Jump to content

Menu

Our shelter in place just got extended through May 30 and people are DONE


sassenach
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, square_25 said:


Oh, I don’t know. That’s in the realm of opinion, but my issue is with facts. 

It is in the realm of opinion; that was kind of my point.  Facts are not, and should not, be the only parameters driving decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kand said:

I agree there are other factors such as economics that matter. It sounds like we disagree on the relative importance of lives, though. Where would you put the balance of when economics or “changes in our country’s direction based on bailouts” begin to outweigh concerns of numbers of lives lost? 

My priority leans heavily toward the lives of the young and the future of the country as a whole, not with any number of particular lives in the here and now.  What is most important to me is maintaining the strength and solvency of our country, so I'm not counting heads because, as cold as this sounds, it frankly doesn't matter, as long as there is a strong contingent of people to maintain our country and move into the future.  The lives of the young and strong are intimately entwined with the future well-being of the entire country.  I do not think there should be *any* lockdowns, beyond those necessary to flatten the curve, which has already been done, regardless of death rates.  We desperately need tax dollars to maintain our national integrity and to support medicaid and medicare payments to hospitals, and if we don't get those tax dollars for those purposes, we are all screwed because there won't even be a hospital system solvent enough to treat anyone.  Maintaining civil liberties and freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is also more important than my personal safety and more important than my life.  That's really not that shocking; people willing to give their lives for the freedom of their country is a pretty common thing.  

Edited by Reefgazer
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

My priority leans heavily toward the lives of the young and the future of the country as a whole, not with any number of particular lives in the here and now.  What is most important to me is maintaining the strength and solvency of our country, so I'm not counting heads because, as cold as this sounds, it frankly doesn't matter, as long as there is a strong contingent of people to maintain our country and move into the future.  The lives of the young and strong are intimately entwined with the future well-being of the entire country.  I do not think there should be *any* lockdowns, beyond those necessary to flatten the curve, which has already been done, regardless of death rates.  We desperately need tax dollars to maintain our national integrity and to support medicaid and medicare payments to hospitals, and if we don't get those tax dollars for those purposes, we are all screwed because there won't even be a hospital system solvent enough to treat anyone.  Maintaining civil liberties and freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is also more important than my personal safety and more important than my life.  That's really not that shocking; people willing to give their lives for the freedom of their country is a pretty common thing.  

Supposedly when a student asked Margaret Mead what she considered to be the first sign of civilization, she said it was a 15,000 year old femur with a healed break — because it meant that someone who could not walk or hunt or contribute was still cared for by the community.

A culture in which the "young and strong" willingly sacrifice those who are older and weaker is not really one I want to live in.

If we desperately need tax dollars, maybe we should try taxing the billionaires who've seen their wealth increase by $434 billion in the first two months of this crisis, instead of sacrificing human lives. 

 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

The cotton itself is very thin, you hold it up against the light, you can see through. So you can still breathe even if you wrap it multiple times around your face. The thread count is not very dense. In the masks I've worn, even the pollution ones, light does not penetrate if you hold it up in the good ones. The COVID ones I made are high thread count per the instruction I read. I used around 1000 plus thread count flat sheet to make it so light did not penetrate through it. We wear it very briefly and even that I find claustrophobic. My children do not like the COVID masks I made as they say they can't breathe. They do not mind wrapping their faces with a bandana as I insist they do that all the time in Asia for pollution. They have a problem with masks. 

So then just do that - a scarf or bandanna wrapped around the face is totally acceptable anywhere masks are required  - that's why most places say face coverings, not masks. Personally, i would find what you are describing WAY less comfortable than a mask, so you do you, I'll do the mask, all good. 

8 hours ago, EmseB said:

I think some people see these issues as lives vs. economy and some people see these issues as lives vs. lives. There will likely not be a meeting of the minds where people think that one of the options doesn't involve a loss of life.

And some of us question what "economy" even means when supposedly it is tanking but billionaires are raking in over 400 BILLION dollars during this. Seems the economy is fine from their perspective. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/american-billionaires-got-434-billion-richer-during-the-pandemic.html

6 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

My priority leans heavily toward the lives of the young and the future of the country as a whole, not with any number of particular lives in the here and now.  What is most important to me is maintaining the strength and solvency of our country, so I'm not counting heads because, as cold as this sounds, it frankly doesn't matter, as long as there is a strong contingent of people to maintain our country and move into the future.  The lives of the young and strong are intimately entwined with the future well-being of the entire country.  I do not think there should be *any* lockdowns, beyond those necessary to flatten the curve, which has already been done, regardless of death rates.  We desperately need tax dollars to maintain our national integrity and to support medicaid and medicare payments to hospitals, and if we don't get those tax dollars for those purposes, we are all screwed because there won't even be a hospital system solvent enough to treat anyone.  Maintaining civil liberties and freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is also more important than my personal safety and more important than my life.  That's really not that shocking; people willing to give their lives for the freedom of their country is a pretty common thing.  

There will be a strong contingent either way. 

And one of those freedoms is life itself. Our country was founded on the idea of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the one given first priority. Saying people dying (losing their right to life) doesn't matter while claiming that the reason it doesn't matter is a commitment to rights and liberties...doesn't compute for me. 

A person losing their life is certainly losing their liberty way more than someone having to attend church from home. 

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

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

But you can’t force people to participate in the economy in the same way they used to. If life will not look the same moving forward, that will cause immense economic pain, lockdowns or not.

Do you think that if we end lockdowns, we’ll simply go back to normal? In my opinion, even if we removed every single governmental mandate tomorrow, we’re in for a changed world. 

I honestly thought the same but, at least where I live, it all looks back to normal. The only difference I see is people in masks at the grocery store. Our malls and restaurants are packed now that they are open. People are waiting in lines. People are having parties for Memorial Day all around us. Colleges here are planning to start back in person early August and be done at Thanksgiving to cut down on travel but they are planning for dorms and everything.  I’m completely shocked and I hope it doesn’t end in disaster.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Are there no restrictions at all on capacity? I had the impression that most restaurants still had limited capacity. 

We’re in phase 3 so it’s75% now. I see no stores counting anymore though, only restaurants. Group size gatherings are now up to 100 people allowed. The only things still closed are movie theaters and entertainment/sporting venues.

ETA: Oh, and playgrounds are still closed but campgrounds did open this weekend. Bars are also not reopened yet.
 

Edited by Joker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Got it. What state are you in, if you don't mind me asking? 

I’m in Indiana. My county has had quite a bit of cases and over 100 deaths. We’re also next to Indy, which is hardest hit here but the people where we live just went back to normal pretty fast. My family is staying in though and doing our once a week grocery shopping. We’re just kind of waiting to see what happens with the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I don't know how precise this is, but OpenTable data still shows most restaurants being way under capacity: 

https://www.opentable.com/state-of-industry

I'd be surprised if you're alone in staying in. I think there's going to be a sizable segment of the population that stays in and watches the numbers, and if the number spike, that segment will become much bigger. 

Having watched this over the last few months, I would guess that this pandemic is actually controllable with personal responsibility and masking, and that would probably be the way forward that best preserves the economy. However, I'm seeing enough people sticking their heads in the sand that I'm worried this won't happen. More spikes would be terrible both for human lives and the economy :-/. 

Oh, I’m sure others are being just as cautious. I also have been shocked at how full all the restaurants have been. One had a line of cars that stretched to the main road for lunch yesterday. One local place is now only serving by reservation and having you place your order in advance because they had so many show up when they first opened. People here do like to eat out though. We always only went out to eat at off times because the waits would be so long. I just didn’t expect it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

To be fair, there are always tradeoffs. If we made the speed limit 10 miles per hour everywhere, there would probably be fewer accidents, but there would be other unpleasant repercussions. It's simply not the case that we always make decisions that save lives whatever other inconveniences they cause. There are, in fact, other considerations. 

I think the issue here is more complicated and does relate to the number of lives that could be lost, which I think is unacceptably high. But it's not unreasonable to think about things other than lives lost. 

OH sure. But that was in response to a post saying she flat out didn't care about what the number of deaths were, as long as enough young people lived. 

Now, given what we are staring to learn about potential fertility issues and placenta issues....if the continuation of the republic is the goal, it might be smart to wait and get data on those things before being too gung ho about exposing the young and healthy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, square_25 said:

I think this is like pictures of the full beaches, though ;-). There's 30% of the population who are just raring to go out. And of course they are all going to show up on opening day. But are they going to keep going out at three times their normal rate? I kind of doubt it. And once the initial exuberant wave dies down, there may very well be a good chunk of the population that isn't going out much at all, and it's not clear to me that's sustainable over the long term. Restaurants, for example, have very thin margins. 

We’ve been open for several weeks though. The level of restaurant crowds I’m seeing here is our normal rate. That’s why I said people just seemed to hop back to normal quickly where I live. I was one who said repeatedly that even if we opened up, people would be too afraid and I was wrong based on my area. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Joker said:

We’ve been open for several weeks though. The level of restaurant crowds I’m seeing here is our normal rate. That’s why I said people just seemed to hop back to normal quickly where I live. I was one who said repeatedly that even if we opened up, people would be too afraid and I was wrong based on my area. 

It’s very similar here where I live in Missouri. Many people have just hopped back into their normal lives. We are a vacation destination though, so will have people coming from lots of different places this weekend. Those wearing masks seem to be in the minority, however I’ve only been to the store once in the last couple of weeks so there may be more wearing them than I saw. Drove past the baseball field and there were many large groups of kids and coaches playing as normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://mobile.twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1264081343769645056
“Visitors from as far as Minnesota area already hitting #SantaCruz beaches ahead of Memorial Day weekend. One tourist even told ABC7 News, "It's been really encouraging to see people on the beaches, breaking quarantine rules. It's awesome."

Santa Cruz County warns of possible holiday weekend crowds as tourists flock to beaches“

  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I really hope that all this doesn't cause a huge second wave. Outdoor activities don't seem like a huge problem, which is good. But I worry about people deciding this was all a hoax :-/. 

Whether you are feeling done with the virus or not, it may very well not be done with you. It's not like willing it to go away will actually work. (Of course, there's always plain luck. It's possible some regions will get lucky.) 

I hope not too! We had a small number of cases with the first wave, and our covid unit in the hospital was fairly busy at times but, of course, not that many people personally affected by it yet, and many people seem to only "believe" what happens to them personally.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

And some of us question what "economy" even means when supposedly it is tanking but billionaires are raking in over 400 BILLION dollars during this. Seems the economy is fine from their perspective. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/american-billionaires-got-434-billion-richer-during-the-pandemic.html

Yes, wealth does tend to get concentrated with the few when the government effectively mandates that people dont come to work so 40 million are on unemployment and then channels all consumer $$$ through a few select essential businesses that had the means or the infrastructure already in place to survive and even thrive something this. Most serious economists kinda saw this coming? I think I agree with your concern, but not sure how you would solve it? Because the drivers for more people to have more money, or for more of that money to be invested into startups or new hires or expansion isn't there and isn't going to be there for a long time. You could redistribute it, I guess, but that's kind of a one and done plan if we don't also have growth.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1264081343769645056
“Visitors from as far as Minnesota area already hitting #SantaCruz beaches ahead of Memorial Day weekend. One tourist even told ABC7 News, "It's been really encouraging to see people on the beaches, breaking quarantine rules. It's awesome."

Santa Cruz County warns of possible holiday weekend crowds as tourists flock to beaches“

We have a lot of friends who are business owners in SC and they’re ready for the traffic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kand said:

Curious, non-snarky question: I’m trying to really understand this point of view (that crowded businesses are positive right now and people should return to typical public behavior) from your perspective in order that I might understand this way of thinking better. In your mind, do you think it’s unlikely you or any of your loved ones will be seriously ill or die from this, or do you think it’s likely, but you’re okay with that? 

I’m not all the way in the let it fly category, but I am somewhere in the middle (just for reference). 
 

Statistically, it IS unlikely that my loved ones will die. That’s just a fact. The highest risk people in my life are doing a great job of protecting themselves and even if they catch it, they will very likely survive. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1264081343769645056
“Visitors from as far as Minnesota area already hitting #SantaCruz beaches ahead of Memorial Day weekend. One tourist even told ABC7 News, "It's been really encouraging to see people on the beaches, breaking quarantine rules. It's awesome."

Santa Cruz County warns of possible holiday weekend crowds as tourists flock to beaches“

I drove 3 miles today in my small town and saw plates from MA (so, so many), NY (again, ever so many), TX, CO, MN, NH, and MT.

Basically, despite the pleadings from our governor and a mandated 14 day quarantine rule, we are going to be overrun with tourists this summer. As a direct result my family won’t be able to leave our neighbourhood much. We won’t be supporting our restaurants and shops, won’t be paying state park fees, won’t be buying gas and paying gas taxes, won’t be paying tolls...I could go and on. We will, however, suffer mightily as our little hospitals fill up and the death tolls rise.
 

  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, square_25 said:

 

Yes, the older people we know are doing a good job staying home as well. The problem is that if we want the kids to see their grandparents, we need to not bring the virus to them. That requires us to be reasonably sure that we're not carriers. And how do we do that? 

I’m in such a different life stage, and I really don’t have all the answers. I was just answering the question as directly as possible. 
 

We’ll be staying with my mom for several weeks this summer and we won’t share a bathroom and will do our socializing outdoors. It’ll be different, for sure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sassenach said:

I’m not all the way in the let it fly category, but I am somewhere in the middle (just for reference). 
 

Statistically, it IS unlikely that my loved ones will die. That’s just a fact. The highest risk people in my life are doing a great job of protecting themselves and even if they catch it, they will very likely survive. 


Statistically, it is very likely that someone I am close to, or related to *will* die if things open back up. Both of my parents are in the very highest risk category (age plus multiple pre-existing conditions) as are my very dear, sweet next door neighbor and several women in my small circle of close friends. My daughter and I are both in a higher risk category, though we hopefully have age on our side. So yeah, it is heartbreaking beyond words  to see people willing to sacrifice people like those nearest and dearest to me in the name of the almighty dollar. 

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

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

 

I just think that this affects what one believes about the economy.

Also, statistically, if the IFR is half a percent (this is probably a lower bound given the data out of NY and Spain), and you have 20 loved ones, then there's more than a 1 in 10 chance that one of them will die, even assuming every single one of them is lower risk. If you wind up infecting everyone, we'll all lose someone we really care about to the virus. 

That’s not actually true. The fatality rate is skewed depending on age and risk factors. You can’t just apply a flat percentage to the # of family members you have. 
 

Also, the question I answered was “Do you think it’s unlikely that you or your loved one will die from this?” And my answer is yes. And that’s not only what I think, or a feeling I have, that’s actually a statistical fact. 
 

 As someone who has been at the losing end of statistics, I’m not saying that in a flippant way. We are still VERY cautious in our family. But I do feel the need to deal in truth and not fear. 

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

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I don't think people have grappled with an IFR of over 1/200 would mean for their circle of loved ones. It sounds small but really isn't, compared to the risks we usually take in life. 


Yup. My area has not done a great job of testing, but of the testing that has been done, we have seen a mortality rate of about 10%. I hope that number is due to low testing rates, but if not, it is both scary and depressing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I just think that this affects what one believes about the economy.

Also, statistically, if the IFR is half a percent (this is probably a lower bound given the data out of NY and Spain), and you have 20 loved ones, then there's more than a 1 in 10 chance that one of them will die, even assuming every single one of them is lower risk. If you wind up infecting everyone, we'll all lose someone we really care about to the virus. 

And it’s not just death. It’s some of the serious, life altering complications people have experienced. And we’re still learning about some of those. While my biggest fear is losing my mom, for the others in my life, I’m most concerned about long term health effects.

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

19 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

You're right, it's skewed. So my answer is actually a lower bound. If your circle of loved ones is distributed similarly to the general population, and you have 20 loved ones, then there's a more than 10% chance that one of them will die if everyone is infected. If you don't know anyone with preexisting conditions that's older, then maybe not. But if that's not true, then it's probably more like 1 in 5. 

The chance that one of your loved ones would die from the virus would actually be less if every single person had an exactly 0.5% chance of dying. Since that's merely the average, the actual answer is bigger. That's the Arithmetic Mean-Geometric Mean inequality for you, weirdly enough. I can show you the calculation. 

Let me see if I understand you correctly. I may be over simplifying it in my mind. So you’re saying there’s a 10% chance that one out of 20 infected people would die. So if there were 10 groups (or families) of 20 people, and every one of those 200 people were infected, one would likely die. 
 

And what I said is that it’s statistically unlikely that someone in my family will die. 

Are we not in agreement?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Yes, the older people we know are doing a good job staying home as well. The problem is that if we want the kids to see their grandparents, we need to not bring the virus to them. That requires us to be reasonably sure that we're not carriers. And how do we do that? 

I don't think that would ever be the case until there's a vaccine. I mean, what do you define as reasonably sure? NYers have done an awful lot of traveling during all of this, during the peak of the peak. Assuming they come back to town sometime in the near future, they might be bringing covid back with them, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Yes, we're in agreement, especially if you only include your nuclear family. What I'm saying is the chance someone you care about would die isn't that low. But perhaps 10% doesn't feel high to you. 

But it’s not a 10% chance. It’s a 10% chance that one group of 20 people out of 10 such groups would experience one death. 
 

And no, I actually never said that it *feels* small to me. I said that it *is* unlikely. 
 

If you ask my family, I am not behaving like this is small. I was merely answering the question as directly as it was asked. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Here's an interesting question. Do you think most people would go out if someone they knew died from COVID-19? How about if they knew someone who had had a severe case with lingering side effects? 

I think it's more about perceived risk based on local conditions rather than knowing someone who died of covid. Knowing someone from NY who died while living in middle of nowhere Montana probably won't change behavior a whole lot.

But a whole bunch of factors come into play in terms of personal risk management. You may know someone, or someoneS who died in a horrific car accident, but that wouldn't necessarily mean you stop driving places.

(No, I am not saying traffic deaths are like covid, that is not the point of the metaphor)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Here's an interesting question. Do you think most people would go out if someone they knew died from COVID-19? How about if they knew someone who had had a severe case with lingering side effects? 

Oh, for sure it would change someone’s behavior. 
 

I can’t remember the name of the cognitive bias- the one where you overestimate the likelihood of an event based on having seen the event before? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case, I don't know anyone who has died, and the only people I know who have had it fit a higher risk profile but had extremely mild symptoms, like barely a cold symptoms. But that is not driving my behavior, rather, the fact that community spread is on the increase here is what is determining how I act and what I do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I absolutely agree that would change behavior. That's why I'm really dubious about the idea that letting the virus run through the population will achieve herd immunity without affecting the economy. Because if we get to herd immunity, everyone will know someone local who died along the way. 

I totally agree that no matter what we do, this will affect the economy. No escaping that. Definitely, there will be a range of behavior changes depending on actual and perceived risk and those changes will and already are impacting the economy. I don't think I've heard anyone argue otherwise.

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

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

How many people do you know who's had it? One of our babysitters had it and was quite sick, but she's fine now. Most of the local homeschoolers have been staying home and I'm not in good touch with them right now, anyway, since I refused to participate in Zoom classes, so I'm not sure about them. 

There are a couple of people who are further removed that we know of, though, like people at DH's work. And our other babysitter's dad is a journalist, and one of his friends from work died :-(. But these aren't people I know. 

I would say I know a few dozen people at this point who have either had a positive test or were presumed positive (tests were hard to come by mid-March but they met the other diagnostic criteria including prolonged contact with a positive person). I know of several who were hospitalized. My friends have family who died but I don’t know anyone in my immediate circle who has died yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Danae said:

Minneapolis-St. Paul and Omaha have hit ICU capacity.  New cases per day are still rising.  We're about to see the next round of overwhelmed cities. 😞

 

I've been keeping an eye on Alabama as DD is going to UAH this fall. Montgomery is also close to ICU capacity, often referring to Birmingham at this point.    https://www.al.com/news/2020/05/montgomery-running-out-of-icu-beds-as-coronavirus-cases-double-in-may.html

Edited by beckyjo
Typo
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I absolutely agree that would change behavior. That's why I'm really dubious about the idea that letting the virus run through the population will achieve herd immunity without affecting the economy. Because if we get to herd immunity, everyone will know someone local who died along the way. 

I think, though, that the economic effects would be more localized and less on the level of mass supply chain disruptions and such. I think we come out of it better if we keep as much open as possible (like outdoor spaces and busineses that can limit capacity and such).

I am like sassenach in that I'm somewhere in the middle, though, and some things like theaters, stadiums, etc., have to stay closed or so limited that it probably wouldn't be viable to open them.

I think a county by county plan for dealing with this is better, at this point than even state level management, with adjoining counties working together like they did in norcal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I guess posts stating that no one will stay home and no one is worried about it anymore make me concerned. I don't think it's true, but it also means that some places might be in denial longer than is reasonable. 

I think for places that shut down before mid March, staying completely shut down except for "essentials" through Memorial Day was always going to be a hard sell.

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

Just now, EmseB said:

I think for places that shut down before mid March, staying shut down through Memorial Day was always going to be a hard sell.

I agree. Businesses and hospitals could float for a month or two but things got really ugly after the second month.

Unfortunately, rather than a balanced and controlled reopening here, everything is just wanting to be open now and we’ve seen more businesses opening under the table and hospitals fudging PPE numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

See, that seems like a HUGE problem. If you care about the economy, you should mask. Someone should run that public health campaign, seriously. 

They are, and they are doing it in multiple languages. We have a disproportionate number of people in one language group who are being affected and when I am out and about I see most of them are unmasked. I am not sure how effective that campaign is at this point but it is on billboards, Facebook, in stores, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MEmama said:

I drove 3 miles today in my small town and saw plates from MA (so, so many), NY (again, ever so many), TX, CO, MN, NH, and MT.

Basically, despite the pleadings from our governor and a mandated 14 day quarantine rule, we are going to be overrun with tourists this summer. As a direct result my family won’t be able to leave our neighbourhood much. We won’t be supporting our restaurants and shops, won’t be paying state park fees, won’t be buying gas and paying gas taxes, won’t be paying tolls...I could go and on. We will, however, suffer mightily as our little hospitals fill up and the death tolls rise.
 

I also apologize on behalf of my state.  We should all be staying close to home!  Dd asked if I'd consider going with her to a beach here in MA, which are currently only open for 'transitory' use - aka, no sitting, just walking or running.  I'd be okay taking an outside beach walk, as long as it wasn't too crowded.  Big if.  But no overnights, and no leaving the state!  That's how it spreads to what are currently lower-risk areas, people!

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

4 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

They are, and they are doing it in multiple languages. We have a disproportionate number of people in one language group who are being affected and when I am out and about I see most of them are unmasked. I am not sure how effective that campaign is at this point but it is on billboards, Facebook, in stores, etc.

I have a neighbor who went from clamoring for shutdown and school closures to news fatigue to now hoping schools reopen in June. My county puts out messages in social media and billboards in Español, Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese), Tagalog, Chinese, besides in English.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the economy, this was in the news today

https://edd.ca.gov/newsroom/unemployment-may-2020.htm

“California’s Labor Market, by the Numbers...

  • The state’s unemployment rate spiked an unprecedented 10 percent in April to 15.5 percent1, eclipsing the previous record high rate in the current data series of 12.3 percent at the height of the Great Recession (March, October, and November of 2010).
  • California’s month-over non-farm payroll job loss of 2,344,7002 for April is the largest on record. And in just one month, that total is over one million more than the job loss during the 2 ½ year long recession (-1,318,400 from July 2007 - February 2010).
  • The number of unemployed Californians rose to almost 2.9 million over just two months, surpassing the previous 2.2 million peak during the recession that took more than two years to reach.
  • Every one of California’s 11 industry sectors lost jobs in April. The Leisure & Hospitality industry posted the largest job loss (-866,200), which was more than double that of Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (-388,700), the state’s second-largest industry sector loss. Mining & Logging (-500) posted the smallest job loss.“
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kand said:

I think there may be more agreement among people than at first seems. It’s seeming to me now that the main disagreement is between open carefully, with precautions to keep spread as low as we can until we have a vaccine/treatment versus throw everything wide-open and go for herd immunity. If the surveys are accurate, the vast majority of Americans fall in the first camp.

Oh yeah, no one in our area is arguing for full herd immunity. The arguments here are basically cautious opening vs full shelter in place forevermore. We have a lot of wealthy people in my area who can afford to just live like this until the end. 

My biggest concern is school opening. I think we really need to let kids return next year. Distance learning was crap. I think the evidence supports letting kids return. But some people don't even like seeing people taking a walk without a mask on.

Those are the divides that I am seeing.

Indoor masks are mandatory here and almost entirely adhered to. I saw one lady walking around Safeway without one yesterday, but it's definitely a social norm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

Yeah. And I absolutely get that. I was definitely just going about my business in late February, and that was probably irrational given the news from Europe. 

It was hard to make decisions in late February when so many places were not testing enough, not testing widely (only certain countries even after it was obvious that wasn't enough), and not cancelling enough venues. There was not a lot of reinforcement that precaution was needed or good outside of this board unless you were in a geographical hotspot. 

20 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think, though, that the economic effects would be more localized and less on the level of mass supply chain disruptions and such. I think we come out of it better if we keep as much open as possible (like outdoor spaces and busineses that can limit capacity and such).

I think a county by county plan for dealing with this is better, at this point than even state level management, with adjoining counties working together like they did in norcal.

Ohio has kept a lot more open than some other states while also shutting down early, and people are still crying foul about the economy. 

The county approach probably works okay for big cities, but it really exposes more rural areas that are touristy, have cabin rentals, etc. especially when they are within a day's drive or less of a major metro area. People on the boards have been complaining about that all along, and I know it's been a big problem in my parents' state. My parents have extra residents in their county, and a super rural area near them (more hunting cabins than permanent homes, the local library is in a private residence, the one tiny church there didn't have indoor plumbing until around 2000, nor did it hold year-round services) was inundated with seasonal people quarantining away from home. I think the people who came must've isolated pretty well because cases were still low, but if they had brought the virus with them, it could've been terrible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kand said:

Would you advocate mask wearing at school? I think the schools problem is one of the hardest to solve. It’s very  challenging to think through how to do it without accelerating the spread. I do hear what you say from a lot of people, though, that many kids really struggled with the distance-learning. I know a few whose kids thrived, but a lot just checked out. My college kids are going to be really disappointed if they are online again next quarter, but at least they are very capable of learning that way. It’s a problem for labs, though. My daughters lab class was not what it would have been in person.

I'm coming from an entirely high school perspective. Yes masks, and some sort of hybrid situation to lower the number of kids on campus at once. Like upperclassmen and lowerclassmen on campus opposite days or hours. These kids need social lives, too. They need their sports back.

I guess in this way, I'm a little more let it fly. I think the cost of shutting down schools is way too high.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kbutton said:

It was hard to make decisions in late February when so many places were not testing enough, not testing widely (only certain countries even after it was obvious that wasn't enough), and not cancelling enough venues. There was not a lot of reinforcement that precaution was needed or good outside of this board unless you were in a geographical hotspot. 

Ohio has kept a lot more open than some other states while also shutting down early, and people are still crying foul about the economy. 

The county approach probably works okay for big cities, but it really exposes more rural areas that are touristy, have cabin rentals, etc. especially when they are within a day's drive or less of a major metro area. People on the boards have been complaining about that all along, and I know it's been a big problem in my parents' state. My parents have extra residents in their county, and a super rural area near them (more hunting cabins than permanent homes, the local library is in a private residence, the one tiny church there didn't have indoor plumbing until around 2000, nor did it hold year-round services) was inundated with seasonal people quarantining away from home. I think the people who came must've isolated pretty well because cases were still low, but if they had brought the virus with them, it could've been terrible. 

My county is rural. Having more individualized management means that while we are on the governor's poopy list for increasing community spread, larger cities that are doing better per capita and with better hospital capacity aren't beholden to our lag in getting this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most states are not following the reopening phase requirements which were put out by the CDC and the WH (initially).  Our state is, thank goodness.  Do people not realize that if they open up too quickly that they might as well not have locked down to begin with?  There is this "well we flattened the curve so we can now just blast the doors open" argument by some people with makes absolutely no sense to me.  Sure, you flattened the curve and that was good.  But if  you don't reopen slowly so that the curve remains flat (at the very least) then you can reach hospital overwhelm just as easily now as you could back in January and February.  And if you reopen with a populace that is listening to the wrong messages, then they will be engaging in foolish behavior (no masks, no social distancing) which will increase the odds for getting this.  And if you have hospital overrun, you are going to have impacts again on the economy and deaths from other causes (because hospitals will be trying to triage everyone). 

I wish that PPE weren't such an issue still.  I wish that everyone who wanted to, could get respirators so that they are protected from other people's foolishness.  (Though I realize that HCWs wearing respirators have still contracted this virus, at least it must lower the viral load quite a bit.)

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in a rural area near a tourist area.

Locally we don’t have the money (as an area) to keep the tourist areas open.  I would say we want those people to keep their businesses and they just can’t be supported locally.  They depend on tourists coming.

But if the numbers go up we will have another shutdown.

For here (N. NY) I don’t think we are sorry to see tourists come because too many places rely on them and then people who live here rely on them.  It is not something that could be locally self-sustaining.

It is a hard situation for sure.

I would say different than the Maine one where they would otherwise be supporting local businesses.  Most people here go out once a season and the local population is too low for that to go very far.

Edit:  our tourist areas are still closed.  Maybe ask me again when our tourist areas are actually open.  Right now I think overall we hope they will open and tourists will come.  And if there is spread then the governor will shut it down again.  
 

 

Edited by Lecka
  • Like 1
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...