Is the goal FLATTEN THE CURVE or ELIMINATE COVID?

[Corraleno]

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. 

[EmseB]

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. 

[ktgrok]

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. 

[EmseB]

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.

[EmseB]

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.

[EmseB]

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.

[EmseB]

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.

[Jean in Newcastle]

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. 

[JennyD]

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.

[JennyD]

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.  

[BeachGal]

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

[BeachGal]

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. 

[Carol in Cal.]

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.

[ktgrok]

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?

[ktgrok]

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. 

[kokotg]

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. 

[Pen]

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? 

 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

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.) 

[ktgrok]

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. 

[EmseB]

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.

[Jean in Newcastle]

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

[vonfirmath]

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.

 

[Pen]

 

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!!!

 

[Pen]

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! 😊 

 

[EmseB]

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.

[EmseB]

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? 

[EmseB]

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.

[kokotg]

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. 

[frogger]

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. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

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. 

[ktgrok]

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 April 24, 2020 by Ktgrok

[ktgrok]

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. 

[Bootsie]

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.  

[ktgrok]

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. 

[Bluegoat]

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.

[Bluegoat]

20 hours 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.

 

I think there are a few issues here, but the main thing is I think you are looking for a solution that doesn't exist.  Yes, it would be nice if we could keep people with more risk safe and so they would be protected while keeping the virus from spreading and letting people go on about their essential business.  The question is, is that possible at all medically, is it possible from a behavioural perspective, and what would be the trade offs of doing that?  It's possible that the answer is no, no, or the trade offs are worse than what they are preventing.  

Someone having more risk is also not really the same as high risk.  People who are obese, or men, or possibly people who are black, have a higher risk. There probably isn't a lot we can do to level that, they are a result of having different physiological factors, populations always include a profile of people with different risk levels, unhealthy populations will have more.  People that are immunocompromised or very elderly are high risk at another level that goes beyond normal risk differences in the population. There probably isn't a hard line between these two groups but when doctors talk about trying to shield the most vulnerable, it's really the second group they are talking about.

But protecting those people is not just about people avoiding crowds, social isolating, etc. Those things are not meant to stop the spread, because they won't. They will only slow it, people who are moving about in the world will still almost certainly eventually be exposed as long as the virus is in the population.  The really vulnerable, if they want to be protected, have to take much more extreme measures - they really can't go to work, see anyone outside their household, they need to practice social isolation from others in their own household unless they too are completely socially isolated. So potentially not sleeping with their spouse, touching their own small kids. That's the kind of situation that isn't sustainable for any significant amount of time. 

I have an aunt in that position now. Under normal circumstances her life largely revolves around her apartment, she gets out on her scooter somewhat and she attends NA meetings three times a week which is her main social life. She has no spouse, roommate, or kids. She has the VoN in to cook for her, and help her bathe, and deal with her urostomy. Now, she can't go out and there are no NA meetings, and she can't have anyone in. Her VoN nurse is a risk she'd have to take except that she can't get one regularly as they have become seriously short staffed. So she has to manage with fewer visits as best she can. No one should have to live like that long, and she probably can't though I don't know where she's go. It's not impossible she will have a fall or otherwise deteriorate as a result of the situation.

The only way for people like her to get out, unless she chooses to take risks, is when the virus is no longer moving in the population. And barring a few places where they can totally control movement into the country on a long term basis, and maybe not even then, reducing transmission alone won't accomplish that, only vaccination or immunity.  Or at least that's the view of many epidemiologists. Vaccination may or may not happen, so that leaves immunity. So how long should people like my aunt have to isolate completely to wait for that?  The longer we draw out the time to immunity, the longer they wait. No one wants to overwhelm health services, but stretching things out more, for unsure benefits, that has a significant human costs. And that's even with ignoring things like predictions around issues with agriculture and such.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

34 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

People are 'at risk' for many reasons, and not all of them are 'lifestyle acquired'. 

It's easy to scoff at high blood pressure, because it's easy to blame people for that - 'they' don't eat right, 'they' don't exercise. 

I don't have a hypertension problem, but anyone suggesting the 'at risk' simply isolate themselves completely until a so-far-hypotherical vaccine, so everyone else can get back to 'normal', really needs to start taking 'at risk' seriously as a population...seriously enough that they don't deal with the problem of elevated risk with a scolding that people 'simply can't face death' or 'have the choice to stay at home' - hint: at risk people need work, and money, and food, and housing, and social connection too - probably more, given that low socio-economic status, where it (often) correlates with over-crowding, is a risk factor in and of itself.

This is a PUBLIC health emergency.

It requires the PUBLIC to change their behaviours, and yes, change them long term. 

That includes young people, and people who are not considered to be at any elevated risk.

 

 

I'm not sure at this point what your real objection is to what I've been saying.  I don't care if people's risk is elevated for reasons beyond their control or because they make an informed and completely free decision to smoke and drink and eat whipped cream all day.  I do care that there are elderly people in homes who have been locked in for weeks and who can't come out, or see their relatives, even if they are dying, and that is how it will be until there is no more COVID around.  Which will also be better for people who are high risk but aren't in a position to totally isolate, or who don't want to do so. 

You said you don't particularly think a vaccine is forthcoming, so what option is there for the first group other than to stay locked up? Or the second other than wait until they get it, even if it takes a year?  Even if we keep up with social isolation to some degree in the long term, we'll have to see many or most go back to work, and kids go back to school. The virus is still spreading now, with current measures in place, and it will spread more once they are relaxed.  Those at risk will still be at risk, having to be locked in.

 

[Wheres Toto]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

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. 

Unemployment usually requires that you are willing and able to work and actively looking for employment.   Most states have waived the "actively looking" requirement right now (for obvious reasons).   If Georgia opens up again, they can reinstate the requirement to be actively looking for employment.  So even if someone's current employer decides not to open up, if other places are open and hiring, they are expected to be applying for jobs and accepting any reasonable offers.    It's evil and will affect lower income and minorities to a large extent.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think there are a few issues here, but the main thing is I think you are looking for a solution that doesn't exist.  Yes, it would be nice if we could keep people with more risk safe and so they would be protected while keeping the virus from spreading and letting people go on about their essential business.  The question is, is that possible at all medically, is it possible from a behavioural perspective, and what would be the trade offs of doing that?  It's possible that the answer is no, no, or the trade offs are worse than what they are preventing.  

Someone having more risk is also not really the same as high risk.  People who are obese, or men, or possibly people who are black, have a higher risk. There probably isn't a lot we can do to level that, they are a result of having different physiological factors, populations always include a profile of people with different risk levels, unhealthy populations will have more.  People that are immunocompromised or very elderly are high risk at another level that goes beyond normal risk differences in the population. There probably isn't a hard line between these two groups but when doctors talk about trying to shield the most vulnerable, it's really the second group they are talking about.

But protecting those people is not just about people avoiding crowds, social isolating, etc. Those things are not meant to stop the spread, because they won't. They will only slow it, people who are moving about in the world will still almost certainly eventually be exposed as long as the virus is in the population.  The really vulnerable, if they want to be protected, have to take much more extreme measures - they really can't go to work, see anyone outside their household, they need to practice social isolation from others in their own household unless they too are completely socially isolated. So potentially not sleeping with their spouse, touching their own small kids. That's the kind of situation that isn't sustainable for any significant amount of time. 

I have an aunt in that position now. Under normal circumstances her life largely revolves around her apartment, she gets out on her scooter somewhat and she attends NA meetings three times a week which is her main social life. She has no spouse, roommate, or kids. She has the VoN in to cook for her, and help her bathe, and deal with her urostomy. Now, she can't go out and there are no NA meetings, and she can't have anyone in. Her VoN nurse is a risk she'd have to take except that she can't get one regularly as they have become seriously short staffed. So she has to manage with fewer visits as best she can. No one should have to live like that long, and she probably can't though I don't know where she's go. It's not impossible she will have a fall or otherwise deteriorate as a result of the situation.

The only way for people like her to get out, unless she chooses to take risks, is when the virus is no longer moving in the population. And barring a few places where they can totally control movement into the country on a long term basis, and maybe not even then, reducing transmission alone won't accomplish that, only vaccination or immunity.  Or at least that's the view of many epidemiologists. Vaccination may or may not happen, so that leaves immunity. So how long should people like my aunt have to isolate completely to wait for that?  The longer we draw out the time to immunity, the longer they wait. No one wants to overwhelm health services, but stretching things out more, for unsure benefits, that has a significant human costs. And that's even with ignoring things like predictions around issues with agriculture and such.

I have missed some of this thread but which epidemiologists are advocating faster spread and herd immunity?  All the ones I’ve seen are advocating social distancing as long as possible.  The UK were going to do the herd immunity model then did the math and realised the health system would be overwhelmed rapidly.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

2 hours 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. 

Unemployment is paid to the worker and is not contingent upon why the business is no longer operating.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

32 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

Unemployment usually requires that you are willing and able to work and actively looking for employment.   Most states have waived the "actively looking" requirement right now (for obvious reasons).   If Georgia opens up again, they can reinstate the requirement to be actively looking for employment.  So even if someone's current employer decides not to open up, if other places are open and hiring, they are expected to be applying for jobs and accepting any reasonable offers.    It's evil and will affect lower income and minorities to a large extent.

Considering we have roughly 3.5 million newly unemployed in the state, there isn't going to be enough job creation in the near term to justify going back to the "actively looking" requirement.  Even if they do, that requirement is not that difficult to meet.

[kokotg]

8 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Unemployment is paid to the worker and is not contingent upon why the business is no longer operating.

My understanding is that the issue is when the business DOES decide to open back up but employees don't feel inclined to risk their lives for a minimum wage job handing people bowling shoes.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

My understanding is that the issue is when the business DOES decide to open back up but employees don't feel inclined to risk their lives for a minimum wage job handing people bowling shoes.

Considering the current effect on business activity, this argument has been a bit of a red herring.  There will still be mass layoffs and continued business closures until demand returns.

There is unlikely to be a vaccine anytime soon, and eventually most people will be returning to work in a world where covid exists.

Edited April 25, 2020 by ChocolateReignRemix

[kokotg]

Just now, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Considering the current effect on business activity, this argument has been a bit of a red herring.  There will still be mass layoffs and continued business closures until demand returns.

But if someone who worked at the bowling alley down the street and is collecting unemployment is called back to work (again--the bowling alley by my house is reopened as of today--it's not theoretical) wouldn't they no longer be eligible for unemployment if they didn't feel safe going back? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

4 minutes ago, kokotg said:

But if someone who worked at the bowling alley down the street and is collecting unemployment is called back to work (again--the bowling alley by my house is reopened as of today--it's not theoretical) wouldn't they no longer be eligible for unemployment if they didn't feel safe going back? 

Possibly. My point is that many won't be recalled, and among those businesses which reopen not every employee will be recalled. 

And even then, if GA doesn't open right now it likely will in the next couple of weeks (as will all states) because they *have* to - if we want to save the economy in the near term we have to start generating business activity where possible.  Is handing out bowling shoes more risky than working the window at McDonald's?

[kokotg]

2 hours ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Possibly. My point is that many won't be recalled, and among those businesses which reopen not every employee will be recalled. 

And even then, if GA doesn't open right now it likely will in the next couple of weeks (as will all states) because they *have* to - if we want to save the economy in the near term we have to start generating business activity where possible.  Is handing out bowling shoes more risky than working the window at McDonald's?

 

Probably not, and that's a whole other issue, and I would say that going forward we need to reevaluate who and what we value in our economy. Georgia is not following ANYONE'S idea of when and what it's safe to reopen, though. It has the 12th most cases in the US and is the 14th worst state at testing per capita. It doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the federal guidelines about when to start reopening. And bowling alleys? Movie theaters? Tattoo parlors? It doesn't make any sense and if/when it backfires then we're back to worse than where we started. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by kokotg

[ChocolateReignRemix]

3 minutes ago, kokotg said:

 

Probably not, and that's a whole other issue, and I would say that going forward we need to reevaluate who and what we value in our economy. Georgia is not following ANYONE'S idea of when and what it's safe to reopen, though. It has the 12th most cases in the US and is the 14th worst state at testing per capita. It doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the federal guidelines about when to start reopening. And bowling alleys? Movie theaters? Tattoo parlors? It doesn't make any sense and if/when it backfires then we're back to worse then where we started. 

If other states aren't doing the same in less than 4 weeks it will be too late. 

The simple reality is that you cannot shut down large segments of the economy for extended periods.  It simply isn't sustainable.  And it isn't like the laughable comparisons to a wartime economy where other production comes into play.

Edited April 25, 2020 by ChocolateReignRemix

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

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? 

Churches I am aware of are doing the best they can to figure all of this out in a way that is as loving and as inclusive as possible. You mention church outside...yes, that's what I'm talking about. As for who is included and excluded, I think that is on the pastors and elders to make sure no one falls through the cracks. In every church I've been too, provisions have been made for those too ill or bedridden to attend church. In this case, I think that group would be expanded.

As for your last question, I don't know what obligations priests have in your tradition or what their individual families feel about it. In our tradition, everyone is called to love sacrificially, pastors and elders have callings and obligations to visit the sick and dying specifically. Joining the pastorate is a heavy undertaking because of things like that and what it means for family life.

Finally, I'll just say that much has been made of keeping liquor stores open for alcoholics. I don't think we can discount that despite the dangers, such as they would be going into a liquor store, the balm to the soul provided by the church is very real, especially during times like these. I think we need to be creative in how to meet people's needs, with online services being only one part of that. 

Again, if your church can only meet shoulder to shoulder in a big giant room, please don't think I'm saying that is what should happen. If your church can't innovate outside of that model, then by all means keep it closed. It's also worth considering that corporate worship is worth flexing for and trying to find innovative ways to be together but separate, and some people need more than an online lecture once or twice a week. I know there are people who don't consider corporate worship as essential as a liquor store. I think if that's the case then any attempt to have worship (outside or in cars or distanced in some way) will likely look unnecessary at best. 

[ktgrok]

 

39 minutes ago, mms said:

It is not essential for you, but no government has the right to decide that it is not essential even if they continue trying to do so.

Again, I am not saying that church goers should not make sacrifices for the common good, I have family members on the front lines in healthcare, you bet I want to keep them safe! But, fact is the standard is being applied unequally. People can go to drive in theaters, play golf, go hang out at the store that happens to have a small grocery section and yet are not given the freedom to find creative ways to continue to worship together. Note, I said “creative.” It is a straw man to claim that services will necessarily involve violating sound social distancing practices.

And it is a double standard to not allow church attendance because the high risk might attend and not make prudent decisions. i was at the farm store getting very necessary feed for our animals and the place was packed with people just socializing. I had so much trouble keeping 6 ft distance. There were elderly who were in the checkout line with nothing but candy or soda in their carts.  The same people who will supposedly attend church despite being high risk are already putting themselves in harm’s way just because the farm store is on the life sustaining list and their usual hangout was closed. Don’t even get me started on how people act at Walmart, all without enforcement, while the police take down license plate numbers of church goers.

What you don't seem to be getting is that your description of people engaging in high risk activities at the stores makes it even MORE important to limit other things. We can't shut down groceries, so if people are doing to be getting exposed there, all the more reason not to give them a new venue to spread what they caught. And the elderly person has already had to deal with the exposure risk at walmart, so even more reason to limit the exposure anywhere else that they can. 

And saying you want places to open up cautiously, with social distancing, is not what a lot of people are advocating, both on the news and even in this thread. We have people in this thread saying that instead of social distancing and limiting exposure we should just jump in and expose as many as possible as quickly as possible without totally overwhelming the hospitals. So I honestly don't think you and I have different ideas of what things will or should look like, but I do have a very different opinion than those saying no one should be allowed to shut anything down, or impose regulations like masks or distancing, etc etc. We have mayors saying it isn't their business to help figure out safe ways to open up, just let the companies try and if they spread a bunch of illness well, competition and the free market will eventually shut them down. 

 

[GoodGrief]

4 hours ago, frogger said:

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. 

 I think it's more about not being able to cover costs with the limited amount of seating allowed under AK's current plan.