While I agree that stuff can't replace human contact, people around here seem to be willing to try.   I'm seeing a lot of people buying outdoor toys and furniture, putting in pools, buying furniture or tvs or sound systems, getting new subscriptions for online services, etc.    Many of our restaurants seem to be doing a fairly brisk business with curb side delivery.

yes, but I was responding to the suggestion that this would cause an actual shift in the economy and a shift in jobs. I see the above as, hopefully, a short term thing. Of course people , at the moment, buy stuff to make things bearable. But I do not see home entertainment as a long term replacement for live theater, and I don't think we'll see actors and opera singers retraining to lay patio pavement and dig pools.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re extent to which non-life-threatening medical services are mandated to be closed vs discretion left to medical providers

12 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well I just checked and our state dental authority has mandated the shutdowns except for emergencies.  The word "mandated" is used in our practice's voice mail greeting.  I understand it's because the state doesn't want dental offices or other "non-emergency" practices using PPE that could be saved for COVID19.  Of course most of the things they need for COVID19 are not used for routine dental visits, but I guess masks might be an issue temporarily.

I called Saturday because my daughter's spacer is now cutting into her cheek and causing pain.  (This child has a very high pain tolerance, so if she says it hurts, it hurts.)  So far no call back.

Yes, different states are handling these issues differently.

The issue remains that even practitioners who are *permitted* to open -- like here -- may well choose *not* to open, because they do not *want* to expose other patients, or because liability unknowns loom large, or because opening up would entail increased costs on themselves for PPE and stepped-up sanitation protocols, or because opening would entail increased cost/ elapsed time/ privacy issues on their patients for testing, or because they do not want to expose their own families, or because their own children/ those of their staff are out of school and need to be cared for.  Getting the dentists open again is not simply a matter of lifting a mandate.  Here in CT there isn't a mandate yet the non-emergency dentists are nonetheless still mostly closed.

There is no Back to Normal! switch.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2020 at 10:12 PM, kdsuomi said:

I'm actually not in charge, so what I would like doesn't matter. I also didn't say long term. This is not sustainable even in the short term at this point since it's already been a month. The problem is that some people won't listen to any possible idea. 

Well give an idea or two and I’ll listen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, regentrude said:

yes, but I was responding to the suggestion that this would cause an actual shift in the economy and a shift in jobs. I see the above as, hopefully, a short term thing. Of course people , at the moment, buy stuff to make things bearable. But I do not see home entertainment as a long term replacement for live theater, and I don't think we'll see actors and opera singers retraining to lay patio pavement and dig pools.

Defining “short term” is an important aspect there.  If a theater or opera house doesn’t have enough goers to survive the next... what do you think? Year?  Well, then they either need “artificial” support or face closing and needing to rebuild nearly from scratch at some point beyond that. Or even remain closed. And their performers will need to eat all the while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Several companies told Reuters the software will be crucial to staying open as concerns about COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the virus, persist around the world. It will allow them to show not only workers and customers, but also insurers and regulators, that they are monitoring and enforcing safe practices.

Companies bet on AI cameras to track social distancing, limit liability

Interesting. In a capitalist society like ours, it comes down to money. Systems like this are a cheap way to reduce liability. They could also ease the fears of potential customers so could be attractive to businesses who want to re-open. 

Of course this raises significant privacy concerns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been thinking more about the question in the title of this thread.

I don’t see how anyone can be thinking we can eliminate Covid. It is way too far gone for us now, so those 2 aims aren’t really what we are disagreeing about in my opinion.

What we aren’t agreeing about is what is the best course of action now. And honestly I don’t think we can know for sure what is the best thing to do next.

It seems to me that the 2 sides appear to be, 1. proceed with caution,  2. go back to how things were before. Not saying that those are what everyone is arguing here - just that to me that is what it feels like near me.

In my neck of the woods there seems to be 2 things driving the ‘Go back to how things were before’ group:

1. Inability to see that this is unlike anything we have experienced in our lifetimes - some are unable to comprehend or accept that they cannot be informed by their previous experience. So they apply their previous experience - “this is just like the flu” - and think all that we’re doing is ridiculous and unnecessary.

2. Their political view/belief about the virus. 
 

Again this is how it seems where I am. As I wrote that 2nd point I again had a moment of disbelief that it is possible to have a political ‘belief’ about a virus - but that is absolutely what is going on in my area.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

This is one of the things that actually confuses me, though!  Well, maybe confused isn’t the right word, but still.

So a doctor from Hospital A, a nurse from Hospital B, a cashier from a grocery store, a chef from a restaurant, a daycare worker, a nursing home janitor, a meat packing plant worker, an EMT, a delivery driver, and food pantry volunteer are “allowed” to get together for a party, bringing or taking home whatever exposure is involved to all their families.

Or my very locked down family of 6 can hike with a very locked down family of 4, and that’s considered equal.

Look, I know that so much of this is going to come down to the idea of trusting other people’s risk assessment. The thing is, I don’t.

The set up is hard to explain, but my community uses group postal boxes in bunches.  Our regular mail is in our outer ring of little boxes, but most parcel boxes are on the inside of the group.  While our mail carrier is there, the inside is roped off so people can’t get go inside while she’s doing her thing.  Makes sense.
I couldn’t get my package yesterday because the inside was roped off. Okay. Meanwhile, two old guys were standing outside the ropes, within less than 2 feet of the mail carrier, chatting her up, all 3 unmasked.   Sure, they obeyed the ropes, but definitely not the spirit of them!

Meanwhile, the neighbors to one side and across the street have both had relatives from NY in and out every weekend.

My trust level is WAY low.

 

 

 

I so agree. The truth is mandates are a poor substitute for rational thinking.

It makes more sense for us to visit our close friends who have 7 kids but we are both pretty isolated. I've went to Costco once and ordered pick up and DH works from home. They have had a few things too but for the most part self isolate. Any one of us who visits any one of their children exposes our whole family anyway. 4  adults working in 4 different work places or living with different families etc has more opportunity to spread than our two families getting together. Though since we have had only a couple of cases a day (0 on Saturday!) Our 14 people would make it look like a giant spike. 😳

 

When people talk about Sweden they usually fail to realize what the poster above stated that the vast majority changed without being forced to change. Even with mandates and rules a large number of Americans can't change. I don't know where that leaves us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I actually have put out ideas,  based on what I know done places are doing, and those have been soundly kicked away. Seeing as any idea that isn't stay closed until it's gone gets characterized as wanting to kill Grandma and high risk people (when that includes almost my entire family and also me) around here, no more ideas will be put out. 

See I can see what you are saying that you are being mis- characterized and I get that that isn’t nice, but you are also mis-characterizing some of us because I don’t think the second part of your statement and probably many others don’t either.

I think the idea of allowing some people to be classified as vulnerable is a good one - I think you suggested that - it is worth considering how this can be practically done though.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TCB said:

I’ve been thinking more about the question in the title of this thread.

I don’t see how anyone can be thinking we can eliminate Covid. It is way too far gone for us now, so those 2 aims aren’t really what we are disagreeing about in my opinion.

What we aren’t agreeing about is what is the best course of action now. And honestly I don’t think we can know for sure what is the best thing to do next.

It seems to me that the 2 sides appear to be, 1. proceed with caution,  2. go back to how things were before. Not saying that those are what everyone is arguing here - just that to me that is what it feels like near me.

In my neck of the woods there seems to be 2 things driving the ‘Go back to how things were before’ group:

1. Inability to see that this is unlike anything we have experienced in our lifetimes - some are unable to comprehend or accept that they cannot be informed by their previous experience. So they apply their previous experience - “this is just like the flu” - and think all that we’re doing is ridiculous and unnecessary.

2. Their political view/belief about the virus. 
 

Again this is how it seems where I am. As I wrote that 2nd point I again had a moment of disbelief that it is possible to have a political ‘belief’ about a virus - but that is absolutely what is going on in my area.

Same. And that will cause me to be more cautious about my/our own activities. Because I cannot trust people to have common sense about it, take things slowly, and/or respect my boundaries, I will have to be slower to participate in activities due to knowing people are going to act just like they used to, with no regard for any changes in our environment.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Well I just checked and our state dental authority has mandated the shutdowns except for emergencies.  The word "mandated" is used in our practice's voice mail greeting.  I understand it's because the state doesn't want dental offices or other "non-emergency" practices using PPE that could be saved for COVID19.  Of course most of the things they need for COVID19 are not used for routine dental visits, but I guess masks might be an issue temporarily.

I called Saturday because my daughter's spacer is now cutting into her cheek and causing pain.  (This child has a very high pain tolerance, so if she says it hurts, it hurts.)  So far no call back.

Masks, face shields, gloves, and disinfectants, for sure. 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Loowit said:

In my personal experience, a lot of medical procedures including biopsies for cancer are getting put off, especially those that aren't deemed to be as life threatening if caught later.  My DH is awaiting a biopsy right now, and it won't happen for the foreseeable future until things start opening up again.  I think they are guessing it is likely a slower growing cancer, because often it would be, but they don't know for sure without a biopsy.  So they are playing the odds.  I am very angry about it.

They are shutting down clinics and minimizing staff to preserve PPE for covid patients, while those with potential cancer are told to just wait at home and hope for the best and they are sorry.  I worry about how many people will get diagnosed with a later stage of cancer than needed to be because of this.  How many future cancer deaths will be caused by the pandemic and lack of medical care.

I’m really sorry this is happening to you - it must be extremely nerve-wracking! 
Our hospital is opening up these things again now so hopefully he will get the treatment he needs very soon.

A huge complication of this pandemic has been the shortage of PPE. I’m sure that has caused deaths and illness that could have been avoided.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to giving vulnerable doctors notes- That sounds like a good idea but there were a lot of problems brought up.

If that is done the questions were: does simply living with a high risk person count since you are likely to give it to them. 

 

How do people get their pass out?

 

In Georgia the obesity rate according to cdc is 29.6%, elderly looks to be over 15% and then there is high blood pressure, asthma. I'm not how much overlap there is between each category but certainly a lot but I still think you are looking at an extremely high percentage of the population that could claim to be high risk.

I still think being able to keep putting out outbreaks through testing and tracking seems the best not only for lives but for the economy but I also realize you need people to cooperate to make that work and I'm not sure a large number of states can pull it off sadly. 😢

Edited by frogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I’ve been thinking more about the question in the title of this thread.

I don’t see how anyone can be thinking we can eliminate Covid. It is way too far gone for us now, so those 2 aims aren’t really what we are disagreeing about in my opinion.

What we aren’t agreeing about is what is the best course of action now. And honestly I don’t think we can know for sure what is the best thing to do next.

It seems to me that the 2 sides appear to be, 1. proceed with caution,  2. go back to how things were before. Not saying that those are what everyone is arguing here - just that to me that is what it feels like near me.

In my neck of the woods there seems to be 2 things driving the ‘Go back to how things were before’ group:

1. Inability to see that this is unlike anything we have experienced in our lifetimes - some are unable to comprehend or accept that they cannot be informed by their previous experience. So they apply their previous experience - “this is just like the flu” - and think all that we’re doing is ridiculous and unnecessary.

2. Their political view/belief about the virus. 
 

Again this is how it seems where I am. As I wrote that 2nd point I again had a moment of disbelief that it is possible to have a political ‘belief’ about a virus - but that is absolutely what is going on in my area.

That is what's going on here too. 

I wrote here (I think?) how I'd read the idea that there are two kinds of people; (1) those who think that nothing will change and (2) people who imagine significant changes. Group #1 is usually right but very very wrong sometimes and Group #2 is usually wrong but sometimes right. Group #1 wants things to stay the same so tries very hard to believe that they won't change. 

I have been incredibly frustrated with how some people have responded to this crisis. Most frustrating are people believe that the shutdowns were in reaction to the reaction to the virus (the "fear" of the virus) instead of to the virus itself. I think these people cannot understand how something like a virus (that isn't political, that can't be controlled by human action) could change their world this much. It's easier to think of the changes caused by the other political party or the media. 

Then there are the dueling facts. Each side has the "experts" that support the facts they want to believe. Our priest said in his sermon yesterday that COVID19 is less dangerous than the flu. The facts I believe don't support that claim. The facts he believes support that claim. I think my facts come from more reputable sources. He believes the same. Objectively, I'm sure my sources hold up better and are less ideologically driven. It does not matter. He is very invested in believing that this isn't as risky as the flu so he won't change his mind. 

I think there are people who want to be contrarians. If the "mainstream" news say there is a risk, they won't believe there is a risk. 

There may be dueling facts but there is still truth. It's easy to fall into the trap of "that's your opinion." Someone is right and someone is wrong. I think some of this comes from habits of mind. If you read garbage, you become garbage. 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

--------------------------------------

I have been incredibly frustrated with how some people have responded to this crisis. Most frustrating are people believe that the shutdowns were in reaction to the reaction to the virus (the "fear" of the virus) instead of to the virus itself. I think these people cannot understand how something like a virus (that isn't political, that can't be controlled by human action) could change their world this much. It's easier to think of the changes caused by the other political party or the media. 

Then there are the dueling facts. Each side has the "experts" that support the facts they want to believe.

--------------------------------------

There may be dueling facts but there is still truth. It's easy to fall into the trap of "that's your opinion." Someone is right and someone is wrong. I think some of this comes from habits of mind. If you read garbage, you become garbage. 

Yes, in my small circles, I have tried to share some of the things I am reading. At first, I tried a little harder to share beyond that, but it quickly became obvious that they (the ones I most want to target) don't want to believe anything else. And I am trying to make sure I don't get too prideful myself, especially since there are still so many unknowns with this virus. I could be wrong, the virus could mutate in favorable ways, the strain here might be lighter, etc., etc. We really don't know what is going to happen, even though we might "expect" certain outcomes. So I will keep educating myself as much as I can, try to be humble and open-minded, make decisions that support my cautious nature to the extent that I can, influence my family and closest friends if possible, and hope for the best. But I am becoming more and more comfortable with making decisions for us/myself that are not the same as what seems to be most prevalent in my community.  (Not that I was ever in real danger of becoming a conformist, ha!)

ETA: remove a couple of extra words

Edited by Jaybee
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re changing guidelines in the face of lousy and ever-changing information

38 minutes ago, Frances said:

An excellent article about the good and bad communicating that has been done by officials during the crisis and lots of good history about the CDC.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not

This is indeed excellent; thank you.

This bit seems particularly on-point to some of the (understandable) frustrations voiced in this thread about moving goalposts:

Quote

Epidemiology is a science of possibilities and persuasion, not of certainties or hard proof. “Being approximately right most of the time is better than being precisely right occasionally,” the Scottish epidemiologist John Cowden wrote, in 2010. “You can only be sure when to act in retrospect.” Epidemiologists must persuade people to upend their lives—to forgo travel and socializing, to submit themselves to blood draws and immunization shots—even when there’s scant evidence that they’re directly at risk.

Epidemiologists also must learn how to maintain their persuasiveness even as their advice shifts. The recommendations that public-health professionals make at the beginning of an emergency—there’s no need to wear masks; children can’t become seriously ill—often change as hypotheses are disproved, new experiments occur, and a virus mutates. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

We actually have always been allowed gatherings of 10 (and the wording was kind of vague - the police wouldn’t enforce it - except weddings which is only 5).  I think WA and QLD opened up to that level today as well.  And elective surgery is opening up here as well.

Here in Vic it is still only gathering of 2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StellaM said:

 

Yep.

And once the kids are in sick bay, some parents remain unavailable for phone contact till end of school. 

It's a way of ensuring childcare, even though the child is sick.

 

It is unfortunate but I know parents (eap single parents) that have to make those tough choices.  If they stay home with a sick child but don't have sick leave their risk not earning enough to pay the bills and/or losing their job.   Often it is not because they don't care but because they don't have any good options.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Really?? That's... unfortunate. I guess so that parents don't have to take a sick day off of work? 

I was at a scrapbooking weekend event several years ago sitting next to a middle school principal and some of her teacher friends.  They were talking quite freely about sending their own kids to school when they knew they were sick and not seeing the slightest problem with it.  They didn’t seem to want to take the day off.  I was dumbfounded.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to go into my office today. There's only a skeleton crew onsite now. I chatted with a co-worker who was also in the office today. She's in her early 60's and has diabetes. 

She told me that she doesn't know why all of this is happening since there is less risk than with the flu. I told her that the risk is actually more than the flu based on some recent testing done in the State of New York. She told me that she didn't believe the numbers that come "from the CDC." She said that she didn't think she would get a vaccine if it was developed. 

I'm sure she's representative of many people in this state. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 7
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

I was at a scrapbooking weekend event several years ago sitting next to a middle school principal and some of her teacher friends.  They were talking quite freely about sending their own kids to school when they knew they were sick and not seeing the slightest problem with it.  They didn’t seem to want to take the day off.  I was dumbfounded.

 

There are board members that I've argued with because they have this attitude about taking their sick kids out to extra-curricular activities and social events. There is always a tight little rationale for why it's no big deal.  The best one I heard was that *I* was being selfish in wanting to avoid illness, only because I was too lazy to be inconvenienced by preventable illness. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

It is unfortunate but I know parents (eap single parents) that have to make those tough choices.  If they stay home with a sick child but don't have sick leave their risk not earning enough to pay the bills and/or losing their job.   Often it is not because they don't care but because they don't have any good options.

I also know parents who are too darn selfish to care for their own sick kids!  I know there are people in horrible circumstances but I honestly know parents who just hate having the kids home.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, not OK.

I got into the habit of checking illness before attending groups when my kids were babies, and a group I went to every week had a family with an immunocompromised kid. 

The mom had to check every single time, and often her family missed out because so-and-so's kids had a cold, or threw up the night before 'but were fine now.'

I learned that people don't take the transmission of disease very seriously, and so when I became unwell, I had that knowledge, and model, of knowing that you have to ask every single time. 

I know who my good friends are, because they are the ones who ring me and say 'We're going to have to cancel because kid has a sniffle/fever/cough.'

 

People don't care until it impacts them. A lot of the people in my area that scoff at illness are young.  They've yet to hit that point in life when they have elderly relatives that fall sick easily.  They also aren't old enough to start having chronic health issues and are more likely to die in a car wreck than, say, complications of diabetes or pneumonia.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

 

There are board members that I've argued with because they have this attitude about taking their sick kids out to extra-curricular activities and social events. There is always a tight little rationale for why it's no big deal.  The best one I heard was that *I* was being selfish in wanting to avoid illness, only because I was too lazy to be inconvenienced by preventable illness. 

Same. And people said the same thing about me. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StellaM said:

There are medically vulnerable kids and adults at my school, and it's difficult to trust that it's a safe work and study place when sick kids are sent to school with their illnesses masked for attendance. 

This isn't just to you, StellaM; yours was just the easiest to quote. 

Only people who have symptoms should stay home?  Illnesses are often spread before someone is symptomatic or from asymptomatic people to others all the time.  There are numerous studies in medical journals that substantiate this.

Would it be helpful if there was an easy, inexpensive, fast test to check for all illnesses before people left their homes?  Everyone of all ages would have to have a device to show that they were free of all diseases and would have the proof necessary to enter any space. That would protect people with inadequate immune systems. Or we as a society could put more energy and funds into how to optimize people's immune systems?  We could focus more on how to prevent chronic illnesses and put more emphasis on healing people's immune systems instead of putting on band-aids, like drugs.  

I know that, at least in America, focusing on building a robust immune system is not a popular option.  There is too much junk for caloric intake, too many stressors, too few opportunities for exercise, and too many drugs that are pushed as quick-fixes. I guess I am just trying to point out that if someone is only focusing on symptomatic people as "bad" then he/she is missing a large asymptomatic population that is also "bad."  I don't know how we overcome that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

This isn't just to you, StellaM; yours was just the easiest to quote. 

Only people who have symptoms should stay home?  Illnesses are often spread before someone is symptomatic or from asymptomatic people to others all the time.  There are numerous studies in medical journals that substantiate this.

Would it be helpful if there was an easy, inexpensive, fast test to check for all illnesses before people left their homes?  Everyone of all ages would have to have a device to show that they were free of all diseases and would have the proof necessary to enter any space. That would protect people with inadequate immune systems. Or we as a society could put more energy and funds into how to optimize people's immune systems?  We could focus more on how to prevent chronic illnesses and put more emphasis on healing people's immune systems instead of putting on band-aids, like drugs.  

I know that, at least in America, focusing on building a robust immune system is not a popular option.  There is too much junk for caloric intake, too many stressors, too few opportunities for exercise, and too many drugs that are pushed as quick-fixes. I guess I am just trying to point out that if someone is only focusing on symptomatic people as "bad" then he/she is missing a large asymptomatic population that is also "bad."  I don't know how we overcome that. 

Being immunocompromised is not something I caused by making bad choices in my life. I do lots of healthy immune building things. Still am immunocompromised. 
 

There is obviously no way that we can completely  protect ourselves from asymptomatic people of any kind of illness. But I masked during cold and flu season long before it became cool to do so. The hygiene suggestions for COVID19 are not new to me. Neither is social distancing. Neither are healthy foods, exercise, supplements, herbal remedies, pre and probiotics etc. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

This isn't just to you, StellaM; yours was just the easiest to quote. 

Only people who have symptoms should stay home?  Illnesses are often spread before someone is symptomatic or from asymptomatic people to others all the time.  There are numerous studies in medical journals that substantiate this.

Would it be helpful if there was an easy, inexpensive, fast test to check for all illnesses before people left their homes?  Everyone of all ages would have to have a device to show that they were free of all diseases and would have the proof necessary to enter any space. That would protect people with inadequate immune systems. Or we as a society could put more energy and funds into how to optimize people's immune systems?  We could focus more on how to prevent chronic illnesses and put more emphasis on healing people's immune systems instead of putting on band-aids, like drugs.  

I know that, at least in America, focusing on building a robust immune system is not a popular option.  There is too much junk for caloric intake, too many stressors, too few opportunities for exercise, and too many drugs that are pushed as quick-fixes. I guess I am just trying to point out that if someone is only focusing on symptomatic people as "bad" then he/she is missing a large asymptomatic population that is also "bad."  I don't know how we overcome that. 

It would be nice but probably not possible with the technology we have now.

and it would be great if we could fix all chronic illnesses but again we just don’t have the technology right now.  Sure some are lifestyle and bad choices but many aren’t.  Ironically some seem to be triggered by exposure to certain viruses.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

This isn't just to you, StellaM; yours was just the easiest to quote. 

Only people who have symptoms should stay home?  Illnesses are often spread before someone is symptomatic or from asymptomatic people to others all the time.  There are numerous studies in medical journals that substantiate this.

 

If you have symptoms, yes, stay home.  I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this.  If you are sick with a contagious illness, no matter how "no big deal" it is to the person carrying, stay home. No one else wants your cooties.

This is generally where someone starts hinting around with an argument that goes like this:  "Well, since *some* illnesses are spread while asymptomatic, those people obviously can't isolate, because they don't know they are sick.  They are spreading all this illness around without even knowing it!  Since we can't perfectly prevent the spread of contagion, we might as well not even bother trying at all". 

I haven't heard anyone arguing for a completely germ-free existence.  It would be really great if people could just do their best to not make the situation worse for others.  

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

 

If you have symptoms, yes, stay home.  I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this.  If you are sick with a contagious illness, no matter how "no big deal" it is to the person carrying, stay home. No one else wants your cooties.

 

 

Sadly, this is a tough option for many lower income, single parent, and/or new to the job people.   On our area, many jobs have a 90-180 day ZERO tolerance for an absence.   You miss work, do not come back tomorrow.....or ever.

In order for this to change, we need some better sick leave policies and/or child care options for children who are too sick for school but a parent needs to work.  Some families' budgets are so tight that missing 1-2 days of work to stay home with a sick child with no sick pay might mean not enough money for rent or food or utilities.

Yes, there are some people who could stay home but chose to come to work sick and that is a different story.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Sadly, this is a tough option for many lower income, single parent, and/or new to the job people.   On our area, many jobs have a 90-180 day ZERO tolerance for an absence.   You miss work, do not come back tomorrow.....or ever.

In order for this to change, we need some better sick leave policies and/or child care options for children who are too sick for school but a parent needs to work.  Some families' budgets are so tight that missing 1-2 days of work to stay home with a sick child with no sick pay might mean not enough money for rent or food or utilities.

Yes, there are some people who could stay home but chose to come to work sick and that is a different story.

I know that it's a big issue for low income families and people who have kids in public schools with harsh attendance policies. However...

I think we can safely start with the people that clasp their pearls and gasp "But we can't possibly miss dance class! It's my children's passion!".  (Doubly so for homeschool families who claim they can't possibly ever miss an extra curricular due to "passion"). 

Instead of looking for all the ways that it's impossible to be 100% successful, we could start with the people that actually have the ability to change their behavior while experiencing minimal fallout.  

This is literally the "different story" that I'm trying to start with. In my own life, the majority of illnesses that we get exposed to are from people that could have stayed home but chose not to.  Every single time we've been sick over the last 12 months, I can trace it back to an optional, fun activity where someone brought a sick kid: Valentine's day party, birthday parties, library video game event, park day, etc.  

Edited by MissLemon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my issues right now is people who aren’t actually calling for 100% “openness”, but are still calling the restrictions stupid and not offering alternative standards.

For example, Friend is bashing Governor’s plan. I point out where we are compared to plan numbers, and ask what numbers Friend thinks are more acceptable.  Friend says they don’t want ANYONE else to get sick, but the regulations just aren’t okay.  Well, people ARE going to get sick, regardless, but there obviously needs to be a threshold. Friend offers none, but maintains position.  How does that work???

Also, my homeschool community has a ton of anti-science families, so that weight is getting heavier and heavier on me. This past flu/cold season came close to driving me actual nuts sharing space with them and their children. When my kids realize we’re going to be staying away from quite a few beloved activities this coming school year, they’re going to lose it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MissLemon said:

 

If you have symptoms, yes, stay home.  I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this.  If you are sick with a contagious illness, no matter how "no big deal" it is to the person carrying, stay home. No one else wants your cooties.

This is generally where someone starts hinting around with an argument that goes like this:  "Well, since *some* illnesses are spread while asymptomatic, those people obviously can't isolate, because they don't know they are sick.  They are spreading all this illness around without even knowing it!  Since we can't perfectly prevent the spread of contagion, we might as well not even bother trying at all". 

I haven't heard anyone arguing for a completely germ-free existence.  It would be really great if people could just do their best to not make the situation worse for others.  

 

If I know my kids got their cooties from school in the first place (and usually that is the case), then I will send them to school as long as they are not too sick to function.  By the time my kids have symptoms, whatever germ has been going around the classroom long enough that my kid's presence or absence won't make a difference.

There are too many negative consequences for keeping kids home.  If school would be more gentle on kids who take time off for illness, parents might make different choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as adults going to work with mild illness, I am fine with that.  I assume adults know how to keep their germs to themselves / how to protect themselves e.g. wash hands etc.  Also, other than folks with immunity issues, we should expect and (up to a point) welcome exposure to relatively mild stuff.  Being exposed to germs is part of being healthy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2020 at 11:23 AM, SKL said:

Well I just checked and our state dental authority has mandated the shutdowns except for emergencies.  The word "mandated" is used in our practice's voice mail greeting.  I understand it's because the state doesn't want dental offices or other "non-emergency" practices using PPE that could be saved for COVID19.  Of course most of the things they need for COVID19 are not used for routine dental visits, but I guess masks might be an issue temporarily.

I called Saturday because my daughter's spacer is now cutting into her cheek and causing pain.  (This child has a very high pain tolerance, so if she says it hurts, it hurts.)  So far no call back.

The state is letting dental practices reopen as of May 1 (just announced yesterday, so check the state dental authority again; the website has been updated).

Of course, individual practices may not be ready to open by then, but they will be allowed to. If your orthodontist doesn't return your call soon, perhaps call them again on Friday. They may have a backlog of cases to deal with, and to get an appointment at the soonest opportunity, you may need to keep calling. Which is a pain, I understand.

My kids have missed orthodontic appointments as well, but they've had other appointments with nurses and rehab doctors via telehealth over the past month. My son could have gone to his annual pediatric well check (the office was open), but I chose to reschedule that one. We've found that different providers have taken different approaches. Both our dentist and orthodontist are closed but will allow patients to come in for emergencies. The pediatrician seems to be open and has had no messages about the virus on their website. Our old pediatrician in a different city, on the other hand, has been sending out volumous and frequent Covid updates via email (we are still on his email list). For counseling appointments, the place we go to uses Google Duo, and for the rehab appointments, the hospital system uses Zoom. We were actually the rehab doctor's first Zoom patient, after we inquired whether we could do it that way, and after that, they set up all their patients for virtual appointments (they had a system in place, but the rehab doctor had not used it before we agreed to be his guinea pig).

We are overdue for eye appointments. At first, we were getting calls and emails asking us to set up appointments in March. I ignored them, having no intention of going then. Then the eye place sent out an email saying they were closing. But I still keep getting the automated email reminders to set up our appointments. So some systems are having trouble adjusting. Our orthodontist didn't notify us that our appointments were cancelled; I had to check their website to see that they were closed. Then about a week later, we got an email that they sent out to everyone, saying that they were closed.

So I've found communication to be much better from some practitioners than from others, and individual practitioners are going about things in different ways.

Edited by Storygirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

This isn't just to you, StellaM; yours was just the easiest to quote. 

Only people who have symptoms should stay home?  Illnesses are often spread before someone is symptomatic or from asymptomatic people to others all the time.  There are numerous studies in medical journals that substantiate this.

Would it be helpful if there was an easy, inexpensive, fast test to check for all illnesses before people left their homes?  Everyone of all ages would have to have a device to show that they were free of all diseases and would have the proof necessary to enter any space. That would protect people with inadequate immune systems. Or we as a society could put more energy and funds into how to optimize people's immune systems?  We could focus more on how to prevent chronic illnesses and put more emphasis on healing people's immune systems instead of putting on band-aids, like drugs.  

I know that, at least in America, focusing on building a robust immune system is not a popular option.  There is too much junk for caloric intake, too many stressors, too few opportunities for exercise, and too many drugs that are pushed as quick-fixes. I guess I am just trying to point out that if someone is only focusing on symptomatic people as "bad" then he/she is missing a large asymptomatic population that is also "bad."  I don't know how we overcome that. 

Just because we can't limit the spread of all germs doesn't mean we should not try to limit the spread of some germs, by having people who know they are sick stay home and not share those. 

2 hours ago, SKL said:

If I know my kids got their cooties from school in the first place (and usually that is the case), then I will send them to school as long as they are not too sick to function.  By the time my kids have symptoms, whatever germ has been going around the classroom long enough that my kid's presence or absence won't make a difference.

There are too many negative consequences for keeping kids home.  If school would be more gentle on kids who take time off for illness, parents might make different choices.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Many things can be caught more than once, and you sending a sick kid in to continue spreading germs just extends the process. This is why it cycles through classrooms over and over and over again. 

2 hours ago, SKL said:

As far as adults going to work with mild illness, I am fine with that.  I assume adults know how to keep their germs to themselves / how to protect themselves e.g. wash hands etc.  Also, other than folks with immunity issues, we should expect and (up to a point) welcome exposure to relatively mild stuff.  Being exposed to germs is part of being healthy.

Well, if we welcome exposure to germs, why do we wash hands and cover sneezes at all? The idea of washing hands and such is to try not to spread germs. Staying home when sick is also to try not to spread germs. And is common courtesy. 

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

One of the biggest problems with the concept of “if you are sick, stay home” is sometimes just figuring out if you are sick.   You might wake up one morning feeling run down, think you are getting sick, two hours later discover that nope, your monthly visitor just showed up 2 days early.  Sneezes could be just allergies.   Coughing could be part of a chronic condition brought on by years of smoking when younger.   People and kids can no stay home every time they sneeze or cough or feel a bit off.  

Ok, so lets start with those who KNOW they are sick. They stay home. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

...

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Many things can be caught more than once, and you sending a sick kid in to continue spreading germs just extends the process. This is why it cycles through classrooms over and over and over again. 

Well, if we welcome exposure to germs, why do we wash hands and cover sneezes at all? The idea of washing hands and such is to try not to spread germs. Staying home when sick is also to try not to spread germs. And is common courtesy.

Although I don't agree with your logic, I also don't actually care if kids in school get a cold more than once.  That's how it goes.  Unless a person has immunity issues, it's just a normal part of life, always has been.  It's actually unhealthy to prevent normal healthy kids from being exposed to mild illnesses from time to time.

As for why we wash hands and cover sneezes?  Personally I cover sneezes because they are gross.  Nobody wants my snot on them, germs or no germs.  I have never been one for a lot of hand washing.  I wash after I use the bathroom and before I cook.  I am not afraid of germs at all.

Staying home when mildly ill is a luxury and not a necessity at all.  It's also pie in the sky for the vast majority of people around the world.  It sounds like privilege to me.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Although I don't agree with your logic, I also don't actually care if kids in school get a cold more than once.  That's how it goes.  Unless a person has immunity issues, it's just a normal part of life, always has been.  It's actually unhealthy to prevent normal healthy kids from being exposed to mild illnesses from time to time.

As for why we wash hands and cover sneezes?  Personally I cover sneezes because they are gross.  Nobody wants my snot on them, germs or no germs.  I have never been one for a lot of hand washing.  I wash after I use the bathroom and before I cook.  I am not afraid of germs at all.

Staying home when mildly ill is a luxury and not a necessity at all.  It's also pie in the sky for the vast majority of people around the world.  It sounds like privilege to me.

Exposure is a good thing for healthy immune systems.

Some kids (and adults) have perpetual drippy noses and persistent coughs for various reasons that have nothing to do with contagion. Going to be interesting to see how this is managed going forward in this era of hypervigilence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 Ok, so lets start with those who KNOW they are sick. They stay home. 

My kids were homeschooled, so this was strictly a hypothetical for us, but: if you're talking about staying home for common colds and such, my kids would have had a rough time of it! Even if the district/school had decent makeup work policies, they would have almost certainly exceeded 18 unexcused days in a year, which means you can't pass. So, yeah, I can totally understand parents sending their kids to school with a cold. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm feeling really conflicted on this topic.

I remember, very clearly, feeling like it's perfectly normal to have a cold or flu during "cold and flu season" -- that you just take a decongestant and carry on as usual. It's just not something I used to question: not for myself, not for my kids, not for other people I was sharing space and activities with. Vaguely, I'm pretty sure that I have cold symptoms 50% of the winter and spring. You get used to the sniffles as a norm. (Judging by how often I buy a bottle of decongestant-analgesic, those numbers make sense.) My threshold for calling in sick (myself) was very high -- because I'm only a part time adjunct, and it's not hard to pull off 1h15m of a class even when you feel really awful. For my kids, I used to think, "Would they get much out of school? Would they be able to cope?" -- using their symptoms while medicated as a guideline.

Now all of that seems like a complete disregard for germs and transmissiblity. It's focused entirely on my own experience (Can we cope? Am I capable? Will we still benefit?) and not at all on the public health impacts of my choices. I think my previous view saw the germs as present and inevitable, not something that I myself was participating in.

But it does raise the question -- how does life get done when we begin taking time away from our responsibilities for every sniffle? Because I think we will be taking something closer to that approach in the future. Maybe we 'zoom' everything? We could leverage all the lock-down new ways of 'working' but on an intermittent basis. (Maybe any kid can "attend" class by zoom to their classroom any day that they are under the weather? Maybe office workers work remotely anytime they feel like they might have something? Maybe 'make up work' can be minimal instead of covertly punitive?)

But you can't deliver pizza by zoom, or work at a factory, or provide nursing. Companies will just need more employees and a system of back-stopping and under-studying all kinds of jobs. That's expensive. Sick leave, parenting-sick-kids leave, wellness-for-work requirements, and a functional readiness for quite frequent unforeseen absence are all going to be important pillars of a new way of being employed. Also expensive. I see new labour laws in our future: because profit-oriented employers aren't going to make expensive changes just out of goodness and kindness.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that it's almost impossible to stay home when you are sick. I'm sympathetic to working parents. I'm a working parent myself. 

But sometimes there is a total disregard for other people. For example, one time when teaching Sunday school, a mom dropped off her toddler. Then I hear her say later that he might have pink eye. 

And we were about to leave for an international trip. Thankfully I did not develop pink eye but I might have had to miss our flight. Can you fly with pink eye? IDK. It's highly contagious. I had it several times with DD was an infant in daycare. 

 

Edited by Ordinary Shoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...