Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Our Mayor in Chicago said if the young people don't start wearing masks and practice social distancing, we are going back to Phase 3 which means closing businesses, restaurants, salons and THE GYM!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!
I am in NY and we still don't have gyms open even though we are doing way better than most other states!
I work in healthcare and have to wear N95 for 12-15h a day. It does suck, but it is better than spreading the virus. I even developed a really bad face rash because of it the past few weeks. I do find it really hard to breath as I have asthma, but I am allowed to take it off during my breaks when I can go outside which helps.
I've seen a lot of people on bike paths running and biking with masks and don't know how they can do it but if they can while working out, I should be able to with light activity.
We, Illinois, followed NY example. We shutdown fast and started making progress. The cases are rising but not as fast as the Southern states. If everyone can get on the same page we might be able to fight it better
I honestly wanted to believe that the heat would have some impact on this virus, but it's had the opposite affect to a certain extent. Every Southern state rapidly increased in cases, more than the Northern states, once we reopened. But the interesting thing is so did California. CA has terrible air quality in the Summer especially. People stay inside, like the South in the Summer. CA shut down early too. It didn't help them. I just heard their Governor blaming it on mostly the crowds around Memorial Day and the 4th. I don't think that's the case. I think it's more with people spending more time indoors with infected people, being exposed to long term aerosols being pushed around by the air systems.
My concern (and you're seeing more articles about it) is that the Northern States will blow up off the charts in the Fall and Winter, when people are packed inside with indoor ventilation. I strongly believe A/C is moving around the virus in the South right now. It wasn't the crowded beaches. It was the restaurants that people went into after going to the beach or the hotels where they were staying.
Once it started getting very hot and humid in the Midwest, you started to see numbers rising rapidly. Doesn't bode well for opening up schools, which typically have horrid quality mechanical air systems. If schools reopen, I think we'll see numbers skyrocket dramatically. As much as I'd like to see school kids get back to normal, until we have enough testing for contract tracing and get people on board with masks, it's critical we don't open schools.8 -
My sister and her daughter went to Florida (Hotspot) they tested positive today!! Thank God they both are asymptomatic! PLEASE WEAR A MASK and be careful!!!15
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »One of the the larger school districts in our area announced their plan. Parents will make a binding choice for the fall semester
- Child will go to school in person with distancing measures, masks required, etc. Classes will be taught by the district's teachers. If there is an outbreak these kids will be taught remotely by their regular teachers
- Child will remote school. Instruction will be through a 3rd party provider.
This is interesting because I was just asking elsewhere about the plan. If a teacher or student is infected, then everyone who rode the bus or had a class with that person quarantines for 2 weeks? And if one of them ends up sick, does everyone who rode the bus or had a class with that teacher or student quarantine for 2 weeks?
Not to mention that multiple families have more than one child in school. Compound this by what the plan is if someone in class A gets sick and someone in that classroom has a sibling in Class B. Is all of Class B now expected to quarantine? The logistics of this seem almost overwhelming.
Exactly! Just have everyone do virtual. Students without a computer/internet can maybe be sent packets of materials to read and complete.
Kids were already falling behind with e-learning - the answer is not to continue to do so. But what to do we do for those children who don't have parents who can/will keep them not only accountable for doing the work but ensuring that the child has LEARNED the information? If they don't have access to a computer or internet what makes you think they have a parent that has the time, desire, or necessary education to be able to teach that child what they need to know. Packets (and even e-learning/virtual school) will only make the gaps larger between groups of children in terms of the education levels. And then what do we do to help them catch back up? Someone somewhere suggested we just pause all kids for a year. But that is not feasible at ALL. There are no good or easy answers, but kids need to go back to school.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The harsh reality is that those with the fewest resources to keep safe have the most pressure to get back to pre-covid practices.
Honestly this restriction has gone on long enough that this group is probably approaching critical mass right now.
Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
Unless you know a way to fabricate money out of thin air, I think allowing everyone to make their own choice is going to be the only way forward. Yes, people are going to die. More people won't. The choice should not be up to rich people living in comfortable isolation with plenty of money.
I think other countries managed to keep most people financially solvent and safe at home, and I'm angry we didn't even really seem to try to do that.
And I think if all of the people who are privileged enough to be able to work from home actually stayed at home and self quarantined as completely as possible, we would be making conditions for essential workers much safer.
Unfortunately, back when we were supposed to be staying at home, people were running to the grocery or big box stores multiple times a week, browsing, going to family and friends houses, arguing about wearing masks. And now people are packing bars and throwing covid parties.
Our country's epically bad handling if this crisis is forcing people who were already struggling to make awful choices between two evils and it sucks. It's historically tragic. And it didn't have to be this way.
I think it DID have to be this way.
Those countries that kept people home? China. We won't go there.
Name another country that isn't an island and that has 300 million people who successfully contained this particular virus.
There isn't one because this virus is not containable. Never has been. It's not like ebola where people show symptoms and then die. You can't trace contacts of a virus that acts like the common cold until three weeks in when people die.
I agree it was destined to be more of a challenge here. But if you look at the numbers, our cases per capita and deaths per capita contradict your post. Most of the EU has it under control. Canada is doing light years better than we are. But the only reason it HAD to be like this in the US is because of where we put our priorities. IMHO it was a choice, and we soothe ourselves by ignoring the other options we had. I can't really say more without getting political.
I'm privileged enough to be able to work from home, but I am now and have always been barely keeping my head above water, so it's hard for me to financially help others. I try my best though. It's frustrating that there's plenty of money out there, it's just not being used to get the people struggling through this. I don't think I'm required to be paying other people's rent to express dissatisfaction with the way our government and corporate America has handled the last 6 months
Most of the EU has it under control.
No.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. EU didn't do any better job.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I would venture a guess that we have better reporting than a lot of the countries that fall below us rate-wise. I would also venture a guess that many of those countries are operating behind a veil of partial secrecy/denial/trying to keep the masses calm and their economies as open as possible.
We will have to agree to disagree because I think your last sentence applies to the US as much as it might anywhere else, and again we veer into political territory here.
And I'm sure we will both continue being dissatisfied while we all go hurtling down the path we are on
10 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The harsh reality is that those with the fewest resources to keep safe have the most pressure to get back to pre-covid practices.
Honestly this restriction has gone on long enough that this group is probably approaching critical mass right now.
Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
Unless you know a way to fabricate money out of thin air, I think allowing everyone to make their own choice is going to be the only way forward. Yes, people are going to die. More people won't. The choice should not be up to rich people living in comfortable isolation with plenty of money.
I think other countries managed to keep most people financially solvent and safe at home, and I'm angry we didn't even really seem to try to do that.
And I think if all of the people who are privileged enough to be able to work from home actually stayed at home and self quarantined as completely as possible, we would be making conditions for essential workers much safer.
Unfortunately, back when we were supposed to be staying at home, people were running to the grocery or big box stores multiple times a week, browsing, going to family and friends houses, arguing about wearing masks. And now people are packing bars and throwing covid parties.
Our country's epically bad handling if this crisis is forcing people who were already struggling to make awful choices between two evils and it sucks. It's historically tragic. And it didn't have to be this way.
I think it DID have to be this way.
Those countries that kept people home? China. We won't go there.
Name another country that isn't an island and that has 300 million people who successfully contained this particular virus.
There isn't one because this virus is not containable. Never has been. It's not like ebola where people show symptoms and then die. You can't trace contacts of a virus that acts like the common cold until three weeks in when people die.
I agree it was destined to be more of a challenge here. But if you look at the numbers, our cases per capita and deaths per capita contradict your post. Most of the EU has it under control. Canada is doing light years better than we are. But the only reason it HAD to be like this in the US is because of where we put our priorities. IMHO it was a choice, and we soothe ourselves by ignoring the other options we had. I can't really say more without getting political.
I'm privileged enough to be able to work from home, but I am now and have always been barely keeping my head above water, so it's hard for me to financially help others. I try my best though. It's frustrating that there's plenty of money out there, it's just not being used to get the people struggling through this. I don't think I'm required to be paying other people's rent to express dissatisfaction with the way our government and corporate America has handled the last 6 months
Most of the EU has it under control.
No.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. EU didn't do any better job.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I would venture a guess that we have better reporting than a lot of the countries that fall below us rate-wise. I would also venture a guess that many of those countries are operating behind a veil of partial secrecy/denial/trying to keep the masses calm and their economies as open as possible.
We will have to agree to disagree because I think your last sentence applies to the US as much as it might anywhere else, and again we veer into political territory here.
And I'm sure we will both continue being dissatisfied while we all go hurtling down the path we are on
Did you look at the Johns Hopkins page I linked? I think we're doing pretty well if you believe those numbers.
It's partly a matter of HOW you look at it. People were going to die. Not even political. Nature. Nature targets the weak and the old. It's always been so.
I'm not saying it's pretty, but it is the truth and no one gets out unscathed.5 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The harsh reality is that those with the fewest resources to keep safe have the most pressure to get back to pre-covid practices.
Honestly this restriction has gone on long enough that this group is probably approaching critical mass right now.
Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
Unless you know a way to fabricate money out of thin air, I think allowing everyone to make their own choice is going to be the only way forward. Yes, people are going to die. More people won't. The choice should not be up to rich people living in comfortable isolation with plenty of money.
I think other countries managed to keep most people financially solvent and safe at home, and I'm angry we didn't even really seem to try to do that.
And I think if all of the people who are privileged enough to be able to work from home actually stayed at home and self quarantined as completely as possible, we would be making conditions for essential workers much safer.
Unfortunately, back when we were supposed to be staying at home, people were running to the grocery or big box stores multiple times a week, browsing, going to family and friends houses, arguing about wearing masks. And now people are packing bars and throwing covid parties.
Our country's epically bad handling if this crisis is forcing people who were already struggling to make awful choices between two evils and it sucks. It's historically tragic. And it didn't have to be this way.
I think it DID have to be this way.
Those countries that kept people home? China. We won't go there.
Name another country that isn't an island and that has 300 million people who successfully contained this particular virus.
There isn't one because this virus is not containable. Never has been. It's not like ebola where people show symptoms and then die. You can't trace contacts of a virus that acts like the common cold until three weeks in when people die.
I agree it was destined to be more of a challenge here. But if you look at the numbers, our cases per capita and deaths per capita contradict your post. Most of the EU has it under control. Canada is doing light years better than we are. But the only reason it HAD to be like this in the US is because of where we put our priorities. IMHO it was a choice, and we soothe ourselves by ignoring the other options we had. I can't really say more without getting political.
I'm privileged enough to be able to work from home, but I am now and have always been barely keeping my head above water, so it's hard for me to financially help others. I try my best though. It's frustrating that there's plenty of money out there, it's just not being used to get the people struggling through this. I don't think I'm required to be paying other people's rent to express dissatisfaction with the way our government and corporate America has handled the last 6 months
Most of the EU has it under control.
No.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. EU didn't do any better job.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I would venture a guess that we have better reporting than a lot of the countries that fall below us rate-wise. I would also venture a guess that many of those countries are operating behind a veil of partial secrecy/denial/trying to keep the masses calm and their economies as open as possible.
We will have to agree to disagree because I think your last sentence applies to the US as much as it might anywhere else, and again we veer into political territory here.
And I'm sure we will both continue being dissatisfied while we all go hurtling down the path we are on
It's partly a matter of HOW you look at it. People were going to die. Not even political. Nature. Nature targets the weak and the old. It's always been so.
It is no longer just the weak and the old though. Unless weak means young healthy people who, from the outside, look as healthy as any athlete but might have something wrong without knowing it. And that could be any one of our children.
It's going to target anybody and everybody. Who's to say who will be able to escape it, unless you're able to stay away from it. 5 -
well no one gets out of this life alive anyway, right? Here in Tx we have masks mandated. It's no secret. I had to go to the post office today. The clerk who helped me? Mask under nose. And heavy sigh. When she started talking to me she pulled her mask down below her mouth because I dunno why.... Anyway, if she is sick and seeing hundreds of customers a day you can do the math. I mean I get that a mask is only a small amount of protection between us but I want every bit of it...15
-
cmriverside wrote: »The harsh reality is that those with the fewest resources to keep safe have the most pressure to get back to pre-covid practices.
Honestly this restriction has gone on long enough that this group is probably approaching critical mass right now.
Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
Unless you know a way to fabricate money out of thin air, I think allowing everyone to make their own choice is going to be the only way forward. Yes, people are going to die. More people won't. The choice should not be up to rich people living in comfortable isolation with plenty of money.
We in Massachusetts are very grateful for our essential workers. I can't drive a mile on a back road without seeing a yard sign expressing thanks. Judging from all the people I know who are also expressing gratitude financially, it goes well beyond this sweet but arguably meaningless gesture. (Or perhaps not meaningless, if these yard signs encourage others to give extra tips to their grocery delivery drivers, etc.)
I don't get your point about masks. I've seen 100% employee mask usage for months now, even before the governor made it mandatory May 6. (We had local ordinances that proceeded that.)
Except for "those two guys in Home Depot" I've seen 100% mask use by customers for months as well, and two of these stores are not in affluent areas.
Yesterday while sitting on a waiting room (with 100% people wearing masks) I caught part of our governor's news conference in which he thanked MA residents at least twice for our mask compliance.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/07/16/charlie-baker-stresses-mask-wearing-to-keep-coronavirus-low-in-massachusetts/
...“It’s very clear from the research and the data that face coverings are the most important and significant way to stop the spread” of COVID-19, Baker said in a press conference Thursday at the State House. “The best and most important thing we can all do here in the commonwealth is to continue to wear face coverings.”
The state’s positive test rate has hovered around 2% for roughly two weeks now and is down more than 90% since mid-April, Baker said. Hospitalizations and other key metrics continue to trend in a positive direction as well.
"...my view is masks are a fundamental part of how we contain and fight the virus,” Baker said. “We believe the proposal we put in place, which gives locals the ability to also enforce this order with a variety of means and mechanisms available to them, has worked enormously effectively.”
Baker also rolled out another $19.6 million in federal aid to help 181 communities provide vital services to low-income residents and small businesses with a focus on homelessness prevention, food distribution and training for in-demand health care jobs. The funding builds on the $20 million Emergency Rental and Mortgage Assistant program the administration introduced last month.
As he bolstered housing assistance, Baker said he will decide “soon” on whether to extend a temporary moratorium on evictions and foreclosures that expires Aug. 18.
*******
The choice is not "quarantine poor people" vs "let poor people go back to pre-covid practices." The HEROES Act would help underprivileged people tremendously. It was passed by the House and is languishing in the Senate.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/heroes-act-policy-overview-and-political-prospects-latest-covid-19-relief-bill
...Worker Protections and Support to Individuals- $200 billion “Heroes’ fund” to provide hazard pay to workers deemed essential during the pandemic.
- Second round of $1,200 stimulus checks to certain Americans, up to $6,000 per household.
- Extends additional $600 per week for unemployment insurance through January 31, 2021.
- Expands the CARES Act’s employee retention tax credit, increasing the credit from 50% to 80% of qualified wages and increasing the employee wage limit from $10,000 per year to $15,000 per quarter.
- Requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to require all workplaces to implement infection control plans.
- $3.1 billion for workforce training at the Department of Labor.
- $175 billion in housing assistance, including $100 billion in emergency assistance for low-income renters.
- $10 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as well as a 15% increase to the maximum SNAP benefit.
- Up to $10,000 in student loan forgiveness.
11 -
cmriverside wrote: »Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
If I had to work around a large number of other people all day, I'd feel even more strongly about people wearing masks, as they would protect me. I'd still want those who could to social distance (and those exposed to quarantine), as the fewer cases in the community the lower the risk to hypothetical me.
The countries that shut down quickly and much harder than we did, that did a lot of testing initially and contact tracing, and that quarantined those returning from other countries only had to shut down for a shorter period of time and now are able to be getting back to normal. Schools seem to be able to operate without risk in countries with low levels of cases (see, e.g., Germany).
Our resistance to doing this means this is dragging out forever, which is going to be a lot harder on essential workers (technically I fall within that category, but I can do most of my stuff from home and my office is safe) and those who have lost their jobs. We could have made the more effective shutdown affordable for everyone by just having the gov pay the salaries during the period of time (I think that's similar to what a number of countries did).11 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »One of the the larger school districts in our area announced their plan. Parents will make a binding choice for the fall semester
- Child will go to school in person with distancing measures, masks required, etc. Classes will be taught by the district's teachers. If there is an outbreak these kids will be taught remotely by their regular teachers
- Child will remote school. Instruction will be through a 3rd party provider.
Apparently Chicago is going to try bringing kids back for 2 days a week (on a rotating schedule) to keep schools less crowded, but allow for some in-school time. Seems hard to implement. CTU is against it, so who knows if it will happen.
It just seems to me that there are no good answers here.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-chicago-schools-fall-cps-20200717-6zsnwaphrredvl2agiu7jiv2bm-story.html3 -
cmriverside wrote: »So let's look at the UK. They have socialized medicine. They decided to do the herd immunity thing. It was ugly. But they can't afford to shut down the economy and still care for the people. Same with Sweden. Socialization is not the answer. Self-determination and self-accountability can be the answer - but not if people are locked out of working.
The UK started to do a herd immunity thing, it was going very badly, and they very quickly shifted to doing basically what we are doing. They still have a worse outbreak than most European countries that had notice (Italy and Spain didn't have as much notice, I don't know what's going on in Belgium which has terrible numbers), likely due to the delay.
Sweden's approach (which they claim is not exactly herd immunity) was likely a bad choice. Their economy still took a huge hit, since people voluntarily aren't going places, and it's going to take them longer to get back to normal than, say, Denmark and Norway.7 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The harsh reality is that those with the fewest resources to keep safe have the most pressure to get back to pre-covid practices.
Honestly this restriction has gone on long enough that this group is probably approaching critical mass right now.
Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
Unless you know a way to fabricate money out of thin air, I think allowing everyone to make their own choice is going to be the only way forward. Yes, people are going to die. More people won't. The choice should not be up to rich people living in comfortable isolation with plenty of money.
I think other countries managed to keep most people financially solvent and safe at home, and I'm angry we didn't even really seem to try to do that.
And I think if all of the people who are privileged enough to be able to work from home actually stayed at home and self quarantined as completely as possible, we would be making conditions for essential workers much safer.
Unfortunately, back when we were supposed to be staying at home, people were running to the grocery or big box stores multiple times a week, browsing, going to family and friends houses, arguing about wearing masks. And now people are packing bars and throwing covid parties.
Our country's epically bad handling if this crisis is forcing people who were already struggling to make awful choices between two evils and it sucks. It's historically tragic. And it didn't have to be this way.
I think it DID have to be this way.
Those countries that kept people home? China. We won't go there.
Name another country that isn't an island and that has 300 million people who successfully contained this particular virus.
There isn't one because this virus is not containable. Never has been. It's not like ebola where people show symptoms and then die. You can't trace contacts of a virus that acts like the common cold until three weeks in when people die.
I agree it was destined to be more of a challenge here. But if you look at the numbers, our cases per capita and deaths per capita contradict your post. Most of the EU has it under control. Canada is doing light years better than we are. But the only reason it HAD to be like this in the US is because of where we put our priorities. IMHO it was a choice, and we soothe ourselves by ignoring the other options we had. I can't really say more without getting political.
I'm privileged enough to be able to work from home, but I am now and have always been barely keeping my head above water, so it's hard for me to financially help others. I try my best though. It's frustrating that there's plenty of money out there, it's just not being used to get the people struggling through this. I don't think I'm required to be paying other people's rent to express dissatisfaction with the way our government and corporate America has handled the last 6 months
Most of the EU has it under control.
No.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. EU didn't do any better job.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I would venture a guess that we have better reporting than a lot of the countries that fall below us rate-wise. I would also venture a guess that many of those countries are operating behind a veil of partial secrecy/denial/trying to keep the masses calm and their economies as open as possible.
We will have to agree to disagree because I think your last sentence applies to the US as much as it might anywhere else, and again we veer into political territory here.
And I'm sure we will both continue being dissatisfied while we all go hurtling down the path we are on
Did you look at the Johns Hopkins page I linked? I think we're doing pretty well if you believe those numbers.
It's partly a matter of HOW you look at it. People were going to die. Not even political. Nature. Nature targets the weak and the old. It's always been so.
I'm not saying it's pretty, but it is the truth and no one gets out unscathed.
See, what you are saying here, is that you want ME to die. Because I’m “the weak” with a very high chance of dying of Covid. And here’s the thing: human beings don’t just let Nature do whatever Nature wants to do. We fight back. And in this case that means I am not going to let people who think I should die kill me by being careless with their germs. It’s my opinion, that between me and someone who thinks I should die, the person who thinks I should die is the one who should lose.20 -
@kshama2001 - I agree that legislating relief during this is a necessary thing, but it's not going to solve the longer term issue of a highly contagious respiratory virus that they're not even sure a vaccine will work against.
If a vaccine becomes viable like the Moderna one (or any of them, really) then all this relief and discussion goes away in less than a year. Until then, we're in trouble.
On the rest of the arguments which are all red herrings, no one is safe, correct. That's always been a given. The young who are not as seriously affected as a whole should be allowed to go back to work. The massive layoffs and furloughs mostly affect the young. I'm not talking about grocery store or essential workers, but everyone in every industry that has been basically shut down indefinitely. Restaurants, sports, hotels, lots of retailers, etc etc etc..
I live in Seattle so I'd love to see Amazon finally take some tax hits and/or get broken apart so it didn't have such a monopoly on distributions.
Those who are older hopefully have not wasted their entire lives and have not put away any money...it's ridiculous to think *I* or anyone WANTS someone to die - but that is the reality of life on this planet. Yes, masks and social distancing are good ideas. They are only so effective. In this day anyone who doesn't have to work can stay home and have everything delivered if they're worried. So no, not every young person is affected and not every person with a pre-existing condition is being handed a death sentence - all arguments have nuance.
A lot of people can work from home. I think a lot has been done, I don't see why anyone thinks it hasn't. They're building factories costing tens of millions of dollars to manufacture a vaccine that isn't even approved yet - all on spec.
Not everything in life can be controlled or fixed. Especially not in four months time. This virus is not a controllable thing. If you really believe China or Germany has eliminated it, well, I don't know what to say to that. If you look at that Johns Hopkins link I posted above, you'll see that our rate of death per case is 3.9% (edit - in the U.S.) and Germany's is 4.5%, so again - not sure what the point was there. Sweden is at 7.3%, UK at 15.4%.
No one is getting this right because you can't get this right unless you're a poor reporter, an isolated country or have a low population/low density.
2 -
cmriverside wrote: »On the rest of the arguments which are all red herrings, no one is safe, correct. That's always been a given. The young who are not as seriously affected as a whole should be allowed to go back to work. The massive layoffs and furloughs mostly affect the young. I'm not talking about grocery store or essential workers, but everyone in every industry that has been basically shut down indefinitely. Restaurants, sports, hotels, lots of retailers, etc etc etc..
Speaking from Chicago, hotels reopened in early June, as did restaurants for outdoor dining (they were always able to be open for delivery and pick-up), and retail stores. There are capacity limits. I would expect that hotel business is way down because people are less willing to travel, to stay in hotels, and because no conventions are happening.
Bars are currently open, and that's been one of the things leading to an uptick of cases.
I don't see people here claiming that nothing should open. But again the more this drags out, the more it hurts us economically, as well as leading to more deaths.
I'm also not sure why re-opening is inconsistent with masks (since your initial post seemed to be directed against people who favor masks). This re-opening is less likely to lead to a sharp increase in cases and thus a need to shut down again if people wear masks when possible.
Young people potentially are playing a significant role in spreading the virus around the rest of the population, so even if most of them wouldn't be harmed by it (and I think we don't know that yet given the evidence of lasting damage even in people with few symptoms), it's not no biggie if they have a high infection rate.Not everything in life can be controlled or fixed. Especially not in four months time. This virus is not a controllable thing. If you really believe China or Germany has eliminated it, well, I don't know what to say to that.
I have no opinion about China's cases except I think they've been lying about them. Germany now has a low number of cases, as do many other countries. If we had done what Australia did, for one example, we'd be better off.
Germany has had less than 110 deaths per million, whereas we have had 422 deaths per million. There are a number of places higher than us, yes, but in many cases (like Italy and Spain), they don't have increasing cases, and we do -- that's the problem, we need to get that under control, or our death rate is only going to go up.If you look at that Johns Hopkins link I posted above, you'll see that our rate of death per case is 3.9% (edit - in the U.S.) and Germany's is 4.5%, so again - not sure what the point was there. Sweden is at 7.3%, UK at 15.4%.
Death per cases is not a reliable stat, because many or most with coronavirus aren't being tested. That's why the best comparison is death per millions.No one is getting this right because you can't get this right unless you're a poor reporter, an isolated country or have a low population/low density.
Germany is none of those. There's also really no reason why Australia and the US are inherently all that different geographically. Australia's population is highly urbanized, so I'm not sure the lower density is what made a difference -- I doubt it, in fact. We aren't an island, but we also didn't get the virus from Canada and Mexico -- we got it from overseas.7 -
There was a blurb on my newsfeed that said something about teachers preparing to go back into the classroom in the fall, and also preparing their wills. Pretty sobering, and very sad.9
-
I could disagree point by point but not with an attorney because I don't have that kind of time.
Let's just say I disagree on most points you just made lemur, because all of them assume we are getting all the numbers - which we aren't - especially from countries that have socialist or communist governments. So I'll concede that the numbers can be manipulated for political reasons and probably are in every country, some worse than others. Deaths per case could also be accounting for people who died and were determined after death to have Covid. Also maybe we in the U.S. have just done more testing than other countries. Is that a bad thing? No, and if we're catching 6%, there are likely 20% more out there. Plus all the ones who have recovered. There's a lot of vague data in that JHU chart.
There isn't one country (such as Germany) who miraculously just isn't seeing any deaths (or such low deaths like China and Germany) unless there is a lot of deception going on or there is some genetic trait only prevalent in that population - which could turn out to be true, but right now is a wild speculation. Or they have governmental control over their citizens, which I find hard to believe in any country short of communist or dictatorships.
Again, you can't keep young people locked up. I'm old, I could very well die from this. Doesn't mean I want the rest of the country to suffer economic collapse for the older people who are at the end anyway. Of course they are spreading it - it's basically a virulent cold.
I am willing to accept no socializing for a while. I am staying home. I wear a mask, I keep social distance. I am one of those who thinks it might be better to just go out and live - because solitary confinement is really debilitating. How long do I have to do this? It's been five months. I'm about at my limit, emotionally and psychologically. Not to mention I need to work.
It's not going to go away, regardless of masks, social distancing and mass unemployment. So what is your answer/solution? Nanny state? How long will that work? It's not working in the UK or Sweden.
Again, my point is that it's not really a winnable fight right now. Too many unknowns, too much chaos.
5 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Our Mayor in Chicago said if the young people don't start wearing masks and practice social distancing, we are going back to Phase 3 which means closing businesses, restaurants, salons and THE GYM!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!
I am in NY and we still don't have gyms open even though we are doing way better than most other states!
I work in healthcare and have to wear N95 for 12-15h a day. It does suck, but it is better than spreading the virus. I even developed a really bad face rash because of it the past few weeks. I do find it really hard to breath as I have asthma, but I am allowed to take it off during my breaks when I can go outside which helps.
I've seen a lot of people on bike paths running and biking with masks and don't know how they can do it but if they can while working out, I should be able to with light activity.
We, Illinois, followed NY example. We shutdown fast and started making progress. The cases are rising but not as fast as the Southern states. If everyone can get on the same page we might be able to fight it better
I honestly wanted to believe that the heat would have some impact on this virus, but it's had the opposite affect to a certain extent. Every Southern state rapidly increased in cases, more than the Northern states, once we reopened. But the interesting thing is so did California. CA has terrible air quality in the Summer especially. People stay inside, like the South in the Summer. CA shut down early too. It didn't help them. I just heard their Governor blaming it on mostly the crowds around Memorial Day and the 4th. I don't think that's the case. I think it's more with people spending more time indoors with infected people, being exposed to long term aerosols being pushed around by the air systems.
My concern (and you're seeing more articles about it) is that the Northern States will blow up off the charts in the Fall and Winter, when people are packed inside with indoor ventilation. I strongly believe A/C is moving around the virus in the South right now. It wasn't the crowded beaches. It was the restaurants that people went into after going to the beach or the hotels where they were staying.
Once it started getting very hot and humid in the Midwest, you started to see numbers rising rapidly. Doesn't bode well for opening up schools, which typically have horrid quality mechanical air systems. If schools reopen, I think we'll see numbers skyrocket dramatically. As much as I'd like to see school kids get back to normal, until we have enough testing for contract tracing and get people on board with masks, it's critical we don't open schools.
Sitting here in the Midwest (palm of Michigan mitten), locally the new spike in infection numbers doesn't look at all like some mysterious effect of "getting very hot and humid". It looks like a consequence of opening up a bit from a quite restrictive shutdown, and having "some people" (hereafter SP) streaming out into the public to drink and party completely maskless, not social distancing, and create ripples of infection that started big with the initial SP going to multiple big parties and non-distanced bars and infecting others like them . . . then spreading out into the more cautious social milieus, spreading Covid infection to co-workers, parents, grandparents, and so forth, who had been much better behaved.
I agree with concerns about indoor ventilation, and that it creates concerns for colder weather, but careless, thoughtless, maskless risky behavior has been a very clear factor in recent spikes, locally.
(Shifting gears, no longer in direct reply to Mike.)
A commentator (sports guy, oddly) on a local radio station recently remarked that those people who are mask rebels and want the economy to open up quickly to help people, are behaving against their own stated desire. Not masking is going to make the economic side recover more slowly and unpredictably, with more casualties along the way. (The commentator put it in more partisan terms, but that was the gist, and I see his point. People who put high priority on opening the economy would make that happen better if they would mask up.)cmriverside wrote: »The harsh reality is that those with the fewest resources to keep safe have the most pressure to get back to pre-covid practices.
Honestly this restriction has gone on long enough that this group is probably approaching critical mass right now.
Those of you in this thread who are the loudest proponents of social distancing and masks and quarantines...how would you feel about all this were you not privileged? It's easy for those with stay-home capability to pontificate from their keyboards but the reality is that tens of millions of people are living basically hand-to-mouth even in the best of economic times.
Unless you know a way to fabricate money out of thin air, I think allowing everyone to make their own choice is going to be the only way forward. Yes, people are going to die. More people won't. The choice should not be up to rich people living in comfortable isolation with plenty of money.
I don't know whether I'm a "loudest proponent" or not. I do think that everyone who can social distance should do that, everyone who can work from home should do that, everyone should minimize trips out into public places or into group gatherings as much as feasible (<= note "feasible"), everyone who can should wear their mask (correctly) while near others, and that those who are able should do what they feasibly can in their circumstances to support others who are economically affected, and keep economic activity happening as much as it can do safely.
Mask rebellion is not helping anyone. I don't see how it's "privileged" to ask people to wear masks when near others. At some stores, they're being handed out for free. People I know have been making cloth ones, and giving them away or donating them, for free. The essential workers, mostly (here), are correctly masked. I can be correctly masked (even as an elderly person with COPD) to protect them, and limit my trips (where I spend about the same amount of money into the economy in many categories, though not all).
I see that I'm privileged. I'm grateful that I'm privileged. I don't see how that privilege makes it illegitimate to advocate masks and distancing, which are *a part* of what we collectively need to do to help people who are not as privileged get through this.
As an older person on near-fixed income, comfortable but far from wealthy, and with enough co-morbidities that I'm not going to go out (for my sake and others') there's a limited amount I can do. Stay home, keep spending money, wear a mask when out, donate money (to a stretch level) are things I can do, and I do them.cmriverside wrote: »<snip>
So since you're so concerned, what are you actually doing about it other than hand-wringing? Are you donating all your extra money? Are you paying tuition for under-privileged kids? How about taking in a single mom with two kids and supporting them and letting them live in your third bedroom? It's very easy to type these oh-so-noble Truths out on a fitness forum, where they don't cost you anything.
How about getting all your comfortable friends to go in on a house for homeless people? Buying groceries for a family out of work? I'm not saying I do all that stuff, either. People are mostly a bunch of hot air though. When pressed to DO something, it's someone else's problem. The Government should do it. Yadda yadda.
<snip>
Do we need to buy our way into the right to have an opinion? Since it would be tasteless and inappropriate to flag wave about it, most of us are not going to pop in here and lay out in detail what we're doing to help others. (A few people have mentioned things in the course of conversation, which is not tasteless, IMO, BTW.)
I think you're making bold assumptions, possibly not entirely baseless given what I know about human nature, but certainly over-broad.
Personally, I'd set the entry price tag fairly low, for people to have an opinion that people should properly wear masks in public, when adequate masks are actually free, and that people should politely distance when they can, which is also free.
I share your concern (I think, to some extent), that we need to be realistic, and we do need to keep the economy moving to the extent we can. Mask wearing and distancing - as universal as feasible - will help us do that.
Another side of "realistic" is that if we don't do as much as we can on that front, economic disruption and contraction will happen through random disease outbreaks, and from increased irrational fear-based pullbacks from economic activity. Those are much more unpredictable, and much less subject to planned remediation, than regulatory shutdowns.
This is hard decision making, nearly as hard as it gets, at every level.14 -
Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::8 -
cmriverside wrote: »Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::
That will be a loss to dialog, I think, but of course you should do what's best for you.
I'd observe that some of the "Wear your mask. Social distance." here is people venting frustrations that are harder to vent safely in some daily lives. In that sense, it's a release valve.
Wishing you well, always.8 -
I would also add that it is misguided to assume that opening back up means saving the economy.
If we get another 200,000 deaths through the fall, it will hurt the economy. If hundreds of thousands of people end up in the ER or ICU and are saddled with medical debt, it will hurt the economy. If small business owners are too sick to work for a month or two, they most likely will lose their business, which will hurt the economy. If a generation of 20 something's get asymptomatic cases but end up with a lifetime of diminished lung or kidney function, or an increased risk of stroke, which by the way could be considered a pre existing condition, so are constantly dealing with medical costs as they age, that will hurt the economy. If the 20% of the US population that is in an increased risk category continue to feel unsafe and don't participate in the economy, it will hurt the economy.
There are obviously logical differences of opinion possible, but opening everything back up to normal before cases are declining and hospitalizations are dwindling, and without clear plans for how to deal with outbreaks that pop up, could tank the economy just as badly as another lockdown could. We needed to have a plan in March. We still don't have a plan in July. That is going to cost us royally, regardless of what else we do. Most people aren't adverse to getting back to close to normal, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Most people aren't adverse to sending kids back to school, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Everything here is just making up policy, throwing it at the wall, and seeing if it sticks.15 -
cmriverside wrote: »Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::
That will be a loss to dialog, I think, but of course you should do what's best for you.
I'd observe that some of the "Wear your mask. Social distance." here is people venting frustrations that are harder to vent safely in some daily lives. In that sense, it's a release valve.
Wishing you well, always.
Agree 100% with Ann. Enjoy reading your commentary. @ Ann - I hope I'm wrong about the A/C and indoor ventilation being so dangerous.
Was curious (as I do a lot of advising/consulting with startups as part of my business) if there were companies that were utilizing UV light to disinfect air via air handlers in the mechanical systems of buildings. Found a really interesting article that one Seattle restaurant did just that. Seems that it's an older technology that was brought back. I'm not seeing a whole lot being done on this front and, quite frankly, it's surprising.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/13/890387205/coronavirus-sparks-new-interest-in-using-ultraviolet-light-to-disinfect-indoor-a2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::
That will be a loss to dialog, I think, but of course you should do what's best for you.
I'd observe that some of the "Wear your mask. Social distance." here is people venting frustrations that are harder to vent safely in some daily lives. In that sense, it's a release valve.
Wishing you well, always.
Agree 100% with Ann. Enjoy reading your commentary. @ Ann - I hope I'm wrong about the A/C and indoor ventilation being so dangerous.
Was curious (as I do a lot of advising/consulting with startups as part of my business) if there were companies that were utilizing UV light to disinfect air via air handlers in the mechanical systems of buildings. Found a really interesting article that one Seattle restaurant did just that. Seems that it's an older technology that was brought back. I'm not seeing a whole lot being done on this front and, quite frankly, it's surprising.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/13/890387205/coronavirus-sparks-new-interest-in-using-ultraviolet-light-to-disinfect-indoor-a
I just saw a TV commercial of a local nursing home showing they have started using some kind of industrial UV light disinfection system. Is it possible it's newly been "proven" to work for covid? I haven't seen anything about it recently.2 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::
That will be a loss to dialog, I think, but of course you should do what's best for you.
I'd observe that some of the "Wear your mask. Social distance." here is people venting frustrations that are harder to vent safely in some daily lives. In that sense, it's a release valve.
Wishing you well, always.
Agree 100% with Ann. Enjoy reading your commentary. @ Ann - I hope I'm wrong about the A/C and indoor ventilation being so dangerous.
Was curious (as I do a lot of advising/consulting with startups as part of my business) if there were companies that were utilizing UV light to disinfect air via air handlers in the mechanical systems of buildings. Found a really interesting article that one Seattle restaurant did just that. Seems that it's an older technology that was brought back. I'm not seeing a whole lot being done on this front and, quite frankly, it's surprising.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/13/890387205/coronavirus-sparks-new-interest-in-using-ultraviolet-light-to-disinfect-indoor-a
I just saw a TV commercial of a local nursing home showing they have started using some kind of industrial UV light disinfection system. Is it possible it's newly been "proven" to work for covid? I haven't seen anything about it recently.
The tech has been around a while. From what I can tell, though, a lot of the companies went out of business for a long time due to low sales/interest. But since that 200 some scientists wrote to the WHO about the concern of aerosols spreading it in high concentrations in indoor settings (ASHRAE, the heating and air association of engineers has also been talking about it), it's being revisited. The problem is that most manufacturers stopped producing systems or are having to create custom systems. Plus, I think the building has to be suited for it. But here's an article about another company starting production for the same thing with an eye toward schools.
I envision (if we don't have a vaccine soon) some version of this along with Hepa filtration being attempted.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vystar-produce-rxair400-uv-c-130807625.html
Also saw a very interesting startup today that utilizes both AI (artificial intelligence) and UV technology to disinfect things like touch screens or things that are public domain. Finds the finger prints and then shoots UV at them in between uses. You can't look directly into UV without damaging your eyes, so that would be a tough one to implement. They were even talking for like casino machines. You won't catch me in a casino anytime soon!5 -
cmriverside wrote: »
So let's look at the UK. They have socialized medicine. They decided to do the herd immunity thing. It was ugly. But they can't afford to shut down the economy and still care for the people. Same with Sweden. Socialization is not the answer. Self-determination and self-accountability can be the answer - but not if people are locked out of working.
Canada has universal health care and did NOT decide to go the herd immunity route. I think we've done fairly well in terms of mortality rate. The economy did not completely shut down. Yes, lots of people were temporarily out of work but there was a government income benefit to offset that somewhat. After a lengthy period of decreased cases, provinces have done phased reopening. My region of the province entered Stage 3 today, which means this is the first time since mid-March that we have been permitted to dine inside a restaurant. My city will see mandatory masks in enclosed public spaces plus buses and taxis next week... we have had no positive cases in two weeks and at the moment there is only one identified active case, yet we will be wearing masks. About 40% of us already do, whether voluntarily or by necessity, so I don't think this will create too much angst.
Sometimes an abundance of caution is the answer.14 -
I would also add that it is misguided to assume that opening back up means saving the economy.
If we get another 200,000 deaths through the fall, it will hurt the economy. If hundreds of thousands of people end up in the ER or ICU and are saddled with medical debt, it will hurt the economy. If small business owners are too sick to work for a month or two, they most likely will lose their business, which will hurt the economy. If a generation of 20 something's get asymptomatic cases but end up with a lifetime of diminished lung or kidney function, or an increased risk of stroke, which by the way could be considered a pre existing condition, so are constantly dealing with medical costs as they age, that will hurt the economy. If the 20% of the US population that is in an increased risk category continue to feel unsafe and don't participate in the economy, it will hurt the economy.
There are obviously logical differences of opinion possible, but opening everything back up to normal before cases are declining and hospitalizations are dwindling, and without clear plans for how to deal with outbreaks that pop up, could tank the economy just as badly as another lockdown could. We needed to have a plan in March. We still don't have a plan in July. That is going to cost us royally, regardless of what else we do. Most people aren't adverse to getting back to close to normal, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Most people aren't adverse to sending kids back to school, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Everything here is just making up policy, throwing it at the wall, and seeing if it sticks.
I think I said this long ago (not going back to find it)... there are basically 3 options:
1. Shut everything down absolutely (like what Spain ended up doing) and contain the virus, but have huge economic losses.
2. Keep everything open, have a lot of death, but not economic losses (aside form the indirect economic problems caused by all the death).
3. Do a hybrid approach (half shutdown) that results in both lots of economic losses and lots of deaths.
Most places did a half shutdown (option 3) and then went back to option 2 pretty quickly afterwards.1 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::
That will be a loss to dialog, I think, but of course you should do what's best for you.
I'd observe that some of the "Wear your mask. Social distance." here is people venting frustrations that are harder to vent safely in some daily lives. In that sense, it's a release valve.
Wishing you well, always.
Agree 100% with Ann. Enjoy reading your commentary. @ Ann - I hope I'm wrong about the A/C and indoor ventilation being so dangerous.
Was curious (as I do a lot of advising/consulting with startups as part of my business) if there were companies that were utilizing UV light to disinfect air via air handlers in the mechanical systems of buildings. Found a really interesting article that one Seattle restaurant did just that. Seems that it's an older technology that was brought back. I'm not seeing a whole lot being done on this front and, quite frankly, it's surprising.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/13/890387205/coronavirus-sparks-new-interest-in-using-ultraviolet-light-to-disinfect-indoor-a
I just saw a TV commercial of a local nursing home showing they have started using some kind of industrial UV light disinfection system. Is it possible it's newly been "proven" to work for covid? I haven't seen anything about it recently.
I read a study that found uv takes a really long time to kill covid. I’m wondering if this will work.0 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I would also add that it is misguided to assume that opening back up means saving the economy.
If we get another 200,000 deaths through the fall, it will hurt the economy. If hundreds of thousands of people end up in the ER or ICU and are saddled with medical debt, it will hurt the economy. If small business owners are too sick to work for a month or two, they most likely will lose their business, which will hurt the economy. If a generation of 20 something's get asymptomatic cases but end up with a lifetime of diminished lung or kidney function, or an increased risk of stroke, which by the way could be considered a pre existing condition, so are constantly dealing with medical costs as they age, that will hurt the economy. If the 20% of the US population that is in an increased risk category continue to feel unsafe and don't participate in the economy, it will hurt the economy.
There are obviously logical differences of opinion possible, but opening everything back up to normal before cases are declining and hospitalizations are dwindling, and without clear plans for how to deal with outbreaks that pop up, could tank the economy just as badly as another lockdown could. We needed to have a plan in March. We still don't have a plan in July. That is going to cost us royally, regardless of what else we do. Most people aren't adverse to getting back to close to normal, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Most people aren't adverse to sending kids back to school, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Everything here is just making up policy, throwing it at the wall, and seeing if it sticks.
I think I said this long ago (not going back to find it)... there are basically 3 options:
1. Shut everything down absolutely (like what Spain ended up doing) and contain the virus, but have huge economic losses.
2. Keep everything open, have a lot of death, but not economic losses (aside form the indirect economic problems caused by all the death).
3. Do a hybrid approach (half shutdown) that results in both lots of economic losses and lots of deaths.
Most places did a half shutdown (option 3) and then went back to option 2 pretty quickly afterwards.
But experience has shown this is not the case.
(1) A lot of countries did this, they had to subsidize a lot and sustain economic losses in the short term, but cutting this short likely prevented a long term economic problem. This ranges from Spain/Italy (who got hurt before we understood what was coming) and Australia/NZ (who warded it off).
(2) Sweden -- there is no indication that Sweden's decision not to lock down prevented economic losses.
(3) Us, the UK -- not great. Likely we should have shut down by region or state and prevented travel, however.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »I could disagree point by point but not with an attorney because I don't have that kind of time.
Let's just say I disagree on most points you just made lemur, because all of them assume we are getting all the numbers - which we aren't - especially from countries that have socialist or communist governments.
What's the basis for thinking we aren't getting the numbers from Germany or most other EU countries or Australia? Because that's what I have been focusing on.There isn't one country (such as Germany) who miraculously just isn't seeing any deaths (or such low deaths like China and Germany) unless there is a lot of deception going on or there is some genetic trait only prevalent in that population - which could turn out to be true, but right now is a wild speculation. Or they have governmental control over their citizens, which I find hard to believe in any country short of communist or dictatorships.
On what basis do you think Germany is lying? Or Australia?8 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I would also add that it is misguided to assume that opening back up means saving the economy.
If we get another 200,000 deaths through the fall, it will hurt the economy. If hundreds of thousands of people end up in the ER or ICU and are saddled with medical debt, it will hurt the economy. If small business owners are too sick to work for a month or two, they most likely will lose their business, which will hurt the economy. If a generation of 20 something's get asymptomatic cases but end up with a lifetime of diminished lung or kidney function, or an increased risk of stroke, which by the way could be considered a pre existing condition, so are constantly dealing with medical costs as they age, that will hurt the economy. If the 20% of the US population that is in an increased risk category continue to feel unsafe and don't participate in the economy, it will hurt the economy.
There are obviously logical differences of opinion possible, but opening everything back up to normal before cases are declining and hospitalizations are dwindling, and without clear plans for how to deal with outbreaks that pop up, could tank the economy just as badly as another lockdown could. We needed to have a plan in March. We still don't have a plan in July. That is going to cost us royally, regardless of what else we do. Most people aren't adverse to getting back to close to normal, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Most people aren't adverse to sending kids back to school, they're adverse to doing so without a plan. Everything here is just making up policy, throwing it at the wall, and seeing if it sticks.
I think I said this long ago (not going back to find it)... there are basically 3 options:
1. Shut everything down absolutely (like what Spain ended up doing) and contain the virus, but have huge economic losses.
2. Keep everything open, have a lot of death, but not economic losses (aside form the indirect economic problems caused by all the death).
3. Do a hybrid approach (half shutdown) that results in both lots of economic losses and lots of deaths.
Most places did a half shutdown (option 3) and then went back to option 2 pretty quickly afterwards.
But experience has shown this is not the case.
(1) A lot of countries did this, they had to subsidize a lot and sustain economic losses in the short term, but cutting this short likely prevented a long term economic problem. This ranges from Spain/Italy (who got hurt before we understood what was coming) and Australia/NZ (who warded it off).
(2) Sweden -- there is no indication that Sweden's decision not to lock down prevented economic losses.
(3) Us, the UK -- not great. Likely we should have shut down by region or state and prevented travel, however.
All fair points because these options all must assume that there is no travel nor trade among various states / countries that make different choices. Or to say that another way, this assumes everybody makes the same choice.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Sure, Ann, I agree. It's just that we've had 200+ pages saying basically the same thing. "Wear your mask. Social distance."
I guess my time in this thread is over. ::wavingslowly::
That will be a loss to dialog, I think, but of course you should do what's best for you.
I'd observe that some of the "Wear your mask. Social distance." here is people venting frustrations that are harder to vent safely in some daily lives. In that sense, it's a release valve.
Wishing you well, always.
Agree 100% with Ann. Enjoy reading your commentary. @ Ann - I hope I'm wrong about the A/C and indoor ventilation being so dangerous.
Was curious (as I do a lot of advising/consulting with startups as part of my business) if there were companies that were utilizing UV light to disinfect air via air handlers in the mechanical systems of buildings. Found a really interesting article that one Seattle restaurant did just that. Seems that it's an older technology that was brought back. I'm not seeing a whole lot being done on this front and, quite frankly, it's surprising.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/13/890387205/coronavirus-sparks-new-interest-in-using-ultraviolet-light-to-disinfect-indoor-a
I just saw a TV commercial of a local nursing home showing they have started using some kind of industrial UV light disinfection system. Is it possible it's newly been "proven" to work for covid? I haven't seen anything about it recently.
I read a study that found uv takes a really long time to kill covid. I’m wondering if this will work.
@rheddmobile
The UV used used for disinfection is UV "C" not UV A or B (different wave length). It is the same kind of equipment used in the hospitals ORs between surgeries.
Does UV light kill the new coronavirus?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/does-uv-light-kill-the-new-coronavirus/ar-BB16DH583
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions