Coronavirus prep

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Yes, the US governance system is relatively decentralized, compared to some other places, but without the power over interstate borders that EU members exercise. (I can't speak to the relationship of states to the federal government in other large places like Australia, legally or geographically.

In Australia the state borders were not closed by the federal government, Scott Morrison the prime minister, was in opposition but state premiers over rode that , the premiers of each state made decisions to close state borders and to whom ( some states were open to other safe states at different times but not all to other states)

There were some exceptions for essential travellers like truck drivers and people could apply for exemptions on compassionate grounds

Not sure what you mean by geographically ?? Other than Tasmania which is an island, states are geographically connected.

So how do the premiers of the states enforce closing state borders?

As has been mentioned a few times earlier, in the US is is common to have literally 100's of roads crossing state borders. Impossible to control/monitor all of them.

Most states are connected by highways - there was some police presence at borders.

Some people tried to sneak in via back roads - one car was bogged and had to be rescued (needless to say, also copping big fine)
Domestic flights were almost non existent during this time.

and I guess most people just complied - sure, more of them could of trekked through the bush off the highway if they wanted to - but how to become a social pariah in one easy hit.
Like some young people who went into Queensland against the rules - you didnt meet with a warm reception by doing this.

Like other laws I guess - we don't have police checking every car to see if you are wearing a seatbelt - but most people just comply

Vaccines arrive in NYC today... first in line are health care and front line workers.

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.

T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »

kimny72 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.

Antiopelle wrote: »

AnnPT77 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.

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.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

kimny72 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!

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!

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.