Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
I agree with this post. I used to think government coordination would have stopped this thing, and it might have had a plan been ready for this type of disaster. I remember as a kid in school being told what we would do if there were an atomic attack (this in rural Minnesota). We also had fire drills. There used to be the idea of prevention and a plan--preparedness. The federal government would have had to have centers, and stockpiles, and dry runs at every level to make it work.
Once COVID hit it was too late. In Italy we're under central government control and COVID is still here and going strong. The regions do not like the government mandates and either issue stricter controls or want more opening. This is a much smaller country than the US.
As Ann said, we can just do our best as citizens, and it's just not easy to understand what it takes to get everything moving.
I remember this too, suburban Minneapolis, elementary school. We crouched down in the halls covering our heads with our arms during drills 😳 They also talked about loading us into boxcars to get us away from the city. Wouldn’t fly today. No school psychologists then. This was during the Cuban missile crisis.
There’s definitely no easy solution to covid. It would be nice if everyone took this seriously, and did the basics that slow down the spread. One young girl interviewed the other day about holiday partying, traveling, and socializing, said she has to live her life, and have fun🤷🏻♀️
I remember practicing going under our desks, like that was really going to make a difference. This was likely early 1970's given the classroom I am picturing in my mind? Am I hallucinating? I have no idea what we would have been hiding from.
You’re not hallucinating, I was a child of the 70s too. We were supposed to put our heads under our desks to avoid a nuclear blast. That seems unlikely to work.
Just developing flexibility so you could give your *kitten* a proper kiss goodbye.
@theoldguy1 Sounds like what I vaguely remember. Funny thing is that I don't remember the training continuing into middle school and such. I am only remembering 6th grade when I would have been 10/11.
edit:
reading the posts in reverse
@rheddmobile I LOVE the hostage idea your teacher had. I'm betting that was not the excuse of my 3rd grade teacher that taped my mouth shut though. :P1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
You're complying with the law, but not really acting wisely (for example, we know that indoor dining is a major risk factor for transmission). This is why it doesn't really make sense to cite all these people who claim to have been perfectly compliant and still getting sick. Even if it's legal to indoor dine in parts of the US, it's not safe.
If you're doing the bare minimum legally, some people are counting that as compliance and then wondering why compliance isn't working.
So what is compliance? Never leaving your house? Not trying to ague but if one is following the legally mandated restrictions what additional steps should "society" expect them to take. And who is the "society" that makes that determination?10 -
For curiosity, I looked up what Dr. Fauci was saying at the same point in time as the 15 day to slow the spread. That video above was March 18th. The following is from March 20th. IMO essentially the same point in time.
WASHINGTON — Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Friday that Americans will most likely have to continue staying at home and practicing social distancing for “at least several weeks " amid the coronavirus outbreak.
“If you look at the trajectory of the curves of outbreaks and other areas, at least going to be several weeks,” Fauci said in an interview with Savannah Guthrie on the “TODAY” show.
“I cannot see that all of a sudden, next week or two weeks from now it's going to be over. I don't think there's a chance of that. I think it's going to be several weeks .”
Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak
When speaking about whether it’s time for President Donald Trump to use the Defense Production Act to produce critical supplies, Fauci suggested that the U.S. should be doing everything in its power to slow the outbreak.
“I think we should do everything we possibly can do. I mean, in all sectors, because obviously as I've said so many times, when you think you're maybe overreacting, you probably are not acting as forcefully as you should. So as we've always said, we've got to try very much to stay ahead of the curve.”
This week, Trump predicted that the outbreak could dissipate by July or August. The White House announced restrictive national guidelines that advise people to work from home for 15 days, postpone unnecessary travel and limit social gatherings to no more than 10 people.
“We’ll see what happens after that,” Trump said at the White House coronavirus task force briefing Tuesday. “If we do this right, our country — and the world, frankly — but our country can be rolling again pretty quickly. Pretty quickly.”
At the briefing Tuesday, Fauci, a key member of the task force, was asked how long will it take before officials will know whether the guidelines are actually flattening the curve.
“It probably would be several weeks and maybe longer before we know whether we're having an effect,” he said.
On Wednesday, a reporter asked Trump about a plan compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services that the outbreak could last as long as 18 months. Trump said, “No, we’re not seeing that at all,” when asked if he’s seen those estimates.
IMO we passed several weeks a long way back.5 -
Are students never held back a grade anymore? It wasn't uncommon when I was young. I even remember a set of twins being split up that way just so they wouldn't be in the same classes (which seems very questionable now). Students in my graduating HS class were anywhere in the 17-19 age range and it wasn't a big deal.cwolfman13 wrote: »What is this question in reference to on this thread? Little confused...
I've seen kids held back at my kids' school...it's not terribly common, but wasn't common when I was growing up either. There is a pair of twins down the street from us and they are separated and not in the same classroom. If you're talking about holding a twin back a grade so they aren't in the same classes and that being the only reasons...you'd have a major lawsuit on your hands.
Probably this:janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?2 -
missysippy930 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
I agree with this post. I used to think government coordination would have stopped this thing, and it might have had a plan been ready for this type of disaster. I remember as a kid in school being told what we would do if there were an atomic attack (this in rural Minnesota). We also had fire drills. There used to be the idea of prevention and a plan--preparedness. The federal government would have had to have centers, and stockpiles, and dry runs at every level to make it work.
Once COVID hit it was too late. In Italy we're under central government control and COVID is still here and going strong. The regions do not like the government mandates and either issue stricter controls or want more opening. This is a much smaller country than the US.
As Ann said, we can just do our best as citizens, and it's just not easy to understand what it takes to get everything moving.
I remember this too, suburban Minneapolis, elementary school. We crouched down in the halls covering our heads with our arms during drills 😳 They also talked about loading us into boxcars to get us away from the city. Wouldn’t fly today. No school psychologists then. This was during the Cuban missile crisis.
There’s definitely no easy solution to covid. It would be nice if everyone took this seriously, and did the basics that slow down the spread. One young girl interviewed the other day about holiday partying, traveling, and socializing, said she has to live her life, and have fun🤷🏻♀️
I remember practicing going under our desks, like that was really going to make a difference. This was likely early 1970's given the classroom I am picturing in my mind? Am I hallucinating? I have no idea what we would have been hiding from.
Remember that things I posted a few page back, about how so many people want a strong centralized Covid plan . . . but there's no assurance that that would be a good plan?
"Duck and cover" drills are an example of "maybe not a good plan" (also maybe an example of "best that could be done in circumstances", since effects of nuclear blasts are very large, and there may be a distant zone where this behavior would've protected a few people from some effects.
I was in school in the 1960s, still the thick of this stuff. There were also things that might arguably have been *a little* more helpful as part of an overall plan, BTW, such as very common public bomb shelters, with signage on street level, stocked with survival rations. But that's a digression.
P.S. As a child, I didn't find all of this particularly wounding, and it certainly wasn't long-term scarring. It was too abstract. I don't remember being afraid. The drills were just a thing we did. 🤷♀️ Some of this reaction, I'm sure, is an effect of individual psychological wiring. However, I think that how adults around the child talk about or react to these kinds of things can often be a more powerful influence on the child, than the things themselves. Possibly true of pandemic restrictions/cautions, too.7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The 15 day slow the spread initiative never came from the professionals and experts...it came from a politician.
That was the surgeon general in the video. While not an epidemiologist, he is a doctor.
Politicians had an inordinate influence over some medical professionals and agencies. And those who refused to be influenced were sidelined.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The 15 day slow the spread initiative never came from the professionals and experts...it came from a politician.
That was the surgeon general in the video. While not an epidemiologist, he is a doctor.
At the behest of the POTUS...Fauci and pretty much every expert in the field said two weeks would not be long enough...not to mention, just a look at what was going on around the world should have clued just about anyone in...that's also about when the powers that be stopped letting Fauci talk and pushed him to the side.
The surgeon general is not independent of the administration...the surgeon general is a cabinet position appointed by the POTUS...he's also a politician.13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
You're complying with the law, but not really acting wisely (for example, we know that indoor dining is a major risk factor for transmission). This is why it doesn't really make sense to cite all these people who claim to have been perfectly compliant and still getting sick. Even if it's legal to indoor dine in parts of the US, it's not safe.
If you're doing the bare minimum legally, some people are counting that as compliance and then wondering why compliance isn't working.
Personally, I don't even understand the claim that everyone in the hospital says they were compliant. It doesn't jibe with the stories from nurses who talk about patients who stay in denial/rebellion until the bitter end, the families who speak with regret of their Covid-deceased family member who was a denialist and did the wrong things, the reports of "Covid parties" and consequent deaths, . . . and many more such examples that could be cited.
Do most people who are hospitalized believe they were doing the right things? Of course. Most people always believe they're doing the right things, in most ways. That doesn't tell us much, really.12 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
You're complying with the law, but not really acting wisely (for example, we know that indoor dining is a major risk factor for transmission). This is why it doesn't really make sense to cite all these people who claim to have been perfectly compliant and still getting sick. Even if it's legal to indoor dine in parts of the US, it's not safe.
If you're doing the bare minimum legally, some people are counting that as compliance and then wondering why compliance isn't working.
So what is compliance? Never leaving your house? Not trying to ague but if one is following the legally mandated restrictions what additional steps should "society" expect them to take. And who is the "society" that makes that determination?
Here in the U.S. it's impossible to say, in my opinion. I live in a state with no restrictions so all the bars and restaurants are available. People can gather, have parties and live completely normal in full 'compliance'. Schools and colleges are in person. It's also a rural state in the top ten for deaths per capita.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
You're complying with the law, but not really acting wisely (for example, we know that indoor dining is a major risk factor for transmission). This is why it doesn't really make sense to cite all these people who claim to have been perfectly compliant and still getting sick. Even if it's legal to indoor dine in parts of the US, it's not safe.
If you're doing the bare minimum legally, some people are counting that as compliance and then wondering why compliance isn't working.
Personally, I don't even understand the claim that everyone in the hospital says they were compliant. It doesn't jibe with the stories from nurses who talk about patients who stay in denial/rebellion until the bitter end, the families who speak with regret of their Covid-deceased family member who was a denialist and did the wrong things, the reports of "Covid parties" and consequent deaths, . . . and many more such examples that could be cited.
Do most people who are hospitalized believe they were doing the right things? Of course. Most people always believe they're doing the right things, in most ways. That doesn't tell us much, really.
Exactly...
My cousin and her husband are good examples. They aren't deniers, but they haven't been exactly in keeping with safe practices. I found out New Years Eve that both she and her husband had contracted COVID. I was talking to my sister and she said it was likely the Christmas Eve party they had. Last I had talked to my cousin, they weren't having their usual Christmas Eve party so I was a little surprised and confused. In fact they didn't have their normal Christmas Eve party...that usually consists of 100 people plus coming and going...they decided to only invite 30 people to be "safe". 1/3 of the attendees have also contracted COVID.19 -
That smaller party is safe... for the 70 people who weren’t invited!cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
You're complying with the law, but not really acting wisely (for example, we know that indoor dining is a major risk factor for transmission). This is why it doesn't really make sense to cite all these people who claim to have been perfectly compliant and still getting sick. Even if it's legal to indoor dine in parts of the US, it's not safe.
If you're doing the bare minimum legally, some people are counting that as compliance and then wondering why compliance isn't working.
Personally, I don't even understand the claim that everyone in the hospital says they were compliant. It doesn't jibe with the stories from nurses who talk about patients who stay in denial/rebellion until the bitter end, the families who speak with regret of their Covid-deceased family member who was a denialist and did the wrong things, the reports of "Covid parties" and consequent deaths, . . . and many more such examples that could be cited.
Do most people who are hospitalized believe they were doing the right things? Of course. Most people always believe they're doing the right things, in most ways. That doesn't tell us much, really.
Exactly...
My cousin and her husband are good examples. They aren't deniers, but they haven't been exactly in keeping with safe practices. I found out New Years Eve that both she and her husband had contracted COVID. I was talking to my sister and she said it was likely the Christmas Eve party they had. Last I had talked to my cousin, they weren't having their usual Christmas Eve party so I was a little surprised and confused. In fact they didn't have their normal Christmas Eve party...that usually consists of 100 people plus coming and going...they decided to only invite 30 people to be "safe". 1/3 of the attendees have also contracted COVID.
16 -
Are students never held back a grade anymore? It wasn't uncommon when I was young. I even remember a set of twins being split up that way just so they wouldn't be in the same classes (which seems very questionable now). Students in my graduating HS class were anywhere in the 17-19 age range and it wasn't a big deal.
They do occasionally hold kids back but it doesn't seem to be as common these days.
However in regards to holding kids back because they aren't learning enough during this pandemic would create a whole other can of worms not the least of which would be class sizes would explode in some areas or if we pressed the pause button and had everyone just repeat this grade then that would still put some kids at a disadvantage. Because those held back would be in the lower income areas and the higher income areas would do whatever necessary to not hold kids back. Plus that would result in other unintended consequences as kids end up older than they should be at the time of graduation.1 -
I would also add that some kids are still learning SOME but not necessarily as much as they would in a normal year. Yes there's reasons for that, some good, some I don't agree with but it's still a problem. For instance my kids private school both last spring and this fall did not get as far in several of the AP classes as they normally would. This might not sound terrible, but it makes it harder for them to get a good score on the AP exam. Even this semester now that we are back in physical school 4 days a week with 1 online day a week with much smaller class sizes which can make it more difficult to get into a class you want to take they are going fewer hours because they said that with the pandemic the kids are too stressed and they want to improve their mental, emotional, and spiritual health (with more prayer services etc). Like fine...but now instead of 5 days of 7.5 hour days they go 4 6 hour days which means they have fewer classes each week and learn less. And my kids are obviously very fortunate as they go to a private school and have involved parents (though I can't help with most of their homework anymore lol), kids who are less fortunate are having FAR more issues.1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Lining up for a repeat vaccine every 12 months would be no different to annual flu vaccine.
I don't see that as a big deal.
From what I've heard that's what it's going to be. May as well get used to it.
It'll be a big deal if we have to wear masks and/or continue to social distance in addition to getting a vaccine every 6-12 months. And since we are still being told we need to do those things in addition to getting the vaccine I find this very likely.
Plus how many people don't get the flu vaccine? Most of the people I know who work for companies who do not require it don't bother with it. Plus you can still get the flu even if you do take it since it's a virus and they mutate.
In general we were told that a vaccine would get us back to "normal" but people are realizing that is not the case and is unlikely to be the case. Maybe we can't get back to "normal" ever again, but we aren't even going to be close to normal and for many this isn't acceptable.
I currently don't have a plan to get the vaccine. I'm all for those who wanting it to get it, but for me there's too much unknown about it and I'd rather wait until we actually know the long term effects and efficiency before committing to it. Though as I work in healthcare, though not front lines, I have a feeling work will require it as they do the annual flu shot.
To the person who posted about California - California has some of the strictest restrictions in the US so what's the explanation for why there is such a severe breakout there? Here in IN we seem to have gone through an outbreak, but when the pt's are questioned they all say they are compliant. Physicians are commenting on the fact that anecdotally they are not seeing non-compliant people getting Covid. My sister in law's mom was hospitalized for Covid after Thanksgiving - she social distanced, wore a mask when leaving the house, and washed her hands all the time but her son brought it home from work (they live together). And he's hugely into following all the restrictions so he wore his mask, washed his hands etc and so did the person who spread the Covid. If we are following the guidelines and still getting Covid which is going to make continuing to follow these guidelines very difficult for some people as why are they going through this and losing their livihood for nothing?
We (currently) have to do these things in addition to getting vaccinated because there are still so many unvaccinated people. If you're right and people don't bother to take basic precautionary steps like getting vaccinated, then this may be more drawn out.
If things aren't going "back to normal" due to low vaccination rates and that's unacceptable, what's the alternate plan being proposed? There are people who are complaining about things like wearing masks AND they're complaining about the unknowns of vaccinations. What's the alternative exactly?
Just turn unknowns into knowns by testing and peer reviews.
I don't know how this addresses people who insist that we get somehow get back to normal by ignoring the virus.
I was talking about health care professionals holding terminal degrees and are board certified need medical vaccine data so they can start recommending the vaccines to their own patients with good medical knowledge.
Case in point from this week. An area doctor told one his autoimmune patients he was concerned about them getting the vaccine because it hasn't been tested on that population to determine the risk of a flair.
He suggested an antibody test since it was free. Just before my appointment yesterday this therapist got the test results that they tested positive for the antibodies. Both of us were excited because this is a weekly exposure risk for me.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
Compliance is a concept that relates to laws, regulations, rules, standards.
Good or safe(r) behavior is related, but not identical. Further, it's more subjective, situational, involves tradeoffs. (The grocery store clerk would be safer from contagion if she quit her job, but the economic consequences would be terrible. None of that bears on questions of compliance. Less starkly, the same is true about whether to go to parties/gatherings of allowed sizes, whether to shop in person in ways allowed, whether to get take-out or dine in (or on the so-called patios around here, which are heated indoor tents but don't seem to be invoking legal action), and more).
This next is not in response to your post, but a general comment that's been made before by various people on the thread: Sometimes people speak as if the economic impacts of the pandemic flow from the legal restrictions. That's true only to a limited extent (we can argue about how limited).
Some people will not be going to restaurants, theaters, other gatherings or traveling even once it's legally allowed, because they don't yet think it's safe behavior. That was true before there were legal restrictions: Businesses were beginning to see patronage drop off, and that had some economic impact. The disease closed some factories/plants before restrictions did, and did so more unpredictably. This is not as simple as "end restrictions and the economy will thrive".
Like it or not, the economy (and mental health, education, etc.) are being harmed by the pandemic, of which legal restrictions and closures are only a part.15 -
missysippy930 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
I agree with this post. I used to think government coordination would have stopped this thing, and it might have had a plan been ready for this type of disaster. I remember as a kid in school being told what we would do if there were an atomic attack (this in rural Minnesota). We also had fire drills. There used to be the idea of prevention and a plan--preparedness. The federal government would have had to have centers, and stockpiles, and dry runs at every level to make it work.
Once COVID hit it was too late. In Italy we're under central government control and COVID is still here and going strong. The regions do not like the government mandates and either issue stricter controls or want more opening. This is a much smaller country than the US.
As Ann said, we can just do our best as citizens, and it's just not easy to understand what it takes to get everything moving.
I remember this too, suburban Minneapolis, elementary school. We crouched down in the halls covering our heads with our arms during drills 😳 They also talked about loading us into boxcars to get us away from the city. Wouldn’t fly today. No school psychologists then. This was during the Cuban missile crisis.
There’s definitely no easy solution to covid. It would be nice if everyone took this seriously, and did the basics that slow down the spread. One young girl interviewed the other day about holiday partying, traveling, and socializing, said she has to live her life, and have fun🤷🏻♀️
I remember practicing going under our desks, like that was really going to make a difference. This was likely early 1970's given the classroom I am picturing in my mind? Am I hallucinating? I have no idea what we would have been hiding from.
Remember that things I posted a few page back, about how so many people want a strong centralized Covid plan . . . but there's no assurance that that would be a good plan?
"Duck and cover" drills are an example of "maybe not a good plan" (also maybe an example of "best that could be done in circumstances", since effects of nuclear blasts are very large, and there may be a distant zone where this behavior would've protected a few people from some effects.
I was in school in the 1960s, still the thick of this stuff. There were also things that might arguably have been *a little* more helpful as part of an overall plan, BTW, such as very common public bomb shelters, with signage on street level, stocked with survival rations. But that's a digression.
P.S. As a child, I didn't find all of this particularly wounding, and it certainly wasn't long-term scarring. It was too abstract. I don't remember being afraid. The drills were just a thing we did. 🤷♀️ Some of this reaction, I'm sure, is an effect of individual psychological wiring. However, I think that how adults around the child talk about or react to these kinds of things can often be a more powerful influence on the child, than the things themselves. Possibly true of pandemic restrictions/cautions, too.
@Annpt77 Yes, you faced more than I did. When my kids were still in the high school band, I remember being surprised to stumble upon a door to the bomb shelter built under the school. I also agree that I was not scarred by the trainings of the 70's and deal with stress acceptably well. Possibly related, I remember four years ago when we had the 2016 election and how there were individuals that needed to wear safety pins so they could identify a safe space. I cannot relate to this. Over my years there have been elections that were not my preferred outcome as there will be in my future. It's life and it's called, pull up your pants and work to make the most of any situation. Anyhow, I do wonder how the children, of parents that are communally more affected by stressors, are affected by stress themselves. And or course the Pandemic has not helped any of us with our levels of stress.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?
You're complying with the law, but not really acting wisely (for example, we know that indoor dining is a major risk factor for transmission). This is why it doesn't really make sense to cite all these people who claim to have been perfectly compliant and still getting sick. Even if it's legal to indoor dine in parts of the US, it's not safe.
If you're doing the bare minimum legally, some people are counting that as compliance and then wondering why compliance isn't working.
So what is compliance? Never leaving your house? Not trying to ague but if one is following the legally mandated restrictions what additional steps should "society" expect them to take. And who is the "society" that makes that determination?
Society doesn’t have anything to do with it. Reality doesn’t give a flip what society thinks. What’s safe is what’s safe. You learn about it by reading the recommendations of scientists, and even then scientists are only working from limited knowledge.
It also doesn’t matter in the slightest what you are “expected” to do. If you get Covid, having done all the expected things won’t help you.8 -
Genuine question here, this is not directed at anyone but is something I’ve thought about when the subject of ‘children falling behind with schooling’ comes up.
Who exactly are they ‘falling behind’? The virus impacts their whole peer group not just a select few. If they’re all effected by either school closures, home schooling, online learning, limited contact teaching or whatever measures are in place where they live, then they’re all equally disadvantaged.
An entire generation world wide is in the same situation, so it’s not as if when it comes to finding their place in the world when they leave education they’ll be up against their peers who had a different experience.
Unless by then we’ve been invaded by people from other planets where COVID didn’t exist! 😂11 -
@kshama2001 and @cwolfman13 I respect both your replies pointing out how the surgeon general is part of an administration and is therefore not apolitical. But, the other part of the original comment, which I also addressed, was how the 15 days to slow the spread did not "come from Fauci". As I quoted above, at the same approximate point in time, Fauci was stating "several weeks". In the overcall experience we have had, the 15 days of the surgeon general vs the several weeks stated by Fauci were equally wrong.1
-
@kshama2001 and @cwolfman13 I respect both your replies pointing out how the surgeon general is part of an administration and is therefore not apolitical. But, the other part of the original comment, which I also addressed, was how the 15 days to slow the spread did not "come from Fauci". As I quoted above, at the same approximate point in time, Fauci was stating "several weeks". In the overcall experience we have had, the 15 days of the surgeon general vs the several weeks stated by Fauci were equally wrong.
One of the big issues here is that we weren't even able to see what two weeks or several weeks of an actual lockdown would do. Everything was left to individual states. There were states who never shut anything down at all...others put in minimal restrictions...others shut down, but very quickly opened everything back up to almost normal. That's like having a special area of the swimming pool that it's ok to pee in. The only way anything like two weeks or several weeks would have worked is if everyone was on the same page and doing the same thing. This is pretty evident just by observing other countries that have effectively controlled the virus.
Also, if you remember back to March and the two week plan or the CDC and Fauci saying it would be longer...part of all of that was slow, phased opening up...which should have also been an indication to people that restrictions would go on considerably longer. Honestly, if anyone legitimately thought it would be a couple of weeks or several weeks and then we'd just be back to pre COVID life, I would have to question if they were actually paying attention to what was happening in the world around them.
There wasn't even a phased opening in many states...and even more states that were opening in phases, but not really following any kind of guideline as to what should or would be open in any given phase of re-opening.
There is a reason that the USA leads the world in COVID positivity rates...there is a reason other countries have been able to control the virus...12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions