what does flatten the curve but open up really look like/mean?

[DoraBora]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

Haha, this is almost word for word what my Principal said to me, just without the economy bit.

And I thought the same thing now as I did when she told me - that this kind of exhortation sort of glides over the fact that risk is not evenly distributed, and that quite often, those who are being exhorted to take the most risks have the most to lose.

It's also notable to me that 'flexibility' in a workplace setting, is nearly always code for 'do more, with less, less safely'.

So what is the answer?  We must all stay home until the spread is down to almost nothing, or until we have a vaccine?

Someone has to pay for these stimulus expenditures.

[Ausmumof3]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/5216824002?__twitter_impression=true
 

this seems like a well thought out response to this topic.  An “open safely” plan put together by 20 health leaders.  
 

 

[ktgrok]

48 minutes ago, kand said:

This is very encouraging. I read a story about similar yesterday, but that one said there was some data they were still waiting to come in. I’m not ready yet to treat surfaces as safe, but it’s good news that they shouldn’t be a large risk. Though frankly, if we had to choose, seems like it would’ve been a lot easier to control this if it was transmitted via surfaces rather than mostly inhaled, as it seems to be. Tiptoeing back away from the comment section on that article, though 😯 Yeesh, our schools are not doing a very good job teaching science or logic!

Yeah. I'm happy that I'm unlikely to get it from deliveries, and that it is probably safe for my kids to play with the cardboard boxes, but man...would have been way better if it was mostly spread that way versus the air itself. If it was mostly surfaces, we could bring a wipe with us to church or school or whatever and wipe our spot down and be safe. Looks like it won't be that easy. 

And that the initial response from health advisors of "just wash your hands" wasn't very helpful. 

[DoraBora]

2 hours ago, kand said:

I expect it’s not what you meant, but this reply to Stella’s post above it makes it sound like you mean those with the most to lose should indeed be the ones having to risk the most, because someone needs to pay for these expenditures. This is what seems to be happening in much of the country. Someone shared this article today about an agricultural town in Washington state that now has the highest rate of coronavirus infections on the entire west coast and the workers there don’t feel safe, but are literally being told to get back to work. 

Of course that's not at all what I meant.  I'm sorry it came across that way.

I meant that we can't afford to wait until the virus peters out or for a vaccine that we may never have.  Stimulus and rescue expenditures have to be covered (by taxpayers, who work, often at "non-essential" jobs).

I'm very sorry for people who don't feel safe at work.  They have difficult choices to make, but I don't think they are expendable or that they should die so that I can get back to my pre-Covid lifestyle.