Jump to content

Menu

Is the goal FLATTEN THE CURVE or ELIMINATE COVID?


Ottakee
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I month is pretty short.

Not sure how it is where you are, but we're not talking about 1 month in many places.  It'll be 7 weeks that my household has been essentially locked down when the current order ends (not including school which is out for the year), and I suspect it will be extended for who knows how much longer.  As Bluegoat says, this is delaying the inevitable since the virus is gonna do what it's gonna do, sooner or later.

This discussion is doomed since one side is dead set on the idea that anyone who disagrees just doesn't care who gets hurt.  Bluegoat explained why it is likely a loosening (to promote natural herd immunity) could save lives in the long run.  That is also what I believe. 

It is a lot easier to prevent the spread to vulnerable people in the short term than if you drag it out for many months or even years.  Folks need to come out of isolation sooner or later.  My folks have many medical issues that should not be allowed to go untreated for months and months.  They have people bringing them food and other items that always have some risk of contamination.  They have little chance of getting exercise or seeing the people who would lift their spirits.  And these are true of folks in everyone else's family too.  The sooner the virus runs its course, the better for all of these people.  This opinion is the opposite of the "lock 'em up and forget 'em" label you have suggested.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

No one is suggesting that full stay-at-home orders should last 2 years, or even 1 year. But you said the best option is to achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible. This assumes that you can remove all restrictions on the "low risk" people so as many as possible get infected quickly, while still somehow protecting those at high risk.

My question is how do you protect the "high risk" people in a population where 70 million adults are obese, 68 million have high blood pressure, 34 million are diabetic, and 69 million are over the age of 60? How do you decide which high-risk people deserve "protection" (which is basically going to mean financial subsidies) and which are just going to have to take their chances for the greater good? I have read lots of blogs and editorials and op-eds saying the solution is to protect those at high-risk and let everyone else get back to business as usual, but no one ever explains how they would do that. It sounds like a simple, common sense solution, as long as the "high risk" population you imagine protecting is basically little old grandparents who are retired and sitting home anyway. When you look at just how large a percentage of the population is actually high risk, it becomes much more problematic, and I fear we are going to get into a situation where "protection" is limited to those who are considered most "deserving" and the rest — who are likely to be disproportionately poor and brown and employed in low-wage jobs — will be the canon fodder.

I think a gradual reopening, with continued social distancing (bans on large gatherings, limits on the number of people in stores and businesses at one time, continued reliance on working from home and home delivery as much as possible, required mask wearing, etc.) to keep the curve as flat as possible as long as possible, is the best policy in order to protect as many people as possible, not just a small percentage of high-risk people deemed "worthy" of protection. That will not achieve herd immunity ASAP,  but it should lead to fewer deaths overall as we develop more effective treatments, get much better at testing and tracing, and work towards a vaccine.

There has absolutely been mention of until there is a vaccine. Absolutely.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT trying to achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible - how does that work if a significant part of the population refuses to expose themselves? 

I've read that because COVID is highly contagious, we need a very high percentage of immunity in the population. (I'm sorry for not using the proper terminology. I don't know much about this.) If a significant portion of the population takes extreme measures to avoid exposure, how do you get to that high level of immunity in the population? 

Besides, if herd immunity isn't going to hold, what is the benefit to letting the virus run its course? If herd immunity is impossible then everyone should be motivated to avoid exposure. With no herd immunity, people will be exposed over and over again. The less times you are exposed, the stronger you will be and longer you will live. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KathyBC said:

There has absolutely been mention of until there is a vaccine. Absolutely.

Really, you have seen public health officials and epidemiologists calling for a complete 2 yr lock down of the economy? Can you link some sources, because the articles that were cited earlier as proof of this actually said nothing of the sort. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Really, you have seen public health officials and epidemiologists calling for a complete 2 yr lock down of the economy? Can you link some sources, because the articles that were cited earlier as proof of this actually said nothing of the sort. 

Our prime minister, our federal health officer, our provincial health officer have all made comments to that effect. I could likely dig those up, but honestly it's almost bedtime and I doubt it would lead either one of us to any sort of agreement.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

It is a lot easier to prevent the spread to vulnerable people in the short term than if you drag it out for many months or even years.  Folks need to come out of isolation sooner or later.  My folks have many medical issues that should not be allowed to go untreated for months and months.  They have people bringing them food and other items that always have some risk of contamination.  They have little chance of getting exercise or seeing the people who would lift their spirits.  And these are true of folks in everyone else's family too.  The sooner the virus runs its course, the better for all of these people.  This opinion is the opposite of the "lock 'em up and forget 'em" label you have suggested.

So how exactly does that work? We fully reopen the economy, everyone can eat in bars and restaurants, there's concerts and sports events and megachurches, etc., and there's huge spike in new infections, because that's the goal, right? Lets get it over with as quickly as possible. How do you protect those at high risk? Of course first you have to decide which factors qualify someone as worthy of protection — what are your criteria? They have to be pretty strict, or you end up with basically half the population "under protection" and obviously that won't work. Then, once you've decided who "deserves" protection, how does this protection work exactly? Even if the US government had the will to provide financial support to those deemed worthy, how do you protect them from having any contact at all with everyone else who is out in public trying to catch it? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KathyBC said:

Our prime minister, our federal health officer, our provincial health officer have all made comments to that effect. I could likely dig those up, but honestly it's almost bedtime and I doubt it would lead either one of us to any sort of agreement.

Here in Aus I have seen suggestions of some measure of social distancing until a vaccine but not full lockdown.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Actually, I take that back. I  can't say anyone has specifically called for a complete 2-year lock down of the economy. But when they say nothing can change until there is a vaccine, it certainly comes across that way.
 

  

3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

I am convinced that the premier and medical officer who do a press conference every day have little or no idea how people are taking the things they say.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like policy makers are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

Do a strict lock down, the public sees the cost: the lost jobs, the rise in domestic abuse, the lack of funerals, people dying alone and quite frankly pain and suffering. What they won't see is as many deaths. 

 

Let it run it's course and they will see the loved ones pass away, maybe triaging patients, health care workers perishing faster, millions dead and quite frankly pain and suffering. There will also be  economic suffering as well. What they won't see is the cost of a lock down. 

 

 

 

The public will only see the suffering of the road they took. They will never see the devastation of the other road so they will minimize it. That is what humans do.

A meme was posted about "washing your hands like you just peeled a sack of chiles and need to take your contact out."  I could only respond, "so no matter what it's going to hurt." 

 

People see their pain more than others. They see others pain more than the pain they might have had. I have a pretty good imagination but I can't imagine a way out without suffering no matter what. 

I am learning to hear other people's suffering in their responses to me and it changes my heart from frustrated and hostile to empathitic.

Edited by frogger
Repeated word and spelling
  • Like 17
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, KathyBC said:

  Actually, I take that back. I  can't say anyone has specifically called for a complete 2-year lock down of the economy. But when they say nothing can change until there is a vaccine, it certainly comes across that way.

I was just googling around to see if Trudeau had actually called for an economic shutdown until there's a vaccine, and what I'm seeing is that he said life will not be "normal" until there's a vaccine, there will still be social distancing, but that the economy can gradually reopen "after this first wave is past" although there may be additional localized shut downs in the future to contain flare ups. Which is basically what every epidemiologist and public health expert has been saying all along. It's what most states in the US are planning, and it's the policy that I am arguing for. The UK decided to try the herd immunity approach, and very quickly discovered they could not actually protect the elderly and high risk, and whole lot more people were dying than expected, and now they have the highest number of daily deaths in Europe, and are second in the world behind the US.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I suspect because the answer is 'we won't protect high-risk individuals; it will be up to them to protect themselves, and if they can't - because they have the same needs as others to work, to buy food, to seek medical care, to not live in extended solitary lock downs - well, that's very sad, but it's just how it is.'

 

 

But if they have those needs...how are those needs met in an economy under lockdown? Six months here...I don't know that we'd have a recoverable economy with six months of a SIP order like what we have now, at least not anything recognizable and certainlya severe depression. I feel like we're already seeing strain on basic supply chains that we need in order for anyone to get any of that stuff. I'm the first to say there isn't a good answer, but all those same people have the exact same problem in a six month lockdown.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

I think if we want people to listen to experts, experts have to be more measured and acknowledging of their own limitations.

 

 

But they DO acknowledge the limitations! They don't promise exact things, they say "could" and "up to" and "Possible"! Just like with the hurricanes. 

And as others said, they always said that was without doing mitigation. We did mitigate, so of course it looks different. 

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

I feel like I spent a couple posts going into that already? What a middle ground might look like?

What would you have said of anyone who was skeptical of the 2 million figure when it first came out? Let's say a smart, rational, intelligent person you know suggested that number might be too high given any number of factors (demographics, variations in human behavior models can't predict, bad input, etc.). What would you have told them at the time? What are models for?

I would have pointed out that those figures were the high end, based on what we know, and on not doing any mitigation. And then asked them to give me their alternate data that they were basing their skepticism on. 

2 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

This is what I think the OP was talking about. No health professionals are talking about stopping this virus permanently. They are all talking about flattening the curve with an end-point of herd immunity. Not because they are jerks, but because it is the only possible endpoint .  

 

 

Um, plenty of health professionals are talking about a vaccine, and about better treatments. 

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

There is a difference between advocating that everyone get it ASAP to get to herd immunity as soon as possible and advocating for flattening/stretching the curve while we come to understand this virus much better, have a better understanding of who is higher risk and why and how to mitigate that, have much more effective and targeted treatments, possibly have a milder virus to deal with thanks to mutation, and possibly have a vaccine.

I think the idea that we need everyone who isn't high risk to get it as quickly as possible ignores those possibilities, ignores the difficulties in quarantining huge numbers of "high risk" people, and ignores the social, economic, and psychological impact of having more than a million people die in a short period of time. 

This! We BARELY have an idea of how it is spreading...barely. Is it aersol or droplets? Is touching surfaces the biggest factor, or breathing air someone coughed in an hour earlier? How often do children catch it and do they spread it even if they have no symptoms? What long term effects are there in "mild" cases? We know that many who are hospitalized have elevated cardiac and liver enzymes, even when they don't have severe respiratory illness. Do those who are not sick enough to go to the hospital also have elevated cardiac and liver enzymes? Are the ones who get an easy case of it going to have cardiomyopathy down the road? Are there treatments that might work if we gave them earlier in the course of the disease? What even are the true symptoms of this disease? And of course, we need better treatments. 

Having that information would go a long way toward making things safer, and it seems worthwhile to hold off on back to normal while we figure that stuff out. 

6 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But if they have those needs...how are those needs met in an economy under lockdown? Six months here...I don't know that we'd have a recoverable economy with six months of a SIP order like what we have now, at least not anything recognizable and certainlya severe depression. I feel like we're already seeing strain on basic supply chains that we need in order for anyone to get any of that stuff. I'm the first to say there isn't a good answer, but all those same people have the exact same problem in a six month lockdown.

They are less likely to catch it when they do have to go out if there aren't a bunch of other people out spreading it. And as far as the food chain, today I heard that the largest pork processing plant had to shut down due to too many employees getting Covid19. So there are impacts on the supply chain either way. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But if they have those needs...how are those needs met in an economy under lockdown? Six months here...I don't know that we'd have a recoverable economy with six months of a SIP order like what we have now, at least not anything recognizable and certainlya severe depression. I feel like we're already seeing strain on basic supply chains that we need in order for anyone to get any of that stuff. I'm the first to say there isn't a good answer, but all those same people have the exact same problem in a six month lockdown.

What state is planning a full lock down until September??? I don't know of any state that isn't planning a gradual, phased reopening within the next month or two, as soon as there is adequate PPE and testing to handle any spikes.  I am genuinely befuddled by all the posts saying "You people just don't understand that if the economy is totally locked down until there's a vaccine it will be a disaster!" Of course we understand that — which is why NO ONE is advocating that. 

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

30 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So how exactly does that work? We fully reopen the economy, everyone can eat in bars and restaurants, there's concerts and sports events and megachurches, etc., and there's huge spike in new infections, because that's the goal, right? Lets get it over with as quickly as possible. How do you protect those at high risk? Of course first you have to decide which factors qualify someone as worthy of protection — what are your criteria? They have to be pretty strict, or you end up with basically half the population "under protection" and obviously that won't work. Then, once you've decided who "deserves" protection, how does this protection work exactly? Even if the US government had the will to provide financial support to those deemed worthy, how do you protect them from having any contact at all with everyone else who is out in public trying to catch it? 

Do you think that if we opened everything up tomorrow, nothing would change about the way people do business or interact because the government didn't tell them they had to? If our church had services this Sunday because we were suddenly opened with no restriction (not what I'm angling for, just a what if), it would be so very different than when we last met in early March it would be unrecognizable. My dentist has already posted a plan of how everything in their office is going to change regardless of when they are allowed to see people again. I feel like a ton of people and businesses will be changing their lives and habits to protect themselves and the vulnerable. I think there are going to be a lot of innovative and creative things happening that we can't envision right now that will help keep people safe

I mean, I am not advocating for opening everything up unfettered immediately. I do think that those who want to go back to work should be able to without being cited by police.

As to who is worthy and who is not...well it certainly feels like that choice is already being made right now by the government themselves. It's simply a different criteria of who is allowed to keep their business open and earn an income. 

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

5 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Do you think that if we opened everything up tomorrow, nothing would change about the way people do business or interact because the government didn't tell them they had to? If our church had services this Sunday because we were suddenly opened with no restriction (not what I'm angling for, just a what if), it would be so very different than when we last met in early March it would be unrecognizable.

You are much more hopeful about how people will act than I am. 

My governor couldn't figure out how to wear a mask. He wears one glove and then clasps his hands together, gloved and ungloved, and then repeaedly touches his face on live tv. And he knows he is being filmed! As others are saying, SO many people are wearing masks only over their mouth, not their nose, or refusing to wear one at all. Today my son saw people just wearing them around their neck! Not over mouth OR nose! 

And PLENTY of churches would be back to normal this sunday if allowed to be. And the bars and shops would be packed. Yes, I think people need regulations. Just like I think we need speeding laws, and don't trust people to just drive carefully of their own volition. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

What state is planning a full lock down until September??? I don't know of any state that isn't planning a gradual, phased reopening within the next month or two, as soon as there is adequate PPE and testing to handle any spikes.  I am genuinely befuddled by all the posts saying "You people just don't understand that if the economy is totally locked down until there's a vaccine it will be a disaster!" Of course we understand that — which is why NO ONE is advocating that. 

Then maybe we're not arguing about anything of significance? Because I don't know of anyone advocating for going to sit in a movie theater or stadium in the next six months anyway. I'm sure they are out there, and I'm sure you'll point them out to me and I know that masks-are-tyranny guys exist.  But mainly what I see are people wanting to go back to work to earn an income for their families in order to not be destitute. And they also don't want to get sick or get other people sick.

I don't think the real supply issues for tests and ppe will be ironed out in the next month, if that's the contingency we're going on. Maybe I'm too pessimistic there.

But also, I am in a unique situation where I'm watching in real time what it takes to secure testing for a large amount of people in order to prevent an outbreak in a specific location and I don't think it's as simple or straightforward as just getting a ton of tests and PPE. In fact it's depressing how impossible the whole situation appears to be, quite frankly. If I think about it too much I feel the need to crawl into a hole and cry. But I also don't think a gradual reopen without some breakthrough in treatment isn't going to lessen the pain of this thing significantly anyway. I mean, maybe the problem is that I'm way too much of a pessimist to think that the measures people are talking about are really doing all that much. I feel like y'all have much more faith in lifting restrictions when we have a lot of tests and ppe than I do.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Coogee beach in Sydney (near Bondi) was opened for swimming and surfing in the last day or so - you could run or walk on the beach also, I think, just not hang out having a beachy time of it. 

The police just had to close it again for non-compliance ie people weren't using it for walking, running, swimming or surfing, but for congregating.

These are the people I'm supposed to put my faith in? No thanks.

 

So, by way of example, this is something I don't understand. Being at the beach, even laying out with other people, is far preferable to me than stepping foot in a Walmart these days even though they've limited occupancy. It makes more sense to me to "let" people hang out outside in the sun and open air than almost anything else.

I mean the risk has to be so low if there is sun and air movement, not to mention how much more just sheer dispersal there is of any kind of particle when you're outside. Closing beaches and parks seems counter-productive. But yes, if they are open, people will go there. I thought that was the idea, honestly?

Here I've seen photos of people sitting in parks in NYC and Boston. They walk their dogs, bicycle, lay out. It seems safer than most things one could do during a pandemic.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

You are much more hopeful about how people will act than I am. 

My governor couldn't figure out how to wear a mask. He wears one glove and then clasps his hands together, gloved and ungloved, and then repeaedly touches his face on live tv. And he knows he is being filmed! As others are saying, SO many people are wearing masks only over their mouth, not their nose, or refusing to wear one at all. Today my son saw people just wearing them around their neck! Not over mouth OR nose! 

And PLENTY of churches would be back to normal this sunday if allowed to be. And the bars and shops would be packed. Yes, I think people need regulations. Just like I think we need speeding laws, and don't trust people to just drive carefully of their own volition. 

So what do you do about those things assuming stuff opens up at some point? I don't think you can legally stop people from religious assembly for very long if you're allowing other places to be open with social distancing. Like, if it can be done in a grocery store, it can be done in a church, it seems like. 

We're now going to enforce mask wearing properly the same way we enforce speeding tickets? Here people are allowed to use buffs or old t-shirts so proper wear is a bit ambiguous or at least not anything like a mask thay fits over the nose properly and secures under the chin, and it's not like you need to wear one just walking outside anyway, or even in one's own car, right? Are we going to have police in stores and businesses looking for mask compliance? Police in churches making sure people are six feet apart in the pews? (which our church started doing voluntarily two Sundays before cancelling everything).These will be interesting times for sure and will definitely produce a lot of interesting legal decisions I feel like.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It's the congregation of people that is the problem.

Not a person being in the sun,

I am spending time in the sun.

With one other person whom I already live with.

This area has been a hot spot in our city, and the beach doesn't have magical virus vanishing powers when people use it to congregate in large groups!

 

But a large group of people on the beach is a totally different dynamic as far as virus spread than a large group of people in a theater. The virus absolutely does disperse more quickly in the open air and in the sun. It's not magical virus vanishing power, it's...science as far as I know it. UV light in particular actually, yes, being a virus killer. That's what I'm asking, I guess. Isn't even a large amount of people at the beach fairly low risk vis a vis transmission? I don't want to argue about this but I truly did think that even with a lot of people outside, parks and beaches were okay. I haven't been to any, so what do I know? Our yards are fairly small here and there are tons of kids running around all over the place between houses. Nothing like Bondi Beach, I'm sure, but it really hadn't occurred to me to be concerned about being in general proximity of a group of people outside. And no way to avoid it unless we stay completely inside and my kids already think I'm the worst for not letting them play with all those kids running around. 

Although I can see a bunch of dumb spring breakers in Florida doing shots from each other's bums as high risk, but I think that should be illegal, pandemic or no. If we're talking about a lot of people interacting with each other physically I understand more of what you're saying.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

What state is planning a full lock down until September??? I don't know of any state that isn't planning a gradual, phased reopening within the next month or two, as soon as there is adequate PPE and testing to handle any spikes.  I am genuinely befuddled by all the posts saying "You people just don't understand that if the economy is totally locked down until there's a vaccine it will be a disaster!" Of course we understand that — which is why NO ONE is advocating that. 

Not to mention that many don't seem to understand that we don't have a full lockdown in the US even now.  We have had a lot more freedom for the past month than NZ has for example and certainly more than the people in Wuhan had. 

I go out of my house every single day.  I'm careful.  I'm not breaking any rules.  But I am not welded into my house like some were in Wuhan.  I could jog if I wanted and would not get arrested.  I can go to the grocery store as many times a day as I want.  (I don't but I could.)  I could order take out every single day if I wanted and if I had the money. 

Yes, this is tough.  Yes, many are out of work.  But there are "we're hiring" signs in certain sectors here (and yes, I realize that isn't everywhere).  And even here where our governor has been very careful, they are opening up some kinds of work (new construction work guidelines were just on the local news). 

Also on the local news - the continued lack of PPE for those healthcare services that are open even now.  Now they had some good news about some new ways to disinfect N95 masks for five times to stretch their supplies through the use of UV light, but they aren't able to just go out and order as much as they want. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

So, by way of example, this is something I don't understand. Being at the beach, even laying out with other people, is far preferable to me than stepping foot in a Walmart these days even though they've limited occupancy. It makes more sense to me to "let" people hang out outside in the sun and open air than almost anything else.

I mean the risk has to be so low if there is sun and air movement, not to mention how much more just sheer dispersal there is of any kind of particle when you're outside. Closing beaches and parks seems counter-productive. But yes, if they are open, people will go there. I thought that was the idea, honestly?

Here I've seen photos of people sitting in parks in NYC and Boston. They walk their dogs, bicycle, lay out. It seems safer than most things one could do during a pandemic.

 

 I agree with this.  I think it makes sense to close parks and beaches during the initial and most severe phase of a lockdown, because it (1) sends a signal to people that this is not a holiday but a major crisis; and (2) it conserves police and other enforcement resources.

However, I also think that open outdoor spaces should be the very first things to reopen, albeit with social distancing rules and whatever other protections are necessary for any employees.  We are going to be at this for a long, long time and will need to distinguish between higher-risk and lower-risk activities.  And being outside in the sun and the air seems just about the lowest risk activity possible.

Where I am (not the US) parks and beaches have been closed for weeks and until a few days ago we were allowed to go no more than 100 meters from home for exercise.  On Sunday it was extended to 500 meters, which has been a big improvement, but I really hope that they reopen the parks soon to solo or family exercise, at least.  It would make this feel much more sustainable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

It was opened.

It was opened for walking, running, swimming and surfing.

Too many people congregated on the beach instead, and so it was closed.

 

Oh, that is just maddening.

I certainly am not criticizing any particular decision.  Honestly, this whole thing has underscored just how thankless a job public health really is.  These are impossible choices and decision makers are operating on the fly with such incomplete information.  

The government here has been trying to synthesize its data on where people have gotten infected, and I think that other countries who are doing rigorous contact tracing are doing the same.  Hopefully over time we will have a lot more more information on what restrictions give us the most bang for the buck.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EmseB said:

So what do you do about those things assuming stuff opens up at some point? I don't think you can legally stop people from religious assembly for very long if you're allowing other places to be open with social distancing. Like, if it can be done in a grocery store, it can be done in a church, it seems like. 

We're now going to enforce mask wearing properly the same way we enforce speeding tickets? Here people are allowed to use buffs or old t-shirts so proper wear is a bit ambiguous or at least not anything like a mask thay fits over the nose properly and secures under the chin, and it's not like you need to wear one just walking outside anyway, or even in one's own car, right? Are we going to have police in stores and businesses looking for mask compliance? Police in churches making sure people are six feet apart in the pews? (which our church started doing voluntarily two Sundays before cancelling everything).These will be interesting times for sure and will definitely produce a lot of interesting legal decisions I feel like.

6 feet may not be enough social distancing at church if there is singing in an enclosed space with air conditioning. Look at all of the super spreader incidents at churches, funerals, and weddings. Religious gatherings are not the same as going to the grocery store.

Quote

Of the 54 SSEs for which underlying activities could be identified, only 11 did not involve either religious activity, a party, a funeral, a cruise or extended face-to-face professional networking. But even in this minority of cases, one can observe almost identical interpersonal dynamics. 

COVID-19 Superspreader Events in 28 Countries: Critical Patterns and Lessons

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who want to get intentionally infected, you might be able to sign up for a challenge test. These were done in the past for flu and malaria and there is at least one for Covid that could happen.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01179-x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advantages of waiting:

  • as R0 falls below 1, then fewer people become infected (hard to do with asymptomatic transmission)
  • vaccine development and manufacturing further along
  • better understanding of virus
  • more knowledge of anti-viral treatments
  • evidence that the virus is losing significant chunks of its genes making it less harmful
  • hospitals not overwhelmed

There really is no great solution, though. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around here, 'going to the beach during the day' is largely aspirational.  People work insane hours, so much so that big tech firms have onsite services that would boggle your mind--free washers and dryers, pools, gyms, bowling alleys, mobile dentist and oil changing services (not free but still on site), free gourmet/organic cafeterias serving 3 meals daily, hobby shops, etc.  So AS SOON AS working from home was mandated AND going outside for fresh air was also allowed, the beach parking lots were thronged with people.  They filled up completely, and there were such long lines of cars unable to find parking that it was a serious fire/medical response hazard and the beaches were closed.  Now, there is no way that those parking lots allowed people to maintain social distancing, even if the beaches themselves did (which is unlikely.)  The same kind of crowding happened at remote, usually fairly empty hiking, exploring, and rock climbing sites all over NorCal and led to similar responses.  The SIP laws are hazy about whether it is OK to drive to a hiking or other outdoor site 40 miles away from your home, and so many, many folks who have always wanted to do that are trying to do it now.  In response, several counties have postponed their fishing season openings to discourage visitors, and one that has not has closed off almost all of the places where folks normally park to go fishing--stream fishing opens here tomorrow on schedule, but unless you're a real insider with mad skillz you won't be able to get to a place to do it--yet I fully expect that the roads will be thronged with a lot of really PO'ed people and the restaurants will do a brisk take out business.  I've already stocked up.  I won't be going to any stores or gas stations until at least next Wednesday because of this.  I figure the air will be blue with germs and fury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EmseB said:

So, by way of example, this is something I don't understand. Being at the beach, even laying out with other people, is far preferable to me than stepping foot in a Walmart these days even though they've limited occupancy. It makes more sense to me to "let" people hang out outside in the sun and open air than almost anything else.

I mean the risk has to be so low if there is sun and air movement, not to mention how much more just sheer dispersal there is of any kind of particle when you're outside. Closing beaches and parks seems counter-productive. But yes, if they are open, people will go there. I thought that was the idea, honestly?

Here I've seen photos of people sitting in parks in NYC and Boston. They walk their dogs, bicycle, lay out. It seems safer than most things one could do during a pandemic.

If people were content to social distance at the beach we wouldn't have closed them. They were only closed when it was shown, over and over, that people were being ridiculous. Gathering in huge groups, hanging out under tents with a dozen people side by side in chairs, playing volleyball where they are panting and breathing hard (aka spewing virus particles) on each other and on the ball then touching the ball after another person panted and sprayed droplets on it, then wiping their eyes to get the sweat out, etc. 

so yes, it should be one of the safer places, but people were not being safe. 

Also, it isn't a matter of grocery stores OR beach. If it was, yes, beach is way more safe, I agree! But it is a matter of grocery store AND beach, or just grocery store. So in that situation, one versus both is lower risk, particularly since people were not following the rules. 

11 hours ago, EmseB said:

So what do you do about those things assuming stuff opens up at some point? I don't think you can legally stop people from religious assembly for very long if you're allowing other places to be open with social distancing. Like, if it can be done in a grocery store, it can be done in a church, it seems like. 

We're now going to enforce mask wearing properly the same way we enforce speeding tickets? Here people are allowed to use buffs or old t-shirts so proper wear is a bit ambiguous or at least not anything like a mask thay fits over the nose properly and secures under the chin, and it's not like you need to wear one just walking outside anyway, or even in one's own car, right? Are we going to have police in stores and businesses looking for mask compliance? Police in churches making sure people are six feet apart in the pews? (which our church started doing voluntarily two Sundays before cancelling everything).These will be interesting times for sure and will definitely produce a lot of interesting legal decisions I feel like.

1. No, it can't be done in many churches. Not when you have churches like mine with hundreds of people with standing room only elbow to elbow in pews, singing and spraying droplets into the air and on all the surfaces, a priest who is doing annointing of the sick so up close and personal and then greeting a few hundred people at a time, etc. We've seen it spread via church over and over again. Even the choir that made sure to have everyone wash hands, no one was sick or sneezing/coughing, they used hand sanitizer, they didnt shake hands or hug or touch each other, and they still had it spread through the majority of the group! So no, you can't really social distance. Having church services is inviting the priest to become the angel of death. 

2. I'd be happy if people wore the mask over both nose and mouth. That was what I was pointing out. They were covering only their mouth, and or just dangling it around their neck not covering either, or wearing it but then taking it off when they wanted to talk to someone. 

4 hours ago, Danae said:

It boggles my mind that people want to “open up” anymore than we are now when you still can’t buy disinfecting products anywhere in town. 
 

There are a whole lot of things I’d like to see happen before restrictions loosen, but “the grocery store cleaning aisle is mostly restocked” is one I would have thought was obvious.

Seriously! We can't say , 'It should be safe if you use hand sanitizer" and think that works when people don't have access to sanitizer. Or peroxide or alcohol, etc to clean surfaces. If you don't get there when they are restocking you can't find bleach, peroxide, rubbing alcohol, or hand sanitizer here. Still. and bleach can't be used on everything - it is corrosive, bleaches surfaces, and of course there are the fumes. Peroxide is great, but like I said, can't find it. Or hand sanitizer, etc. 

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I can verify that yes at least in this area there is plenty of stuff.  Just about the only thing I haven’t been able to get is hand sanitizer.  But tp, paper towels, wipes, bleach, cleaning sprays, I really haven’t had a problem.  

Which doesn’t negate that there are other places where that stuff (and other things) is all still hard to come by.  

 

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Well that’s not universal, plenty is available around here.  This is why it needs to go region by region when the time comes, it’s just not he same situation even in different cities in the same state.

Y'all can just walk into a store and easily find bleach, peroxide, hand sanitizer, etc?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes.  I wasn't looking for hand sanitizer but I was looking at the soap, which was near the hand sanitizer which is how I know it was still out.  But yes, in fact I bought bleach a few days ago at Meijer (midwest superstore like Walmart.) 

And although there wasn't any hand sanitizer and also only a few bottles of liquid hand soap, there was plenty of bar soap.  Also plenty of dish soap, which works just as well to wash hands, though it tends to be more drying.  

I actually have taken to filling my kitchen hand soap bottle with diluted palmolive, as it was less drying than the hand soap! (not true of dawn or other brands). So a tip for anyone that needs it. 

Soap is great for at home, but I'm more concerned about people out and about. Trying to wash hands, especially with multiple kids, in stores, or after shopping, is hard. I've done it, with a jug of water and soap, but it is tricky, and of course has to wait until you get outside, have already opened up the car again to tget the soap and water, I'm trying to figure out how to wash one hand while pouring water with the other, but I've touched the water bottle with my dirty hands, so now it is dirty, so now my hand I just cleaned is dirty again from holding the bottle to pour over the other hand, the kids are standing in a busy parking lot about to get run over, etc. 

We really do need hand sanitizer or outdoor washing stations outside the stores or something, and same in office buildings, etc. And an ability to disinfect/clean elevator buttons, door handles, cafeteria tables (bleach is ok on those probably), desks, office phones, keyboards, cash registers, etc etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, EmseB said:

Then maybe we're not arguing about anything of significance? Because I don't know of anyone advocating for going to sit in a movie theater or stadium in the next six months anyway.

 

Movie theaters are allowed to reopen in Georgia on Monday. Bowling alleys today. So you can put the governor of Georgia on your list of people advocating going to sit in a movie theater. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, EmseB said:

The thing is, I am protected under lockdown! But I am locking myself and my kids down.

 

 

16 hours ago, EmseB said:

doing this for such a short time has huge impacts on food supply and other chains that literally sustain life.

 

You perceive lockdown as affecting food supply chain, but don’t perceive the illness itself as affecting the food supply chain? 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

 

You perceive lockdown as affecting food supply chain, but don’t perceive the illness itself as affecting the food supply chain? 

 

 

Yeah.  What is affecting the food supply chain is a)  the restaurant supply chain not pivoting to supply food to other sectors (though in my state they are (maybe were?) trying to get food for food banks from the restaurant supply chain)  b)  meat companies like Smithfield and now Tyson chicken having outbreaks of the illness in their factories.  It's the illness that is making those workers sick, not the lockdown (that didn't happen for them until large numbers of workers became sick.) 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I don't bring kids, and I don't wash my hands until I get home.  There's nothing living on the steering wheel of my car between one trip and the next when I am not driving it that often so, I guess it doesn't really matter if my "dirty" hand touches my steering wheel.  And, my hand is just going to get "dirty" again once I get home handling the groceries, so yeah, I suppose I am not sure that I think that this thing requires THAT much hand washing/sanitizing.  I wash my hands when I get home, and again, while washing produce (like a lot while handling the putting away process...lots of washing, lots of chopping, etc.)

Also though, I have seen stores that actually *have* hand sanitizer available at the doores.

(I do so wish however that ATMs had some sort of wipie dispenser or something. )

 

Sorry, I was referring to the situation if/when we open things up more. Where more people are out and about, at work, various places, etc. Not the situation now, where one adult goes out infrequently. I think we need more ability to sanitize things before we have lots more people out and about in lots more places. 

9 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

 

You perceive lockdown as affecting food supply chain, but don’t perceive the illness itself as affecting the food supply chain? 

 

 

Exactly. Food supply chain workers are exempt from the shut down already. But they are not exempt from illness, and that has been what closed down processing plants, etc. Not the shut down. 

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

23 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

If people were content to social distance at the beach we wouldn't have closed them. They were only closed when it was shown, over and over, that people were being ridiculous. Gathering in huge groups, hanging out under tents with a dozen people side by side in chairs, playing volleyball where they are panting and breathing hard (aka spewing virus particles) on each other and on the ball then touching the ball after another person panted and sprayed droplets on it, then wiping their eyes to get the sweat out, etc. 

so yes, it should be one of the safer places, but people were not being safe. 

Also, it isn't a matter of grocery stores OR beach. If it was, yes, beach is way more safe, I agree! But it is a matter of grocery store AND beach, or just grocery store. So in that situation, one versus both is lower risk, particularly since people were not following the rules. 

1. No, it can't be done in many churches. Not when you have churches like mine with hundreds of people with standing room only elbow to elbow in pews, singing and spraying droplets into the air and on all the surfaces, a priest who is doing annointing of the sick so up close and personal and then greeting a few hundred people at a time, etc. We've seen it spread via church over and over again. Even the choir that made sure to have everyone wash hands, no one was sick or sneezing/coughing, they used hand sanitizer, they didnt shake hands or hug or touch each other, and they still had it spread through the majority of the group! So no, you can't really social distance. Having church services is inviting the priest to become the angel of death. 

2. I'd be happy if people wore the mask over both nose and mouth. That was what I was pointing out. They were covering only their mouth, and or just dangling it around their neck not covering either, or wearing it but then taking it off when they wanted to talk to someone. 

Seriously! We can't say , 'It should be safe if you use hand sanitizer" and think that works when people don't have access to sanitizer. Or peroxide or alcohol, etc to clean surfaces. If you don't get there when they are restocking you can't find bleach, peroxide, rubbing alcohol, or hand sanitizer here. Still. and bleach can't be used on everything - it is corrosive, bleaches surfaces, and of course there are the fumes. Peroxide is great, but like I said, can't find it. Or hand sanitizer, etc. 

 

Y'all can just walk into a store and easily find bleach, peroxide, hand sanitizer, etc?

You can absolutely have social distance for church. I've read about many churches holding drive in services, passing out communion in a contact less way (same as restaurant take out, basically). Or they are planning on holding more services and limiting how many people can be in the pews at any one time. Or they are planning on sitting in family groups outside. The thing is, legally, if you allow restaurant take out or drive in movies or whatver, you can't say that churches can't meet also in that same way. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that we gather hundreds of people in a sanctuary, make them all shake hands, and have them sing in each other's ears. That is a straw man that also happens to end up with other businesses allowed to open with social distancing but restricts churches from doing the same. You can hold worship without the scene you're describing, even with large groups of people. I saw a picture of someone's church with probably hundreds of cars out on a large field.

I can get everything on your list pretty easily except hand sanitizer, but soap is definitely not a problem. And I just happened to be able to get hand sanitizer on Amazon this morning, but it took a few days of stalking the site because most they are sending to healthcare facilities and the government. On our neighborhood chat people will report when they see stuff in stock at different places around town and supplies are definitely coming back here. Except now I want a pulse ox for my husband to take on deployment and that seems like the thing I can't get now.

The other stuff in your post...I really don't know what to say. Somehow NYC has managed to keep central park open this whole time without issue, afaik. People go out jogging and breathing hard. My parents walk their dog on a beach everyday and everyone stays away from each other. I don't know the demographic issues that would make people want to go to the beach and be on top of each other or so close that rigorous physical activity would be a problem, but it isn't happening here. I mean, yes, someone jogging is blowing out a lot of air, but out of doors with even a slight breeze is going is going to disperse those particles so quickly you'd have to be right up in someone's face to even have a chance of inhaling a significant amount of their output. Most of your post reads to me like you wouldn't want to open up, say, a beach or a park minus some kind of standard of human behavior that is never going to be achieved, and in the absence of that we need the most draconian restrictions possible to keep people away from outdoor public spaces. I think that is only tolerated for so long before people just start going to the beach. And a lot of your language seems hyperbolic and a little panic inducing. The last study I read said people getting infected out of doors was very, very uncommon. We seem to have fundamentally different ideas about what is reasonable to expect of people going forward and, honestly, even the virus itself and what we have to be worried about. Then again, you seem to be going into places where people have to wear masks and I haven't been inside anywhere except my own house for the last three weeks so maybe I'm the one who is more risk averse, lol.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Thanks for saying this. I miss going to church in person with everyone, but it has not altered my freedom of religion at all, and our church has found creative ways to make online services still have a good sense of community and to keep everyone connected. 

 

Which works for the parishioners with Internets.

The same families and communities having problems with online learning are going to have problems with online church.

 

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

I saw an ad on FB for a container that you keep in your car and can spray water for washing hands. It’s probably usually used for camping. You could easily keep a gallon of water and a little bottle of soap and do the same thing.

We’re going to hit the 90s soon. I’m not too worried about germs in my car though since I so rarely drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

  There's nothing living on the steering wheel of my car between one trip and the next when I am not driving it that often

 

There’s probably a whole country of microscopic organisms on your steering wheel and everywhere else (that’s not just been cleaned) normally.  😊

Just that we are usually not dealing with a novel and pathogenic microbe so it usually doesn’t matter.

 

I do understand that what you probably mean is just that time from one drive to next is enough for a coronavirus to be inactivated!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

I saw an ad on FB for a container that you keep in your car and can spray water for washing hands. It’s probably usually used for camping. You could easily keep a gallon of water and a little bottle of soap and do the same thing.

We’re going to hit the 90s soon. I’m not too worried about germs in my car though since I so rarely drive. 

 

I already did that with a bucket and bottle of water and bar of soap! 😊 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kokotg said:

 

Movie theaters are allowed to reopen in Georgia on Monday. Bowling alleys today. So you can put the governor of Georgia on your list of people advocating going to sit in a movie theater. 

With no restrictions on occupancy or requirements for social distancing? Masks or sanitation requirements? Yikes. Seems like not a good plan.

Are theaters actually going to open? Are there even movies to show right now? Is he advocating that people should be going to the movies?? That seems insane.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Church services are still going on in the United States- just not in the buildings. There is still freedom of religion. 

Lol, yeah, you can have church as long as you don't leave your house to do it. 

 

2 hours ago, Pen said:

 

 

 

You perceive lockdown as affecting food supply chain, but don’t perceive the illness itself as affecting the food supply chain? 

 

 

Of course it does! I'm not sure why it wouldn't? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Church services are still going on in the United States- just not in the buildings. There is still freedom of religion. 

Also, that was exactly my point. The churches I know of that are meeting are doing so in their cars and any church planning to reopen is planning on physically spaced out outdoor services or limited occupancy and multiple services. 

Again, as far as legal issues, afaik, you can't put more unique or undue burdens on churches meeting than you would on businesses. But I've taken a grand total of 2 constitutional law classes in my entire life and not recently, so I may be remembering wrong.

My personal church is putting plans together for ways to have church together but separately to protect the most vulnerable and still recognize that it may be wise to not hold services for quite awhile.

But listening to a sermon once a week online is not church. There is a reason persecuted Christians* meet together while risking death to do so in countries where church is outlawed and don't just listen to a sermon online once a week. There's a reason priests minister to the sick and dying even at great personal risk to themselves (thru war and plagues even!).  

If a church can implement distancing, why shouldn't they be allowed to worship together?

*Note I'm not saying American Christians are persecuted, just highlighting that meeting together physically is a priority even under very real duress.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, EmseB said:

With no restrictions on occupancy or requirements for social distancing? Masks or sanitation requirements? Yikes. Seems like not a good plan.

Are theaters actually going to open? Are there even movies to show right now? Is he advocating that people should be going to the movies?? That seems insane.

There are (still to be announced, last I heard) social distancing and sanitation requirements. Still not a good plan. I doubt many theaters will actually open, particularly since most of them are part of national chains AND there are no movies being released right now. But movie theaters are one of the types of businesses explicitly allowed to reopen, which sounds like "advocating" to me. The bowling alley closest to us sent me an e-mail this morning telling me that they're open again as of today. I'm not bowling anytime soon, even though the e-mail reassures me they're only using every other lane. I can get a tattoo again now, too, but I'm also holding off on that for the time being. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Also, that was exactly my point. The churches I know of that are meeting are doing so in their cars and any church planning to reopen is planning on physically spaced out outdoor services or limited occupancy and multiple services. 

Again, as far as legal issues, afaik, you can't put more unique or undue burdens on churches meeting than you would on businesses. But I've taken a grand total of 2 constitutional law classes in my entire life and not recently, so I may be remembering wrong.

My personal church is putting plans together for ways to have church together but separately to protect the most vulnerable and still recognize that it may be wise to not hold services for quite awhile.

But listening to a sermon once a week online is not church. There is a reason persecuted Christians* meet together while risking death to do so in countries where church is outlawed and don't just listen to a sermon online once a week. There's a reason priests minister to the sick and dying even at great personal risk to themselves (thru war and plagues even!).  

If a church can implement distancing, why shouldn't they be allowed to worship together?

*Note I'm not saying American Christians are persecuted, just highlighting that meeting together physically is a priority even under very real duress.

When the plague struck Milan in the 1500's, the Archbishop (St. Charles Borromeo) closed the churches for several years. Mass was held outside and people participated from their homes. Churches were closed during the 1918 flu epidemic. It's not like this has never happened before. 

How do you have church and exclude the most vulnerable? Who decides who is most vulnerable? Does the church say don't come if you're over 60? Will the people who are excluded feel like they are getting second best? As you say, it's "not church." 

Is it loving and charitable to exclude people from the community...for their own good? What I see from people who are upset about the church shutdowns is that those who are "vulnerable" can just stay home. Implying that the rest go about their business with no inconvenience. There's something wrong with that mentality from a church, IMHO. 

And I think there is a legitimate fear that people who are vulnerable will still come to church if services are held. Does the priest send them away? Or will we adopt a "buyer beware" mentality? Don't come if you are high risk but if you come, that's on you. Is that charitable and loving? I don't think so. 

The church could mandate social distancing but that's hard to maintain. What about little kids? Will they comply? What is appropriate social distancing in a church building with air conditioning and singing? I don't think 6 feet is enough. 

Do you limit the number of people who can attend so you can maintain social distancing? How do you do that? Does the church turn people away? 

I know that churches can't be closed forever but all of these things must be considered. 

There's also a liability issue. Our church stopped public liturgies in March. One of the reasons cited by the bishops is that insurance wouldn't cover damages arising from a parishioner contacting COVID at a church service. 

Certainly many priests minister to the sick and dying at personal risk but priests didn't sign up to be martyrs. Our priests are married. Don't they have an obligation to their families? 

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

Well, even though restaurants are allowed to have dine in up here with the limitations and sanitation most from what I can see are sticking with just pick up and delivery. Maybe not. I haven't seen a comprehensive list but even those who don't care about safety (some do) they realize they will lose pick up customers by allowing the dine in customers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had heard that allowing certain businesses to be open even if it is too early to do it safely puts that state's government off the hook on paying unemployment going forward because "they could be in business if they wanted to be".  Don't know if that is true but is sounds reasonable.  And not very ethical.  Or at least not very caring. 

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

You can absolutely have social distance for church. I've read about many churches holding drive in services, passing out communion in a contact less way (same as restaurant take out, basically). Or they are planning on holding more services and limiting how many people can be in the pews at any one time. Or they are planning on sitting in family groups outside. The thing is, legally, if you allow restaurant take out or drive in movies or whatver, you can't say that churches can't meet also in that same way. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that we gather hundreds of people in a sanctuary, make them all shake hands, and have them sing in each other's ears. That is a straw man that also happens to end up with other businesses allowed to open with social distancing but restricts churches from doing the same. You can hold worship without the scene you're describing, even with large groups of people. I saw a picture of someone's church with probably hundreds of cars out on a large field.

I can get everything on your list pretty easily except hand sanitizer, but soap is definitely not a problem. And I just happened to be able to get hand sanitizer on Amazon this morning, but it took a few days of stalking the site because most they are sending to healthcare facilities and the government. On our neighborhood chat people will report when they see stuff in stock at different places around town and supplies are definitely coming back here. Except now I want a pulse ox for my husband to take on deployment and that seems like the thing I can't get now.

The other stuff in your post...I really don't know what to say. Somehow NYC has managed to keep central park open this whole time without issue, afaik. People go out jogging and breathing hard. My parents walk their dog on a beach everyday and everyone stays away from each other. I don't know the demographic issues that would make people want to go to the beach and be on top of each other or so close that rigorous physical activity would be a problem, but it isn't happening here. I mean, yes, someone jogging is blowing out a lot of air, but out of doors with even a slight breeze is going is going to disperse those particles so quickly you'd have to be right up in someone's face to even have a chance of inhaling a significant amount of their output. Most of your post reads to me like you wouldn't want to open up, say, a beach or a park minus some kind of standard of human behavior that is never going to be achieved, and in the absence of that we need the most draconian restrictions possible to keep people away from outdoor public spaces. I think that is only tolerated for so long before people just start going to the beach. And a lot of your language seems hyperbolic and a little panic inducing. The last study I read said people getting infected out of doors was very, very uncommon. We seem to have fundamentally different ideas about what is reasonable to expect of people going forward and, honestly, even the virus itself and what we have to be worried about. Then again, you seem to be going into places where people have to wear masks and I haven't been inside anywhere except my own house for the last three weeks so maybe I'm the one who is more risk averse, lol.

If you mean in cars, or drive up church, I'm fine with that! In fact, that is still legal right now, even with the stay in place ordinance I believe. But in the church, having mass, there really is no way. Not at least around here, with thousands of parishoners per church! Like I said, it is standing room only, literally. If you don't get their early, and don't squish, you don't get a seat. Communion in certain denominations can't be "no contact" by canon law. And the week before the shut down, even when it was very apparant people should NOT be at church, the few that went to my church were shoulder to shoulder at the communion rail...I saw it on the livestream. And the priests the next week, after the shut down, were standing right next to each other! So without strict written regulations, no, I don't trust people to know how to handle this. 

And I have no issue with people jogging and keeping distance, although there seems to be evidence that the virus travels farther when people are breathing hard. And although sunlight and heat and humidity kill it, it still lives for over 1 minute from what I saw most recently, and if you are sitting 2 feet apart on the beach chatting away, that's plenty of time to cross infect. Or playing vollyball with a shared ball, or climbing on a jungle gym, or playing basketball, etc. 

I have no issue with people safely hiking, walking jogging. I have issue with people NOT doing that, hence being shut down. 

3 hours ago, Plum said:

I saw an ad on FB for a container that you keep in your car and can spray water for washing hands. It’s probably usually used for camping. You could easily keep a gallon of water and a little bottle of soap and do the same thing.

We’re going to hit the 90s soon. I’m not too worried about germs in my car though since I so rarely drive. 

But here is where I got confused, lol. I pick up the bottle of water with my dirty hands. I hold it in my right hand, pour over left hand. Soap up, pick now contaminated bottle back up, rinse left hand. Switch contaminated bottle to clean left hand, which is now contaminated again, to rinse right hand. etc etc. 

This, by the way, is why people use their arm on faucets! 

I suppose maybe I could have enough papertowels to try to grab the bottle with that, then switch to a clean towel or something. Need to figure it out. 

Edited - I have it! I could have a diluted bottle of soapy water to use to soap up, so that would get contaminated, and set down while I soap up (to heat up in my car) or I could even soap up the outside of that bottle while I do my hands. Then with my soapy hands (assuming that the soap has by now deactivated the virus) I pick up the bottle of plain water to rinse my hands with! That would work! 

3 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I already did that with a bucket and bottle of water and bar of soap! 😊 

 

See above! I swear, I had this exact idea, thought I was brilliant, and then got totall befuddled when trying to do it with 3 kids the one time we went out about a week before the shut down. 

Also, I should have clarified, if it is jus to drive home from the store, I have no issue with waiting to wash when I get home. I'm not worried about the car itself getting dirty. But if it is a longer drive, or I have kids with me at some point, they are likely to touch their face at some point if I don't have them wash right away. Same with in the store, etc. And there is the greater issue of in malls, stores, churches, business, etc when those open up. Right now they don't have enough wipes for the carts, or any hand sanitizer in the stations, etc. My friend with a small business is having trouble finding bulk orders of disinfectant to use between clients, enough gloves for all staff, etc. (eye care center)

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

 

But listening to a sermon once a week online is not church. There is a reason persecuted Christians* meet together while risking death to do so in countries where church is outlawed and don't just listen to a sermon online once a week. There's a reason priests minister to the sick and dying even at great personal risk to themselves (thru war and plagues even!).  

If a church can implement distancing, why shouldn't they be allowed to worship together?

*Note I'm not saying American Christians are persecuted, just highlighting that meeting together physically is a priority even under very real duress.

There is a HUGE difference between Christians choosing to risk their own death to meet, and Christians choosing to risk OTHERS lives in order to meet. There is NOTHING Christian about the church itself becoming a vector of disease to others in the community, despite knowing the risk. (I should use past tense as it has already happened). 

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

2 minutes ago, kand said:

That’s very much what it looks like to me. Particularly in Georgia with them first opening up a bunch of high contact businesses that should be among the last to open. If they give them permission to open, then it’s on the business owner for the deciding it’s not safe, and the state government is off the hook for paying unemployment for a large number of businesses, even if they still aren’t open 😢.

 

14 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I had heard that allowing certain businesses to be open even if it is too early to do it safely puts that state's government off the hook on paying unemployment going forward because "they could be in business if they wanted to be".  Don't know if that is true but is sounds reasonable.  And not very ethical.  Or at least not very caring. 

THIS is what the Christians should be protesting about, not their right to gather in a church for their own benefit. It is pure evil. 

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

7 minutes ago, kand said:

That’s very much what it looks like to me. Particularly in Georgia with them first opening up a bunch of high contact businesses that should be among the last to open. If they give them permission to open, then it’s on the business owner for the deciding it’s not safe, and the state government is off the hook for paying unemployment for a large number of businesses, even if they still aren’t open 😢.

I would be surprised if this is the case.  If a business is not open and workers are not working, then why would workers not be eligible to receive unemployment benefits?  Unemployment is designed for workers to be protected when they are put out of work for some reason than their own decision/actions.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would be surprised if this is the case.  If a business is not open and workers are not working, then why would workers not be eligible to receive unemployment benefits?  Unemployment is designed for workers to be protected when they are put out of work for some reason than their own decision/actions.  

But if the owner of the business, who can hide out in the office and not have a lot of contact, technically decides to open, and tells employees to come back and they don't, what then? If they have been offered work, they can't get unemployment, not sure if that changes if owner then doesn't have enough employees to open. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

That's really dismissive.

 

 

The poster I was quoting mentioned people with hypertension several times, presumably as a typical example of people at high risk.  I find the continued claim that the course of action recommended as best for at risk people by many epidemiologists is actually about people being selfish pretty dismissive.

  • Like 2
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...