Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

sassenach

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Danae said:

I keep saying this, but I really don't think people appreciate the extent to which this is a slow-rolling disaster.  Because of New York's experience the inland states took action when we were much earlier in our outbreak and slowed things down drastically. So now we've been sheltering at home for two months and people, as the title of this thread suggests, are DONE. The news is all about phased re-opening, and people look at the national numbers dropping and think it's over and we dodged it.  But we're still on an exponential growth curve, and unless that curve flattens dramatically in the next week or so things are about to go to hell.

 

And on the other hand, being told constantly that you're just 14 days away from disaster takes a toll. I'm sure everyone appreciates that it's really hard to live that way.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Oh, I think by March we did expect trouble here. But I don't think anyone saw it in February. The first official case was found on March 1st, I think. Things went quickly from there. But people were epically unworried in February. It wasn't here, after all, right? 

 

Oh, some people saw what was coming. I know one person who was sounding the alarm as early as mid-January.

Quote

I wonder what things would look like if we hadn't shut down as much as we did so soon.

 

So soon? If we'd shut down even a week earlier we would've had half as many deaths. We dithered and dithered and nearly missed our chance entirely. And if we'd shut down two weeks sooner - and perhaps had a softer shut-down two weeks before that (government office workers sent to work from home as much as possible, extra programs at libraries and museums shut down, schools from the middle school level up through college closed, the bars and beaches and amuseument parks in warmer states closed, hairdressers and the like by appointment only) then we'd be in an even better spot now.

Heck, we knew that sooner or later we WOULD get another Spanish Flu. If the hospitals and doctor's offices and public transportation agencies and the like had all kept a surplus of facemasks and face shields, and if states had kept a supply to disburse to grocery stores, then we would not have had as many shortages. That would've helped a lot too.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I think they are doing OK on PPE in NY, but I just have that impression from the briefings. I'm not sure there's a good summary of that information anywhere. 

CA has a PPE inventory on its state dashboard, but I really can't place the numbers into any sort of meaningful context.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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. 

We know that people react very differently to the statement of "There is a 10% chance someone in your family will die" and the statement "There is a 90% chance no one in your family will die."  The way that we present the very same statistic has a major psychological impact.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

The important English word in your post was the adjective “totally “. That has a very specific meaning. 

Jean, I don't even pretend to know or have any answers. But I have a unique view of what is happening shutdown vs lockdown because of my family situation. I have nieces and nephews in the UK and my native country. Middle class in both countries both owning house and a car so nothing special about that. Both professional job parents, both going to good schools. But the quality of life in the UK and my native country in shutdown vs lockdown mental health wise especially for children I cannot even quantify. I have tried sending things that I buy for my kids here to my niece and nephew in my native country. Never had a problem before using Amazon India which I pay here. No delivery. No proper school and they go to quite a reputed private school. But in the UK, Same like the US. School happening and just space to exercise and play in a backyard, amazon delivery of wants not just needs. 

I have wrestled with staying in America for years because I always feel separating my children from family was one of the biggest loses and was it worth staying here ? What "better life" was I giving them ? I see it every day now. Just space, the ability to take a walk, a backyard to play. We don't have much money, single income family, suburban house with a small backyard and we drive ordinary cars. But we have the ability to go out, buy things that are not essential and they will deliver. I am extremely grateful for people who deliver and the ability for that. But I am also grateful that we have the freedom to do that. 

I understand why India needs lockdown because there is no way to safely social distance at all. But here we do. We can do it responsibly. So total lockdown is not something I will even consider or support here. I came here 20 years ago very vaguely for a "better life". It has never been about money, but about a way of life I never could explain but yearned for always and cherished when I finally was able to live it. It has meant so much to me, the way I live here. It is there even in shutdown or whatever the heck we are doing here and I for one while enormously grateful I get to live it, will always prefer that over the alternative because it is the very definition of the "better life" I came for. 

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

Oh, some people saw what was coming. I know one person who was sounding the alarm as early as mid-January.

Oh, I'm sure. I'm just speaking from my perspective as someone who did not see things coming, and I'm not exactly usually ignorant. Same went for everyone else I know here -- we all took the subway in February, we all went to group gatherings in February, DH flew somewhere for a conference in late February and came back in early March. It was all unconscionably stupid, looking back, but we really weren't worried. Irrationally so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

We know that people react very differently to the statement of "There is a 10% chance someone in your family will die" and the statement "There is a 90% chance no one in your family will die."  The way that we present the very same statistic has a major psychological impact.

Yep. Very true. Thanks for the reminder that the framing really matters. Sometimes I forget about that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

And on the other hand, being told constantly that you're just 14 days away from disaster takes a toll. I'm sure everyone appreciates that it's really hard to live that way.

 

Yeah. I think it would be a good idea to focus on the positive messaging at this point. That is, here's how to stay informed, here's what to watch, here's how to socialize safely. Here's how we move forward, basically. At least, that should be the case in places that aren't having a serious problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Oh, some people saw what was coming. I know one person who was sounding the alarm as early as mid-January.

 

So soon? If we'd shut down even a week earlier we would've had half as many deaths. We dithered and dithered and nearly missed our chance entirely. And if we'd shut down two weeks sooner - and perhaps had a softer shut-down two weeks before that (government office workers sent to work from home as much as possible, extra programs at libraries and museums shut down, schools from the middle school level up through college closed, the bars and beaches and amuseument parks in warmer states closed, hairdressers and the like by appointment only) then we'd be in an even better spot now.

Heck, we knew that sooner or later we WOULD get another Spanish Flu. If the hospitals and doctor's offices and public transportation agencies and the like had all kept a surplus of facemasks and face shields, and if states had kept a supply to disburse to grocery stores, then we would not have had as many shortages. That would've helped a lot too.

Oh I know.  Sooner would have been better. Especially for the places that were hit early. But that means for a large section of the US we're going to be "reopened" before the worst hits us. In the world of perfect knowledge every region of the US could have shut down right when the first case arrived at their borders and not experienced shut-down fatigue too early. But if we had that perfect knowledge we could have isolated that first case to enter each area and not had to shut down at all.  We work with what we have, and it's a pretty blunt instrument.  I'm just musing, because thinking ahead about the next few weeks in my state makes me very, very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Danae said:

Oh I know.  Sooner would have been better. Especially for the places that were hit early. But that means for a large section of the US we're going to be "reopened" before the worst hits us. In the world of perfect knowledge every region of the US could have shut down right when the first case arrived at their borders and not experienced shut-down fatigue too early. But if we had that perfect knowledge we could have isolated that first case to enter each area and not had to shut down at all.  We work with what we have, and it's a pretty blunt instrument.  I'm just musing, because thinking ahead about the next few weeks in my state makes me very, very sad.

Yeah. Going in with no information is just awful :-/. It led to using very blunt instruments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

This is using the premise that 100% of the population will get it and that we find no meaningful treatments, correct?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hopeallgoeswell said:

This is using the premise that 100% of the population will get it and that we find no meaningful treatments, correct?  

Yep. Which I really, really, really hope isn't going to be true!! 

Edited by square_25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

CA has a PPE inventory on its state dashboard, but I really can't place the numbers into any sort of meaningful context.

My county dashboard has it tracked as a thirty day supply. My nurse friends tell me that it's plentiful at our local hospitals right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

Yep. Which I really, really, really hope isn't going to be true!! 

Herd immunity will kick in at 60-80% depending on which "expert" you think is correct, so your numbers would change dramatically, correct?  And if we happen to find some sort of standard treatment protocol sooner rather than later, that would also decrease the mortality rate?  So to say that there is a 10% chance someone you know will die is only correct using numbers and treatments we have now  and if 100% of the population is infected?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family received a note from a dear friend that I found so sad.  It read something like "time is moving so slowly or we are just all tired of having to eat in our rooms.  So, let's go for a walk, work a puzzle, talk to someone--enjoy life!"  To put this in context, she is 95 years old.  She worked in Europe with the World Council of Churches to help rebuild after WWII, she served as a missionary, she was a public school teacher, and still teaches her Sunday School class and an exercise class.  Both of her siblings have died and she never married.  She spent recent years taking care of a dear colleague and friend of many years who died within the past 6 months.  Her friends begged her to move into a retirement apartment so that she could enjoy all of the activities and be around people (and not drive her car as much).  So, she did that at the beginning of the year--the dining room has been closed with meals delivered outside each resident's room.  Of course, all of the social activities and gatherings have been cancelled.  The public areas where residents met to work puzzles or play dominoes are all closed.  

  • Sad 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

My family received a note from a dear friend that I found so sad.  It read something like "time is moving so slowly or we are just all tired of having to eat in our rooms.  So, let's go for a walk, work a puzzle, talk to someone--enjoy life!"  To put this in context, she is 95 years old.  She worked in Europe with the World Council of Churches to help rebuild after WWII, she served as a missionary, she was a public school teacher, and still teaches her Sunday School class and an exercise class.  Both of her siblings have died and she never married.  She spent recent years taking care of a dear colleague and friend of many years who died within the past 6 months.  Her friends begged her to move into a retirement apartment so that she could enjoy all of the activities and be around people (and not drive her car as much).  So, she did that at the beginning of the year--the dining room has been closed with meals delivered outside each resident's room.  Of course, all of the social activities and gatherings have been cancelled.  The public areas where residents met to work puzzles or play dominoes are all closed.  

But outside of the very specific context of a locked down retirement facility (where my 95 year old mom is also), everyone has been able to take walks, do puzzles and talk to friends. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Herd immunity will kick in at 60-80% depending on which "expert" you think is correct, so your numbers would change dramatically, correct?  And if we happen to find some sort of standard treatment protocol sooner rather than later, that would also decrease the mortality rate?  So to say that there is a 10% chance someone you know will die is only correct using numbers and treatments we have now  and if 100% of the population is infected?

Well, taking the midpoint of the interval, 70% infected would only change my numbers very little, especially since my numbers are almost certainly very conservative lower bounds to begin with. If there's a revolutionary treatment, that would make a big difference, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But outside of the very specific context of a locked down retirement facility (where my 95 year old mom is also), everyone has been able to take walks, do puzzles and talk to friends. 

 

And in fact, current suggestions that we "protect the vulnerable and go on with our lives" will leave people in nursing homes on permanent lockdown. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Herd immunity will kick in at 60-80% depending on which "expert" you think is correct, so your numbers would change dramatically, correct?  And if we happen to find some sort of standard treatment protocol sooner rather than later, that would also decrease the mortality rate?  So to say that there is a 10% chance someone you know will die is only correct using numbers and treatments we have now  and if 100% of the population is infected?

If 70% of the US population gets it and 1% die (which is conservative because there WILL be hospital overwhelm at that level), that's 2.2 million dead and tens of millions more who will be hospitalized for weeks or months, and potentially have long term or even permanent organ damage, lost limbs from blood clots, paralysis from stroke, lost fertility, miscarriages, etc. What are the odds that someone you care about will be among those millions? 

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

This is using the premise that 100% of the population will get it and that we find no meaningful treatments, correct?  

I absolutely refuse to believe in a doomsday scenario We are not living the Stand in real life where a virus destroys 99% of the population though it feels that way. Nor am I hoping in a naive glass half full way. I have seen the power of medicine and vaccines work in real life. I come from a developing country, from a family destroyed by TB in my grandparents generation and defined them like the way the great depression defined a generation in America. But in my father's generation there was a vaccine, treatments for TB that no one died.

I have seen leprosy which was a scourge in my parents generation almost disappear in my generation because of the side effect of the BCG vaccine used for TB. I have seen polio disappear because of targeted vaccination by government. Yes, the diseases never fully went but no one has their life affected or dies to my knowledge even the very poor. This is not just fantasy but absolute reality. So the fact that some what if scenarios paint a doom and gloom scenario that this will go on in the 21st century forever and we will never get a vaccine or proper medicine is bullshit if you ask me. I am sorry for using that but I cannot find any other word to describe it quite so well. It will take time but by December we will have a proper treatment. You ask me for proof ? I say faith in the ability of humans who conquered diseases which killed enormously just generations ago. We will find a cure and a vaccine soon.

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I absolutely refuse to believe in a doomsday scenario We are not living the Stand in real life where a virus destroys 99% of the population though it feels that way. Nor am I hoping in a naive glass half full way. I have seen the power of medicine and vaccines work in real life. I come from a developing country, from a family destroyed by TB in my grandparents generation and defined them like the way the great depression defined a generation in America. But in my father's generation there was a vaccine, treatments for TB that no one died.

No one is saying 99%. Everyone is saying 1%. It's just that's still a lot. 

But most us aren't arguing this is definitely going to happen. Although NYC has at this point lost something around a quarter of a percent as is :-/.

Edited by square_25
I overestimated the amount, so I'm changing it. 
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

No one is saying 99%. Everyone is saying 1%. It's just that's still a lot. 

But most us aren't arguing this is definitely going to happen. Although NYC has at this point lost something a bit less than half a percent as is :-/. 

Yes, 1% is still a lot. Spanish Flu killed 5% of the population in my native country and it was in the millions. So I do understand it. But starvation kills too, perhaps not in America but in many countries around the world. Lack of medical care for other diseases. Recently there was an increase in polio because of COVID and politics. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/polio-was-almost-eradicated-then-came-the-coronavirus-then-came-a-threat-from-president-trump/2020/05/15/ed9d26fe-831c-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html

So what is the balance ? Is it wrong to say we need a balance ? The world does not stop or things like vaccine preventable diseases or cancer that can be detected early or heart attacks that need ICU. We cannot put the world on pause for COVID until a proven treatment is found or a vaccine. Just not sustainable in my view. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sassenach said:

My county dashboard has it tracked as a thirty day supply. My nurse friends tell me that it's plentiful at our local hospitals right now.

Ours is said to be ok, and it is certainly better than it was at the start, but we still have to wear a basic surgical mask for 5 days before getting a new one. This is for wearing throughout our shift while we are around patients or other staff.  Before all this we would have worn that kind of mask for maybe up to an hour while we were in a patient's room and then discarded it.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I mean that by doing a county-by-county approach, just because my rural county has cases going up, it doesn't mean that more populated places that have already peaked and have better metrics can't open. I was responding to this:

"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."

In our state right now, the reverse is actually the case, with more metro areas and tourist places telling us rural folk to keep out. We don't have a statewide approach; out state is huge and varied...it would be draconian and counter productive to keep the whole state on the same plan. 

Although I just looked at the local news and apparently the governor moved us to a more relaxed phase. I dont pay quite as much attention because I am just...keeping us to ourselves regardless of what the phase is.

Thanks for clarifying. The rural areas I hear about on FB (hometown acquaintances) are dying to open up because of fewer cases--they aren't getting flack from more urban areas at this point, so I wouldn't have really thought about the situation you're talking about. 

For sure, the waxing and waning of cases regionally is one of the chief difficulties in opening and closing! I am glad we have a statewide approach even though I know that there are probably some areas that are a bit frustrated. Generally, our state has a lot of middle-sized cities all spread out, not just big ones. A lot of the rural areas are not touristy. My home state is very different. The difference between rural and urban is much different, and the rural areas are very touristy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re what "herd immunity" would have to look like, to get there "naturally"

4 hours 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. 

This, literally this.

"Herd immunity" -- whether it occurs "naturally" or with the support of vaccination, requires that at least 70%, for most diseases 80+%, of the population is immune, so that spread is suppressed, such that  the remaining unprotected population is unlikely to be exposed.

Wider antibody studies are lined up to start in June, which will test donated blood. At this point the best -- and it is evolving work-in-progress -- indicator of how close a particular population is to reaching the 70-80+% is the study conducted in end-April in New York state.  The study tested volunteers at shopping centers (so: to the extent there was selection bias, it was biased toward people who were out and about shopping during the most strict SIP interval, rather than relying on deliveries or family members -- and, thus, likely erred in a HIGHER incidence rate than for the overall population).  For New York City, the study found that incidence was just over 21%.

Quote

The state randomly tested 3,000 people at grocery stores and shopping locations across 19 counties in 40 localities to see if they had the antibodies to fight the coronavirus, indicating they have had the virus and recovered from it, Cuomo said. 

 

With more than 19.4 million residents, according to U.S. Census data, the preliminary results indicate that at least 2.7 million New Yorkers have been infected with Covid-19.

The results differed across the state with the largest concentration of positive antibody tests found in New York City at 21.2%. On Long Island, 16.7% of the people tested were positive and in Westchester and Rockland counties, 11.7% of the tests were positive.

New York City has had ~200,000 confirmed cases and ~16,000 confirmed deaths, which works out to about 16% of the total deaths in the US.

It's easy to feel like NY is a different world from many other parts of the nation -- those crowded sidewalks, the subways, the pockets of poverty, the uninsured.  And there are all kinds of reasons why the virus may have spread in NYC faster than elsewhere, and why mortality of the first wave NYC cases might be higher than later regsions', as equipment shortages are eased and treatment options expand.  That what has happened there won't happen in less densely populated places.

But if the goal is to get to ~70-80% across the full American population -- which is what "herd immunity" means -- then every location in the US has to "achieve" an incidence 4 times higher than NYC has thus far "achieved."  And if the plan is to get there sooner and "naturally" rather than ride out to better treatment and/or vaccine, then the cost (in lives, in LT downstream health complications, in medical bills for the so-called "mild case" hospitalizations, in personal and hospital bankruptcies, in medical providers falling ill themselves) of getting to 70-80% incidence will have to be, more or less, 4 times what NYC has endured. 

The virus operates on a per capita basis.  For your location to get to 70-80% incidence, the virus will have to infect about 4x as many people per capita as have been infected so far in NYC. 

Everywhere.  That "naturally occuring" herd immunity can only be achieved if that happens IN YOUR LOCATION.  The attendant costs must be incurred IN YOUR LOCATION.  That is simply the logic of herd immunity, that is how it's supposed to work, that is the only way it CAN work.  Immunity can't be outsourced to urban or distant places.

 

May those costs be delayed until treatment is better/ long term outcomes are better understood/ there is a vaccine.

(Which, just to address straw men before they stand up to squawk in protest, doesn't mean The Economy!! doesn't matter. The Economy!! will be battered no matter what, because dead people can't buy new cars any more than falling-down-sick people can pack our cheap meat or families staggering under "mild case" hospitalization bills can afford to go to Disney World.  This is a pandemic, and massive economic disruption is going to take place no matter what policies are adopted. All options are lousy.)

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TCB said:

Ours is said to be ok, and it is certainly better than it was at the start, but we still have to wear a basic surgical mask for 5 days before getting a new one. This is for wearing throughout our shift while we are around patients or other staff.  Before all this we would have worn that kind of mask for maybe up to an hour while we were in a patient's room and then discarded it.

I haven't heard details from our local hospital, but this is consistent with the experience of the healthcare worker in my family who works there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Yes, 1% is still a lot. Spanish Flu killed 5% of the population in my native country and it was in the millions. So I do understand it. But starvation kills too, perhaps not in America but in many countries around the world. Lack of medical care for other diseases. Recently there was an increase in polio because of COVID and politics. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/polio-was-almost-eradicated-then-came-the-coronavirus-then-came-a-threat-from-president-trump/2020/05/15/ed9d26fe-831c-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html

So what is the balance ? Is it wrong to say we need a balance ? The world does not stop or things like vaccine preventable diseases or cancer that can be detected early or heart attacks that need ICU. We cannot put the world on pause for COVID until a proven treatment is found or a vaccine. Just not sustainable in my view. 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the world on pause. 

And you're right that our expectations for our safety and comfort are higher in the US than they are in other places. But that's part of what draws people here, I would think. And even if I, personally, was willing to give that up, I am extremely doubtful that most of the US would be willing to watch a percent of the population die without seriously changing their habits, which would get us right back to sinking the economy. And yes, that's regardless of random people blustering about how a 90% chance of surviving seems safe enough for them. 

Edited by square_25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also object to the idea of "going back to normal." There's no such thing as "normal." What our life looks like right now is different from what it looked like 20 years ago, and vastly different from what it was like 100 years ago. We have different values, different habits, and different social mores. Our society is a rapidly changing one.

Instead of going back to normal, think of it as moving onto a new normal. This virus will change some aspects of how we live. It's possible that everyone will now be scrupulous about staying home when sick. It's possible that masks will become a permanent feature of our landscape (hey, they have in Asia!) It's possible that some measure of social distancing is here to stay. 

We need to figure out a way to move forward, not move back.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Danae said:

Yep.

I wonder what things would look like if we hadn't shut down as much as we did so soon. As it is now lots of places have passed the maximum political tolerance for stay-at-home before the worst of their outbreaks even hit. But if we hadn't started stay-at-home when we did the worst would have hit sooner. Now, theoretically at least, we're more prepared.

A rolling shut-down would have been much better for compliance, but there's no way it would have worked without testing and tracking, and we managed to f' that up right at the beginning.  

For there to be so many issues with testing and so many shortages of PPE STILL at this point is absurd.   It's awful.   There's no reason it should be this way.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But outside of the very specific context of a locked down retirement facility (where my 95 year old mom is also), everyone has been able to take walks, do puzzles and talk to friends. 

But some of those who are in a retirement facility, are finding this to be a miserable existence.  Rather than feeling protected, some are feeling that they are being prevented from living.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the world on pause. 

And you're right that our expectations for our safety and comfort are higher in the US than they are in other places. But that's part of what draws people here, I would think. And even if I, personally, was willing to give that up, I am extremely doubtful that most of the US would be willing to watch a percent of the population die without seriously changing their habits, which would get us right back to sinking the economy. And yes, that's regardless of random people blustering about how a 90% chance of surviving seems safe enough for them. 

Most people are willing to do masking, social distancing and take precautions because I don't think anyone will willingly volunteer to get COVID unlike some brave people signing up for vaccine trials. But this total lockdown scenario which people are throwing around or saying we must not open up is not going to work either. Each life is precious.  But so is someone's livelihood. Is it ok if a small business owner loses their home and business and just lives ? Will the government pay everyone a standard amount and see no one starves till we find a treatment ? What about food prices rising ? Other diseases that still happen ? 

The blunt truth is people are going to die even in America of COVID. We should do all we can to prevent people from dying by giving robust treatment. But  still they will die. We cannot prevent that. The idea that we will all sit inside and be safe to prevent no one from dying is not real to me. We can minimize the number of dead, not prevent it. But we need to reopen some not fully. For how long can we shutdown  ? How will we live ? What will we eat ? Who will pick crops ? Who will process the food to get it to supermarket shelves ? How can people afford it if food becomes scarce and prices rise ? We cannot shutdown. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreamergal said:

Most people are willing to do masking, social distancing and take precautions because I don't think anyone will willingly volunteer to get COVID unlike some brave people signing up for vaccine trials. But this total lockdown scenario which people are throwing around or saying we must not open up is not going to work either. Each life is precious.  But so is someone's livelihood. Is it ok if a small business owner loses their home and business and just lives ? Will the government pay everyone a standard amount and see no one starves till we find a treatment ? What about food prices rising ? Other diseases that still happen ? 

The blunt truth is people are going to die even in America of COVID. We should do all we can to prevent people from dying by giving robust treatment. But  still they will die. We cannot prevent that. The idea that we will all sit inside and be safe to prevent no one from dying is not real to me. We can minimize the number of dead, not prevent it. But we need to reopen some not fully. For how long can we shutdown  ? How will we live ? What will we eat ? Who will pick crops ? Who will process the food to get it to supermarket shelves ? How can people afford it if food becomes scarce and prices rise ? We cannot shutdown. 

Who in the world is suggesting total lockdown? Where did anyone say that? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But some of those who are in a retirement facility, are finding this to be a miserable existence.  Rather than feeling protected, some are feeling that they are being prevented from living.   

 

I'm sure. That's why we should make sure it's safe for them to not be isolated. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But some of those who are in a retirement facility, are finding this to be a miserable existence.  Rather than feeling protected, some are feeling that they are being prevented from living.   

We are all responsible for our own mental attitudes. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

Who in the world is suggesting total lockdown? Where did anyone say that? 

Not total lockdown, but the idea that shutdown must happen indefinitely is what I am getting at from some here. I am all for masking, gloving, grocery sanitizing. Heck I even sanitize the mail and social distancing. But the idea that even responsible opening up in stages because people might die or virus will spike is what I am getting at unless I have total reading incomprehension from this thread. Virus will spike, people will die is the blunt truth. We can only minimize that, we cannot avoid that and we cannot be shutdown or put the world on pause is my opinion. 

How much death is acceptable ? None. If I had magic powers I would wave this away but I cannot. But neither can we shutdown forever. We must open in stages, do responsible social distancing, masking and taking precautions, even shutdown occasionally while working hard on a treatment is my opinion. We still have to live our lives even in a pandemic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreamergal said:

Not total lockdown, but the idea that shutdown must happen indefinitely is what I am getting at from some here. I am all for masking, gloving, grocery sanitizing. Heck I even sanitize the mail and social distancing. But the idea that even responsible opening up in stages because people might die or virus will spike is what I am getting at unless I have total reading incomprehension from this thread. Virus will spike, people will die is the blunt truth. We can only minimize that, we cannot avoid that and we cannot be shutdown or put the world on pause is my opinion. 

How much death is acceptable ? None. If I had magic powers I would wave this away but I cannot. But neither can we shutdown forever. We must open in stages, do responsible social distancing, masking and taking precautions, even shutdown occasionally while working hard on a treatment is my opinion. We still have to live our lives even in a pandemic.

I think you might be misinterpreting. I don't think there's anyone here who thinks a shutdown is sustainable for much longer, never mind indefinitely. 

People are complaining about places that are opening up in a way that doesn't seem careful or measured, that's all. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Most people are willing to do masking, social distancing and take precautions because I don't think anyone will willingly volunteer to get COVID unlike some brave people signing up for vaccine trials.

Unfortunately, it's become clear lately that MOST people are not willing to take precautions at all.   They want life back to "normal" immediately with no masks and no restrictions.   

Nobody is asking for a full lockdown.  Even the most hard hit areas never had a complete lockdown like was seen in some other countries.  Most of us are just arguing against opening up too fast. 

I"m fairly happy with how things are going here in NJ.    They open things up, give it a week or two to see how that goes, then open up something else.   The Jersey Shore is open, state parks are open, beaches and lakes are open.   If numbers continue to go down, we will continue to open up.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I think you might be misinterpreting. I don't think there's anyone here who thinks a shutdown is sustainable for much longer, never mind indefinitely. 

People are complaining about places that are opening up in a way that doesn't seem careful or measured, that's all. 

My state is one of those that opened. But they have a plan. Everyone I know is masking, gloving, paranoid sanitizing of amazon boxes and wiping groceries. Not enough traffic on the road even during rush hour. Curbside pickup, delivery of food where you do not meet the person. Even in so called reckless states that are opening up people are being careful regardless of government advice is my personal experience. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

We are all responsible for our own mental attitudes. 

Yes, people are responsible for their own mental attitudes, but there is much more to the situation than that.  Gerontologists have been emphasizing how important it is for seniors to remain physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy.  Many of the things they have been told are important to their well-being, they are now being prevented from doing.  I think this is going to take a heavy toll on many seniors.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreamergal said:

Not total lockdown, but the idea that shutdown must happen indefinitely is what I am getting at from some here. I am all for masking, gloving, grocery sanitizing. Heck I even sanitize the mail and social distancing. But the idea that even responsible opening up in stages because people might die or virus will spike is what I am getting at unless I have total reading incomprehension from this thread. Virus will spike, people will die is the blunt truth. We can only minimize that, we cannot avoid that and we cannot be shutdown or put the world on pause is my opinion. 

How much death is acceptable ? None. If I had magic powers I would wave this away but I cannot. But neither can we shutdown forever. We must open in stages, do responsible social distancing, masking and taking precautions, even shutdown occasionally while working hard on a treatment is my opinion. We still have to live our lives even in a pandemic.

 

I am one of the people with the highest anxiety about covid on here, I think, both because of my kid, and because I live in an area with pretty high numbers.

I don't think that shutdown needs to last forever.  I also don't think that opening, if done carefully and in stages, means spikes.  It means more people will die than if we didn't do it that way, but I think that we can reopen, in stages and keep the R0 under 1, which means that the numbers won't fall very fast, but they won't spike.

But that would require people to act responsibly, and to prioritize things that are critical (e.g. restarting urgent but "elective" medical care, and getting people who can't work from home back to work) over things that are fun.    In my particular area, it would also require the curve to be a little flatter before we start. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Who in the world is suggesting total lockdown? Where did anyone say that? 

Social media. Anyone who wants to open up must be a (current President) supporter and therefore ret*****. Lots of name calling on social media. Some “vocal” people’s idea of shelter in place is that no one goes out for anything except for medical appointments because groceries can be ordered online. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out multiple times, the country is already opening up. Some are doing it more cautiously than others, but it is being done. 
 

People have already died. A lot of people. And yes more will die but the unfortunate truth is that many of those deaths will be because of arrogance because people think that this will happen to others but not to them. 

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Yes, people are responsible for their own mental attitudes, but there is much more to the situation than that.  Gerontologists have been emphasizing how important it is for seniors to remain physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy.  Many of the things they have been told are important to their well-being, they are now being prevented from doing.  I think this is going to take a heavy toll on many seniors.  

And we all have a responsibility to the seniors we know. I just spent an hour on the phone with my mom. 

Edited by Jean in Newcastle
Hit post too soon
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Where's Toto? said:

Unfortunately, it's become clear lately that MOST people are not willing to take precautions at all.   They want life back to "normal" immediately with no masks and no restrictions.   

Nobody is asking for a full lockdown.  Even the most hard hit areas never had a complete lockdown like was seen in some other countries.  Most of us are just arguing against opening up too fast. 

I"m fairly happy with how things are going here in NJ.    They open things up, give it a week or two to see how that goes, then open up something else.   The Jersey Shore is open, state parks are open, beaches and lakes are open.   If numbers continue to go down, we will continue to open up.  

When should you open up when states have different levels of COVID and hospitals and beds. New York cannot be a measure of the rest of the country nor can West Virginia which last I checked was the state with the least (I do not check other state levels frequently for my sanity so this could be incorrect current information). My state opened up but everyone I know is being responsible. Most are. No one wants this stupid virus but I would also sit outside and visit with a friend even if I have to wear a mask. I want to mask and go grocery shopping to support my local ethnic store so they will survive this and be around. I would love to find a way to safely cut my hair because I want my stylist who is a small business owner to be around and look nice too. I want to find a way to do that safely. But I want my favorite small businesses to survive too and for that we must open up slowly because not every business is deemed essential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EmseB said:

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.

My state is using a county by county approach. There is a list of metrics and counties had to apply and in the first round, 33 of 36 applied to enter phase I and 31 were approved. This week the remaining two were approved and one more applied and was approved. And we did not shut down as much as some other states. For example, we still allowed manufacturing and construction if social distancing and other safety measures could be maintained, and a pretty wide range of retail was allowed either in person and/or for curbside pick-up. Personally, I think they should be doing more requiring rather than just recommending of masking in certain situations. At least in counties like mine that are still seeing a significant increase in cases. In phase 1 they are only required for employees, not customers, in public facing businesses. The only time they are required in general is on public transit. Now of course businesses can make their own rules for customers.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Social media. Anyone who wants to open up must be a (current President) supporter and therefore ret*****. Lots of name calling on social media. Some “vocal” people’s idea of shelter in place is that no one goes out for anything except for medical appointments because groceries can be ordered online. 

Yeah, the irony is politics has nothing to do with it and if I say my opinion on current political establishment here I will probably be banned. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

Unfortunately, it's become clear lately that MOST people are not willing to take precautions at all.   They want life back to "normal" immediately with no masks and no restrictions.   

Nobody is asking for a full lockdown.  Even the most hard hit areas never had a complete lockdown like was seen in some other countries.  Most of us are just arguing against opening up too fast. 

I"m fairly happy with how things are going here in NJ.    They open things up, give it a week or two to see how that goes, then open up something else.   The Jersey Shore is open, state parks are open, beaches and lakes are open.   If numbers continue to go down, we will continue to open up.  

My observations here in the land of the free (TX) would indicate otherwise, though I'm sure we'd all love to go back to the relatively carefree pre-Covid days.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, taking the midpoint of the interval, 70% infected would only change my numbers very little, especially since my numbers are almost certainly very conservative lower bounds to begin with. If there's a revolutionary treatment, that would make a big difference, though. 

I should have not used a qualitative ("drastically") metric. 30% fewer people makes what kind of difference, quantitatively?  Would you mind if we nerd-out and you share your calculations if 100% of the population gets it compared to 70%?  And the numbers when a good treatment is found is all speculative, right? Because if we find it soon, then how much of the population will have had it under current conditions compared to the numbers under the new conditions?  Right now, the CDC is reporting about 1,600,000/330,000,000 have been infected. If we can find a treatment soon, will the number even go over 1% under current conditions?  5%?  All of the numbers, 100%, 70%, 5%, and 1%, are all speculative, but I think the lower ones are most likely to be the ones we eventually land at, considering our ingenuity. Let's say 5% of the population gets it under current conditions; where does that put the calculations?  I would not bet that this is going to go through an overwhelming majority of the population under the current conditions. I would bet that we will get a handle on this by the time numbers reach low single-digits, making all of these estimates of 2,200,000 Americans dying a moot point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

My observations here in the land of the free (TX) would indicate otherwise, though I'm sure we'd all love to go back to the relatively carefree pre-Covid days.

I second this. I am in the land of the free too and what I am seeing is nothing irresponsible. Who are these people who are irresponsible ??? Everyone in my neighborhood is leaning towards paranoid sanitizing. We may die of bleach fumes than COVID 😂

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmseB said:

CA has a PPE inventory on its state dashboard, but I really can't place the numbers into any sort of meaningful context.

One of the metrics each county in my state has to meet for reopening phases is adequate PPE for hospitals. I believe it is something like a two week supply. But then I read articles about some nurses and doctors at certain hospitals saying they now have to re-use masks since virtually all medical stuff opened up in the entire state on May 1. So I’m not sure there is a uniform definition of adequate being used across hospitals here. Thus I’m with you and not sure numbers on PPE are useful unless they come with adequate info to fully understand them. At least I know the situation locally because my husband works at the hospital.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Who in the world is suggesting total lockdown? Where did anyone say that? 

It's like a weird game of whack-a-mole — the same straw man appears over and over no matter how many times it's smacked down. Sigh. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...