seriously? Slumber party????

[rebcoola]

I'm okay with opening, cases rise, we have to shutdown.  We have never gotten that far.  We have never met more than 1 metric to reopen at a time.  Partially because people have never taken this seriously here.  Especially the some of the leadership. The only reason anything is open here is because of a political quid pro quo.  Basically our local officials agreed to back the mask mandate for the governor in exchange of some retail and outdoor dining.

Edited August 3, 2020 by rebcoola

[HeartString]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

No, it is not. anywhere near a 50/50 chance that all of them will lose a finger.  That is not a correct interpretation of these statistics.

If randomly, 6% of the population is positive, there is a 94% chance that someone is not positive.  So there is .94^10 that everyone at the party is negative,  or a 54% chance that everyone is negative and a 46% chance that someone is positive.  That is the probability that someone is positive--most people who are positive do not spread the infection to 10 people--so there is not anywhere near a 46% chance that all of them will become infected (much less lose a finger).  I am not saying that these number aren't serious, but the conclusion that there is a 50/50 chance that all of them will lose a finger is not a reasonable conclusion.

Is my interpretation of the tool correct?  There is a 46% chance that 1 person out of the 10 will have Covid.  I don’t understand the graph as saying that anyone will necessarily be infected, but there is about 50/50 odd that one person will show up with the potential to spread the virus to one or more other party goers. 

[Joker]

5 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

I wish more people would use this tool from Georgia Tech, do they aren’t just guessing at the risk.  
 

https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

If I’m reading it right it shows you the chances of having 1 person with Covid at your event.  Setting it to *10 people* and picking random Florida counties... 

Columbia County 92% chance

Palm Beach 47%

Polk County 42% 

judging by the colors on the map most counties in Florida are above a 40% chance, with one or two being around 25% and a few being in the 90% range, when I set to 10 people. When it’s set to 100 people the whole thing looks like the 90% range.  

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think I’ve seen this before. Thanks!

It says there is a 12% chance for my county in a group of ten. So, I don’t think ds and his group of six is behaving selfishly to get together like they did, especially since they are all so careful the rest of the time.

I do agree I would probably feel differently if we were in a hotspot. 
 

 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Cnew02 said:

Is my interpretation of the tool correct?  There is a 46% chance that 1 person out of the 10 will have Covid.  I don’t understand the graph as saying that anyone will necessarily be infected, but there is about 50/50 odd that one person will show up with the potential to spread the virus to one or more other party goers. 

My understanding of this is

(1) an assumption is being made that there are 10 X as many actual cases than being reported (there is also a setting for 5X as many cases, but the numbers quoted in the example were using the 10X assumption) 

(2) an assumption is being made that spread is random across the given county

(3) then there would be a 46% chance that at a gathering of 10 random people, one of those people would be COVID positive 

There is not prediction in the map about someone becoming infected at that gathering--you would have to make further assumptions about the behavior at that event and the chance of spread to another person to draw any conclusions regarding the chance of someone being infected. 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Back to semantics? The part in parenthesis was meant to show a possibility - not saying it was the same probability as the rest of the sentence. I realize that the potential for all vs one to be infected is different. Of course, that doesn't take into account how many are then infected by however many get it at the party, etc etc. 

Can you please, just agree that people shouldn't be having social gatherings indoors - as a general rule - in a place where the virus is at such high levels? 

And if not, just say that. 

But I'm not seeing the purpose of your argument. At all. What is your goal, in arguing the exact math and details? whatver the theory is, I'm seeing the on the ground effects. I KNOW people who are currently sick with this thing. I know a COVID nurse who is at her breaking point dealing with this, at the local hospital. Does the exact mechanism of the math matter, when the effects are so obvious and real?

You are coming across as caring more about the theoretical aspects than the actual people involved. I'm sure that is not truly the case. But that's what it feels like. 

And just now, I saw on Facebook a selfie of two moms from my old church group who ran into eachother in public, and got freaking face to face, no masks, to snap a photo. 

Closed the app. I just can't deal with people doing what we are NOT supposed to do, according to health department guidelines, and then having to argue about the damned algorithms of why it is wrong. 

I am sorry if this was supposed to be a JAWM thread and I have been entering into a discussion.  There are a couple of reasons I enter into these types of discussions 

(1)  I learn when I enter into discussions.  When I see that other people have different views than I do, I can learn from them. Are our basic assumptions different?  Are my assumptions incorrect?  Have I miscalculated something?  Have I misinterpreted something?  Do we have different values we are bringing to the discussion?  I want to push myself toward clear, rational thinking.  

(2) I am used to working with young adults who sometimes make choices that I think are poor choices--choices that not only affect them but also impact those around them.  I know that if I want to influence their behavior, I must used reasoned, logical arguments.  For example, telling them things are likely to happen when they know, based upon proper, scientific analysis of the facts that are not likely to happen, only causes them to dig in their heels deeper.  They can easily dismiss me as not knowing what I am talking about.  If I want people to listen to the science and reality of things, I must be consistent and use the science properly.  I can't say  for the measures I support "look at the science; wear a face covering" and at the same time say "I don't have the time or energy to worry about what the science says the probability is, (statistically unlikely) event WILL happen."    

 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, kand said:

I’d like to think you’re not intending to, but for it’s worth, this is exactly how your posts on this thread keep coming across to me as well. It’s all about the semantics rather than the actual substance, and that’s kind of frustrating for people for whom these are real life and death issues, not just theoretical.

Perhaps this is why you’re coming across the way you are. It sounds like for you, you’re in an area where people are being reasonable, so this is all hypothetical to you. Unfortunately, that’s just not the case for a lot of people, and many of those are in places that are hotspots with super high case numbers (very likely due to those behaviors). In that situation, people have reason to be blaming, criticizing, and judging people for their behavior when it’s causing so much disease and misery.

I am actually in a hot spot area.  I know someone who had their 19-year old child die from COVID this weekend (and the same person has had another child in ICU with COVID).  I know another person who died this week.  And, a dear friend had much-needed surgery at the same hospital where these COVID-positive individuals have been. My cousin is a nurse practitioner at that hospital.  So, this is not all theoretical for me.  Perhaps it is simply that I am more pessimistic than others in some ways.  I am seeing these real life and death issues WITHOUT a lot of what I would characterize as irresponsible, risky behavior around me.  

[ktgrok]

 

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I am sorry if this was supposed to be a JAWM thread and I have been entering into a discussion.  There are a couple of reasons I enter into these types of discussions 

(1)  I learn when I enter into discussions.  When I see that other people have different views than I do, I can learn from them. Are our basic assumptions different?  Are my assumptions incorrect?  Have I miscalculated something?  Have I misinterpreted something?  Do we have different values we are bringing to the discussion?  I want to push myself toward clear, rational thinking.  

(2) I am used to working with young adults who sometimes make choices that I think are poor choices--choices that not only affect them but also impact those around them.  I know that if I want to influence their behavior, I must used reasoned, logical arguments.  For example, telling them things are likely to happen when they know, based upon proper, scientific analysis of the facts that are not likely to happen, only causes them to dig in their heels deeper.  They can easily dismiss me as not knowing what I am talking about.  If I want people to listen to the science and reality of things, I must be consistent and use the science properly.  I can't say  for the measures I support "look at the science; wear a face covering" and at the same time say "I don't have the time or energy to worry about what the science says the probability is, (statistically unlikely) event WILL happen."    

 

Ok..so then...how WOULD you phrase it so that it is consistent and accurate and scientific, in order to explain to people that having parties during a pandemic, in a hot spot, is a bad idea? 

If my way of explaining it was somehow inaccurate and not going to work, what would be the accurate and helpful way to put it?

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I am actually in a hot spot area.  I know someone who had their 19-year old child die from COVID this weekend (and the same person has had another child in ICU with COVID).  I know another person who died this week.  And, a dear friend had much-needed surgery at the same hospital where these COVID-positive individuals have been. My cousin is a nurse practitioner at that hospital.  So, this is not all theoretical for me.  Perhaps it is simply that I am more pessimistic than others in some ways.  I am seeing these real life and death issues WITHOUT a lot of what I would characterize as irresponsible, risky behavior around me.  

How is it spreading, in your area, if people are not being risky? How did you become a hotspot if everyone is being very responsible, not taking risks, etc?

[MercyA]

On 8/1/2020 at 3:56 PM, Ktgrok said:

Yup, all the neighbors have been congregating together since it started. I'm the odd one out. We do have a mask mandate now, finally, for about a month, but only in stores, etc not in peopl's homes. And doesnt' apply to people eating or drinking, so no one is masked in restaurants, etc. Gyms are open. It's banana pants. 

I think I need to keep this phrase handy, because I'm seeing a lot of banana pants around me. 🍌

Can I admit that I recently cranked the clean version of Gwen Stefani's Hollaback Girl in the car, and especially enjoyed singing along with the, "This &*#@ is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!" part?

Edited August 3, 2020 by MercyA

[EmseB]

27 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

How is it spreading, in your area, if people are not being risky? How did you become a hotspot if everyone is being very responsible, not taking risks, etc?

In my area the biggest spread has been in a state prison, two food processing plants, and nursing homes (the data is separated out by the health department). Those people aren't acting irresponsiblely, they are just essential personnel in facilities known for easy spread. This isnt to say that people aren't spreading it by being silly, but that here at least, until very recently, it was spread via those who had to go to work in places that couldn't shut down and then went home to their families.

Edited August 4, 2020 by EmseB

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, kand said:

But at this point, I do agree with @Happymomof1:  I can’t imagine I would feel like focusing on defending the rights of people to do potentially risky things right now if my friend‘s 19-year-old child just died from it 😢. Pretty certain I would be a lot more focused on letting people know the potential this has for tragedy even in places where people feel like they are being careful.

I don't understand why a factual discussion of actual mathematical risk is considered defending...whatever behavior? Or why someone dying of a certain cause (any cause!) means said risk assessment or mathematical analysis is then off the table? Or why that discussion would preclude someone mentioning that despite whatever the calculated risk might be the potential for tragedy exists?

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Ok..so then...how WOULD you phrase it so that it is consistent and accurate and scientific, in order to explain to people that having parties during a pandemic, in a hot spot, is a bad idea? 

If my way of explaining it was somehow inaccurate and not going to work, what would be the accurate and helpful way to put it?

How is it spreading, in your area, if people are not being risky? How did you become a hotspot if everyone is being very responsible, not taking risks, etc?

I said that I am not personally seeing it spread through irresponsible, risky behavior.  Apparently breathing is risky behavior, but I do not consider that irresponsible behavior.  If you are concerned that you may become infected, even though you are not participating in what you consider risky behavior, then you must think that it is capable of spreading without risky behavior.  The virus doesn't know if a person is at a party, a doctor's appointment, visiting a family member or participating in any other activity when there is human contact and interaction; as long as there is some interaction between human beings spread can occur.   A hotspot can become a hotspot because an infection gets into a situation where there is a lot of human interaction--a nursing facility, a prison, a high density living area--without there having been irresponsible behavior.  

If I wanted to talk to someone about the risk of an event, I would make sure that I had an accurate measure of the risk.  I would provide a consistent message of WHY it is a bad idea.  Is it because hospitals are currently overloaded and any increase in cases can't be handled, so even though the risk of transmission was low, the potential outcome could be extremely bad?  I would try to understand why the other party was not agreeing with me.  Did they not agree with the risk assessment?  Did they not understand the current hospital situation?  Could I talk about what would be some less risky ways for them to meet their perceived needs and goals?

[Bootsie]

12 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

I wish more people would use this tool from Georgia Tech, do they aren’t just guessing at the risk.  
 

https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

If I’m reading it right it shows you the chances of having 1 person with Covid at your event.  Setting it to *10 people* and picking random Florida counties... 

Columbia County 92% chance

Palm Beach 47%

Polk County 42% 

judging by the colors on the map most counties in Florida are above a 40% chance, with one or two being around 25% and a few being in the 90% range, when I set to 10 people. When it’s set to 100 people the whole thing looks like the 90% range.  

 

For there to be a 92% chance that one person in a random group of 10 people is infected, about 22% of the population would be infected.  That would also mean that if you had a random group of 3 people your chance of having a COVID positive individual would be over 50%; a random group of 4 would bring the chances up to about 2/3; by the time you got to six individuals you exceed a 75% chance that someone is COVID positive.  That would mean that it is more likely than not that someone in my own household is positive--at that point a group of 10 people would be the least of my concerns.  

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I said that I am not personally seeing it spread through irresponsible, risky behavior.  Apparently breathing is risky behavior, but I do not consider that irresponsible behavior.  If you are concerned that you may become infected, even though you are not participating in what you consider risky behavior, then you must think that it is capable of spreading without risky behavior. 

But some behaviors are more risky than others. We know this. A grocery trip masked is less risky than a slumber party unmasked for 10 hours. A selfie, unmasked, is more risky than chatting from 6 ft away while masked. And some risky behavior, like if I have to have skin cancer removed from my nose soon (likely) where I will be inches from another person's face, and will not be able to be masked appropriately due to the location of the lesion, is unavoidable (well, unless I want skin cancer to spread). Other risky behavior, like selfies where your face is smushed up against another humans's face, unmasked, is totally avoidable. 

The people engaging in that riskier behavior, when they don't have to, are making the unavoidable things more dangerous for everyone. 

The exact percentage of risk down to the proper decimal shouldn't be needed for people to understand that. 

And for the record, yes here and other places, social gatherings, unmasked are absolutely one of the main ways it is spreading. Birthday parties, bridal showers, etc. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

But some behaviors are more risky than others. We know this. A grocery trip masked is less risky than a slumber party unmasked for 10 hours. A selfie, unmasked, is more risky than chatting from 6 ft away while masked. And some risky behavior, like if I have to have skin cancer removed from my nose soon (likely) where I will be inches from another person's face, and will not be able to be masked appropriately due to the location of the lesion, is unavoidable (well, unless I want skin cancer to spread). Other risky behavior, like selfies where your face is smushed up against another humans's face, unmasked, is totally avoidable. 

The people engaging in that riskier behavior, when they don't have to, are making the unavoidable things more dangerous for everyone. 

The exact percentage of risk down to the proper decimal shouldn't be needed for people to understand that. 

And for the record, yes here and other places, social gatherings, unmasked are absolutely one of the main ways it is spreading. Birthday parties, bridal showers, etc. 

I agree that some behaviors are more risky than others and that some are more avoidable than others.  I have never suggested that an "exact percentage of risk down to the proper decimal" is needed and I do not believe that.  When I say that I think it is helpful to use accurate measures of risk, I am talking about avoiding statements like "it is likely" or saying things like "you will spread this" when the chance of something is less than 50%.  If I feel strongly about my message and want to communicate it to someone, I want the best information available to make my point.  

I am sure you know your area well and have information regarding the spread locally. In my area, I have been unable to find any information supporting the notion that unmasked social gatherings are a main source of transmission.  It may well be, but there is no way I can draw that conclusion from the reports and data made available to the public.  The people who I personally know who have been infected have not been infected that way.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I agree that some behaviors are more risky than others and that some are more avoidable than others.  I have never suggested that an "exact percentage of risk down to the proper decimal" is needed and I do not believe that.  When I say that I think it is helpful to use accurate measures of risk, I am talking about avoiding statements like "it is likely" or saying things like "you will spread this" when the chance of something is less than 50%.  If I feel strongly about my message and want to communicate it to someone, I want the best information available to make my point.  

I am sure you know your area well and have information regarding the spread locally. In my area, I have been unable to find any information supporting the notion that unmasked social gatherings are a main source of transmission.  It may well be, but there is no way I can draw that conclusion from the reports and data made available to the public.  The people who I personally know who have been infected have not been infected that way.  

For me, it is good enough that unmasked social gatherings can be a main source of transmission.  Because once it becomes known that it was, the gathering is long over.  But I don't understand the burning need to have unmasked social gatherings in the midst of a pandemic in the first place.  I do understand the need for social interaction but social interaction can be masked and it can be distanced with a bit of creativity. 

Of course, unmasked social gatherings aren't the only source of transmission and sometimes other sources trump them in certain areas.  But unmasked social gatherings are easily eradicated as a source of infection if people were to be smart about it.  You can't necessarily keep people from being in prison or factories or nursing homes (though people going to work in any of those places could have brought the infection in - from possibly an unmasked social gathering.)  

[ktgrok]

I don't believe I said that any one person or gathering WILL spread this. I was saying that gatherings will spread it. No, not all of them. But if people keep having them, across the population, it spreads it. 

And you not personally knowing people who caught it that way doesn't mean it isn't happening. I don't know anyone who caught it from a nursing home or prison or factory, but I do believe the reports of transmission there, just as I believe the reports of transmission via gatherings. 

[wendyroo]

I guess for me the "math" is pretty simple.

I know there are elderly people who need to go to the pharmacy, small children who need to go to the hospital to receive chemotherapy, postal workers who need to deal with the public all day, inmates who are confined in close quarters, etc.

I know that while play dates and birthday parties and recreational thrift store shopping and in-person psychiatrist appointments are nice, my family can make due with less risky substitutes.

I know that my choices on the non-essentials impact the safety of vulnerable people doing the essentials.  I can only estimate how much of an impact my actions have...if my family eats in a restaurant, how much riskier does that make it for the grandmother who has to go to court to gain guardianship of her grandchildren?  But even that is a selfish mentality, because obviously if I think it is ethical for us to eat out then I have to extend the same privilege to everyone else.  So the question becomes, if the least vulnerable members of my community return to congregating in restaurants, how much does it increase the risk for the most vulnerable who are just trying to safely do the things they absolutely have to?

My local homeschool building is holding its annual used curriculum sale.  I have gone many times and look forward to it all year.  Unfortunately, it is the epitome of unsafe pandemic activities - hundreds and hundreds of people stuffed into a gym breathing recirculated air, bumping past each other pushing strollers through narrow aisles, chatting and bargaining and yelling for their kids to stop crawling under the tables.  This year they are splitting it into two days with half the sellers there each day...but that just means that many buyers are going to be there both days.  I desperately want to go.  My son has kicked 5 new holes in the walls in the last hour - GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!  But, I am not going.  For the health of my community I would prefer it not happen at all, but if it is going to happen then I will stay away to make it as safe as possible for those that have pressing financial reasons to be there.  I will be doing my part the best I can...even if I am trying to put out the house fire with a squirt gun while others are playing with flame throwers inside just for the hell of it.

[ktgrok]

37 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

I guess for me the "math" is pretty simple.

I know there are elderly people who need to go to the pharmacy, small children who need to go to the hospital to receive chemotherapy, postal workers who need to deal with the public all day, inmates who are confined in close quarters, etc.

I know that while play dates and birthday parties and recreational thrift store shopping and in-person psychiatrist appointments are nice, my family can make due with less risky substitutes.

I know that my choices on the non-essentials impact the safety of vulnerable people doing the essentials.  I can only estimate how much of an impact my actions have...if my family eats in a restaurant, how much riskier does that make it for the grandmother who has to go to court to gain guardianship of her grandchildren?  But even that is a selfish mentality, because obviously if I think it is ethical for us to eat out then I have to extend the same privilege to everyone else.  So the question becomes, if the least vulnerable members of my community return to congregating in restaurants, how much does it increase the risk for the most vulnerable who are just trying to safely do the things they absolutely have to?

My local homeschool building is holding its annual used curriculum sale.  I have gone many times and look forward to it all year.  Unfortunately, it is the epitome of unsafe pandemic activities - hundreds and hundreds of people stuffed into a gym breathing recirculated air, bumping past each other pushing strollers through narrow aisles, chatting and bargaining and yelling for their kids to stop crawling under the tables.  This year they are splitting it into two days with half the sellers there each day...but that just means that many buyers are going to be there both days.  I desperately want to go.  My son has kicked 5 new holes in the walls in the last hour - GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!  But, I am not going.  For the health of my community I would prefer it not happen at all, but if it is going to happen then I will stay away to make it as safe as possible for those that have pressing financial reasons to be there.  I will be doing my part the best I can...even if I am trying to put out the house fire with a squirt gun while others are playing with flame throwers inside just for the hell of it.

Wendy, thank you. This post and a few others brings me a bit of comfort. A solidarity, and reassurance I'm not insane. The local gaslighting is getting to me. It's worse than the virus in some ways. Or at least, the two together are worse, i don't know. 

And it kills me that people like you, who actually know what mental health issues look like, are doing their part while others have parties when a distanced chat would get them through. 

Really, no one should need to know more than what you just posted. 

Now...to do school, call the dermatologist to schedule what is going to be an unsafe procedure virus wise, and call my insurance to admit yes, while stressed out I accidentally backd up into the neighbor's car. While waiting to hear if my sister will be in a building with thousands of people seven hours a day, five days a week. 

[Joker]

12 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Wendy, thank you. This post and a few others brings me a bit of comfort. A solidarity, and reassurance I'm not insane. The local gaslighting is getting to me. It's worse than the virus in some ways. Or at least, the two together are worse, i don't know. 

And it kills me that people like you, who actually know what mental health issues look like, are doing their part while others have parties when a distanced chat would get them through. 

Really, no one should need to know more than what you just posted. 

Now...to do school, call the dermatologist to schedule what is going to be an unsafe procedure virus wise, and call my insurance to admit yes, while stressed out I accidentally backd up into the neighbor's car. While waiting to hear if my sister will be in a building with thousands of people seven hours a day, five days a week. 

This just isn't fair. Other parents, like myself, who know what mental health issues look like might make different decisions but I honestly think most of us are just doing the best we can. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

 

You don't get to say that a distanced chat would get others with mental health issues through because that's not the case for everyone. I know people very well who are having terrible mental health struggles and need in person counseling but can't get it. 

Equating in person medical care for mental health care to optional parties is not even close to being an equitable comparison.  Whether in person appointments are open is (at least in my state)  up to the mental health clinic.  I don't know of any that don't at least offer telemedicine appointments.  And getting mental health care was a problem long before COVID19 came on the scene. 

We do make different choices for our families but unmasked choices don't have to happen outside of certain things like dental appts. etc.  where obviously they need to have access to your mouth. 

Wendy is a bit more careful than I am.  I do some things that are not absolutely essential in nature but I do them carefully and within accordance with all the guidelines of our cautious local health department.  But I am not hosting unmasked undistanced parties which are against all health department recommendations. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Jean in Newcastle
grammar is important.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Joker said:

This just isn't fair. Other parents, like myself, who know what mental health issues look like might make different decisions but I honestly think most of us are just doing the best we can. 

I wasn't meaning you in particular - I am referring to people who are having full on birthday parties, the neighbors who had a fourth of july party with share food/drinks, my mom's neighbors who had a party on the 4th and caught Covid, the people having in person get togethers on a daily or weekly basis with no social distancing or masking, etc. Not to mention the people traveling all over the freaking country for vacation (not referring to work or what not), who are not obeying quarantine regulations, etc. 

One county in my state just had to hire an outside company at the cost of 70,000 dollars just to patrol at night and try to enforce regulations regarding parties, restaurants, etc because people are ignoring the rules, ignoring the regulations, and having big parties and gatherings with no safety precautions. That's what I'm referring to. 

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

 

You don't get to say that a distanced chat would get others with mental health issues through because that's not the case for everyone. I know people very well who are having terrible mental health struggles and need in person counseling but can't get it. 

Um, at no point did I say that in person counseling was irresponsible. Therapy with a licensed provider doesn't equal drunken party, nor slumber party, nor most of the other stuff I'm seeing. 

[mathnerd]

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

You don't get to say that a distanced chat would get others with mental health issues through because that's not the case for everyone. I know people very well who are having terrible mental health struggles and need in person counseling but can't get it. 

I am in NorCal and am being spammed by my large medical group on a weekly basis, begging us to set up telemedicine appointments and assuring us that the doctor will bring us into the office if they feel the need to see the patient. This also contains info about how to go about appointments if you are undergoing mental health struggles. The medical group needs more people to start using their services for nonCovid issues because most people are keeping away. The people that you know very well who are having mental health struggles should be encouraged to call their mental health professional or their primary physician and see how they can get in person counseling. The usual services are available for the those who need them the most. On the bright side, these days, they probably will get seen without a waiting period.

Edited August 4, 2020 by mathnerd

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I don't believe I said that any one person or gathering WILL spread this. I was saying that gatherings will spread it. No, not all of them. But if people keep having them, across the population, it spreads it. 

And you not personally knowing people who caught it that way doesn't mean it isn't happening. I don't know anyone who caught it from a nursing home or prison or factory, but I do believe the reports of transmission there, just as I believe the reports of transmission via gatherings. 

If I am the "you" referred to in this post, I agree that just because I personally having known anyone who has become infected in a particular way doesn't mean that it isn't happening.  In fact, if you read my post that this appears to me to be referring to, I said  "In my area, I have been unable to find any information supporting the notion that unmasked social gatherings are a main source of transmission.  It may well be, but there is no way I can draw that conclusion from the reports and data made available to the public."  

This was in direct response to your comment "And for the record, yes here and other places, social gatherings, unmasked are absolutely one of the main ways it is spreading. Birthday parties, bridal showers, etc."  I acknowledged that you may know that this is a fact in your location.  There is a lot of information about COVID out there, and no one can keep up with all of the information, especially information coming from all parts of the country or world, but it would be helpful to me, if there is evidence that social gatherings, unmasked are absolutely one of the main ways it is spreading to point me to that information.  I would like to learn and understand more about the ways in which this truly is spreading.

[wendyroo]

3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Equating in person medical care for mental health care to optional parties is not even close to being an equitable comparison.  Whether in person appointments are open is (at least in my state)  up to the mental health clinic.  I don't know of any that don't at least offer telemedicine appointments.  And getting mental health care was a problem long before COVID19 came on the scene. 

We do make different choices for our families but unmasked choices don't have to happen outside of certain things like dental appts. etc.  where obviously they need to have access to your mouth. 

Wendy is a bit more careful than I am.  I do some things that are not absolutely essential in nature but I do them carefully and within accordance with all the guidelines of our cautious local health department.  But I am not hosting unmasked undistanced parties which are against all health department recommendations. 

I agree completely with the bolded.

I also find it incredibly ironic, because one of the reason my family is being so ultra careful is precisely because we are risking exposure through essential mental health care.  At the beginning of the lock down we tried tele-ABA-therapy, but it was just not getting the job done.  My son's behavior is a huge safety risk to the rest of the family, so in consultation with his psychiatrist, psychologist, and BCBA we decided to start allowing one ABA therapist into the home.  We recognize that this daily contact makes us a risk out in the community, so that makes us even more committed to avoiding situations where we could possibly spread the virus.

So I get that in some circumstances in-person mental health care is absolutely unavoidable.  I would never suggest that people forego that.  But in my mind that makes it all the more important that everyone does what they can to avoid unnecessary transmission risks.

This is the big disconnect I see.  I hear so many people saying, "I was forced to make this big sacrifice (virtual school, losing my job, canceling my summer trip to Europe), so I deserve to not make any small sacrifices (limiting shopping, foregoing a birthday party, not eating out)."  It is like they think they can "stick it to the man", and show the virus who is boss by pushing back against every boundary, restriction and best practice.  It makes me want to scream at them that if everyone would just make the little sacrifices, then fewer people would have to make as many big sacrifices. 

Day by day, hour by hour determination is hard, but the only way (other than a vaccine which is going to take a while) that we get to safe, in-person schools, unrestricted travel, a rebounding economy, etc. is by accepting, embracing and taking pride in our ability to support our fellow man through small discomforts, annoyances, disappointments, etc.  We need to band together and celebrate each other's victory gardens, not plaster Facebook with photos of forged ration coupons.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, wendyroo said:

It makes me want to scream at them that if everyone would just make the little sacrifices, then fewer people would have to make as many big sacrifices. 

 

yes!