Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Antiopelle wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »I suppose it would be possible to stop people at borders, leaving and entering states, but logistically a nightmare for law enforcement. It’s done in states bordering Canada and Mexico, with varying degrees of success. Minnesota has miles of natural waterway borders, various rivers, and Lake Superior, that we share with Canada, No Dak, & Wisconsin, where there is limited bridge access to other jurisdictions. There are also a lot of miles of borders with abundant road access to our neighboring states, So Dak, No Dak, Iowa, Wisconsin and Canada. Multiply that times 50. Not an easy, nor inexpensive task. Millions of miles of roads in the US.
All of our individual states are part of the whole country. Governed by federal, state, and local jurisdictions. It would be a much better solution to have had a federal mandate from the beginning. Hindsight is 20/20, but, we may have had a much different outcome than the “over by Easter” (04/10/20) that we heard 9 months ago.
Exactly.
Since March, apparently if we were "really trying" enough, we would have hired something from thousands to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new state-border guards, trained them, put up many thousands of barricades to close roads (don't know what we do about the very common ORVs and privately-owned boats, not to mention cyclists/pedestrians), and closed those state borders . . . a thing for which we have neither precedent nor obvious legal structure.
That, in parallel with trying to hire and train something like tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of contract tracers (estimated in itself, under one proposal, to cost something like $12 billion).
Ooookaaaayyyyyyy.
Just to give you a little insight from a small European country (Belgium), surrounded by the big ones: Germany, France and the Netherlands and across the Channel the UK. Since March, our borders are closed (they were open when things got better over the summer). And yes, we have a vast network of roads that cross all borders as well, ranging from large highways to small hiking paths.
We also have loads of people working in one country and living in another; we have people who's closest supermarket is around the corner but in another country. When the borders were closed, it was mainly a communication and people stuck to it without much enforcement. At a certain time, the police was doing random checks as it seemed that traffic was picking up and that was enough to discourage people again.
A personal example: I'm an avid scuba diver but there is no available salt water where I live. The best spots are in The Netherlands and we could go there very safely. We could get in the car, park at the waterfront, gear up, dive, change and get into our car again without actually meeting anyone. The probability that we would be checked by police is extremely small, but we don't do it because it is asked from the population to refrain crossing borders. None of our friends and acquaintances are crossing neither.
My point is that I think there is mainly a large cultural difference, not as much a logistical one. When our government tells people that there is a restriction some people will question it and be critical but the vast majority will comply and enforcement will hardly be needed.
Although I am scared that during Christmas and New Year's eve compliance will slide and the wish to host family events will prevail; and we will see a spike in deaths again after these holidays.
There is a massive difference between closing off borders from neighboring countries (as we have) and closing off the borders to all of the lower 48 states from each other. Logistically, it would be a massive, if not impossible undertaking...that kind of man power, trained and authorized to perform such duties simply doesn't exist...never mind the legal issues.
First and foremost, you have an issue of constitutionality. As citizens of the United States we have a constitutional right to travel freely between states and no state can make laws that would abridge that right...and the constitution is a pretty big deal. You also have jurisdiction issues...States could in theory control their own state highways and local roadways (save for that constitutionality issue), but they have no jurisdiction over the interstate highways as these are under federal jurisdiction...but again, you have massive logistical issues to deal with either way. As of current, New Mexico has 517 State Troopers to cover roughly 122,000 square miles...there is no way they could control all of the state highways and county and municipal roads going in and out of the state.
The leadership in NM has strongly discouraged out of state travel...and I would say there is a relatively high rate of compliance relative to interstate travel pre-COVID. The state also discourages travel to New Mexico and has done things like close state parks to anyone other than NM citizens and does ID checks at the park gates. Basically, you can come here, and no body is going to legally stop you...but once you're here, there's not going to be anything for you to do.13 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I doubt most (if any) US states have enough state police troops to adequately man every single possible road into the state. It's just never been something they've needed to do, so they wouldn't staff for it, especially considering how razor thin state budgets are. The federal government is relied on in a crisis by the states because the federal government's budget is way more flexible than state budgets are allowed to be.
Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders.
Except California, perhaps. Maybe there are roads I don't know about, but CA has had checkpoints on roads entering the state for years. They are looking for fruit mostly. It's a thing... but to be fair, I've driven through and just been waved through the checkpoint without even getting asked if I had fruits. Maybe they recognized my username? (kidding).
They have 16 total checkpoints...a few of them are on state highways, but most are on major US highways or Interstates. They are also manned by the Border Protection Services which is a division of the California Department of Agriculture which was established in the 1920s...but I don't think the Dept of Agriculture has the authority to just stop interstate travel.8 -
I doubt most (if any) US states have enough state police troops to adequately man every single possible road into the state. It's just never been something they've needed to do, so they wouldn't staff for it, especially considering how razor thin state budgets are. The federal government is relied on in a crisis by the states because the federal government's budget is way more flexible than state budgets are allowed to be.
Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders.
Yes I accept the geographical logistics is different and there are 48 states in mainland America and budgets and etc etc differences - but anyway that is what happened in Australia barring exceptions for essential travellers and compassionate exemptions on application.
And I think some leeway for people on borders who worked or schooled other side and could travel directly there if they lived within 20 km of the border, something like that.
Very minimal backlash, the vast majority of people understood this and just complied.
7 -
Antiopelle wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »I suppose it would be possible to stop people at borders, leaving and entering states, but logistically a nightmare for law enforcement. It’s done in states bordering Canada and Mexico, with varying degrees of success. Minnesota has miles of natural waterway borders, various rivers, and Lake Superior, that we share with Canada, No Dak, & Wisconsin, where there is limited bridge access to other jurisdictions. There are also a lot of miles of borders with abundant road access to our neighboring states, So Dak, No Dak, Iowa, Wisconsin and Canada. Multiply that times 50. Not an easy, nor inexpensive task. Millions of miles of roads in the US.
All of our individual states are part of the whole country. Governed by federal, state, and local jurisdictions. It would be a much better solution to have had a federal mandate from the beginning. Hindsight is 20/20, but, we may have had a much different outcome than the “over by Easter” (04/10/20) that we heard 9 months ago.
Exactly.
Since March, apparently if we were "really trying" enough, we would have hired something from thousands to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new state-border guards, trained them, put up many thousands of barricades to close roads (don't know what we do about the very common ORVs and privately-owned boats, not to mention cyclists/pedestrians), and closed those state borders . . . a thing for which we have neither precedent nor obvious legal structure.
That, in parallel with trying to hire and train something like tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of contract tracers (estimated in itself, under one proposal, to cost something like $12 billion).
Ooookaaaayyyyyyy.
Just to give you a little insight from a small European country (Belgium), surrounded by the big ones: Germany, France and the Netherlands and across the Channel the UK. Since March, our borders are closed (they were open when things got better over the summer). And yes, we have a vast network of roads that cross all borders as well, ranging from large highways to small hiking paths.
We also have loads of people working in one country and living in another; we have people who's closest supermarket is around the corner but in another country. When the borders were closed, it was mainly a communication and people stuck to it without much enforcement. At a certain time, the police was doing random checks as it seemed that traffic was picking up and that was enough to discourage people again.
A personal example: I'm an avid scuba diver but there is no available salt water where I live. The best spots are in The Netherlands and we could go there very safely. We could get in the car, park at the waterfront, gear up, dive, change and get into our car again without actually meeting anyone. The probability that we would be checked by police is extremely small, but we don't do it because it is asked from the population to refrain crossing borders. None of our friends and acquaintances are crossing neither.
My point is that I think there is mainly a large cultural difference, not as much a logistical one. When our government tells people that there is a restriction some people will question it and be critical but the vast majority will comply and enforcement will hardly be needed.
Although I am scared that during Christmas and New Year's eve compliance will slide and the wish to host family events will prevail; and we will see a spike in deaths again after these holidays.
I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
We do hear, in this thread, from people who are in very-noncompliant areas, probably hear less so from those in compliant areas (though I can think of a couple who've mentioned it). Generally (about anything) people talk about exceptions and problems, not routine and sensible normal behavior. News stories, even more so, focus on the ridiculous extremes. It's what makes them newsworthy.
I'm in Michigan, and I'm sure Michigan looks like a hotbed of near-universal mask rebellion, from afar. It's not.
Michigan is one of the places that had armed anti-masker protestors gathered on the state capitol steps, various lawsuits from parochial schools/churches that wanted to stay open counter to health orders, a plot to kidnap/kill the governor because of her mandates, and worse. That's the news. In reality, some areas are better than others, but there's *a lot* of compliance and caution. Most people are compliant, IME. (It doesn't take many exceptions to cause a problem; but there are other problems beyond culture and compliance.)
Virtually everyone I know stayed home for Thanksgiving, even though they usually meet and mingle. It's super unusual for people to dine alone on Thanksgiving, most years, unless they're very introverted. Big groups are common. This year, I know *many* solo Thankgiving folks, and couples/immediate families dining alone at home. That was the norm. (Among those I know who mingled, most were getting together with close family members they've been seeing recently, wisely or unwisely . . . but limiting other invites. There were a few total DGAF types, that I personally know - but very few.)
People cancelled travel plans. People who usually go to a warmer state in Winter are staying home, or isolating/testing on arrival as requested to do (even though the provisions are unenforceable).
Many people I know are using grocery pickup or delivery, not going to restaurants (even when open) except to pick up takeout (often curbside pickup). The drive-through medical labs have long lines, and not just for Covid tests, because people who require routine blood tests or other monitoring are going there instead of to regular labs. There have been massive drive-through events for things like flu vaccine. Many regular gym goers did not go back, even when gyms opened (with occupancy & other limitations required, BTW.).
Most of what I mentioned above is true even of my pandemic-skeptical friends. They believe some . . . things . . . about the virus and response that I don't believe, but they're pretty compliant with the rules.
Underscoring: There is too much rebellion and noncompliance here, and that's a bad thing. The impact of Covid has been appalling, for that and other reasons. But news stories, and friends' brothers' Facebook stories, may not be giving you an accurate picture of the whole country, either.10 -
paperpudding wrote: »I doubt most (if any) US states have enough state police troops to adequately man every single possible road into the state. It's just never been something they've needed to do, so they wouldn't staff for it, especially considering how razor thin state budgets are. The federal government is relied on in a crisis by the states because the federal government's budget is way more flexible than state budgets are allowed to be.
Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders.
Yes I accept the geographical logistics is different and there are 48 states in mainland America and budgets and etc etc differences - but anyway that is what happened in Australia barring exceptions for essential travellers and compassionate exemptions on application.
And I think some leeway for people on borders who worked or schooled other side and could travel directly there if they lived within 20 km of the border, something like that.
Very minimal backlash, the vast majority of people understood this and just complied.
Yep this.. if you needed to cross a border for an essential reason you applied to do so.
0 -
Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.6 -
Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.
From a much less good source than that (it was an NPR report, don't recall which program), I heard a rough ballpark from some expert (think it was the head of the first hospital to start giving the injections?) that in the trials around 80% of people were experiencing some kind of side effect, mostly short (hours) and minor (sore arm, headache, as you say).
Further, he said they were timing their staff vaccinations so that there was a staggering, i.e., a subset of each department got the vaccine at the same time, so that if a small number needed to take a few hours or day off because of more significant side effects (the fatigue and fever sort of thing), they would still have good staff coverage. I think he said their conservative (higher than probable) planning number for staff possibly needing time off was something like 20%, though my memory is less clear on that point - but it's pretty consistent with the numbers from your better source, Kimny.
I appreciate you letting us know key points from those podcasts, Kimny!6 -
I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
4 -
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13474181/new-coronavirus-strain-spreading-hancock/
I hope this is fake news.0 -
Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.
From a much less good source than that (it was an NPR report, don't recall which program), I heard a rough ballpark from some expert (think it was the head of the first hospital to start giving the injections?) that in the trials around 80% of people were experiencing some kind of side effect, mostly short (hours) and minor (sore arm, headache, as you say).
Further, he said they were timing their staff vaccinations so that there was a staggering, i.e., a subset of each department got the vaccine at the same time, so that if a small number needed to take a few hours or day off because of more significant side effects (the fatigue and fever sort of thing), they would still have good staff coverage. I think he said their conservative (higher than probable) planning number for staff possibly needing time off was something like 20%, though my memory is less clear on that point - but it's pretty consistent with the numbers from your better source, Kimny.
I appreciate you letting us know key points from those podcasts, Kimny!
When I hear them I want to run around telling people, but no one I know IRL is all that interested
I saw tv coverage of the first health care workers in NY getting the vaccine and I got a little teary eyed.
I hope this is all as good news as it sounds! 6 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
Well, sure. And that speaks well to your national character.
In my full post to which you're responding, I mentioned the very widely-publicized protestors here: The guys in bulletproof vests, carrying semi-auto rifles, on the capitol steps were protesting mask orders, and a phase here where things like restaurants, gyms, etc., were closed to indoor activity, stores had capacity restrictions, you couldn't get a commercial haircut, etc. That's an example of the backlash from those groups.
Still, in a state with nearly 10 million people, the armed dudes were maybe a couple of dozen, and the whole (very impressive) demonstration that drew participants from all over the state was in the 3-4000 people range (less than 0.05% of the state population), most folks driving cars around honking their horns. They have more sympathizers than that, but most people, including many of the sympathizers, are complying with mandates. (Culturally, there's an overlap between the anti-mandate groups, and a "law and order" orientation. Some ignore the cognitive dissonance involved in that, but a number . . . comply, while chafing at it.)
The backlash is super noisy, and potentially dangerous . . . but it's a minority. But Kimny's right: I can't imagine the backlash if state borders were closed, either, given what happened when much less extreme measures were imposed. (Of course, I'm prone to exaggerate . . . . 😉)
Doesn't change the fact that it's a minority backlash.
I don't think the backlash is the main thing that prevented closing state borders, either. The big things, IMO: Cost/practicality vs. effect (most people are already compliant, and making rebels compliant requires enforcement), and the absolute fact that as others have clearly explained, there is no legal mechanism for doing such a thing. It would be, AFAIK, unconstitutional. Even if you think we should change that constitution to permit it, that cannot be done on the required time scale, even if we all wanted to do it. And many, many people would object to changing it in that way (including me) for reasons having nothing to do with the usefulness in the current situation. Martial law might be sort of an option, but it's not a very good or realistic one (also likely no legal basis for *that*). But I'm not an attorney.
Added to that, trying very hard here to keep things non-partisan & non-controversial, the in-place federal government in its current configuration would philosophically not wish to take any kind of steps that would come close to, simulate, or otherwise be anything remotely like closing state borders, on account of the pandemic. They would be philosophically opposed to anything of the sort.9 -
Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.
From a much less good source than that (it was an NPR report, don't recall which program), I heard a rough ballpark from some expert (think it was the head of the first hospital to start giving the injections?) that in the trials around 80% of people were experiencing some kind of side effect, mostly short (hours) and minor (sore arm, headache, as you say).
Further, he said they were timing their staff vaccinations so that there was a staggering, i.e., a subset of each department got the vaccine at the same time, so that if a small number needed to take a few hours or day off because of more significant side effects (the fatigue and fever sort of thing), they would still have good staff coverage. I think he said their conservative (higher than probable) planning number for staff possibly needing time off was something like 20%, though my memory is less clear on that point - but it's pretty consistent with the numbers from your better source, Kimny.
I appreciate you letting us know key points from those podcasts, Kimny!
Seconding the appreciation for Kimny's "This Week in Virology" highlights!
I had a sore arm and headache for a few days from the flu vaccine too.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
Just a few points...one, this became political at the highest level very quickly in the US...that didn't help matters. Add to that, there was and is very little to no support for people losing their jobs and income because businesses are closed and unemployment has sky rocketed...this would obviously make a lot of people resentful and basically you have a lot of people saying, "you're asking me to stay home and I've been laid off and I'm going to lose my home and you can't provide any kind of financial relief...but you want me to comply?"
ETA: Most of the people I know IRL who are compliant and feel we are doing the right thing with restrictions and stay at home orders remain either gainfully employed...mostly working from home, or retired with little change in their overall life...the people I know who are adamantly against any restrictions and lockdown policies are mostly people who've lost income, their jobs, insurance, etc and they have no relief. I work for the courts and we are anticipating a huge increase in foreclosure cases this spring. I don't think it's so much a matter of rebellion as it is people are literally losing everything with no relief.19 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.
From a much less good source than that (it was an NPR report, don't recall which program), I heard a rough ballpark from some expert (think it was the head of the first hospital to start giving the injections?) that in the trials around 80% of people were experiencing some kind of side effect, mostly short (hours) and minor (sore arm, headache, as you say).
Further, he said they were timing their staff vaccinations so that there was a staggering, i.e., a subset of each department got the vaccine at the same time, so that if a small number needed to take a few hours or day off because of more significant side effects (the fatigue and fever sort of thing), they would still have good staff coverage. I think he said their conservative (higher than probable) planning number for staff possibly needing time off was something like 20%, though my memory is less clear on that point - but it's pretty consistent with the numbers from your better source, Kimny.
I appreciate you letting us know key points from those podcasts, Kimny!
Seconding the appreciation for Kimny's "This Week in Virology" highlights!
I had a sore arm and headache for a few days from the flu vaccine too.
I'm hoping for the best because I had no side effects from the flu vaccine. Knock on wood, but the only shot that's done anything to me is the tetanus shot.
1 -
Clearly not all can do coronavirus prep.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/hunger-study-predicts-168000-pandemic-linked-child-deaths/2020/12/14/36c7feb8-3e29-11eb-b58b-1623f6267960_story.html0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
ETA: Most of the people I know IRL who are compliant and feel we are doing the right thing with restrictions and stay at home orders remain either gainfully employed...mostly working from home, or retired with little change in their overall life...the people I know who are adamantly against any restrictions and lockdown policies are mostly people who've lost income, their jobs, insurance, etc and they have no relief. I work for the courts and we are anticipating a huge increase in foreclosure cases this spring. I don't think it's so much a matter of rebellion as it is people are literally losing everything with no relief.
Agree, work from home, retired, no change in income, etc. no harm no foul, no problem staying home, just a minor inconvenience. If one is going to lose much of what they have, they tend to have a different outlook on stay at home.
Both our sons were laid off due to the shutdowns in the spring. One of them actually got a much better job in an "essential" business so has been working since June.
The other one not quite so lucky Was a massage therapist and bartender making real good money at a high end establishments, both still closed. To add insult to injury he wasn't able to get unemployment for about 5 months due to state unemployment IT systems issues (he did finally get a large check for the amount due). Neither of them has a family of their own, plus they were fortunate enough that my wife and I were both working from home with no change in income and able/willing to give them money to help with their expenses. This isn't the way they wanted to spend the last 9 months but they are making due.
Now imagine someone who's unemployment isn't enough to live on, not much in savings and family not able to help them. That person is going to be a lot less likely to be happily compliant.
13 -
missysippy930 wrote: »@Chef_Barbell
I heard they are arriving in all 50 states today.
There are more roads in the US, than any other single country in the world. Flat out, an iimpossibility to monitor them all. What has been lacking here this entire time to slow the spread of covid, which other countries have successfully managed to do, is a national policy and leadership. We are about to surpass 300,000 deaths, and 16,500,000 cases. Those stats speak for themselves re: a viable national policy.
Yes. At this present moment, it is 308,010 deaths, and 16,934,969 total cases on the chart.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
...ETA: Most of the people I know IRL who are compliant and feel we are doing the right thing with restrictions and stay at home orders remain either gainfully employed...mostly working from home, or retired with little change in their overall life...the people I know who are adamantly against any restrictions and lockdown policies are mostly people who've lost income, their jobs, insurance, etc and they have no relief. I work for the courts and we are anticipating a huge increase in foreclosure cases this spring. I don't think it's so much a matter of rebellion as it is people are literally losing everything with no relief.
I think compliance is more related to someone's source of news.
My OH and I both lost our jobs but because we have science-based sources of news we believe in the restrictions and comply with them.
However, we do have unemployment, savings, and assets.7 -
IME, a lot of those who are less personally affected but who think the restrictions are important and are compliant want generous unemployment and other relief for those people and businesses who need it (and believe that restrictions or not business that rely on tourism, conventions, and travel generally would be in trouble, among others), whereas IME it is often those opposed to the restrictions who are against the relief efforts (or certain of them, like the more generous unemployment).
But I can't really say more than that, as that too quickly gets political.
I do think it's pretty obvious that the political polarization in the US more generally has not helped (although for the reasons that have already been explained I don't think that is why state borders could not realistically be closed).6 -
The backlash is super noisy, and potentially dangerous . . . but it's a minority. But Kimny's right: I can't imagine the backlash if state borders were closed, either, given what happened when much less extreme measures were imposed. (Of course, I'm prone to exaggerate . . . .
Oh I wasnt saying you are prone to exaggerating either, I hope you didn't read my post that way.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions