Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
paperpudding wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Attention Australians - this video on the Coronavirus Meme thread is a Must Watch
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45590200/#Comment_45590200
That was great, thanks!
While I was over at Coronavirus Memes, I also saw this, which so hit home:
My family and I were watching a baking show made pre-pandemic last week and watched in disgust and horror as contestants blew glitter all over their cakes. With their mouths. We never would have even thought about that a year ago...
I know, I have cognitive dissonance every time I watch TV and people engage in normal pre-pandemic behaviors.5 -
Wondering if other people have experienced this....the pandemic has affected the themes of my nightly stress dreams.
I have always had stress dreams...they used to be school-related (can't remember my locker combination, can't find the right classroom, final exams I wasn't prepared for, etc). Then they became work-related (can't get to work, all the roads are closed, lost in the building and can't get to my office, huge projects due that I didn't complete).
Now, almost ALL of my stress dreams are being in a crowd with no masks. "Why are all these people here? Where are their masks? Wait, where's MY mask?!?"22 -
paperpudding wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Attention Australians - this video on the Coronavirus Meme thread is a Must Watch
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45590200/#Comment_45590200
That was great, thanks!
While I was over at Coronavirus Memes, I also saw this, which so hit home:
My family and I were watching a baking show made pre-pandemic last week and watched in disgust and horror as contestants blew glitter all over their cakes. With their mouths. We never would have even thought about that a year ago...
I'm hoping this will put an end to the restaurant practice of serving a single dessert with two utensils, because somehow there is a presumption that no one ever eats a whole dessert portion.
Pre-pandemic I regularly dined out with a good friend who does not like sweets, never orders dessert, and is not someone I normally swap spit with. I almost always eat dessert. We used to laugh about the two fork thing.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.5 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.16 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I agree with this. Also, people who are on public assistance (SNAP) have far fewer options as far as grocery delivery. And food pantries don't deliver for the most part here in NYC. There are long lines of people (sometimes socially distant sometimes not) waiting for food assistance. It's sad.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
This (the bolded) is, IMO, a common feature of human behavior. When something bad happens to someone, it's common to search, possibly subconsciously, for reasons it can't or won't happen to us: Things they did, risks they took, characteristics they had, that aren't true of us. It's a way of psychologically keeping risk at arm's length. Some personality types are, I think, more inclined to this (or to making it explicit) than others.
I've said this here before, but I'll risk li'l ol' lady style repetion: When I was going through cancer treatment, there were people who would virtually cross-examine me about my lifestyle, habits, environmental chemical exposures, genetic background, trying to understand how such a thing could happen to poor, poor me. 🙄 Usually, at some point, their starting level of tension in the conversation would reduce, and the cross-examination would wind down. After a few repetitions of this, I came to believe that they were mentally accumulating reasons I got cancer, that wouldn't apply to them, so they couldn't possibly have it happen to them. It's like some kind of weird cognitive talisman.22 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.11 -
rheddmobile wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »It's odd that PA has numbers that are so high. We've had a mask mandate almost since the beginning. There was a total shut down for months. Indoor dining in restaurants is closed as are gyms. Schools are mostly virtual. And yet . . .
A lot of people do resist the restrictions. Masks are worn badly, and some don't wear them at all. It seems that the tighter the restrictions, the more people rebel. Still, the number of infections is ridiculously high. The news never explains what is happening. In the beginning it was the warehouse jobs and food processing plants. Now, who knows?
I completely understand this. I feel the same way about IL (specifically, Chicago). When I go outside, pretty much everyone is wearing masks around me (this is outdoors, and has not always been the case, but has been largely the case since the new spikes and weather getting somewhat cooler). Beyond that, they've been enforcing masks inside well, and that has seemed to have buy-in from even those who were more relaxed about masks outside, since masks first started getting recommended. We had some of the earliest and strictest rules from early on (they lightened up some in the summer). It's nothing like the types of complete ignoring of masks or sneering at those who wear them reported elsewhere (here my ND is endless complaining about seeing those outdoors without them), and yet the numbers seem to be worse here no matter what.
I realize that obsessing about this is ridiculous and unhelpful and there is irresponsible behavior happening (bunch of big house parties shut down, stuff like this), but given how much most people do seem to be trying to be compliant, it makes me feel a little like it's hopeless and doesn't matter. (But at least the vaccine should help.) Most of the time I'm not this way, but I feel like things have been bad here for so long and it's not that we aren't wearing masks or are downplaying the virus or all the things that keep being said to be the one and only reason that could be.
Anyway, sorry to whine, I was mainly just hoping to say I get it!
I think what is being reported from PA, Chicago, etc is typical of the entire USA. Burn out is real. Late yesterday I was talking with a local doctor about these factors. She mentioned most cases of death she knew about first hand were actually following the "rules" and still died.
Actually the "rules" were never to keep people from getting this version of corona virus but to only slow its spread. At this point I expect 100% of the USA population has been in contact with this virus like most other ubiquitous viruses. How we respond depends on many factors mostly under our control where we are aware or not. If each exposure is a hit on our immune system then job one is to work to enhance our immune system daily.
After traveling 2000 miles this to week to pick up a car in the east coast as well as locally other than some mask usage things looked about the same as pre pandemic USA. The freeways are PACKED with cars, trucks, motorhomes and other RVs. Yesterday at Walmart the parking lot was packed out.
We have to keep in mind people posting on this forum are atypical. Most in the USA are not into health and fitness. Preexisting health conditions is the main path Covid-19 spread. While turning 70 in 60 days my eating lifestyle changes since Oct 2014 has me more healthy then when I was 40. I can still die from Covid-19. I have worked to increase my mitochondria count and their health and have Vit D levels greater than 100 ng for 5 years now and still avoid added sugar. Will that be helpful in my case remains to be seen.
The mental heath crisis concerns me as well as the financial health crisis. Some of these things will impact us for decades to come.
I don't know if we can take at face value statements from sick people who claim to have followed all guidelines and still got serious, even fatal, cases.
I'm not saying that people are lying.
I'm saying that many of us have poor memories of times when we assessed risk poorly, especially there is a gap of a week or two between the risk and the consequence. We also all have slightly different assessments of what the "rules" are. I know people who think they're following the rules when they're simply obey local laws -- so I had some co-workers who considered themselves to be okay dining indoors in my state even when rates were high. Why? Because it was legal. I know people who gathered for the holidays who thought they were obeying the rules because none of them had symptoms or known contact with someone who was ill. There are people going to gyms, meeting unmasked with different-household family, or eating in technically outdoor enclosed areas who all would say they're following the "rules."
I am sure there are people who have done everything according to the best current advice and still got sick. I'm not saying that hasn't happened. But a lot of people who think they did everything right and still got sick -- I'm guessing that a good chunk of those people engaged in behaviors that we KNOW are higher risk and aren't directly related to the pressures of having to make a living or they made a mistake in trusting that someone in their inner circle was also following the same precautions that they were.
The one person I know (father of a friend on MFP) who has died was strictly isolating, but required to come in to the VA for routine medical exam by his doctor, who was sneezing and coughing “with a negative test.” Nurse was overheard saying she also had a negative test but couldn’t smell or taste. Guess what, less than a week later he had Covid. He did everything exactly as he was told and was killed by the medical profession.
Locally, the largest single category of new infections which can successfully be traced came from healthcare settings.
That's just heartbreaking. Except for medical appointments, my husband is in contact pretty much only with me and I am being as careful as possible. The medical appointments can't be done virtually, so we'll just keep being careful and trust that his doctors and nurses are doing the same. The hospital isn't letting anyone but the patient into medical appointments so that does cut down on the number of people wandering around (even though I'm still mad that I can't go with him).9 -
Just wanted to put out there that This Week in Virology said this British mutation is NOT a new strain, just a normal mutation. And there is no evidence that it is more virulent or infectious. It is just as likely that it's a coincidence that it popped up at the same time that people's behaviors led to spikes, or that one person who got the new mutation early proceeded to go to a crowded bar or an indoor crowded church service, and boom it looks like it's the mutation's fault.
Just wanted to update - They discussed this again now that they've been able to carefully read through the full report. They still sound doubtful the variant is more transmissable, but said the data warrants further study to determine if this variant is more transmissable, what change makes it so. But they reiterated that the panic is unwarranted because nothing about how to protect yourself, how to prevent infection, or how to treat an infection would change. All the things you should have been doing, you still should be doing. Wear a mask, physical distance, avoid crowds, especially indoors, and get vaccinated when it's available.7 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
5 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
I agree with all of this (and with @Lokihen's point about fewer people wandering the store). The point is, all of this is pretty complicated, IMO, if one thinks through all of the risks. We need to factor our own situations as best we can, and IMO give a little grace to others' decisions (even if different from ours . . . at least as long as we're not talking blatantly and unnecessarily risky behavior that increases risk for others).
An earlier post a few pages back seemed to suggest that someone was not being protective enough of their own family if they went into stores instead of getting delivery, and that delivery was safe for workers because it was contactless. I think that's UNDERthinking this.
Other than the extremes of behavior based on science denialism being IMO completely beyond the pale, these are not easy decisions, and there's not much room to say that any one set of actions is abstractly, universally correct. Can a given course be the best one can do under the circumstances? Sure. Is it moral high ground, from which to take shots at others (especially based on limited info)? Nope.
JMO, as always.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
I was responding to this line in particular from Gale's post: " She mentioned most cases of death she knew about first hand were actually following the "rules" and still died."
And thank you, I also am not comfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it was being irresponsible and that wasn't at all what I was intending to say.
I'm more in the camp that there is a sliding scale of risk. There are people doing everything or almost everything possible, there are people who are doing a very good job based on current knowledge, there are people who are doing some stuff right, and there are people who are fighting tooth and nail against any kind of mitigation. The unfortunate thing about this whole situation is that while people who don't want to do anything are usually pretty easy to spot, the middle two camps can be less clear and we don't always know if the people in our lives are really exercising as many precautions as they could. So if I break my ankle and I have to go to urgent care, who else is in the waiting room with me? If I assume it's okay to see my nieces and nephews because I think their family is being careful (FYI, I am not seeing them), what if my sister-in-law really thinks that neighborhood playdates are no big deal because nobody is coughing at the time?
It feels in many ways like we're all half blind-folded as we work our way through this. We're really at the mercy of the least careful people that we encounter which is why I don't want to blame anyone who gets this. They may have made the exact same decisions as me, but been in the unlucky circumstance that I missed.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
This (the bolded) is, IMO, a common feature of human behavior. When something bad happens to someone, it's common to search, possibly subconsciously, for reasons it can't or won't happen to us: Things they did, risks they took, characteristics they had, that aren't true of us. It's a way of psychologically keeping risk at arm's length. Some personality types are, I think, more inclined to this (or to making it explicit) than others.
I've said this here before, but I'll risk li'l ol' lady style repetion: When I was going through cancer treatment, there were people who would virtually cross-examine me about my lifestyle, habits, environmental chemical exposures, genetic background, trying to understand how such a thing could happen to poor, poor me. 🙄 Usually, at some point, their starting level of tension in the conversation would reduce, and the cross-examination would wind down. After a few repetitions of this, I came to believe that they were mentally accumulating reasons I got cancer, that wouldn't apply to them, so they couldn't possibly have it happen to them. It's like some kind of weird cognitive talisman.
I feel like this kind of protective thinking is almost inevitable in humans and the best thing we can do is be aware of it, try our best to intellectually understand that it is a form of magical thinking, and then make darn sure we aren't inflicting it on people in our lives through our questions/conversations when they're going through things like cancer or economic problems or relationship issues.8 -
paperpudding wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Attention Australians - this video on the Coronavirus Meme thread is a Must Watch
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45590200/#Comment_45590200
That was great, thanks!
While I was over at Coronavirus Memes, I also saw this, which so hit home:
My family and I were watching a baking show made pre-pandemic last week and watched in disgust and horror as contestants blew glitter all over their cakes. With their mouths. We never would have even thought about that a year ago...
I'm hoping this will put an end to the restaurant practice of serving a single dessert with two utensils, because somehow there is a presumption that no one ever eats a whole dessert portion.
Pre-pandemic I regularly dined out with a good friend who does not like sweets, never orders dessert, and is not someone I normally swap spit with. I almost always eat dessert. We used to laugh about the two fork thing.
My husband and I split dessert sometimes. Given that pie a la mode in some restaurants can have 800 or more calories, it's a nice way to get a treat without going overboard. I probably wouldn't do it with a casual friend though.6 -
Merry Christmas to you too SA.5
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I was just questioning whether we can assume that if most people with serious cases are claiming that they avoided risky behavior that we can assume that they're accurately recalling their level of risky behavior over the last few weeks and also that they have a realistic and prudent definition of risky behavior.
I'm not really sure what post you are thinking said that most people with serious cases avoided risky behavior, as I didn't see that in Gale's post (I think he was referencing the original "flatten the curve" rationale), so was wonderinga bit if you were referring to my post he quoted (which was generally about how I'm in an area that has had stricter limitations than many others, certainly does not have the kind of general rejection of the mask rules, especially indoors, that seems to be common elsewhere from what's been reported on the thread, but yet seems to be doing worse than many places). There are many factors to how widespread transmission is from place to place, after all (and it isn't always obvious). When comparing numbers at times, though, it is tempting to just throw up ones hands (I haven't and don't intend to, especially since the vaccine is already here).
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that anyone who gets it must have been being irresponsible, but I didn't think you were saying that, although I do think there's a bit of that that creeps into the discussion from time to time IMO.
This (the bolded) is, IMO, a common feature of human behavior. When something bad happens to someone, it's common to search, possibly subconsciously, for reasons it can't or won't happen to us: Things they did, risks they took, characteristics they had, that aren't true of us. It's a way of psychologically keeping risk at arm's length. Some personality types are, I think, more inclined to this (or to making it explicit) than others.
I've said this here before, but I'll risk li'l ol' lady style repetion: When I was going through cancer treatment, there were people who would virtually cross-examine me about my lifestyle, habits, environmental chemical exposures, genetic background, trying to understand how such a thing could happen to poor, poor me. 🙄 Usually, at some point, their starting level of tension in the conversation would reduce, and the cross-examination would wind down. After a few repetitions of this, I came to believe that they were mentally accumulating reasons I got cancer, that wouldn't apply to them, so they couldn't possibly have it happen to them. It's like some kind of weird cognitive talisman.
I think that those of us in the Safe Zones (Aus, NZ, other places) need to remember that we are incredibly fortunate that our countries got on top of this quickly, and have managed to stamp out further outbreaks quickly as well. The rest of the world, we can go back and forth forever on how things might have been different if, if, if...but it isn't. And the virus is utterly out of control in many places, and all it takes is one tiny slip up. It can happen to even the most vigilant person.
So, let's remember that we are bloody lucky to be able to enjoy our Christmas Day with relative freedom (sorry, not you, Sydney) and be a bit kinder to those who don't get to have that this year.
Mere Kirihimete from New Zealand, everyone.15 -
Provoked by something earlier in the thread I won't quote, I'm thinking about displacement of risk.
What do I mean? Choices that make me safer, but arguably put someone else at the risk I'm avoiding.
The classic example is grocery delivery: It's contactless on my end, low worry (depending on how I feel about things other people have touched recently), probably reduces my risk, has a cost but it's not enough to be a big deal for me (fortunately comfortable but not wealthy).
When I use that service, *someone* is wandering through the store, taking the risk I'm avoiding, whether it's the person who delivers, or another contractor/employee.
I can't speak for where others live, but here the people doing those jobs are not well paid, and often don't have employer-provided health care. Many are fairly young, perhaps have young families depending on their continuing health and continuing paycheck. (My cost helps with their paycheck, but risks their health.) Could they choose other jobs? Maybe. Realistically? Not all of them.
I understand why people use these services. As a social good, it's rational/responsible to shift risk from more vulnerable people (older, immune compromised, etc.) to less vulnerable. Of course any individual can make his/her own free choices about risk and cost, contingent on that person's own circumstances. I'm not second-guessing others' choices here.
Given all of the above, though, I'd personally find it tough to claim that using grocery delivery is some kind of moral high ground, an absolute good, to protect me or my family/contacts, in some condition-free way. It's risking someone else's health and contacts, to benefit mine, because I have enough money to make that choice.
P.S. To be clear, I'm still going to grocery stores myself, just keeping it very rare, like every 3-4 weeks, despite being old and having at least one comorbidity potential (early COPD). This is not my lowest-risk grocery option, clearly. The ethics of it are probably not the main driver.
I think this would make a very good debate topic.
My view leans more towards the fewer people wandering around the store the better for everyone, including the workers. I haven't been inside a store since March to protect myself and my parents. A side benefit is that I'm not an additional source of contaminants for the employees and shoppers.
I sometimes use the curbside delivery my local supermarkets are offering. It's the store employees who would be in the store anyway doing the shopping, so I don't see it as transferring risk, and is one less vector entering the store.
I think if a young healthy person is shopping for an older person or someone with a comorbidity risk factor, that would be good risk transference, because you are transferring the risk to someone much less likely to get sick or die. I think a parent with children who would need to drag multiple people thru the store with them would also be a positive for delivery, as it reduces people in the store. But I can see the issue with one low-risk person using an independent delivery service, because it's just a one-to-one tradeoff of similar risk; the only benefit would be if that one person is going into the store multiple times rather than multiple people, it's theoretically fewer vectors in the store. I bet I could totally overthink this though
UK here, two of my sons work in retail, and both would prefer if customers were only allowed to have collections or deliveries. Then they would only have to mix with their colleagues who would respect each other’s space unlike some customers. It’s probably not financially viable for the companies they work for but it would make their jobs easier and safer.12 -
Who would have ever guessed we would be having conversations on the safety of grocery shopping? What a weird world...
I did do grocery delivery for the first time. It was effective enough to get us through, but weird for me. I am bit particular about some of our staples (produce especially) so I didn’t order as many fresh veggies as I would have purchased normally. I do 95% of my shopping at Aldi, and normally stuff is decent, but some times bananas are so green they never turn, or so ripe they will never get eaten... lettuce/salads might be wilted or brown, cauliflower has spots already, slimy cilantro, wet mushrooms (which spoil much faster), etc. Also, I ordered two whole chickens in hopes of a couple meals out of each (ideally roasted, then bone broth and extra bits for a second meal of soup). For our family of 6, including two that out eat us, I would have chosen the largest chickens available. The ones she picked up for us were tiny (half the size/price of what I ordered) it will probably take both to make a meal as I had originally intended to use them. I can change it up, I am used to being creative in the kitchen after never living near enough to a grocery store to just run out and grab something, but still a bit disappointing since I know I can’t just go back next week. Maybe it’s all they had? Maybe not? She also bagged them with the apples which weirded me out, I always keep raw meat separate/by itself. 10 -
I tried the local grocery store's curbside a couple times and was disappointed both in the produce selected and the substitutions. If I order a quart and only a pint is available, I'm not going to be happy when the pint costs as much as a quart. I wasn't surprised to got milk that expired in three days; the store has a bad reputation there.
On the other hand, I don't even like shopping at Walmart, but they've outdone themselves on filling my orders. I've never seen such large, perfect pineapples before.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions