What if.....

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, WendyLady said:

 

I'm in an area with increasing infection numbers but still very low deaths. 

that is what the Governor was saying here, a few weeks ago. But now the average daily deaths have quadrupled. Deaths lag cases. 

[Tanaqui]

You think a year of confinement is a "fate worse than death"? How about months of agonizing illness, and unknown long-term effects which may be permanently debilitating?

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

that is what the Governor was saying here, a few weeks ago. But now the average daily deaths have quadrupled. Deaths lag cases. 

I notice people on SM being willfully ignorant about this. It makes my blood boil. 

[Wheres Toto]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I haven’t been watching NY specifically, but NJ and PAnnumbers have been going back up as things have gotten less restrictive.  My own low density county was considered “dark red” when we had our high numbers of 100ish/day. We got it down to single digits. Now people are running around again and we’re up in the 20s.  The story hasn’t ended.

I just looked up NJ and our numbers are actually down.  There's a lot of wobble but the trend is definitely downward.   Our Rt has been below 1 for a couple weeks.

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

Oh how I wish we did that, but I've said it before  - Americans have a very different mentality. Did anyone in France or Italy equated wearing a mask to decline in personal freedom? Did anyone in France or Italy kept whining about the fact that they had to miss graduations or basketball game??  And G-d forbid, their kids couldn't do spring sports! 

 

I spent early March-early June thirty minutes from the Italian border (you could literally see Italy from the balcony).  I remember lots of complaints early on about how the Italians were not compliant with stay-at-home orders.  Many were questioning how some could be so complacent with so much death around them.  Both Italy and France have higher deaths/million at this point than the US does.  In the long run, I really don't know which countries we will find did a better job in dealing with the crisis.  

I did not hear whining about graduations and basketball games--but I did hear whining about closed ski lifts, missing soccer games,  closed saunas, and closed playgrounds.

Switzerland did not mandate masks on public transportation until earlier this month and I saw a report yesterday of a person refusing to wear a mask and the police being called which led to violence between the police and several riders.  Mask requirements have loosened in Austria since I was there, but I did not see nearly as much masking while I was there as what has been portrayed.  Compliance was fairly high in grocery stores and on public transportation, less so going through a mall, and no one was wearing them outside.   I talked to a friend in Estonia yesterday who had just travelled to Finland for several days for work.  He said that from them time he left his home in Estonia and all of the time he was in Finland he saw ZERO people wearing a mask.  He said it was not until he got on the ferry to return to Estonia he saw ONE person wearing a mask.    

The difference that I did experience was a much more extreme lockdown--but for a much shorter period of time.  No delivery, no takeout, no big box stores were opened.  Also, efforts to keep suspected COVID cases away from general medical facilities as much as possible are in place.   Anyone demonstrating symptoms was to call a central number and medical professional came to that person's residence to do testing.  As much as possible COVID cases that needed hospitalization were isolated to particularly designated hospitals in an attempt to keep the other medical facilities running as smoothly as possible.  

[TCB]

56 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

inmates—I mean patients—can’t leave their rooms.  CoVid restrictions set for rehab and nursing centers.  The exception is going to the doctor.  

Who sets the exact restrictions? Is there anyone you can protest to? Can they be moved to another facility that does things in a better way? I don't work in a nursing home but we have come up with so many creative ways to overcome some of the difficulties caused by covid in the hospital. It seems like it should be possible for a nursing home to work to overcome some as well.

[Pawz4me]

The only person I know in a skilled care facility is my sister-in-law's father. He can't have visitors but from what she's said the staff is doing a fantastic job keeping them busy and engaged. They're in no way locked down in their room. He's in Florida, FWIW.

[ktgrok]

53 minutes ago, Quill said:

I notice people on SM being willfully ignorant about this. It makes my blood boil. 

It seems each state/area has to experience it for themselves, which is so pointless. 

[Ausmumof3]

I am a fan of shutting down bars etc.  I am not a fan of isolating nursing homes for months on end.  But this is exactly what the people who advocate for “open up but protect the vulnerable” are asking for.  To be allowed to go about their lives normally while the nursing home patients remain locked away for the last years of their lives.

For us an early hard lockdown was probably the right answer because now we are somewhat back to normal.  I know by the end of it even as an introvert I was getting antsy so I can’t imagine how you’re all doing after six months.

this is also why I think lockdown and aim for elimination was always the better answer than flattening the curve.  Because I’d rather go hard once for three or four months if needed than lockdown, open up, lockdown open up endlessly which just makes things impossibly frustrating.  But it seems like in the US that is basically impossible to achieve now.

[TCB]

15 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

Local restrictions for rehab and nursing care in our area.  Inmates patients can go to the doctor; that's it.  

Remember we are in the area where a lot of this started.  LifeCare of Kirkland?  That's 3 blocks from my house--and the place her insurance would have paid for had her incident happened one week earlier.  The place she is in is $$$$ -- way more than insurance would have covered prior to Covid, and according to my friend who is a hospice nurse, so sees all the places, it is in the top 3-4 rehab centers in the area.  

One third of the patients at LifeCare died.  

There is no way that it is not possible to safely move someone to another place they can get exercise like outside or in some communal but empty place. They can put a mask on the patient and take turns giving them a chance to exercise. It seems that the nursing home staff are taking advantage of the situation to not do their jobs properly. I’ve also seen pictures of nursing homes that let visitors come to the windows and communicate with their loved one via phone while they can see them through the window. We did that for our ICU patients so it must be possible. It would seem that if enough relatives kicked up a stink something could be adjusted to make some of that possible.

[TCB]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

In truth, I don't think elimination was ever possible in the US.  Even if every single thing had been done totally perfectly (which is impossible because human being are flawed creatures,) I think there was just too much that was unknown for the US to have ever been able to have gotten to a point where elimination was possible.  

Yes I agree. The communal effort that would have required, never mind the logistics, would not be possible in this society. 

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

In truth, I don't think elimination was ever possible in the US.  Even if every single thing had been done totally perfectly (which is impossible because human being are flawed creatures,) I think there was just too much that was unknown for the US to have ever been able to have gotten to a point where elimination was possible.  

It may have been if you started testing way way more aggressively earlier.  But then you still have those borders.  Also I think a lot of things are impossible in America due to the huge diversity in thought and views.  To be really honest at times I think it’s almost become to big and divergent to function as one country any more.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

 

If China had told the truth earlier, like November, maybe. However, the horse was out of the barn when the truth was told, and it was circulating way too much in the U.S. already at that point. If the U.S. closed all state borders and international borders, even to U.S. citizens, maybe, but not likely. 

Interesting that you think diversity is bad. Diversity is supposed to be a good thing because it's not good for everyone to think alike.

There was about a month after China told some level of the truth where all of us fluffed around and hoped it would go away.   Not just US I would add.  I did not say diversity was bad.  You need to stop putting words in other people’s mouths.  I said it makes certain decisions that are easy to take in homogenous countries very difficult in the US.  It’s much easier to govern a country where people have somewhat similar views on things.  However diversity wasn’t really the right word it’s polarisation that’s seems like the problem.   But no doubt I’ll be attacked for that too.

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

FTR, I don't think you were saying diversity was bad.  I was reading your comment more along the lines of "too many cooks in the kitchen."  Or "so big the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing."

And although that can kind of be true up to a point, I think there's also a way that the US functions that really isn't quite the same as other countries with regards to how our state and local governments are set up.  

Yes thanks.  It’s good in some circumstances but it’s kind of like being in a big family.  At a certain point someone just has to make a decision you can’t sit around talking about it all day.  And some people might not like the decision that you went out for ice cream not donuts but you can’t please everyone.  
 

on the other hand it has advantages where everyone’s different talents abilities work together to create more than what each one can alone and that has been the strength of the US.

[WendyLady]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

that is what the Governor was saying here, a few weeks ago. But now the average daily deaths have quadrupled. Deaths lag cases. 

It’s been interesting to watch. Along with everyone else I’ve watched the pattern of how the lag works around the country, and feel like I understand it.  Our rise in numbers (both cases and deaths) are happening at about the same time as FL. Deaths are up slightly (every one is one too many). May the lag continue and healthcare professionals continue to learn how to treat this beast.

[Ausmumof3]

16 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Maybe.  Truthfully, I think there's a lot that us armchair quarterbacks just don't know about and because of that it's very easy to say what should happen or what should have happened, but perhaps if we had all the information, we would think differently.  

Yes testing was hard due to shortages etc so there was a lot of complications.

[frogger]

58 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

It may have been if you started testing way way more aggressively earlier.  But then you still have those borders.  Also I think a lot of things are impossible in America due to the huge diversity in thought and views.  To be really honest at times I think it’s almost become to big and divergent to function as one country any more.

 

Imagine Europe under one leader with detached territories and states to boot. (Puerto Rico, Guam, America Samoas)

 

Yes, we are big and each state has its own issues which is why state governments should be in charge of health mandates. Maybe having coalitions among smaller states with porous borders but Hawaii and Alaska have different challenges. Rules for rural villages that have no roads much less hospitals aren't going to be an important thing to spend much time in if you are President.  So all the calls for action by the president to make local laws are in no way helpful.

 

Native reservations like in Arizona isn't something the Northeast deals with a lot. There is a difference between fishing, farming, and manufacturing. The median age of Florida is 42. The median age in Alaska is 33.   The difference in latitudes may mean Southern states being more careful in the summer but I wouldn't be surprised if things switched to northern states soon.

 

It IS too big to just make rules for the whole country.  There was zero reason for Alaska to stay locked down with the other states.

 

Now as far as being too polarized to be able to work together and think through a problem rather than just shout, defending your ideology.  Sadly, that is probably true too but it shouldn't be unlike the first issue of size and diversity which can't be helped.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There was about a month after China told some level of the truth where all of us fluffed around and hoped it would go away.   Not just US I would add.  I did not say diversity was bad.  You need to stop putting words in other people’s mouths.  I said it makes certain decisions that are easy to take in homogenous countries very difficult in the US.  It’s much easier to govern a country where people have somewhat similar views on things.  However diversity wasn’t really the right word it’s polarisation that’s seems like the problem.   But no doubt I’ll be attacked for that too.

I agree with you. In the US, it seems to me a lot of people enjoy thinking they have “secret” information or they are the ones who know what’s really going on. And that’s why you get stupid theories and stories that circulate.

[SereneHome]

58 minutes ago, kand said:

Another big difference I rarely see addressed is that many European countries (France is one, I would have to look and see which others) paid people’s salaries while they were in lockdown, so that people weren’t laid off and businesses didn’t go out of business. It seems that worked so much better than a one size fits all check like we did here. We got a check and we haven’t lost any jobs in our house. That shouldn’t have been the way. That would be really outside the box here, though. 

The nursing home issue is so hard to figure out a solution to. On the one hand, you don’t want people spending their final days unable to see loved ones. OTOH, the communal nature means one person’s exposure puts everyone living there at risk. How do we balance the interests of those who are willing to take the risk in the interest of short term quality of life vs those who don’t want to be exposed and want to be kept as protected as possible? My parents are in the latter group.   They want to take every possible precaution to be a sheltered from this virus as they can.  Maybe each facility gets split into two groups based on risk tolerance and caregivers and patients never mix between the two??

I don’t think elimination was possible either. I do think we could have used January and February to get prepared with testing and contact tracing, and then we could have had widespread testing throughout the country on an ongoing basis (the sewage testing being done now would have been perfect for that) and if anything popped up, that area could do targeted containment. Obviously that’s water under the bridge now as it’s way too late, but I don’t see any reason that wouldn’t have been a better strategy. Even now, they could be doing that in areas where they’re not seeing spread and those areas could be open unless/until something pops up. The sewage testing provides pretty real time feedback.

Oh how I agree with that 100%.

Dead people got it, people who didn't loose any income got it, many big businesses got it.....yeah, it was all handled beautifully

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

There is no way that it is not possible to safely move someone to another place they can get exercise like outside or in some communal but empty place. They can put a mask on the patient and take turns giving them a chance to exercise. It seems that the nursing home staff are taking advantage of the situation to not do their jobs properly. I’ve also seen pictures of nursing homes that let visitors come to the windows and communicate with their loved one via phone while they can see them through the window. We did that for our ICU patients so it must be possible. It would seem that if enough relatives kicked up a stink something could be adjusted to make some of that possible.

The pm did basically overrule the nursing homes who wanted to keep doors closed and force them to allow visiting here unless they could prove an immediate risk. There’s been too many elder abuse scandals lately to have them shut off to relatives.  Obviously that has the potential to go wrong as well but keeping elderly away from their family Indefinitely is just cruel even without the possibility of abuse etc.  

[dirty ethel rackham]

6 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't really think so.  I mean, it's not like we can do anything about it now, but I think there was too much that China was hiding, I think there was too much that was (and still is unknown) about the virus, and I think the US is so huge and has SO MANY entry points, I just don't think it was possible.  

We can blame China all we want, but we still had Europe's example to learn from and we didn't.  And we didn't accept testing that was available because it wasn't made in the US.  And we had a huge segment of our political system that ignored the warnings that the health officials had been sounding much earlier.  Public health officials were practically begging the administration to take this seriously, but we have this "We're Americans.  We can handle it.  No biggie." mentality.  

5 hours ago, kand said:

<snip>

The nursing home issue is so hard to figure out a solution to. On the one hand, you don’t want people spending their final days unable to see loved ones. OTOH, the communal nature means one person’s exposure puts everyone living there at risk. How do we balance the interests of those who are willing to take the risk in the interest of short term quality of life vs those who don’t want to be exposed and want to be kept as protected as possible? My parents are in the latter group.   They want to take every possible precaution to be a sheltered from this virus as they can.  Maybe each facility gets split into two groups based on risk tolerance and caregivers and patients never mix between the two??

I don’t think elimination was possible either. I do think we could have used January and February to get prepared with testing and contact tracing, and then we could have had widespread testing throughout the country on an ongoing basis (the sewage testing being done now would have been perfect for that) and if anything popped up, that area could do targeted containment. Obviously that’s water under the bridge now as it’s way too late, but I don’t see any reason that wouldn’t have been a better strategy. Even now, they could be doing that in areas where they’re not seeing spread and those areas could be open unless/until something pops up. The sewage testing provides pretty real time feedback.

The other issue with nursing homes is that much of the staff is low paid without much of a safety net.  They didn't have the option of staying home if they were sick so they had a barrier to even being able to take their own symptoms seriously until they were serious.  Then there is the issue of residents who needed to go to the hospital for something and then contracted COVID while they were there and brought it back.  And infection control is notoriously bad in even the more highly rated facilities.  Many facilities did try creating groups, but staff shortages made it difficult to not having mixing of caregivers.  

[Twolittleboys]

I don't think shutting everything down indefinitely is necessary (or good for anyone). But neither is it necessary. Our numbers in Germany have been fairly low for a while (we did shut down for 5 or 6 weeks) and most things here are back to almost normal. Restaurants have been open for at least 6 weeks, my son's graduation was limited (i.e. only the students attended and it was filmed) but happened, younger son goes to school every second week with half his class but they have restarted theater, church has been back for a while (with some modifications), the town is bustling with people, etc. Sure, we wear masks in stores/public transportation and there are some other limits but nothing major (to me).

I realize things can change. Our numbers are up a bit lately and we don't know what effect summer vacation with everyone travelling will have. But there is a good amount of contact tracing (much easier with lower numbers) and isolating etc. so hopefully numbers won't get bad before there is a vaccine/better treatment plan.

So my thoughts are that shutting down indefinitely would be a bad idea but shutting down to get control over the pandemic and then following limitations as necessary to prevent a resurgence is best.

 

[Laura Corin]

15 hours ago, AmandaVT said:

Depends on the area - in some places in new england, nursing home visits are possible with loved ones and now people do not have to go in alone to the hospital. My aunt is currently hospitalized in Mass and my cousin has been able to be with her every day.

The case numbers in Scotland are low now, and visits to Care Homes have resumed but are still very restricted.  I saw my mother for the first time in almost four months two weeks ago.  We sit outside under a cover.  I am masked and we sit on opposite sides of a table, two metres away from each other.  Because she is hard of hearing, she talks and I write back with a big marker.  It's not ideal but it's something.  Only one designated visitor is allowed.  Her home has had no cases.  Honestly, she doesn't care about prolonging her life (she's 95 and is pretty tired of life) but because she lives communally (although with very limited contact with others at present) we have to keep others safe by keeping her safe.  I don't have a problem with that.

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, Heartwood said:

Crisis fatigue is real. I reached it awhile back. We no longer keep ourselves separated from friends and family. My in-laws and parents don't want to live that way, so we get together with them.

Businesses can't survive if they keep getting shut down. Financial ruin and suicide are also terrible things to have occur.

I think people have to weigh the risks and decide for themselves what they are comfortable doing.

 

 

I just really wish people would admit that they are not just risking themselves, but the community around them as well - including those that don't feel the risk is worth it. 

It is what makes this whole thing so crappy.

 

[BlsdMama]

23 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

On average, a person who dies from this dies 10 years too early. 

To me, losing out on 1 year of social interaction is better than losing 10 years of social interaction, for most people. As in, I know my mom would rather settle for video chats now with her grandkids, and then have years longer to love on them in person than love on them in person now, and then die from this and miss out on all those years to come. 

 

This is challenging for me from a Christian perspective.  The moment Covid hit, I felt, "Wow, I'm at high risk.  I could lose the good time I have left," and fear reigned.  I think some do what they do motivated from all sorts of reasons, but mine? Mine was fear.  I remember when my younger cousin died.  "It shouldn't have happened," everyone said.  I remember when my daughter died and everyone said, "What a tragedy. What a mistake."  But where they? From a Christian perspective, is there not a number to our days?  I'm not talking about slapping it on like a banner to excuse living recklessly without care or concern of self or others, but it's a relevant truth of how do we measure "too"early? My grandpa died in his nineties.  It was long before I wanted him to as I found his advice and talking things through with him a balm for my very soul.  I needed him for another 15 years. 😉 He died a few years ago.  I cannot fathom him putting up with this cr@p of not seeing family for two shakes.  

23 hours ago, HeighHo said:

Alive is better than dead.

I have been on medication that means I can't have visitors who are ill. This situation is no different, except the odds that someone is ill and doesn't know it is even higher.  I found ways then to socialize safely. Now is easier as more people have zoom type of apps and know how to use them.  The hardest part is the ill who believe its okay to spread their germs and continually do so  If you want to live, you can't be around them without PPE.  I had no trouble telling the elder in my family to follow the Gov's SIP....after the choices they made earlier in life to deliberately give my child pneumonia, twice, I have no trouble putting my life above their need to spread germs and misery claiming they need socialization.  Who will they be socializing with after they kill us off? What is so bleeping hard about covering when coughing? Wants are not needs.

Alive is definitely not better than dead - but again, that's Christian perspective. 😉 😄 It's also the perspective of someone who thinks, in the back of her head and weighs, "Hmm... paralysis of the diaphragm or two weeks of a really awful cold?" It's too flip of a comparison and I know that, I'm being a little rude & sassy. But people are miserable and not just "sad" but locked into nursing homes for the final months of their lives void of human interaction.  Babies can and have DIED from lack of human interaction and touch.  It's truly damaging. And the thing is everyone keeps saying the same thing, "Until the virus is gone......."

Wait.  Does someone know something I don't?

When is that? 

Because the flu hits a couple times a year and then mutates and hits again.  Have we ever successfully rid ourselves of a virus? And, if getting the virus confers no longterm immunity, then..............  ?

23 hours ago, TCB said:

I think there are more than 2 options here. We don’t have to be closed down and I personally don’t think we have to be fully open, back to normal for most of us to have a pretty good life right now. But the only way to do any other option is for most people to get on board with being more careful for a season and learning to do things a little differently. Even if you were to say everyone go back to normal there would be a number of consequences that I think a lot of people haven’t considered. People dying is terrible but I honestly think the worst problem with this particular virus is how many people need to be hospitalized. Our hospital system finds it hard to cope with the strain, and sometimes almost can’t cope, at least can’t provide the standard of care we all expect. I have also heard that having to shut down all or most electives to cope with a surge of patients can financially cripple hospitals, and what will be the consequence of that to our healthcare system. As much as people want to blame politics for the actions we are having to take I really think it’s the virus calling the shots.

I wonder if my own news reading is coloring my perspective? We're running at 300-700 positive tests each day, approximately and currently have 233 state wide hospitalized, 74 in the ICU, and 32 on ventilators.  It is so much worse in big cities and so the threat seems huge there and seems minimal here and I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle?

Just thinking aloud.  Sometimes it seems as though I take one side and then another, but it's more of a thinking aloud process - turning it over in my head. 

 

[Pam in CT]

Are there any parts of the US that are still "locked down"?  I am under the impression (maybe wrong) that my region (including NYC, to which my eldest has returned and where 4 other branches of my family live) has been among the slowest to re-open... and we are nowhere near "locked up."

"Dialed back," yes.  "Locked up," definitely not. Parks are re-opened, pretty much all retail is re-opened, any restaurants that want to do patio dining may do so. Even the MALL re-opened a few weeks ago, though there don't seem to be many cars in the lot.

People's behavior has definitely changed in response to the virus; and what will happen with public schools remains a question. But the MO here, these days, is to work towards different ways of connecting, IRL but masked and in smaller groups, outdoors, BYO food. My mother lives in senior independent living.  They're still not allowing visitors inside the building, but after not-seeing her for 3+ months, we've now gone up twice, met her in a park for a distanced dinner picnic, and camped in her parking lot to have coffee al fresco 6' apart in the morning. Definitely not ideal but also definitely a lot better than not seeing her beyond ZOOM. There's an intentionality and a bit of a "where's your personal comfort line" in every IRL interaction... but those interactions are resuming, slowly. 

But I'm experiencing this phase as a slow evolution toward a New Nearly Normal. Less good than the Old Normal for sure, but given that we don't have the option of Old Normal, something we can settle into and endure for the long haul as we wait out vaccine.  

Have other parts of the country -- even in TX and FL -- really returned to the March measures of (comparative, though no South Korea) levels of "lockdown"? 

[TracyP]

43 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think there are two factors here as well..

One is that many people *are* weighing the risks to the community....and coming up with a different level of risk than others do.  Sometimes this is because they believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but sometimes it's because people really genuinely are coming at the information with different perspectives and conclusions.

The other is that many of the people who are going out and partying, or travelling all over, or whatever.....they aren't doing any risk assessment. 

When it comes to coming at the information from a different direction, one possibility is looking at covid deaths per million:

1780 New Jersey

1676 New York

1236 Connecticut

1226 Massachusetts

669 United Kingdom

580 Italy 

462 France

438 United States

401 Arizona

242 Florida

200 California

148 Texas

I don't want to diminish the seriousness of the situation in some states. And I definitely don't want to stand in the way of any good old U.S. bashing... But really nowhere is close to another New York right now. Most states are being cautious in their opening and pulling back when needed. I just don't see the U.S. teetering on a cliff the way some do.

[ktgrok]

50 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think there are two factors here as well..

One is that many people *are* weighing the risks to the community....and coming up with a different level of risk than others do.  Sometimes this is because they believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but sometimes it's because people really genuinely are coming at the information with different perspectives and conclusions.

The other is that many of the people who are going out and partying, or travelling all over, or whatever.....they aren't doing any risk assessment.  

Oh sure. I don't think it's all or nothing. And some things are riskier than others, and some people don't give a rip. My son kayaking with friends, distanced well over 6 feet on open water is not the same as isolating at home but is also isn' the same as going to a theme park or a bar or even just hanging out with a friend playing video games in person. 

I just hear a LOT of "we' all take the risks we are comfortable with" and not a lot of  admitting that it is actually also about putting risks onto others. No on ever seems to say, "i've decided it is worth the risk for my community for me to do XYZ" but they DO say, 'I've decided it is worth the risk to ME to do XYZ". I've seen that phrase, about everyone assessing their own risk and doing what they are comfortable with dozens of times, and pretty much NEVER an acknowledgement with it that they are also making that decision for those they come into contact with for the next two weeks - be that the doctor's office, grocery store, etc. 

5 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

 

Alive is definitely not better than dead - but again, that's Christian perspective. 😉 😄 It's also the perspective of someone who thinks, in the back of her head and weighs, "Hmm... paralysis of the diaphragm or two weeks of a really awful cold?" 

I wonder if my own news reading is coloring my perspective? We're running at 300-700 positive tests each day, approximately and currently have 233 state wide hospitalized, 74 in the ICU, and 32 on ventilators.  It is so much worse in big cities and so the threat seems huge there and seems minimal here and I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle?

 

 

Well, yeah, if we could figure out who is going to just get a bad cold for a few weeks, that would make all this easier! But we have no idea who gets a bad cold, who gets a stroke, who gets a heart attack, who gets end stage kidney failure, who gets permanent lung damage or heart damage, or who just ends up sick for 4 months or longer. Or if we could trade - like you could trade your condition for just Covid. But it gets added on, that that's just cruddy. 

And I'm sure it does change the perspective. We had 134 deaths just yesterday, several in my area. Tens of thousands hospitalized. An average of 10,000 new cases a day. Kids with lung damage on xray, even when not that sick. And my area isn't different than any other area, other than probably opening up indoor dining and retail and bars and gyms and such way too soon. 

So when people say that opening up might be good, I look around at the thousands who have died in my state and figure their families are not thinking that way. I'm not thinking that way, knowing my friends and family are about to be even more exposed when schools open in a few weeks When people talk about opening up more, I don't think that they get that what we are living here is what they are asking for. 

[AmandaVT]

12 hours ago, frogger said:

 

Native reservations like in Arizona isn't something the Northeast deals with a lot. There is a difference between fishing, farming, and manufacturing. The median age of Florida is 42. The median age in Alaska is 33.   The difference in latitudes may mean Southern states being more careful in the summer but I wouldn't be surprised if things switched to northern states soon.

 

The median age in VT is 43. Our governor had a really interesting press conference yesterday. VT currently has the lowest positive test rates of any state (which we've been hearing about ad nauseum recently) but he was even more cautious than normal yesterday, saying he fears we're on the cusp of a new wave of cases. He made a comparison to a wildfire, saying that the fireline is advancing toward us from the south/west and people in the north east need to be wary. He even hinted at a state-wide mask mandate coming, which he has so far not been willing to issue. He's normally a very careful guy, and not prone to hyperbole. I'm curious if there's any data backing up his thinking. 

[TCB]

21 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

 

I wonder if my own news reading is coloring my perspective? We're running at 300-700 positive tests each day, approximately and currently have 233 state wide hospitalized, 74 in the ICU, and 32 on ventilators.  It is so much worse in big cities and so the threat seems huge there and seems minimal here and I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle?

Just thinking aloud.  Sometimes it seems as though I take one side and then another, but it's more of a thinking aloud process - turning it over in my head. 

 

When I said “our hospital system “ I was meaning the US as a whole. My local one has not been overwhelmed so far. But I can see how that happens in hot spots. I think it’s hard to imagine how fast it can spread once it takes hold in an area. We run on very few staff in my unit and most of the time we can cope because we are familiar with the ebb and flow of our usual patterns, but if you throw in a new virus with minimal community immunity, and that requires hospital care for say 10-15% of those that get sick with it and it can easily get out of control.

My concern is definitely colored by the fact that many people I know here, where I live, say that it is just a media hoax and will disappear after the election. They don’t want any change in their usual life style, so don’t really take any precautions. 
I really feel that that their attitude is interfering with everyone being able to get back to normal, albeit a somewhat altered normal for a time. The irony is that their stated desire is to get back to work/normal etc, but they are not prepared to make any compromises to achieve that. Seems short sighted to me.

[happi duck]

But isn't drunk driving an example of a personal risk assessment that is regulated because it is particularly dangerous to others?  Would we really stand by while someone planned to get smashed and drive themselves home?  

[Ausmumof3]

49 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, first, humans always weigh the risk to their actual person first.  That's human nature, right?

But second......every decision we make with regards to going out in public has always affected others around us.  It always has.  And the vast majority of the time, most of us don't "acknowledge" that out loud when we talk about the decisions we have made.  

I may be weird with this but with sickness I do.  I will definitely tell someone “im feeling fine but have a slightly sore throat/headache, so I’m staying home so I don’t share germs”. Or “kid xyz vomited last night and we’re all fine now but we’re going to stay home so we don’t make you sick.”

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I was speaking more generally.  In general people don't feel it necessary to always acknowledge out loud how their decision will affect someone......so it's not strange that when people are speaking about how they make decisions generally with regards to risk and this illness, as they talk about those decisions on this board, that they don't automatically acknowledge it each time.  

I know that in our circles there’s a lot of discussion around other people’s decisions particularly around driving, fire safety etc but that’s because of being on the end of cleaning up other people’s poor decisions. I guess I try personally not to make decisions that negatively affect others.  Although I’m not perfect.  I don’t buy fair trade coffee and stuff like that.  Maybe that’s a good example.

[frogger]

1 hour ago, AmandaVT said:

The median age in VT is 43. Our governor had a really interesting press conference yesterday. VT currently has the lowest positive test rates of any state (which we've been hearing about ad nauseum recently) but he was even more cautious than normal yesterday, saying he fears we're on the cusp of a new wave of cases. He made a comparison to a wildfire, saying that the fireline is advancing toward us from the south/west and people in the north east need to be wary. He even hinted at a state-wide mask mandate coming, which he has so far not been willing to issue. He's normally a very careful guy, and not prone to hyperbole. I'm curious if there's any data backing up his thinking. 

 

I have no doubt it will, unless you restrict access to your state somehow.

 

There are literal guards blocking the roads to some of our villiages.

[Ausmumof3]

6 minutes ago, Danae said:

Also rinderpest. And we’re getting close with polio, malaria, and a couple others.  Measles was on the possible list, but vaccine refusal has slowed that down.

 

 

We have eliminated measles in Aus.  Not eradicated because it still comes in from time to time but it’s not spreading here.  I guess technically we’ve also eradicated SARS and MERS or did they eradicate themselves?

[happi duck]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not following you here?  Sorry for my confusion.

(sorry for wonky spacing)

Statements like: 

"I think people have to weigh the risks and decide for themselves what they are comfortable doing. "

would not be accepted in terms of drunk driving, or unattended campfires during a fire warning etc.  We have things that are not guided by one's own comfort level but by the potential harm to others. 

[Pam in CT]

re disconnect between wanting to re-open vs accepting measures that will enable re-opening

1 hour ago, TCB said:

....My concern is definitely colored by the fact that many people I know here, where I live, say that it is just a media hoax and will disappear after the election. They don’t want any change in their usual life style, so don’t really take any precautions. 
I really feel that that their attitude is interfering with everyone being able to get back to normal, albeit a somewhat altered normal for a time. The irony is that their stated desire is to get back to work/normal etc, but they are not prepared to make any compromises to achieve that. Seems short sighted to me.

And this disconnect is the reason the shape of the US curve over time is so wholly different than our peer nations' curve -- why our case #s never went DOWN, only plateaued high before  going back UP...

... and why our peer nations are now able to re-open schools, with protocols and caution

... and why our peer nations' Economy!! are able to pick back up on fundamentals, while ours has stalled on every indicator except the ever-roaring stock market.

 

 

re parallels to other limitations on Muh Rights because of the potential for harm effected on others

34 minutes ago, happi duck said:

But isn't drunk driving an example of a personal risk assessment that is regulated because it is particularly dangerous to others?  Would we really stand by while someone planned to get smashed and drive themselves home?  

It is.  And the mark has moved considerably just in my adulthood on the notion that folks have an inalienable "right" to drive drunk or to blow secondary smoke at others in restaurants or workplaces.  This really was a deeply held idea that was often expressed pretty passionately when I was in my twenties; and yet both norms and public policy have shifted since.

So maybe there's hope that societal perspectives on blowing COVID at others in restaurants and workplaces will similarly evolve over time. Perhaps: though there is less time.

But I wonder if the shift in perspectives on drunk driving and smoking were perhaps tied in with the American puritanism.  Alcohol and tobacco were long seen by a large contingent of American society as "vices" even in the days when their use was also heralded as a Muh Rights prerogative.  Less so with blowing COVID; that's not partaking of a longstanding vice, that's just "breathing."

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, happi duck said:

(sorry for wonky spacing)

Statements like: 

"I think people have to weigh the risks and decide for themselves what they are comfortable doing. "

would not be accepted in terms of drunk driving, or unattended campfires during a fire warning etc.  We have things that are not guided by one's own comfort level but by the potential harm to others. 

The difference being that instead of reckless behaviors, here we are talking about people simply existing and living their lives (having normal jobs, providing for their families) as the equivalent of drunk driving. Even if we want to make that equivalency, it is a huge shift in thinking about recklessness and relative risk to others. We are including sober drivers in the same pool as drunk drivers, to extend the metaphor.

[EmseB]

41 minutes ago, Danae said:

Is that the disconnect?  “Have we ever successfully rid ourselves of a virus?” YES!  

Without a vaccine, though? Through behavioral modification?

Edited July 22, 2020 by EmseB

[frogger]

2 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

And the thing is everyone keeps saying the same thing, "Until the virus is gone......."

 

 

I don't think human touch should go "until the virus is gone." I don't think anyone wants to live that way.

We could do without having a carnival down town though. My town cancelled its midtown festival earlier this year only to decide to reinstate it now that our numbers are going up. In my experience, the majority of people who are willing to risk going to the festival are willing to risk doing so with no mask and no distancing. 

I'm sorry but my personal experience is that a large number of people can't seem to weigh costs and benefits and do the least costly or most beneficial things. Conversations always go back to the extreme. The extreme isn't what is asked for long term. It's an emergency measure. What is asked for long term is to keep your contacts down to slow spread. Hug your family. Don't enclose yourself with a few hundred people unmasked amd belt out songs.

But whenever a conversation happens it is only the most extreme measures brought up as argument and those extreme measures are considered too costly. 

[happi duck]

5 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

That argument only holds water for a person who knows he has covid and goes out in public without any precautions. People just wanting to go to the beach without a mask on shouldn't be compared to people who deliberately drink and deliberately drive.

Really, truly not comparing anyone to drunk drivers.  I am pointing out that there are personal decisions that as a society we don't accept because they affect others. 

[frogger]

Happysmileylady

 

The problem is most people make cost/benefit analysis for themselves only but when it comes to the air we breath and the hospital capacity they are shared resources. 

What we are dealing with is somewhat an externality. People who take more risks produce more virus just as companies may make more money by producing more pollution. At an individual level the extra pollution may not be a big deal but if everyone does it the cost to society is quite large as risk increases.

 

The costs of more pollution is shared by everyone just as the costs of increased infection and the lack of hospital resources are also shared by everyone. Those who are sacrificing to keep hospitals below capacity are making the world safer inviting others to take advantage of that and take more risks if costs are currently low. The problem is they then use up testing resources, spread metrics, and hospital space and then the people sacrificing are then left with even less comfort than before despite paying the cost.

 

It essence you have a free rider problem. Those who make the country safer allow others to be safer without paying.

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by frogger
Tried to add quote by happysmileylady.

[Pam in CT]

re value of, and also limitations of, comparisons to other individual choices affecting other people's well-being (such as drunk driving and secondary smoke)

50 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I don't know about how it ties to "vices" in particular, but a respiratory virus isn't something one can make choices on.  You can't choose to get it, you can't choose to pass it on, and in the case of this one...you really can't even make treatment choices because it's not like there are a variety of treatment options (just a bunch of educated guesses at the moment.)  The only thing you can choose is the level of precautions you take.  

Agreed: breathing COVID is different than drunk driving / blowing secondary smoke -- as I said above, it's much closer to just breathing.  There are still mitigation choices though.  You can wear a mask and take care to stay distant, for example.

 

41 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't think that's true in all cases.  I genuinely think that some people are viewing the risks as being *different* than others.  I think people are looking at the same data as other people and reach different conclusions.

But I think some people can't see how anyone could possibly have a different conclusion.

That was true in the not-so-distant days when the social inflection point on drunk driving and smoking in public/workplaces were going on too.  

You may be impaired after just one drink but I'm fine so long as I'm under 3.   You may think the science on secondary smoke is definitive but my reading of the so-called research is that it is not conclusive at all; or you may be particularly vulnerable because of asthma but why should I be restricted from enjoying a cigarette after a nice restaurant meal.  These arguments really were made.  And they really do have resonance even today, both in how reasonable people assess risk and also in how reasonable people read the Constitution and its ellipses.  And further: not everyone who lives and participates in civic society is reasonable, even if there were a reasonably consensus-based determination of reasonableness, LOL. Which, obviously, there is not and never will be.

The thing about public policy is that we have it -- by decision (as now with drunk driving) or default (as now with COVID)  -- whether there's universal consensus or not.  

 

 

re binary thinking

34 minutes ago, frogger said:

I don't think human touch should go "until the virus is gone." I don't think anyone wants to live that way.

We could do without having a carnival down town though. My town cancelled its midtown festival earlier this year only to decide to reinstate it now that our numbers are going up. In my experience, the majority of people who are willing to risk going to the festival are willing to risk doing so with no mask and no distancing. 

I'm sorry but my personal experience is that a large number of people can't seem to weigh costs and benefits and do the least costly or most beneficial things. Conversations always go back to the extreme. The extreme isn't what is asked for long term. It's an emergency measure. What is asked for long term is to keep your contacts down to slow spread. Hug your family. Don't enclose yourself with a few hundred people unmasked amd belt out songs.

But whenever a conversation happens it is only the most extreme measures brought up as argument and those extreme measures are considered too costly. 

There is a LOT of space between true lockdown, and jam-packed major league sports arenas/ amusement parks/ bars / voluntary vacation flying and etc.

We are already living in that dialed-back space.  There are social and economic constraints in that space, there are educational drawbacks in that space, there are personal relationship tradeoffs in that space, there are limitations to certain job functions in that space.  It sucks: still, it is better and more tenable for the long haul ahead than full-blown lockdown.

And yet that is where the virus is pushing us.  Not our polarized politics -- that only affects how we TALK about that space, which is admittedly a constraint on our collective ability to get our act together.  But our polarization is not what is squeezing us into that space; it is the VIRUS that is squeezing us into that space.

 And how expansive is that space, and how much room we have for maneuver within that space, depends in large measure for how responsible we are within that space with such virus-mitigating practices as masking and distancing and limiting crowd sizes. By collective decision we can make that space bigger; by individual-driven default we can make that space smaller. What we can't do is magick the constraints away.

[frogger]

5 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re value of, and also limitations of, comparisons to other individual choices affecting other people's well-being (such as drunk driving and secondary smoke)

Agreed: breathing COVID is different than drunk driving / blowing secondary smoke -- as I said above, it's much closer to just breathing.  There are still mitigation choices though.  You can wear a mask and take care to stay distant, for example.

 

That was true in the not-so-distant days when the social inflection point on drunk driving and smoking in public/workplaces were going on too.  

You may be impaired after just one drink but I'm fine so long as I'm under 3.   You may think the science on secondary smoke is definitive but my reading of the so-called research is that it is not conclusive at all; or you may be particularly vulnerable because of asthma but why should I be restricted from enjoying a cigarette after a nice restaurant meal.  These arguments really were made.  And they really do have resonance even today, both in how reasonable people assess risk and also in how reasonable people read the Constitution and its ellipses.  And further: not everyone who lives and participates in civic society is reasonable, even if there were a reasonably consensus-based determination of reasonableness, LOL. Which, obviously, there is not and never will be.

The thing about public policy is that we have it -- by decision (as now with drunk driving) or default (as now with COVID)  -- whether there's universal consensus or not.  

 

 

re binary thinking

There is a LOT of space between true lockdown, and jam-packed major league sports arenas/ amusement parks/ bars / voluntary vacation flying and etc.

We are already living in that dialed-back space.  There are social and economic constraints in that space, there are educational drawbacks in that space, there are personal relationship tradeoffs in that space, there are limitations to certain job functions in that space.  It sucks: still, it is better and more tenable for the long haul ahead than full-blown lockdown.

And yet that is where the virus is pushing us.  Not our polarized politics -- that only affects how we TALK about that space, which is admittedly a constraint on our collective ability to get our act together.  But our polarization is not what is squeezing us into that space; it is the VIRUS that is squeezing us into that space.

 And how expansive is that space, and how much room we have for maneuver within that space, depends in large measure for how responsible we are within that space with such virus-mitigating practices as masking and distancing and limiting crowd sizes. By collective decision we can make that space bigger; by individual-driven default we can make that space smaller. What we can't do is magick the constraints away.

 

Ummm, you may live in a dialed back society but for the most part I don't. I mean some of us have dialed back but carnival is happening down town. Most refuse facemasks. Large groups are everywhere. Bar hopping is still a thing. Mega church met with about 500 people (holds 2000) and sang with no masks. People are whining and complaining about ANY restriction. 

Our contact tracers were holding steady but they can't contact hundreds per person. That isn't being reasonable. 

If you are in Connecticut, you likely do live in a more dialed back society because it hit closer to home than it did here. 

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I was speaking more generally.  In general people don't feel it necessary to always acknowledge out loud how their decision will affect someone......so it's not strange that when people are speaking about how they make decisions generally with regards to risk and this illness, as they talk about those decisions on this board, that they don't automatically acknowledge it each time.  

What bothers me though is when they SPECIFICALLY cite the risk assessment to themselves as a reason, but leave out risks to others. If they don't mention it at all thats one thing. But when they give a reason and that reason is they are okay with the risk personally, it makes it sound like they are well, just considering the risk to themselves, personally. If you are going to list out your reasons, and you only list one, it makes it sound like that is the only reason. 

1 hour ago, happi duck said:

(sorry for wonky spacing)

Statements like: 

"I think people have to weigh the risks and decide for themselves what they are comfortable doing. "

would not be accepted in terms of drunk driving, or unattended campfires during a fire warning etc.  We have things that are not guided by one's own comfort level but by the potential harm to others. 

Right. Back to the idea that someone opening their blinds during a blackout doesn't just risk them, it risks the whole community. You can't make that determination in a vacuum. 

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

The difference being that instead of reckless behaviors, here we are talking about people simply existing and living their lives (having normal jobs, providing for their families) as the equivalent of drunk driving. Even if we want to make that equivalency, it is a huge shift in thinking about recklessness and relative risk to others. We are including sober drivers in the same pool as drunk drivers, to extend the metaphor.

I don't think anyone is saying that people going to work is the same as drunk driving. I haven't seen anyone here say that people should quit their job, or whatever. I think we are all talking about things like socializing, clubs, birthday parties, graduation parties, drinks out with friends, etc. 

and there will be a gradient of risks for different activities, and in different places. 

52 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

the inbetween solution is : a. those with symptoms stay home  b. everyone who is out and about masks and social distances, then contact trace & find the superspreaders

Yup. I'd be real happy if people were actually masking and social distancing, not just at walmart, but with friends, extended family, etc around here. But they are not. 

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

 

I don't think human touch should go "until the virus is gone." I don't think anyone wants to live that way.

We could do without having a carnival down town though.

This line of thinking is fine until you are a vendor or someone who makes their living off of renting or hosting something like this, or a city or county official looking at million dollar shortfalls because no one is paying the taxes on using the local convention center. Of course! most of us can go without carnivals, amusement parks, conventions, and all sorts of things. Unfortunately, the taxes from those big events pay for a lot of local services like police, fire, etc., in a lot of places not to mention direct wage loss from those sorts of things.

I'm not saying there is a good answer or that we should be doing those things (although if protests are not driving spread, that leaves a LOT of room for outside events like carnivals), but it bothers me when people simply write them off like they don't involve jobs and major tax revenue and services we all take for granted.

Edited July 22, 2020 by EmseB

[Matryoshka]

2 hours ago, Danae said:

Also rinderpest. And we’re getting close with polio, malaria, and a couple others.  Measles was on the possible list, but vaccine refusal has slowed that down.

We're close to getting rid of malaria?  I didn't think so...  There isn't even a vaccine... and it isn't a virus anyway, or even a bacteria (which I think is part of the problem with malaria - it's a parasitic microorganism, which is a much larger and complex creature than a bacteria, not to mention a virus, which isn't even technically alive).  

[AmandaVT]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

 

I have no doubt it will, unless you restrict access to your state somehow.

 

There are literal guards blocking the roads to some of our villiages.

We have 14 day quarantines in place for people coming from counties with more than 400 cases per million people. https://accd.vermont.gov/covid-19/restart/cross-state-travel  Honor system rules, no guards. Where do you live with guards on village roads - is it working? People seem to be trying their best here - restaurants are allowed to open to indoor dining, but from what I see, most are only doing take out and outdoor dining still. The coffee shop I like is only allowing two people inside at a time, masks required. They are technically allowed to have more inside but they're being more cautious and I see that in a lot of places here still. Except school plans, which are apparently to just throw open the doors in 5 weeks because everything will be just fine. 

[ktgrok]

15 minutes ago, EmseB said:

This line of thinking is fine until you are a vendor or someone who makes their living off of renting or hosting something like this, or a city or county official looking at million dollar shortfalls because no one is paying the taxes on using the local convention center. Of course! most of us can go without carnivals, amusement parks, conventions, and all sorts of things. Unfortunately, the taxes from those big events pay for a lot of local services like police, fire, etc., in a lot of places not to mention direct wage loss from those sorts of things.

I'm not saying there is a good answer or that we should be doing those things (although if protests are not driving spread, that leaves a LOT of room for outside events like carnivals), but it bothers me when people simply write them off like they don't involve jobs and major tax revenue and services we all take for granted.

Right, but we have to prioritize and make some sacrifices. We just do. Either that sacrifice is in human lives and medical costs, or it is in dollar costs and lost revenue. But there is no way to avoid pain here. 

And if people would wear a mask, and distance, and not hang out unmasked at birthday parties and bridal showers, spreading it, maybe more businesses could be open and making money. But all that involves priorities, and people sitting down and figuring out a plan, and as a nation we haven't wanted to do that. People dont' want to prioritize, they want it all. 

[frogger]

I am not writing off all the jobs but life is about changing and adapting and there will be hardship.  Right now businesses are struggling to find new employees partly because the unemployment bonus and we don't know if that will change. So I'm less concerned with employees. But with increased costs of well everything, I'd rather they give some percentage bail out to the carnival company and call it good.

The increased costs with mandates will take out of the carnivals bottom line while the average person won't take many precautions and responsible people will stay away so how does the cost/benefit ratio come out for them? And why the heck wasn't it held at the normal time when our numbers were low?

I'd be willing to pay a tax to not have the thing and bring people from around the state to crowd our stores and restaurants.