Jump to content

Menu

Is the goal FLATTEN THE CURVE or ELIMINATE COVID?


Ottakee
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TCB said:

Does anyone know how these children contracted Covid? Was it from their parent? It makes me a bit nervous because I thought that if we were really careful and took good precautions we wouldn’t bring it home from work. I realize that if I contract it at work I can pass it on. Were the parents sick? I couldn’t see that it said those kinds of details in the article.

I don't know about the baby, but both parents of the 5 year old may have had it: 

"While it’s still unclear how Skylar contracted the coronavirus, both of her parents have experienced virus symptoms, with her father recently overcoming a fever and pneumonia. Her mother says that she recently lost her sense of taste and smell around March 20, which data suggests is a symptom of the virus."

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, it's what most jurisdictions are anticipating even with the social distancing measures. They are still expecting to have a herd immunity situation at the end of it, so something like 80% or more who have caught it.

The most vulnerable people, ie people on immuno-suppresent drugs and the very fragile, those in care homes, etc are here not being told to do just those things. They are being told that if they want to avoid infection they need to completely quarantine. For example if their spouse goes out to do the shopping, they need to social distance from their spouse in their own home.  That's not what the public is being told to do, it's what the doctors are telling them privately and how they are managing the care homes. (Although the latter isn't working well because they can't make the workers live in.)

I'm not sure that having husband shop and then distance from him in the house is really that different from what I said, delivery with no contact, and then disinfecting the items. For people staying home, not going to stores at all or interacting with those going to stores, or at minimum wearing masks and social distancing  the few times they must go out, likely to catch it? Because if they are, I don't see how the vulnerable can be protected at all and the entire idea is just lip service. 

And if they are not, then are you saying that people like my family - husband can work from home, we have good grocery delivery services if not perfect, we are doing minimal outside the house things and only if masked and 6 ft or more of distance (say a trip to one store to get items we cant' get elsewhere once a week or less), curbside delivery for needed medication/veterinary treatment, etc - are people like that still likely to get it in the next several months? And if not, are you saying that we should stop doing those things, from a public health standpoint, and go out and shop and socialize in order to get the country to herd immunity so the elderly and immune compromised can go out?

33 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

80% of the US population is over 260 million people. Even if we somehow manage to "protect the most vulnerable" and bring the fatality rate down to 0.75%, that's 2 million deaths. Even if we could somehow manage to spread out those deaths evenly throughout an entire year (which of course is impossible), that's 5,500 deaths PER DAY in the US for an entire year. No matter how much PPE we have, no matter how many ventilators US hospitals have, there is no way the US healthcare system can handle 2 million pandemic deaths in a single year.

Are people who are advocating the "herd immunity ASAP" approach just not doing the math? I am seriously confused as to how people can advocate a "solution" that results in 2 million deaths in a year and think that will not overwhelm the hospitals, destroy the economy, and totally freak people out???

Yes. I've seen the math they did a while back on that, and it wasn't pretty. Which is why we didn't go with that option of just protect the vulnerable from the beginning. If that idea isn't working for other places, and we didn't think it would work here in the beginning of this, why do we think it is a good idea now?

32 minutes ago, JennyD said:

I am a little perplexed by the church discussion.  Are churches really going to reopen anytime soon, even if groups are legally permitted?  What are more centralized denominations, like the Catholic Church and the LDS Church doing?

I saw a report today that all synagogues in the United States are legally closed, regardless of what the law in their jurisdiction happens to be.  At this point they are staying closed as a matter of Jewish law more than US law.  All synagogues in Israel are closed on the basis of both secular and Jewish law.  There are other synagogues scattered around the world, of course, but I seriously doubt any are open.  

The general assumption among people I know is that synagogues will stay closed for a very long time, possibly until there is a vaccine or at least a major advance in how this virus is controlled/treated.  It is devastating to Jewish communal life, obviously, and I personally find it extremely painful, as do countless others, but I think we're just in one of those periods of Jewish history when we don't get to be together.  At least this time it's because of a general threat and not because we are being persecuted.

 

The local Catholic church, my old parish was the very last to shut down, only when it became mandatory. Same with my Episcopal parish. Some churches in the state continued in defiance of the law even afterward. 

17 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It's not really an "even if" discussion though. What's the other option? It's not under our control, it's a virus.  Even with people washing hands, working at home, not travelling, and all the rest, there is still transmission.  

Are you suggesting we go for a complete quarantine until, and if, we manage to find a vaccine?  

It seems to me like you are saying that because this is too many deaths, we can't allow that, but I'm not sure why you think we can control it.  We don't manage to control many illnesses. And how would you plan to manage the problems created by maintaining long term social isolation?  If that is what you are advocating you have to account for that end of it too.

With a larger population their will be a larger number of deaths, that's the math as you say, but do you really think places with a smaller population are in a different situation? They have fewer resources.  

 

I'm curious would you say this if this had a much much higher fatality rate? Is that rate a factor in this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

Locally, many chefs are deciding to close restaurants than to do takeouts because they fear that their employees and themselves (most of whom do not have good health insurance) will catch this virus and die. A few of them even wrote emails to their customers saying that they are only Chefs and not health experts and that they do not understand how this virus works and that they do not want to risk the lives of their employees by staying open.

One more reason I keep thinking that having more data on how this is and is not transmitted and how best to protect against transmission will make a huge difference. In just a matter of weeks we went from thinking that it was mostly transferred via surfaces (door knobs and such) to having most of a choir get it via airborne transmission. That kind of knowledge is important, and has taken weeks not years. 

8 minutes ago, TCB said:

Does anyone know how these children contracted Covid? Was it from their parent? It makes me a bit nervous because I thought that if we were really careful and took good precautions we wouldn’t bring it home from work. I realize that if I contract it at work I can pass it on. Were the parents sick? I couldn’t see that it said those kinds of details in the article.

If you get it, and don't have symptoms, you could pass it on is my understanding. 

8 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think you are right about lack of trust in the information. It's become a problem in so many areas.  And lack of trust in government tends to cause elevated reactions and I think contributes toward things like hoarding. If you can't trust the larger social structure it quickly becomes every person for themselves.

I'm not sure it's all about trusting that most will be fine if they get sick though that must help a lot.  But I think the people I know who are most calm see it more in terms of - there are many things I could die from, and this is just one of them, one day, it will be one thing or another.  To some extent that's personality I guess, that's a very phlegmatic response. But it might also depend in part to the larger social attitude about things like healthcare and death, and also the way those things are supported in the larger culture.

Sure....but we take precautions against those things we could die of. We get vaccines, we wear a seatbelt and follow traffic laws, we mandate building code and fire codes, etc. We don't just say, well, I'll probably be hit by a car at some point, so I'm not going to worry about looking both ways before I cross the street. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Of course there are options besides the extremes of total quarantine and "let it rip."

It seems that lot of people thought "flattening the curve" was a short-term, one-time thing, and then its back to normal. "Back to normal" will very quickly overwhelm the medical system. The lock down was designed to get things under control before we had bodies piled up in the street, but until there is a vaccine or much better treatments, there is going to be some level of "not normal." No it won't be a total lockdown, businesses will gradually reopen with various measures in place to minimize risk, and people will need to continue a certain level of social distancing, mask wearing, etc.  But the idea that the only "real option" is that we sequester the elderly and let everyone else catch it so we can get to herd immunity ASAP is NOT viable. Two million deaths will cause far more economic disruption — not to mention psychological trauma — than continuing some level of social distancing until we get a vaccine or much better treatment options.

 

Look, I am not sure what you are arguing here. Herd immunity at a level that doesn't overwhelm health care means not so many dead at once, that's the point. No one is saying that some measures won't carry on, but they are not going to be able to be maintained at the higher level they have been long term. And that means there will still be transmission, more than under current restrictions, until either there is vaccination, or immunity, or maybe we will have to get used to them permannenly. Keep in mind that the most significant restrictions may be the ones it's most difficult to keep up long term.

But you do realise how that impacts those who have been told they need to be sequestered? And what if there is no vaccine, or much better treatment options? Do you want them to come out, knowing that if they catch it they will almost certainly die? Some people have called this the "sacrifice the elderly" approach. It may be that its the only realistic option if it becomes simply a regular yearly infection, but I am struggling how anyone is seeing is as evidence of being kinder.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

If you get it, and don't have symptoms, you could pass it on is my understanding. 

That part is bad enough for sure. I suddenly had some horror that they brought it home on themselves or their clothing etc,  despite taking precautions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Look, I am not sure what you are arguing here. Herd immunity at a level that doesn't overwhelm health care means not so many dead at once, that's the point. No one is saying that some measures won't carry on, but they are not going to be able to be maintained at the higher level they have been long term. And that means there will still be transmission, more than under current restrictions, until either there is vaccination, or immunity, or maybe we will have to get used to them permannenly. Keep in mind that the most significant restrictions may be the ones it's most difficult to keep up long term.

But you do realise how that impacts those who have been told they need to be sequestered? And what if there is no vaccine, or much better treatment options? Do you want them to come out, knowing that if they catch it they will almost certainly die? Some people have called this the "sacrifice the elderly" approach. It may be that its the only realistic option if it becomes simply a regular yearly infection, but I am struggling how anyone is seeing is as evidence of being kinder.

This conversation is becoming truly surreal to me. 

You say herd immunity requires 80% infected.
80% infected = 2 million deaths even if we manage to reduce the fatality rate below 1%
2 million deaths spread out over an entire year will STILL overwhelm the health care system and lead to huge economic disruptions.

Are you're saying 2 million deaths and an overwhelmed healthcare system is just the price we have to pay because it's really hard for old people to be shut away for a year, so trying to prevent 2 million deaths and an overwhelmed healthcare system = a "sacrifice the elderly approach"???

So the alternative is to squeeze the 2 million deaths into 6 months, with 11,000 deaths per day (as if that wouldn't result in bodies in the streets), so old people only have to stay sequestered for 6 months, which would be "kinder"???

I am genuinely not following the logic here. 

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

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm not sure that having husband shop and then distance from him in the house is really that different from what I said, delivery with no contact, and then disinfecting the items. For people staying home, not going to stores at all or interacting with those going to stores, or at minimum wearing masks and social distancing  the few times they must go out, likely to catch it? Because if they are, I don't see how the vulnerable can be protected at all and the entire idea is just lip service. 

 

I don't mean distancing just after he shops, I mean distancing from him altogether.  As in, you don't touch him at all, you don't get closer than six feet from him, you don't sleep in the same bed. Some health care workers here, if they have vulnerable family members, are living separately in airbnbs, not seeing their kids.

Most people who are just higher risk, say with obesity, or asthma, aren't doing that stuff. But for the most vulnerable that's the recommendation.  I don't know if it amounts to lip service, but that level of isolation can really only be maintained for a short time IMO, some may not be willing to do it at all.  I think what gets a little lost sometimes is that those people are already at high risk to die of some infection, but then you essentially are having to tell them you can't do anything for them.

Quote

I'm curious would you say this if this had a much much higher fatality rate? Is that rate a factor in this?

 

I'm not sure fatality rate alone is what is in question. It's more what difference can you make by acting, and what are the trade-offs (like fatalities caused by the measures.).  I suppose we could have a highly contagious virus that kills 50% of us come up next week, if we do the maximum possible (whatever that is) and it prevented most of those deaths, we'd still have to ask how long they would be sustainable, and eventually settle for something less. And that still might be "too many" deaths.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if people mostly shelter at home and only go out when they need to, and to go for walks and such, having that much less contact with people means less people will get it. The less people who have it, the less people they can spread to, and so on. IF Covid can not be gotten twice, then I think our objective should be to flatten the curve. If it can be gotten twice, then our objective should be to get rid of it. 

I think in areas with low rates of infection could lighten up a lot on the restrictions. But I also think the areas with high rates of infection should keep strict restrictions. Meanwhile, Michigan and Vermont...what the heck? That is just over the top what is going on there.  By lighten up restrictions, I do not mean suddenly drop them. I would propose that there be limits to number of people in places. Right now, our community center can be so packed that it is not safe to be there with no diseases. Places should be limited for the number of people to the point where people would generally remain a distance from each other just because of how few people are there. I would think pretty much all retail could open and just limit the number of people inside or at the place. Fire limits are not good enough. I am talking maybe a tenth of the people that fire regulations would allow. It would not be practical to reopen college dorms where people have to share bathrooms or living space. And public schools could most certainly keep classes online but allow kids to come in who need special therapies.  I know some schools have small classrooms and pack the kids in with barely any room to move around. And kids would be counted truant if they did not go, so we need to keep those legally closed. And as far as employers go, those employers should have to prove the person needs to be in person to do the work. My husband's company already announced that everyone will have to come in as soon as the restrictions are lifted. This is nuts because he is a software developer. There is no point to being there in person. I have a neighbor who works in accounting who has been told the same thing, even though he says unless there is a luncheon or something, he never interacts with anyone so not actual need for him to be there.  I just do not think employers or schools or such will be willing to work with people if they want to continue to stay home if they don't have to. It sucks that the government has to do what they have done, but I think it has protected a lot of people. Some people keep saying "but what about mental health?" Well, what about it? Some people are getting depressed from being home, but some people are having less mental health problems. Some people are having less problems due to better air quality. Less people are dying in car accidents. Even the crime rates have dropped. People don't seem to be talking about the side effects of the quarantine, but there are some good things. I know I am going off on a tangent...but I can see families spending time together who never did before, or rarely did before. I can see parents who really thought they would not be able to handle time with their kids all day, and now they have found they can. Also, in addition to not getting Covid, there are other illnesses people are not getting. 

Okay, I was all over the place, sorry about that. But I hope I have managed to communicate what I wanted to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Sure....but we take precautions against those things we could die of. We get vaccines, we wear a seatbelt and follow traffic laws, we mandate building code and fire codes, etc. We don't just say, well, I'll probably be hit by a car at some point, so I'm not going to worry about looking both ways before I cross the street. 

We take what we deem are reasonable precautions.  Many of us wear seatbelts, but we do not require them on school busses.  We have laws about tailgating, but we do not wait until we research and develop cars that will automatically break and maintain distance before we get into automobiles.  We don't wait for more research on what particular pavement and striping colors could reduce deaths.  We don't wait until we have barriers between lanes and highway entrances too ensure social distancing of automobiles.  We don't even take some precautions, such as forbidding certain color automobiles on the road because it has been shown by safety experts that they are more likely to be in accidents.  

It is not about not taking precautions with COVID-19, or any other illness.  It is a question about what are reasonable precautions with the information we have today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Sure....but we take precautions against those things we could die of. We get vaccines, we wear a seatbelt and follow traffic laws, we mandate building code and fire codes, etc. We don't just say, well, I'll probably be hit by a car at some point, so I'm not going to worry about looking both ways before I cross the street. 

 

Yeah, that's not really what I was suggesting, it was a follow on from the post I was responding to which was about how people behave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TCB said:

Does anyone know how these children contracted Covid? Was it from their parent? It makes me a bit nervous because I thought that if we were really careful and took good precautions we wouldn’t bring it home from work. I realize that if I contract it at work I can pass it on. Were the parents sick? I couldn’t see that it said those kinds of details in the article.

This Chicago woman caught Covid at the nursing home where she worked and then spread it to her husband and 20 y.o. son. She and the son have both died and the husband was critically ill but is now recovering in a rehab center.

https://abc7chicago.com/coronavirus-chicago-deaths-mother-son-die/6127823/

  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This conversation is becoming truly surreal to me. 

You say herd immunity requires 80% infected.
80% infected = 2 million deaths even if we manage to reduce the fatality rate below 1%
2 million deaths spread out over an entire year will STILL overwhelm the health care system and lead to huge economic disruptions.

Are you're saying 2 million deaths and an overwhelmed healthcare system is just the price we have to pay because it's really hard for old people to be shut away for a year, so trying to prevent 2 million deaths and an overwhelmed healthcare system = a "sacrifice the elderly approach"???

So the alternative is to squeeze the 2 million deaths into 6 months, with 11,000 deaths per day (as if that wouldn't result in bodies in the streets), so old people only have to stay sequestered for 6 months, which would be "kinder"???

I am genuinely not following the logic here. 

 

No, what I've said, from the beginning, and more than once, is that the goal is to flatten the curve in order to not overwhelm health services, until there is herd immunity, and that it is not good for those with serious risk factors, as well as for many other reasons, to try and flatten it beyond that.  And that the goal is herd immunity if it is possible, and that if so the expectation is that about 80% of people will have to have the virus to achieve that.

How long that would mean spreading it out is unclear and will depend on your health services anyway. I suggested a few posts back that the planners here are anticipating 30% exposure this year, and I think they are satisfied they can manage that. However if they couldnt it doesn't necessarily mean that they could keep strict measures in place for longer to compensate.

Again - the OP asked, is the goal herd immunity, or is it elimination, and are people starting to think it is the latter, and are any governments saying that.  Elimination isn't an option in most places, was my answer, and some people do seem to be thinking it is the goal, but governments generally are not saying that.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read this thread the more I feel like people (myself included) are just not used to death as a part of life. Death is horrible. Most of us now living have not been touched by an event that causes widespread death like this, be it war or disease or other disaster. I think that is unique for human history, and even unique to the developed world to some extent. I feel like most of us want to say we can just do this for a couple more weeks and we'll have a handle on this. Part of that is that many of the restrictions were put in place for 14 days initially and it felt like, "ok! We can do this!" and that is fading into a bleak reality for some that just two more weeks is not every going to fix this. There's also the curve graphs that go back down to zero, coupled with the fact that China started reporting zero new cases at some point. 

Two million people dying is a lot. It is a hard thing to wrap one's mind around, though I think it is drastically more difficult for people around age 50 and younger because we have been sheltered from death and disease like no other generations previous. I don't know. I think any analysis just on the math sounds callous, but it would be a lot worse if this happened even 50 years ago. 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 

I know people will say this is me writing off 2 million deaths without caring. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have been, as a society, incredibly fortunate and for large parts of history, much worse outcomes than this would be just a part of life and death and grief. And I don't think we can really escape this thing by hunkering down, but I think that was the messaging we started with, so any spike in cases seems like a failure of policy instead of a virus doing what a virus does among people who do need to go out and live in some way, even if severely minimized.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Are you're saying 2 million deaths and an overwhelmed healthcare system is just the price we have to pay because it's really hard for old people to be shut away for a year, so trying to prevent 2 million deaths and an overwhelmed healthcare system = a "sacrifice the elderly approach"???

So the alternative is to squeeze the 2 million deaths into 6 months, with 11,000 deaths per day (as if that wouldn't result in bodies in the streets), so old people only have to stay sequestered for 6 months, which would be "kinder"???

Almost 3 million people died in the US in 2019, about 8,000 per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCB said:

Does anyone know how these children contracted Covid? Was it from their parent? It makes me a bit nervous because I thought that if we were really careful and took good precautions we wouldn’t bring it home from work. I realize that if I contract it at work I can pass it on. Were the parents sick? I couldn’t see that it said those kinds of details in the article.

I got the impression that the parents may have got it in their line of work as first responders.  The 5-month-old had an existing heart condition that had already been a concern prior to her infection.  The 5-year-old developed meningitis - not much was said about how that happened.

I think that it's important to remember that their exposure had to have happened at least a month ago, and a lot has changed since then in terms of awareness and safety practices.

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

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Look, I am not sure what you are arguing here. Herd immunity at a level that doesn't overwhelm health care means not so many dead at once, that's the point. No one is saying that some measures won't carry on, but they are not going to be able to be maintained at the higher level they have been long term. And that means there will still be transmission, more than under current restrictions, until either there is vaccination, or immunity, or maybe we will have to get used to them permannenly. Keep in mind that the most significant restrictions may be the ones it's most difficult to keep up long term.

But you do realise how that impacts those who have been told they need to be sequestered? And what if there is no vaccine, or much better treatment options? Do you want them to come out, knowing that if they catch it they will almost certainly die? Some people have called this the "sacrifice the elderly" approach. It may be that its the only realistic option if it becomes simply a regular yearly infection, but I am struggling how anyone is seeing is as evidence of being kinder.

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't mean distancing just after he shops, I mean distancing from him altogether.  As in, you don't touch him at all, you don't get closer than six feet from him, you don't sleep in the same bed. Some health care workers here, if they have vulnerable family members, are living separately in airbnbs, not seeing their kids.

Most people who are just higher risk, say with obesity, or asthma, aren't doing that stuff. But for the most vulnerable that's the recommendation.  I don't know if it amounts to lip service, but that level of isolation can really only be maintained for a short time IMO, some may not be willing to do it at all.  I think what gets a little lost sometimes is that those people are already at high risk to die of some infection, but then you essentially are having to tell them you can't do anything for them.

 

I'm not sure fatality rate alone is what is in question. It's more what difference can you make by acting, and what are the trade-offs (like fatalities caused by the measures.).  I suppose we could have a highly contagious virus that kills 50% of us come up next week, if we do the maximum possible (whatever that is) and it prevented most of those deaths, we'd still have to ask how long they would be sustainable, and eventually settle for something less. And that still might be "too many" deaths.  

 

Again, I was suggesting delivery of groceries, etc, to avoid him shopping as well. That way she doesn't have to distance from him. 

Not that I guess that matters to the point I was trying to make. 

37 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

 

It is not about not taking precautions with COVID-19, or any other illness.  It is a question about what are reasonable precautions with the information we have today.

I'd say it is reasonable to take a few more weeks to get more data on how it is spread, how spread is best prevented, which social distancing measures are most important, what situations are more or less risky, etc. 

Others don't think so maybe. Or think that there is no way to learn much of use before most people have it. 

16 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

No, what I've said, from the beginning, and more than once, is that the goal is to flatten the curve in order to not overwhelm health services, until there is herd immunity, and that it is not good for those with serious risk factors, as well as for many other reasons, to try and flatten it beyond that.  And that the goal is herd immunity if it is possible, and that if so the expectation is that about 80% of people will have to have the virus to achieve that.

How long that would mean spreading it out is unclear and will depend on your health services anyway. I suggested a few posts back that the planners here are anticipating 30% exposure this year, and I think they are satisfied they can manage that. However if they couldnt it doesn't necessarily mean that they could keep strict measures in place for longer to compensate.

Again - the OP asked, is the goal herd immunity, or is it elimination, and are people starting to think it is the latter, and are any governments saying that.  Elimination isn't an option in most places, was my answer, and some people do seem to be thinking it is the goal, but governments generally are not saying that.

 

 

 

Ok, so 30% this year, 30% next year, that's still below herd immunity, and now we are starting to come up to the point where a vaccine is a possibility. Not to mention that a year from now there may be much better, more targeted treatment guidelines, better testing, etc. 

And to keep it to 30%, do we need to keep up wth social distancing, masks, etc anyway? What measures keep us at 30% versus higher or lower?

(and for the record, I know the internet makes most questions seem snarky, but I'm seriously trying to understand what you are advocating)

Edited by Ktgrok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

The more I read this thread the more I feel like people (myself included) are just not used to death as a part of life.

I think this is true. My parents are much more...accepting? philosophical? than I am. They are taking the vitamins I sent them and mom listened carefully when I told her to use the pulse oximeter that I ordered for them last week. They aren't being stupid, but they also aren't panicking.

We have been careful. We actually started staying home more than a week before it was suggested most places. We've been home for almost 6 weeks and it is just now hitting our area. We will continue at home until it peaks in our area. After that, we will widen our circle a bit. 

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

18 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

No, what I've said, from the beginning, and more than once, is that the goal is to flatten the curve in order to not overwhelm health services, until there is herd immunity, and that it is not good for those with serious risk factors, as well as for many other reasons, to try and flatten it beyond that.  And that the goal is herd immunity if it is possible, and that if so the expectation is that about 80% of people will have to have the virus to achieve that.

How long that would mean spreading it out is unclear and will depend on your health services anyway. I suggested a few posts back that the planners here are anticipating 30% exposure this year, and I think they are satisfied they can manage that. However if they couldnt it doesn't necessarily mean that they could keep strict measures in place for longer to compensate.

Again - the OP asked, is the goal herd immunity, or is it elimination, and are people starting to think it is the latter, and are any governments saying that.  Elimination isn't an option in most places, was my answer, and some people do seem to be thinking it is the goal, but governments generally are not saying that.

 So 30% per year means that the most likely way we eventually achieve herd immunity is... with a vaccine! Your repeated suggestions that we need to get to herd immunity "quickly" and not wait for a vaccine means we would have to compress 2 million deaths into less than a year. There is no way to do that without overwhelming the healthcare system. So what you have been arguing for is literally impossible — you cannot get to herd immunity in less than 2 years without overwhelming the healthcare system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ok, so 30% this year, 30% next year, that's still below herd immunity, and now we are starting to come up to the point where a vaccine is a possibility. Not to mention that a year from now there may be much better, more targeted treatment guidelines, better testing, etc. 

And to keep it to 30%, do we need to keep up wth social distancing, masks, etc anyway? What measures keep us at 30% versus higher or lower?

Nobody knows, since nobody knows how many people have actually been infected, since we haven't had widespread testing yet. It's just starting here that they do some large scale random sampling in several cities in my state.

And the whole idea of herd immunity is based on the assumption that, once infected, people develop immunity. So far, there is no scientific evidence that people will indeed have lasting immunity.

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

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

I got the impression that the parents may have got it in their line of work as first responders.  The 5-month-old had an existing heart condition that had already been a concern prior to her infection.  The 5-year-old developed meningitis - not much was said about how that happened.

I think that it's important to remember that their exposure had to have happened at least a month ago, and a lot has changed in the past month.

Here's a harrowing account of a healthy 4 y.o. child who became critically ill from Covid. Mom is a physician and is warning parents to take the virus seriously.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8250707/Doctor-shares-shocking-video-4-year-old-son-struggling-breathe-contracting-coronavirus.html

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Realized part of my last post got eaten...can't figure out how to get the quote back, so just sticking it here....but basically I was responding to the idea that there is little hope of anything other than herd immunity. )

I guess a lot of this is I have way more hope in the medical advances regarding this than you do? Not being snarky. I just have seen what we are learning just in a few weeks, and the incredibly fast movement toward vaccine ideas, with multiple ideas being tested at once, and advances being made in testing, and even lower tech things like realizing hey, this can cause low oxygen saturation before the patient appears that sick, so maybe if we can get people to test at home we can catch them earlier and treat them better before they are in the hospital, or the realization that we may need to be more vigilant about finding and treating coagulopathies in people that seem to have mild cases, to avoid strokes - we CAN do that - we have that technology - but we aren't looking yet because we are just getting our footing. 

I see a lot of advances happening in less than a year, personally, and am confident we will also develop alternate business ideas, etc as this progresses. Not saying keep everyone shut down, but if we make masks a fashion item, if we have restaurants who learn how to safely do carryout who transition to gourmet carryout, or all sorts of creative things - more outdoor movies, I don't know. Even right now restuarants are being creative and letting you buy not only cooked meals (which in some cases are not as good by the time they travel and cool) but also selling the components of the meal to cook at home. Maybe grocery stores will develop whole delivery schemes, or have more premade just heat and eat meals, etc. I think humans are resourceful little primates and necessity is the mother of invention. 

so yeah, I have a LOT more hope for advances than you do. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best friend's mom is in the dying stage and she's basically drowning to death right now, but it isn't Covid19.  She's had cancer for some time and they didn't really expect her to live this long.  However, it is incredibly sad that she is not able to have her children near her at this time.  They are facetiming, but as her faculties fail one by one, that is not cutting it.  She's not able to die a peaceful death in these circumstances.  Once she passes, the family will not be able to do what families do after their beloved matriarch passes. 

I know this is not avoidable right now, but it's a huge loss that needs to be acknowledged.  This is not an OK situation for an indefinite time period.  When people talk about caring for the vulnerable among us, these considerations need to be part of the discussion.  Extending lockdowns or partial lockdowns will force many more lives to end this way.  Just at least be mindful of that.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

I think this is true. My parents are much more...accepting? philosophical? that I am. They are taking the vitamins I sent them and mom listened careful when I told her to use the pulse oximeter that I ordered for them last week. They aren't being stupid, but they also aren't panicking.

We have been careful. We actually started staying home more than a week before it was suggested most places. We've been home for almost 6 weeks and it is just now hitting our area. We will continue at home until it peaks in our area. After that, we will widen our circle a bit. 

I am curious as to why you would be willing to widen your circle after it peaks.  If you are in an area where cases are rising so each day there are 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 new cases.  It peaks at 60, then you have 58, 56, 54, 52, 50 new cases per day.  There are actually more new cases after the peak than before and a greater total number of people infected.  It just means that each of those people is no infecting, on average, less than one person.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

I am curious as to why you would be willing to widen your circle after it peaks.  If you are in an area where cases are rising so each day there are 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 new cases.  It peaks at 60, then you have 58, 56, 54, 52, 50 new cases per day.  There are actually more new cases after the peak than before and a greater total number of people infected.  It just means that each of those people is no infecting, on average, less than one person.   

Because by then we'll have been home for more than two months, maybe three? Once we are clearly on the downhill side, I think we will get together with one other family who has kids my kids are friends with, so it isn't like we'll be going crazy with it. It will be summer and we can have them over for a cookout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mom2mthj said:

If you can’t count on herd immunity then what is the point of waiting for a vaccine?  Isn’t the theory that vaccines should provide herd immunity?  Also, even if if covid doesn’t turn out to be a one time deal like say chicken pox, at some point it is no longer “novel” and our bodies should have some means to know how to deal with it.

From what I understand the other coronaviruses give short term immunity but it fades after a year or two.  So it may be like flu vax where you have to have it every year.  But this is one of the things they discuss 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SKL said:

My best friend's mom is in the dying stage and she's basically drowning to death right now, but it isn't Covid19.  She's had cancer for some time and they didn't really expect her to live this long.  However, it is incredibly sad that she is not able to have her children near her at this time.  They are facetiming, but as her faculties fail one by one, that is not cutting it.  She's not able to die a peaceful death in these circumstances.  Once she passes, the family will not be able to do what families do after their beloved matriarch passes. 

I know this is not avoidable right now, but it's a huge loss that needs to be acknowledged.  This is not an OK situation for an indefinite time period.  When people talk about caring for the vulnerable among us, these considerations need to be part of the discussion.  Extending lockdowns or partial lockdowns will force many more lives to end this way.  Just at least be mindful of that.

I think here they are working on trying to change procedures around death/dying for this reason.  One family when through a similar thing.  I put this in a whole different league to going bowling or to the movies though.

There is also some nursing homes that have gone beyond requirements to lock visitors out completely.  Scomo (pm) Basically said if they don’t open up there will be a requirement put in place for them to allow visitors.  They will be able to make a request for a short term lockdown if necessary.  This comes in light of the elder abuse royal commission into nursing homes.

I don’t have a problem at all with relaxing measures like that or trying to achieve work arounds for them.   I also think some of our restrictions are kind of silly.  Relies who got married could only have themselves, 2 witnesses and a celebrant.  They couldn’t have their own immediate families that they live under the same roof with.  That’s where I feel like the arbitrary numbers are kind of a dumb.  A rule limiting funerals to parents and siblings and spouse or whatever would make more sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t find the post to quote but the reason we can’t have visitors in hospital is not because of the lock down but is because of the virus. So getting rid of the lock down isn’t going to change the visiting situation if the virus is still around.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think you are right about lack of trust in the information. It's become a problem in so many areas.  And lack of trust in government tends to cause elevated reactions and I think contributes toward things like hoarding. If you can't trust the larger social structure it quickly becomes every person for themselves.

I'm not sure it's all about trusting that most will be fine if they get sick though that must help a lot.  But I think the people I know who are most calm see it more in terms of - there are many things I could die from, and this is just one of them, one day, it will be one thing or another.  To some extent that's personality I guess, that's a very phlegmatic response. But it might also depend in part to the larger social attitude about things like healthcare and death, and also the way those things are supported in the larger culture.

Aren't you Canadian? Here in the USA, we have no safety net. That should make us more cautious about getting a virus that might have long term complications. 

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

The more I read this thread the more I feel like people (myself included) are just not used to death as a part of life. Death is horrible. Most of us now living have not been touched by an event that causes widespread death like this, be it war or disease or other disaster. I think that is unique for human history, and even unique to the developed world to some extent. I feel like most of us want to say we can just do this for a couple more weeks and we'll have a handle on this. Part of that is that many of the restrictions were put in place for 14 days initially and it felt like, "ok! We can do this!" and that is fading into a bleak reality for some that just two more weeks is not every going to fix this. There's also the curve graphs that go back down to zero, coupled with the fact that China started reporting zero new cases at some point. 

Two million people dying is a lot. It is a hard thing to wrap one's mind around, though I think it is drastically more difficult for people around age 50 and younger because we have been sheltered from death and disease like no other generations previous. I don't know. I think any analysis just on the math sounds callous, but it would be a lot worse if this happened even 50 years ago. 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 

I know people will say this is me writing off 2 million deaths without caring. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have been, as a society, incredibly fortunate and for large parts of history, much worse outcomes than this would be just a part of life and death and grief. And I don't think we can really escape this thing by hunkering down, but I think that was the messaging we started with, so any spike in cases seems like a failure of policy instead of a virus doing what a virus does among people who do need to go out and live in some way, even if severely minimized.

I get what you are trying to say here and I agree. I think that we don't appreciate the danger of a virus because vaccines and improvements in sanitation have significantly reduced the incidence of the diseases that always lurked in the background of human life. Most of us don't appreciate the work that was done to protect us. It wasn't something that just happened. Because we don't appreciate how we are protected we naively assume that we're safe from all viruses. 

But there's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. I know you're not saying that we just have to accept it and move on but some of the criticisms of the shutdown were essentially that. I'm thinking of the articles in First Things in particular. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kand said:

Right! And that drives home the point that a few weeks is a long time in the span of this disease. With how much we are learning every week, I have much optimism that people who contract this in the later stages of the pandemic will have better outcomes than those unfortunate to contract it early on.

You don't see doubling that as a HUGE deal? I don't think any of us can really even fathom what that scale of excess death every day would even look like. It would be totally out of control and we couldn't manage it whatsoever. There would be nowhere to put the deceased, much less the ill.

I agree it's true that most of us living now have not had to face widespread death. What I think is an even bigger factor is that many people haven't had to experience significant sacrifice and hardship, and they don't want to begin now. I still think it's best to think of this as a war. In wartime, you make sacrifices and it sucks, and you want it to be over. That doesn't mean that after a couple months you can just decide, "I'm done with this. It's too much to expect us to go on like this" and resume normal life while bombs are dropping all around. We don't have the luxury of deciding to be done on our own timetable, unfortunately. I'm on team science though, and I really have high hopes the smart people of this world are going to get us out of this eventually.

But there are about 54,000 people in the US who do not have the luxury of waiting even eight more weeks, hoping for team science to have a breakthrough, to hug their grandchild, or be with their sister, or many other things because they will be dead from other causes by then.   They know that they have today to live--they have no idea if they will have tomorrow.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister is a physician. She works in a hospital and was allowed to do most of her patient consults via telemedicine. She's been told to return to the hospital and is very close to leaving her job because they do not have N95 masks. Her hospital only tests patients with symptoms. The results are not immediately available so my sister will see the patient before she knows whether the patient is actually positive. 

I doubt most Americans understand how this crisis has affected physicians and nurses, especially younger ones in the first decade of their career. They are extremely disillusioned. They believe that they are being asked to risk their lives by seeing patients without adequate protection. That their employers (hospital systems) are willing to sacrifice them for profit and to prevent bad press. There are many stories of physicians and nurses who were disciplined for speaking to the press about the actual conditions in their hospitals or for wearing their own masks. 

Many of these younger physicians and nurses (perhaps I should say most) have huge student debt. No one is talking about forgiving that debt. Some of these doctors chose to work for hospital systems so they could qualify for the loan forgiveness that was enacted under the Obama administration. Now we (or rather they) know that no one is actually qualifying for forgiveness. 

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

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Polio is withing the living memory of plenty of us, and it's within the 'I met people who suffered with polio as a child and got post-polio syndrome as adults' memory of more of us.

It's totally over-stated that 'we' have forgotten the 20th C, which brings with it a collective memory of incredible suffering, from war, genocide and disease.

Many of us have been dealing with the threat of antibiotic resistance for the last decade, and understanding what that means for our health, treatment and life expectancy.

In what world - even the Western world - are people sheltered absolutely from suffering? 

I reject this growing narrative that anyone who does't accept the inevitability of severe illness, disability and death from this virus is somehow spoiled, and out of touch with life's realities.

It's really so offensive (and it comes straight from Murdoch press).

 

 

 

Yes, those that have been paying attention have been waiting for something like this, or a bacterial strain we can't fight. But my money is on science, not just accepting it. 

5 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

My sister is a physician. She works in a hospital and was allowed to do most of her patient consults via telemedicine. She's been told to return to the hospital and is very close to leaving her job because they do not have N95 masks. Her hospital only tests patients with symptoms. The results are not immediately available so my sister will see the patient before she knows whether the patient is actually positive. 

I doubt most Americans understand how this crisis has affected physicians and nurses, especially younger ones in the first decade of their career. They are extremely disillusioned. They believe that they are being asked to risk their lives by seeing patients without adequate protection. That their employers (hospital systems) are willing to sacrifice them for profit and to prevent bad press. There are many stories of physicians and nurses who were disciplined for speaking to the press about the actual conditions in their hospitals or for wearing their own masks. 

Many of these younger physicians and nurses (perhaps I should say most) have huge student debt. No one is talking about forgiving that debt. Some of these doctors chose to work for hospital systems so they could qualify for the loan forgiveness that was enacted under the Obama administration. Now we (or rather they) know that no one is actually qualifying for forgiveness. 

My friend in a large university hospital is saying the same. I just sent her a mask as she gets one a week. They said since she's not down in the ER or on a Covid floor she doesn't need a mask - she only got that one a week from begging. She has asthma! She also was in a room with desks elbow to elbow, no social distancing, no masks, until she kicked up enough of a fit with HR - they moved her to a separate office due to her asthma and gave her her one a week mask, but the others are still in that room between patients, elbow to elbow. 

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

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Polio is withing the living memory of plenty of us, and it's within the 'I met people who suffered with polio as a child and got post-polio syndrome as adults' memory of more of us.

It's totally over-stated that 'we' have forgotten the 20th C, which brings with it a collective memory of incredible suffering, from war, genocide and disease.

Many of us have been dealing with the threat of antibiotic resistance for the last decade, and understanding what that means for our health, treatment and life expectancy.

In what world - even the Western world - are people sheltered absolutely from suffering? 

I reject this growing narrative that anyone who does't accept the inevitability of severe illness, disability and death from this virus is somehow spoiled, and out of touch with life's realities.

It's really so offensive (and it comes straight from Murdoch press).

 

 

 

Yes, it's dishonest. No one is asking Rupert Murdock to accept death. It's always someone else who is asked to accept that. This is usually delivered with a lecture about how we're soft and spoiled. 

My priest gave a homily where he claimed that this was no worse than the flu (and ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION) and who cares anyway because all that matters if eternal life anyway. It was SO offensive. Being concerned about your physical life does not mean that you are unconcerned about eternal life. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I'm really tired of the 'well, we just don't know how to handle death' trope people keep trotting out.

Is that the best the 21st C has to offer?

"Well, people were more stoic in 1919?' 

Do people want the at-risk and vulnerable to just shut up?

(I mean, a fair % of the at-risk are not heard anyway - the poor, the black, the elderly - it's not as if their voices are somehow dominating, what a laugh!)

What a tragic indictment on humanity and its 'progress'. 

 

 

I am so confused...I could have sworn just yesterday you were talking about people accepting the hardship of life and getting over it because we have no choice? Like, young people need to buck up and deal and whatever they are enduring isn't that bad? I mean, I agree with you, but then I read this and can't reconcile what you're talking about. Weren't you saying that people (in general) should just shut up and deal?

I mean, we can't do anymore than we can do, science-wise. We can't progress beyond a virus that seems to spread insidiously or beyond basic needs that require some form of production? 

I have been sheltering in place since early March. I have gone nowhere in almost two months except to have groceries dropped in my trunk and to the emergency dentist. I'm solo parenting for at least the next 2 months if not longer, including a breastfed infant, so I am largely doing this out of self protection. My kids play only in our yard. I'm not complaining; I am genuinely thankful I am able to do this with so much food and safety. I don't in any way think that what I am doing is sustainable for most people, nor would I require it of them to keep me from getting sick. The only reason I can do this is because I still have an income and a livelihood to live on. How can I demand other people go without their means to support their family to keep me safe?? The only thing I can ask is that they keep their distance. That's really the only thing I can control.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TCB said:

Does anyone know how these children contracted Covid? Was it from their parent? It makes me a bit nervous because I thought that if we were really careful and took good precautions we wouldn’t bring it home from work. I realize that if I contract it at work I can pass it on. Were the parents sick? I couldn’t see that it said those kinds of details in the article.

I am not sure on the 5 year old girl.  My question. (and I am NOT a doctor) is that she was showing signs of meningitis that seemed to be missed early on....severe headache, etc.  It was a few days later she was tested for covid because her father had symptoms.  My question is.....did she have meningitis FIRST and had covid later/maybe even asymptomatic. 

Not properly treated meningitis can cause the headache, seizure and even death.

So was covid the cause of the meningitis....or did she have meningitis that ended up being fatal but also covid?

Again, I am not a doctor and not sure what tests and medications were used from the first er visit with the severe headache. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Yes, those that have been paying attention have been waiting for something like this, or a bacterial strain we can't fight. But my money is on science, not just accepting it. 

My friend in a large university hospital is saying the same. I just sent her a mask as she gets one a week. They said since she's not down in the ER or on a Covid floor she doesn't need a mask - she only got that one a week from begging. She has asthma! She also was in a room with desks elbow to elbow, no social distancing, no masks, until she kicked up enough of a fit with HR - they moved her to a separate office due to her asthma and gave her her one a week mask, but the others are still in that room between patients, elbow to elbow. 

Did you notice how doctors and nurses that vented on social media have been doxxed and harassed? 

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

4 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

I think you're right. Many restaurants in my area had gone to pick up and delivery only even before our governor gave the stay at home order. I have a feeling that if he opens the state back up many will continue to do so at least for a while.  

 

That and GoodGrief added, rightly so, that because they had to space out customers and only fill to 25% capacity the cost/benefit just didn't pan out. One restaurant mentioned not having the right PPE and of course it would add to their sanitation costs. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

I am not sure on the 5 year old girl.  My question. (and I am NOT a doctor) is that she was showing signs of meningitis that seemed to be missed early on....severe headache, etc.  It was a few days later she was tested for covid because her father had symptoms.  My question is.....did she have meningitis FIRST and had covid later/maybe even asymptomatic. 

Not properly treated meningitis can cause the headache, seizure and even death.

So was covid the cause of the meningitis....or did she have meningitis that ended up being fatal but also covid?

Again, I am not a doctor and not sure what tests and medications were used from the first er visit with the severe headache. 

I've read that meningitis can be caused by COVID. There are documented cases where this happened before this little girl died. I'm sorry I don't have a citation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I am so confused...I could have sworn just yesterday you were talking about people accepting the hardship of life and getting over it because we have no choice? Like, young people need to buck up and deal and whatever they are enduring isn't that bad? I mean, I agree with you, but then I read this and can't reconcile what you're talking about. Weren't you saying that people (in general) should just shut up and deal?

I mean, we can't do anymore than we can do, science-wise. We can't progress beyond a virus that seems to spread insidiously or beyond basic needs that require some form of production? 

I have been sheltering in place since early March. I have gone nowhere in almost two months except to have groceries dropped in my trunk and to the emergency dentist. I'm solo parenting for at least the next 2 months if not longer, including a breastfed infant, so I am largely doing this out of self protection. My kids play only in our yard. I'm not complaining; I am genuinely thankful I am able to do this with so much food and safety. I don't in any way think that what I am doing is sustainable for most people, nor would I require it of them to keep me from getting sick. The only reason I can do this is because I still have an income and a livelihood to live on. How can I demand other people go without their means to support their family to keep me safe?? The only thing I can ask is that they keep their distance. That's really the only thing I can control.

I think if we can produce enough food to feed people and manage clothing and electricity it’s only a distribution problem.  But there has to be political will to solve that.  In a country with enough food no one should starve because of lockdown as long as food producing and distribution stays strong and active.  If they are starving it’s because we lack the political will to make sure they don’t.  
it doesn’t even have to be a long term thing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JennyD said:

I am a little perplexed by the church discussion.  Are churches really going to reopen anytime soon, even if groups are legally permitted?  What are more centralized denominations, like the Catholic Church and the LDS Church doing?

I saw a report today that all synagogues in the United States are legally closed, regardless of what the law in their jurisdiction happens to be.  At this point they are staying closed as a matter of Jewish law more than US law.  All synagogues in Israel are closed on the basis of both secular and Jewish law.  There are other synagogues scattered around the world, of course, but I seriously doubt any are open.  

The general assumption among people I know is that synagogues will stay closed for a very long time, possibly until there is a vaccine or at least a major advance in how this virus is controlled/treated.  It is devastating to Jewish communal life, obviously, and I personally find it extremely painful, as do countless others, but I think we're just in one of those periods of Jewish history when we don't get to be together.  At least this time it's because of a general threat and not because we are being persecuted.

 

 

In USA quite a few churches have refused to close in the first place.

 I would expect that yes, quite a few would reopen if they can.  And I would expect that there would be situations like with the North Korean megachurch where spread goes quickly through a huge church—as with meat packing plants or cruise ships.  

Jewish religion afaik considers Saving a Life to be important. I believe that people are exempted from Minyan or whatever if it is to save a life.

A lot of other religions (or denominations) are more oriented to the hereafter.  Preparing the soul for eternal heavenly life idea is more important than life on earth. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That's a sad reflection :-(. Are those people forbidden from quarantining with their family, though? What do you suggest for them? 

Some people are in situations where they are not able to quarantine with their family members.  But, my point was not so much that there are people on their death bed who cannot say goodbye to their loved ones.   My point was more that none of us knows which of us will not be here in eight weeks or by the end of the summer, not only because of COVID-19, but for many other reasons.  So, the reality is that when we say we should just wait until we have a vaccine, we are also saying that all of the people who are going to die between now and then will miss out on the things we are waiting to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

 

Is anyone saying not to visit family members until we have a vaccine? I have heard pretty much no one say this. 

Also, those of us not at risk of death are also missing out on things, and not because of the lockdown. My in-laws are in their seventies. I'm literally terrified of visiting them or having them visit us, because I don't know how I'd live with myself if we gave this to them. I really don't. I don't know what we're going to do if they don't make testing easily accessible for everyone, because I just can't imagine having this on my conscience. 

That is where I am at. It is TERRIBLE to think of my mom not getting to spend time with her grandkids...especially as we never know how long she is here. But it also is equally, if not more terrible, to think of us giving this to her. Not only my guilt, but if my kids had that thought for one moment, that they had killed their grandma? How badly would that warp them?

And then there is my mother, who would never be able to live with herself if somehow she gave it to one of us. She has anxiety and an overactive sense of guilt as it is! 

So yeah...I hope they figure out more about how to best protect each other. Because none of those scenarios is working for me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Also, I've made no demands that people go without their livlihoods to 'keep me safe'.

I've talked about changing public behaviours to keep as many people as possible from death and disability.

How the f*&^ does 'it would be good if we were like Taiwan and made wearing masks on transit and public spaces the done thing' translate into 'people must starve for me'?!

But the problem is that there are many people going without their livelihoods right now in order to keep society safe. And with the shitty social safety network in this country they don't have time until we have a vaccine. That is the fundamental conundrum which makes this so difficult, because there really is no good solution. I don't think anybody sensible is arguing that masks in public spaces are bad. But that won't be enough. And stricter measures mean many people won't be able to pay rent or eat. It means exactly that they give up their livelihood to keep others safe. 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

There is a difference between experiencing temporary life hardship, and death or disability.

Is that not patently obvious?

Can't go to church for a few months - temporary life hardship.

Lung function so poor past-virus that you can no longer work - life changing disability.

Is this not very, very clear?

Also, I've made no demands that people go without their livlihoods to 'keep me safe'.

I've talked about changing public behaviours to keep as many people as possible from death and disability.

How the f*&^ does 'it would be good if we were like Taiwan and made wearing masks on transit and public spaces the done thing' translate into 'people must starve for me'?!

 

 

Uh. I don't know. I'm not against asking people to stay home for some weeks or wear masks. When we start talking about staying in for months or having businesses closed for months, you're asking people to give up their livelihoods. In some cases I think it's a trade off that has to be made. The guy who just had to shut down the local theater that he ran for the last 40 years? He probably had no choice given the nature of the virus. He'll have to find some other way to support himself and many of us have sent him $$$ to help.

I think where we disagree and where the gray area is is what's truly possible to prevent with this virus while still having any kind of economy of goods and services to anyone, including especially those who are vulnerable. Most of the problem in the US is that even the things that look like fantastic luxury are run with just-in-time supply chains and thousands of blue collar jobs. I just read an article about 200,000 hogs being culled in Minnesota and that just sends chills down my spine. It's happening all over with just a few weeks of restrictions in place. I have a sense of doom about a lot of people going hungry and it's dismissed as me not wanting masks on public transport or to be slightly inconvenienced by staying home?

But I think all of us are talking about trying to keep people from death and disability to the extent we think that's possible with a virus like this

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think where we disagree and where the gray area is is what's truly possible to prevent with this virus while still having any kind of economy of goods and services to anyone, including especially those who are vulnerable. Most of the problem in the US is that even the things that look like fantastic luxury are run with just-in-time supply chains and thousands of blue collar jobs. I just read an article about 200,000 hogs being culled in Minnesota and that just sends chills down my spine. It's happening all over with just a few weeks of restrictions in place. I have a sense of doom about a lot of people going hungry and it's dismissed as me not wanting masks on public transport or to be slightly inconvenienced by staying home?

 

 

It is important to seperate those who have legitimate concerns from people who are calling others pansies for wearing masks. I have seen both. 

So focusing on the practical question, weren't they culling hogs because meat packing plants were shut down due to COVID outbreaks? Or was this a different situation? I thought Trump even mentioned sending extra tests to meat packing plants to try to help them stay open.  

Could you link an article because maybe the situation you were reading about wasa different one then what I was reading about.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Is anyone saying not to visit family members until we have a vaccine? I have heard pretty much no one say this. 

 I'm literally terrified of visiting them or having them visit us, because I don't know how I'd live with myself if we gave this to them. I really don't. I don't know what we're going to do if they don't make testing easily accessible for everyone, because I just can't imagine having this on my conscience. 

But how is testing alone going to help? You can't get tested every time before heading to grandma's.  It's either having the virus eradicated, or having a vaccine.

I won't be able to see my parents for two years 😞  Big suck. I hope it's ONLY two years and I will be able to go next summer.

 

Edited by regentrude
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We received a letter from our bishop today. 

Quote

While the governors of several states in our territory have made headlines by "opening things up", I am afraid they are not the ones who closed our churches nor are they going to be the ones to open them up again. That burden falls to me as your bishop. 

Quote

No matter what, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable among us, both laity and even clergy. 

I knew so many people who griped about the church closures. So much armchair quarterbacking. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, frogger said:

 

It is important to seperate those who have legitimate concerns from people who are calling others pansies for wearing masks. I have seen both. 

So focusing on the practical question, weren't they culling hogs because meat packing plants were shut down due to COVID outbreaks? Or was this a different situation? I thought Trump even mentioned sending extra tests to meat packing plants to try to help them stay open.  

Could you link an article because maybe the situation you were reading about wasa different one then what I was reading about.

 

It's both, to an extent. But lack of demand is the root. Some factories closed, but the problem is not just where infections are popping up in a factory. It's the same with milk being dumped, potatoes left in massive mountains to rot. It is what happened with oil and why it went negative. If there is no demand there is no room or accounting for how to store what's been grown. It goes to waste. The farmers lose all that income. Can they get a loan to plant again? Can they afford to take that loan? Are they already leveraged?

There's no supply chain for just giving the food away away because it costs money to bag or process and transport. That is how much of the US, if not global, food system works. And I fear it is going to contract really badly.

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

40 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Some people are in situations where they are not able to quarantine with their family members.  But, my point was not so much that there are people on their death bed who cannot say goodbye to their loved ones.   My point was more that none of us knows which of us will not be here in eight weeks or by the end of the summer, not only because of COVID-19, but for many other reasons.  So, the reality is that when we say we should just wait until we have a vaccine, we are also saying that all of the people who are going to die between now and then will miss out on the things we are waiting to do.

Well since no one is arguing for a full lockdown until there's a vaccine, I assume you're arguing for an end to most mitigation measures? Which will mean hundreds of thousands more deaths and more lockdowns in the future. How does increasing the number of people who die help the dying? How does increasing the risk to healthcare providers help the dying? If all you're arguing for is that hospitals should allow people to visit dying relatives, then that will happen as soon as there is adequate PPE to make that possible. Removing other social distancing restrictions, like opening bars & restaurants and concert hall and sports venues, is not going to help people who are currently dying, it just means a lot more dead people — and if hospitals are overwhelmed and large numbers of HCPs are out sick or dead or quit rather than continue risking their (and their families') lives, then they may be dying in hallways and parking lots with no care at all, let alone visitors.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

It's both, to an extent. But lack of demand is the root. Some factories closed, but the problem is not just where infections are popping up in a factory. It's the same with milk being dumped, potatoes left in massive mountains to rot. It is what happened with oil and why it went negative. If there is no demand there is no room or accounting for how to store what's been grown. It goes to waste. The farmers lose all that income. Can they get a loan to plant again? Can they afford to take that loan? Are they already leveraged?

There's no supply chain for just giving the food away away because it costs money to bag or process and transport. That is how much of the US, if not global, food system works. And I fear it is going to contract really badly.

 

Well, since grocers are struggling getting enough pork and plants are shut I don't think it is demand in that case.  It doesn't matter if it's restaurants or stores if the plant is closed. 

I do think the restaurant supply chain being moved to stores has caused difficulties. There has been some adaptation already but not enough.

  • 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...