The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Trudie on May 05, 2020, 09:07:31 PM
-
It’s really starting to sink in that quarantine and social distancing measures are going to last months into years. Until there are treatments and a vaccine, life is going to be different. We FIREd and moved a year ago and are generally very happy with our new circumstances. But, I really can’t foresee going into a restaurant anytime soon, traveling, getting on a plane, or having friends over for dinner. I’m doing okay and fully realize we have it better than many. But, we’ve had to cancel two trips — something we were relishing in retirement. On the upside, we’re not spending much money. We’re planting a huge garden, which gets us outside and doing something that reaps dividends. I had one volunteer gig I really enjoyed and really miss. It will be a long time before we can go back. I’m on a couple of committees at my church but am sick of Zoom meetings. Lol. The problem is, we’re all stuck at home so don’t have excuses. I think I may just have to refuse meetings for a couple of weeks. Seriously. I think boundaries are crucial right now.
We were supposed to be on a much-anticipated trip to Europe now right now. Now I’m just hope that we’ll be able to do it in the not too distant future.
But it’s sinking in that life is going to be altered for awhile. How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
-
I'm exceedingly fortunate that my girlfriend and I have a roommate that we absolutely love, so we're able to be somewhat social without going out -- we're doing many house and garage projects now, and putting far more effort into cooking than we have traditionally done in the past.
-
I can live without overseas travel for 12-18 months, and I had already been working from home about 40% - now that's closer to 70% which just makes my home my now "principal place of business" and allows me to legitimately deduct some of my electricity bills, strata fees etc. So I can get used to all that. I don't even mind telephone conferences etc with clients.
I'm not happy about the social restrictions but I've been flouting them anyway and we are about to ease most of the ones that matter to me (the bans on driving, visiting family and small friend gatherings have been lifted in a few Australian states and there will be a national consensus by Friday).
The bans on large gatherings etc don't mean much to me because I don't attend them often.
The trend in other countries seems to be going towards suppression and slow easing of quarantine which is good to see.
-
Yeah, not travelling is suuuuper shitty for us too. We were supposed to have an awesome trip to Italy next month, lol. I was really looking forward to that. I am so glad right now that we've done such a ridiculous amount of travel from 2011 to present day, all over the world, since who knows when we'll be able to again. Coincidentally, we just ticked off the last destination on my boyfriend's travel bucket list in January, so he's going to have lots of time to come up with a new list now.
Once travel is allowed again, god knows when, I swear I am going to plan the most epic trip I can possibly come up with.
-
Our life is fairly simple. We have a dog that we can still walk in the park. I'm not that social anyway so having people over for dinner isn't bothering me. I like to travel, but missing a vacation or 2 is just a minor inconvenience. What I really miss is seeing my 6 month old granddaughter. I can't imagine seeing her in person anytime soon. Also my mother, stuck in a nursing home with no visitors and just demented enough that using the telephone is difficult for her. I take care of coronavirus patients and would never visit either of them until 2 weeks after I took care of the last one if I was even allowed. Also, I REALLY miss the library.
-
I fully agree 'the shit's getting real'.
Another month or two and our kids will have done so much damage to the house that we'll not only lose our deposit when we move eventually but likely be charged extra just for damage repairs.
We have three boys - 5, 2.5, and 6mos, and my Mother (who had the same number and rough age spread) has told us repeatedly that she doesn't think she would have been able to hold it together had similar circumstances arose when we were young.
My wife and I are not, inherently, entitled to a break from our kids (and we do love them), but holy fuck being stuck inside with them for coming on two months is really testing our limits as parents. I'm 100% serious when I say that had someone told us a global pandemic was going to occur and that we would be without support indefinitely, we would have had fewer kids.
We just want a break. A babysitter. Our parents. Our siblings. Rec center childcare. Any-fucking-thing to allow my wife and I to have more than 30 minutes out of the day together that our kids don't need our attention.
We're turning into bitter people, watching most of the people we know with 0-1 kids (or kids older than, say, 8), go through this quarantine being able to 'relax' or keep the damn house clean for longer than 5 minutes.
I'm incredibly fortunate to have kept my job without salary cuts. I've effectively run out of meaningful work to do (see: my username - can't take a Chem lab home with you!) so I can shoulder a lot of the burden that my wife usually carries. But, there is going to come a point where we say 'fuck it'.
-
I'd say part of my problem is like chemistk. My lab lost 50% of its work in less than 2 weeks. Management was asking who would be willing to go out on furlough and collect unemployment by choice and here I am. We figured we could weather the transition from paychecks to UI better than some of my peers since the system is bogged down with volume. Part of the reason why we picked me to go on furlough would be to see if I would like being a stay-at-home mom in the future by being a house spouse for a little while. I'm on week 4 of being at home and I'm still trying to determine if I like this or not.
We're lucky to be childless at the moment. We're at the stage where some friends are starting families, so our friend circle is mostly childfree too, but its crazy to even try to imagine. Its tough to even get outside to go to trails and the like because everyone else is wanting to go out as well.
Not surprisingly, having to cancel trips is bumming us out too. But I plan to resume putting together our trip to Japan and learning Japanese soon.
Our particular state is putting into place a intermediate stage for opening up. Some details have been given as to what "yellow" looks like, but I can't figure out if it opens things I really need like the DMV since my drivers license expired. Or things I really want like the library.
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for people stuck in unsatisfactory conditions or unable to give small children the exercise and company they need or get a break for themselves. And there are many people even worse off than that, even without taking into account those who have been ill or died from this virus.
But I am finding it dispiriting that there are people whose main complaint is that they don't want to have to wait in order to bust their carbon budget and destroy the planet by starting to fly around the world again.
-
@chemistk I am a single mom with a 9 year old daughter who does occasionally go visit her dad and I am exhausted. I can't imagine having 3 little ones 24-7 during this with no help. I feel for you.
A month ago, I must admit I chuckled at couple across the street who had a domestic dispute on their front porch in their underwear. It made me thankful to be single. But then two weeks ago a neighbor a few houses down - roughly my age but with a husband and two teenage children - died. I am pretty sure she killed herself with everyone in the house.
Long term, my business will suffer greatly from this. I had been striving for FI before the pandemic but the extra time off has made me yearn to fully FIRE while I am still young enough to do some traveling. Unfortunately with the drop in income, that may not be a possibility. I'm trying not to look too far into the future though as for the most part there is little about it that I can control.
-
I think a lot of people are pretty much done with quarantine, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens, to say the least.
I dunno - I'm kind of sorry about not going on our big trip this month, but I'm not generally an enthusiastic traveller.
I'm hoping the university offers buyouts and dh can just retire now.
-
This was supposed to be the year where we figured out what city we want to move to, and take steps toward making that happen. Instead, we canceled the first of what would have been 3 recon trips to scope out potential locations (in fact, should've been returning home from that trip yesterday) and didn't even get to book the other 2. My partner is laid off, I'm partially furloughed, and I now have no idea how to make the move happen when so little hiring is going on (and I'm uncomfortable with taking retail/grocery work which can put our health at risk, as we both have risk factors).
I can deal more or less with the isolation, though over the past few days it's really getting to me. But having my plans go down the shitter, and being stuck indefinitely in a city I don't like chiefly because of the shit weather (frost predicted Friday. It's MAY!) is very hard for me to cope with. Not knowing how many more years we have to wait to get out of here is tough to swallow. I had a PLAN, you guys! :(
I know, first world problems, I still have income, we have a decent e-fund, my partner was able to get on fairly affordable Obamacare insurance, we don't have kids to try and homeschool during all this. It's still hard though.
-
I fully agree 'the shit's getting real'.
Another month or two and our kids will have done so much damage to the house that we'll not only lose our deposit when we move eventually but likely be charged extra just for damage repairs.
We have three boys - 5, 2.5, and 6mos, and my Mother (who had the same number and rough age spread) has told us repeatedly that she doesn't think she would have been able to hold it together had similar circumstances arose when we were young.
My wife and I are not, inherently, entitled to a break from our kids (and we do love them), but holy fuck being stuck inside with them for coming on two months is really testing our limits as parents. I'm 100% serious when I say that had someone told us a global pandemic was going to occur and that we would be without support indefinitely, we would have had fewer kids.
We just want a break. A babysitter. Our parents. Our siblings. Rec center childcare. Any-fucking-thing to allow my wife and I to have more than 30 minutes out of the day together that our kids don't need our attention.
We're turning into bitter people, watching most of the people we know with 0-1 kids (or kids older than, say, 8), go through this quarantine being able to 'relax' or keep the damn house clean for longer than 5 minutes.
I'm incredibly fortunate to have kept my job without salary cuts. I've effectively run out of meaningful work to do (see: my username - can't take a Chem lab home with you!) so I can shoulder a lot of the burden that my wife usually carries. But, there is going to come a point where we say 'fuck it'.
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
-
I think the biggest impact for my family is my 8 year old not being able to play with other kids his age. He has played a bit with the neighbors across the fence but nothing like it used to be. He loves being an only child, but has been saying that he really misses playing with other kids. He has been able to play Minecraft with his best friend while talking over messenger, but its not the same as being in the same room together. I'm really impressed with his resilience, but I'm not sure how much more of this he can take. If plans go accordingly and the state begins to open up and we don't go into stay at home orders again then he will be good. If it gets real bad again and everything goes back to how its been the past 2 months then it's going to be rough.
-
I just bought a trampoline for the kids. Might have been the greatest accomplishment of my life.
Also picked up a hillbilly pool for the heat. Gonna be a DIY summer I guess.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
-
It’s really starting to sink in that quarantine and social distancing measures are going to last months into years. Until there are treatments and a vaccine, life is going to be different.
But it’s sinking in that life is going to be altered for awhile. How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Our state is opening up asap, which the local population seems to have taken as a cue to stop social distancing or wearing masks, even though officially those measures are still in place. So we are coming out of quarantine, rather than settling into a long term official one. Because of this, I anticipate that we will see about a year (or until vaccine) of rolling disease spikes throughout the country, with various regions getting hit hard and having to go back into full quarantine for weeks at a time. But as of right now, our state appears to be full steam ahead in trying to 'normalize'. And unfortunately I do not run the world, and can't stop them.
Given the situation as it is though, it's not likely to affect us very much, except by knocking out any potential plane travel. We usually do a couple of short getaways per year by plane or car, often in association with required work trips (tacking on an extra couple days). Plus, I only see my 75 yr old father every 5 years or so, and this was supposed to be one of those years (supposed to visit him with my two siblings), but I guess not. I will still see my mother occasionally, though practicing social distancing while sitting outside. My sisters will probably have to miss our once per year trip together, but hopefully only one.
My husband's field research will definitely be affected/limited (he's gotten some dispensations for his grad students to do some work, but that could change depending on localized outbreaks of covid). Luckily, he's got enough backlogged stuff to work on that he could probably stop new projects for 3 years and still keep publishing at a decent rate.
In terms of our day to day routine, it is unlikely to affect us much. We won't go out to eat or to the movies (but we only do those things a handful of times per year anyway), and we've actually been eating carryout a bit more in an attempt to support a couple locally owned restaurants.
I already work from home, and have for more than a decade. My husband prefers to work at home so he's been enjoying that, and is going to try to arrange to continue doing so at least part of each week to reduce exposure. We only socialize in groups of friends every few months normally, so we will likely miss ~6 of those types of occasions if the situation takes another 9 months to a year to resolve. That sucks, but it's not like we have twice per week social engagements that we normally love doing.
The only daily life thing that bugs me is the fact that I need to swim for chronic pain control, and am putting myself at risk of exposure in an indoor pool facility several times per week (obs no masks being worn in that facility). This facility also does medical rehab, so there are a lot of old and potentially more vulnerable people there, too. I worry about that facility, and I'm closely monitoring local covid cases; if they start ticking up notably, I'll try to put the swimming on hold as long as I can manage it.
And it's mentally tiring to constantly be reminding oneself of possible touching/face touching/exposures when out and about (I did a short trip yesterday, reminding myself the entire time of my 'clean' hand and 'dirty' hand so I wouldn't screw up. Then someone spoke to me and I got momentarily distracted and the next thing I realized I had just rubbed the tip of my itching nose with my 'dirty' hand. Argh! So tiring.
But barring having someone we know get sick/esp several of our high-risk friends (or ourselves, of course), the idea of a year of quarantine-like conditions doesn't bother me much.
I feel for people with kids, though.
-
I fully agree 'the shit's getting real'.
Another month or two and our kids will have done so much damage to the house that we'll not only lose our deposit when we move eventually but likely be charged extra just for damage repairs.
We have three boys - 5, 2.5, and 6mos, and my Mother (who had the same number and rough age spread) has told us repeatedly that she doesn't think she would have been able to hold it together had similar circumstances arose when we were young.
My wife and I are not, inherently, entitled to a break from our kids (and we do love them), but holy fuck being stuck inside with them for coming on two months is really testing our limits as parents. I'm 100% serious when I say that had someone told us a global pandemic was going to occur and that we would be without support indefinitely, we would have had fewer kids.
We just want a break. A babysitter. Our parents. Our siblings. Rec center childcare. Any-fucking-thing to allow my wife and I to have more than 30 minutes out of the day together that our kids don't need our attention.
We're turning into bitter people, watching most of the people we know with 0-1 kids (or kids older than, say, 8), go through this quarantine being able to 'relax' or keep the damn house clean for longer than 5 minutes.
I'm incredibly fortunate to have kept my job without salary cuts. I've effectively run out of meaningful work to do (see: my username - can't take a Chem lab home with you!) so I can shoulder a lot of the burden that my wife usually carries. But, there is going to come a point where we say 'fuck it'.
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
We were making tentative plans to take the kids down to my wife's parents, and then that fell through when my wife's whole family had to self-quarantine because my MIL had visited her dad (the one that passed away over the weekend) who had indeed tested positive for the virus.
We may go down there but there's a lot of anonymous snitching going on around where we live and our combined families would be >10 people which is a direct violation of the stay at home orders here so there's definitely concern that while we're all out in the backyard, the cops will show up (which has happened around here!).
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
-
But, I really can’t foresee going into a restaurant anytime soon, traveling, getting on a plane, or having friends over for dinner.
OP, like you, my DH and I recently moved and we are so, so thankful we are in this location and not our last one. Even during a global pandemic there is so much more available here.
We were planning 3 trips this year and will probably take 0. We are being wildly optimistic and hoping we can do a 2 night getaway in our state at Christmas :)
While I agree with you about not restaurants and no traveling, I do think it's possible to see friends in person safely. We're lucky to have outdoor space around our pool which is large enough to keep a safe physical distance. If you don't have that, people have been getting very creative and meeting in empty parking lots, quiet parks, etc. As you say, this is going to last a while, so figuring out how to meet your socialization needs is a high priority.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
Everyone has to make their own risk/reward value judgment. I live in a state with about 100 active cases out of 5 million people. We've been doing heavy testing, even of asymptomatic people. The adds are 1 in 50,000 that a given person in my state has the virus (less than that, really, considering everyone with symptoms is being asked to be tested, and then quarantined). Assuming we keep suppressing it well, you have to weigh that risk against the loss of social contact for months or a year or more. I can easily see why people are choosing to break isolation for family members or close friends. I sure as heck have been doing so.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
Depends how long you want the kid to be able to know their grandparent I guess. Less than a year? For another 15 - 20 years?
Until you've been tested as having antibodies for the disease (or have been vaccinated - although that seems like a pipe dream at this point), you shouldn't visit high risk people. You simply don't know if you're carrying the disease that will kill them.
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
You're an adult, as are they . . . it's your (and their) decision to make. And I get it. Kids suck, grandparents are free, and keeping social distancing is hard for everyone. Sending kids of undetermined infectious state to visit high risk people during a pandemic though . . . kinda sounds like reckless behaviour to me.
-
There was a video going around titled "this shit's getting real" and it involved a donut... cracked me up.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
-
We may go down there but there's a lot of anonymous snitching going on around where we live and our combined families would be >10 people which is a direct violation of the stay at home orders here so there's definitely concern that while we're all out in the backyard, the cops will show up (which has happened around here!).
Soon the police will be taking you into protective custody!
-
We were FIREd already and had a pretty low-key lifestyle/schedules. The main difference has been having DD home from school and only going out once or twice a week for contactless pickup of groceries or takeout -- we don't really need the latter as we haven't had major shortages on staple grocery items yet (and still have plenty of TP and paper towels), but we'd like to see our favorite local restaurants survive this and they all have contactless options so we order every couple of weeks.
We are all introverts to varying degrees, which helps. I am very happy this is going down in prime gardening season -- that is my main outlet at this point. We also live in a good location for walking/biking.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
Depends how long you want the kid to be able to know their grandparent I guess. Less than a year? For another 15 - 20 years?
Until you've been tested as having antibodies for the disease (or have been vaccinated - although that seems like a pipe dream at this point), you shouldn't visit high risk people. You simply don't know if you're carrying the disease that will kill them.
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
You're an adult, as are they . . . it's your (and their) decision to make. And I get it. Kids suck, grandparents are free, and keeping social distancing is hard for everyone. Sending kids of undetermined infectious state to visit high risk people during a pandemic though . . . kinda sounds like reckless behaviour to me.
Kids don’t suck. He missing his grandparents and they miss him. They are not high risk.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
Firstly a lot less than 0.5% of the population is dying.
Secondly there is still a lot of doubt over whether children even transmit the disease.
Thirdly it might be years till we get a vaccine. Maybe the grandparents only have 10 years left on this planet. They can make their own choices about their risk matrix and how much they want to see the grandchildren. Sure, if the grandparent is an obese Bronx resident with pneumonia, he or she probably should not be meeting the kids. Or anyone.
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for people stuck in unsatisfactory conditions or unable to give small children the exercise and company they need or get a break for themselves. And there are many people even worse off than that, even without taking into account those who have been ill or died from this virus.
But I am finding it dispiriting that there are people whose main complaint is that they don't want to have to wait in order to bust their carbon budget and destroy the planet by starting to fly around the world again.
Technically, the people having multiple kids are busting their carbon budget and destroying the planet waaaaay more than the people who fly a couple times a year and don't have kids.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
Firstly a lot less than 0.5% of the population is dying.
Secondly there is still a lot of doubt over whether children even transmit the disease.
Thirdly it might be years till we get a vaccine. Maybe the grandparents only have 10 years left on this planet. They can make their own choices about their risk matrix and how much they want to see the grandchildren. Sure, if the grandparent is an obese Bronx resident with pneumonia, he or she probably should not be meeting the kids. Or anyone.
We should add that the payout for visiting grandparents is very high. You're building relationships across generations, the memories of which will last forever.
The payout for eating that skittle is - just the skittle.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
Dunno. We found out last week that my dad needs to start cancer treatment (diagnosed in January) and my mom's sister is dying. I can't hug either parent because they're both elderly and I was probably exposed at the overcrowded grocery store yesterday. It really, really sucks, but it sucks a lot less than inadvertently infecting either of them. If dad gets sick during cancer treatment, he probably won't survive it (whereas his life expectancy would otherwise be at least another decade, given that he eats carefully, doesn't smoke, barely drinks, monitors his health closely, and has always been physically active).
My MIL nearly died last year. My niece and nephew visit their grandparents via FaceTime.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
Firstly a lot less than 0.5% of the population is dying.
Secondly there is still a lot of doubt over whether children even transmit the disease.
Thirdly it might be years till we get a vaccine. Maybe the grandparents only have 10 years left on this planet. They can make their own choices about their risk matrix and how much they want to see the grandchildren. Sure, if the grandparent is an obese Bronx resident with pneumonia, he or she probably should not be meeting the kids. Or anyone.
agree 100%
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
Dunno. We found out last week that my dad needs to start cancer treatment (diagnosed in January) and my mom's sister is dying. I can't hug either parent because they're both elderly and I was probably exposed at the overcrowded grocery store yesterday. It really, really sucks, but it sucks a lot less than inadvertently infecting either of them. If dad gets sick during cancer treatment, he probably won't survive it (whereas his life expectancy would otherwise be at least another decade, given that he eats carefully, doesn't smoke, barely drinks, monitors his health closely, and has always been physically active).
My MIL nearly died last year. My niece and nephew visit their grandparents via FaceTime.
if someone is high risk, I agree they probably shouldn't have visitors. I'm not saying that. sorry to hear about your situation, my uncle just died last week from cancer.
-
Wenchsenior - if you have your own yard, you could consider a swim spa. You know, those lap-type pools that sit above ground, and some have a hot tub too. I know someone who has one, and it cost 5K Cdn plus another grand for the cement base and it costs about 100.00/month to heat it, but it's all yours! Anytime you want! Virus free! Could be a doable option for you.
-
I'm overall pretty happy with the situation. (go ahead and gasp...I'll wait)
Our office is full of sales and engineer support for customers, so on a normal day at the office, there are maybe 4 out of 50 people there anyways. We all work from home as much as we want. What I'm finding is less oversight and less work. When customers send out letters saying nobody is allowed in their buildings, well, that makes it easy to do everything by simply seeing what the schematics say and emailing responses.
My wife started a new job last Monday, so my home office was given up to her. (I volunteered). I spent a few weeks in there converting it from a big mess of a storage room to a usable office, then moved to a table in a big upstairs room with floor to ceiling windows looking out at the woods. So I get to text my wife when the cardinal pair show up or when the 3 baby squirrels are chasing each other up and down trees or when the mother fox is bouncing across the yard.
I forest manage our property (not my job, I'm an engineer) and love doing that. I can go out and split a few logs as a break for 15 minutes now. I've built up physically and in the process am approaching 2 cords of wood that I've split and stacked for drying for use next fall/winter.
I am older and have several conditions that put me up there on the list of at risk people, and with a nurse wife, I'm pretty much not allowed to leave the property unless I want to go the the pick-a-part junkyard, where people really don't interact and are not near each other. I've learned to do photo check deposits (had never done that before) so trips to the credit union have not been necessary. I order stuff I need on Amazon rather than going into the now shut down Wal Marts because they discovered they had dozens of employees with Covid and some who died. My wife does the grocery shopping, since I'm not allowed to do that. She has said that I may go during the "over 60" early hours of 6 to 7:30am. I'm ok with that.
I'm using this stay at home time to trial run retirement. Sort of cool being able to put my phone in my pocket in case email or text or a phone call comes in and take the tractor up to bring another load of wood down to the pile to split.
Today is the first day for required masking in public in my state with a $300 fine for violations. That's cool. Nobody on my property anyways, so I'll watch it on the news on TV later.
2 sons at home. One has his last day of college tomorrow, then graduates. He starts a great job a little over a week later, so that's a great feeling that he's finally stepping into the next stage. Younger son has about another week for the end of Freshman year which has been both good and bad. He's survived but certainly learned that you sort of have to learn to College. It ain't high school. Both have been in online only courses for a month. They both sorta live in their rooms and are somewhat self sufficient. We did take a family walk over the weekend around the lake across the street, going 20 feet into the woods when anyone else was coming. Not a problem whatsoever. Great time.
Meanwhile, my wifes father who is 85 and multiple cancer treatment survivor thinks that he is of no risk. He was in the Wal Mart that was shut down due to one employee death from Covid and dozens of positively tested employees and customers. He goes out to "see what they have". What Wal Mart has? Yah. Calls from Trader Joes "do you need anything?". Uh, no....why are you there? "To see what they have". He calls me to ask some things about Subarus. He was at the dealer looking at the new Foresters. What? "Your car is a year old. What the hell are you doing at a car dealer?". Yes, I expect he will get Covid unless somehow he's immune to it. I can't change him.
So if this continues for another couple years, that's fine with me. The 10% company pay cut is a "who cares?" since the wife's salary wipes that off the face of the earth for us.
Sorry about that.
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for people stuck in unsatisfactory conditions or unable to give small children the exercise and company they need or get a break for themselves. And there are many people even worse off than that, even without taking into account those who have been ill or died from this virus.
But I am finding it dispiriting that there are people whose main complaint is that they don't want to have to wait in order to bust their carbon budget and destroy the planet by starting to fly around the world again.
Technically, the people having multiple kids are busting their carbon budget and destroying the planet waaaaay more than the people who fly a couple times a year and don't have kids.
Technically, the USA and Canada have between them two of the highest CO2 outputs per person in the world so you've already bust your carbon budget without getting on a plane or having kids.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
so how long should he/she avoid seeing their family? until there is a vaccine, a year or more?
I am doing the same thing with my child, I live in a state with 11 million people and about 19k cases. I'm not sure it's as reckless as you say. This is my opinion, of course.
Dunno. We found out last week that my dad needs to start cancer treatment (diagnosed in January) and my mom's sister is dying. I can't hug either parent because they're both elderly and I was probably exposed at the overcrowded grocery store yesterday. It really, really sucks, but it sucks a lot less than inadvertently infecting either of them. If dad gets sick during cancer treatment, he probably won't survive it (whereas his life expectancy would otherwise be at least another decade, given that he eats carefully, doesn't smoke, barely drinks, monitors his health closely, and has always been physically active).
My MIL nearly died last year. My niece and nephew visit their grandparents via FaceTime.
if someone is high risk, I agree they probably shouldn't have visitors. I'm not saying that. sorry to hear about your situation, my uncle just died last week from cancer.
Thanks. Dad is as stubborn as they come, so we're optimistic.
I'd like to note that elderly people are considered high-risk, full stop. That's not in question on these boards or anywhere else in the world.
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
I think that was said in the context of people criticising others for wanting to fly internationally. Like it or not, children are a lifestyle choice, too.
-
Wenchsenior - if you have your own yard, you could consider a swim spa. You know, those lap-type pools that sit above ground, and some have a hot tub too. I know someone who has one, and it cost 5K Cdn plus another grand for the cement base and it costs about 100.00/month to heat it, but it's all yours! Anytime you want! Virus free! Could be a doable option for you.
Yes, we are considering it. One of the only 'consumption' reasons I wish I were really wealthy is so I could design a U-shaped house with a courtyard in the middle and a 2 lane lap pool running down the middle (I even have a greenhouse 'walkway' that crosses the pool designed in my imagination LOL.
-
We've been good little soldiers by wearing masks while shopping and avoiding people. However, last night we had two friends come over for food and a fire pit in our backyard. No physical contact was made, although we were within 6 feet of each other. They have no children (we have 1) and also have been in lockdown the past two months. DW and I didn't find it very risky and we definitely have canceled two plans to travel to see family this month and next month.
We hope to have more small gatherings (fewer than 4 guests) these next few months at our house. It's likely safer than going to the grocery store.
This weekend we're traveling to my cousin's house in the country for a fire pit and takeout pizza. He's single with lots of space and will let us sleep in an RV that hasn't been used in 7 months.
-
I'm deployed so some things have changed but really not a huge amount. Around here they just shut down the gym and anywhere else people congregate. I still do the same work every day, I just have to contend with another challenge. Most people are practicing social distancing, though it's hard to enforce when 80% of people have 1-3 roommates and use shared bathrooms. I'm going to yell at a guy for slapping hands with his buddy and then they're going to go back to the room they share with two other guys? Or they're going to go shave, use the bathroom, or take a shower in a converted shipping container that's 8 feet wide and keep a mask on the whole time? It's going to be pretty hard to shave with a mask on, or maintain 6-foot distance in the 3-foot wide walkway between the sinks and the showers.
Meanwhile my wife is home with 6 kids from 1.5 to 11. She has been quarantining for nearly two months now with all the kids while homeschooling the oldest 4 when the schools shut down. Her parents have been quarantining as well so they finally started getting together in the last week or two which has been a big help. Either they can have some kids over to their house nearby or just coming over for a meal. It's still somewhat surreal as I'm experiencing most of it via phone calls with her. She plans to stay in quarantine until the kids go back to school in a few months, her parents as well. As usual, no matter how hard things are for me, she has the harder job.
-
We've been good little soldiers by wearing masks while shopping and avoiding people. However, last night we had two friends come over for food and a fire pit in our backyard. No physical contact was made, although we were within 6 feet of each other. They have no children (we have 1) and also have been in lockdown the past two months. DW and I didn't find it very risky and we definitely have canceled two plans to travel to see family this month and next month.
We hope to have more small gatherings (fewer than 4 guests) these next few months at our house. It's likely safer than going to the grocery store.
I think that's how people will stay sane this summer. We'll probably have some patio visits with my parents or one or two friends at a time. I visited my parents briefly last week on a warm, sunny day, and dad spaced the patio chairs at a 6-foot distance. It was nice and semi-normal.
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
I think that was said in the context of people criticising others for wanting to fly internationally. Like it or not, children are a lifestyle choice, too.
Exactly, the person I was responding to literally praised the people with multiple kids and in the next sentence criticized travellers for being bad for the environment. Fucking lol. I'm all for shitting on people who destroy the planet, but lets have some consistency at least within the same paragraph.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
ETA: Everyone measures risk v. reward differently. There are extremes on both ends of the spectrum, and both are just as wrong. If you think everyone should cut off all contact with family, your risk v. reward measurement is just as broken as someone who wants everything open like things were in the US in January.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm choosing to not visit family and friends -- I can do that later once things settle down. ~1.5% of the residents of my state have tested positive (and anybody with half a brain knows we are not testing nearly enough to have accurate numbers).
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
I think that was said in the context of people criticising others for wanting to fly internationally. Like it or not, children are a lifestyle choice, too.
Exactly, the person I was responding to literally praised the people with multiple kids and in the next sentence criticized travellers for being bad for the environment. Fucking lol. I'm all for shitting on people who destroy the planet, but lets have some consistency at least within the same paragraph.
Sympathy is not the same as praise. I don't have kids, partly for environmental reasons, and am very clear that there are too many people on the planet and fewer kids all round would be the best idea, but once the kids are here there's not much choice but to treat them decently and that's hard on the parents in these circumstances (although it has become very obvious that some people, not necessarily those commenting in this thread, have been treating schools as convenient babysitters and would have trouble coping with having their kids full time whatever the circumstances, which doesn't say much for their child-rearing skills).
-
..... One of the only 'consumption' reasons I wish I were really wealthy is so I could design a U-shaped house with a courtyard in the middle and a 2 lane lap pool running down the middle (I even have a greenhouse 'walkway' that crosses the pool designed in my imagination LOL.
Hey, that's the layout of my dream house. With wide walkways along each wing.
-
Count me as someone who is pretty much done with "quarantine." Am I social distancing? Yes. But I'm pretty much done with "stay at home."
The entire purpose was to flatten the curve so hospitals would not get overwhelmed. I am in Ohio and we are nowhere near that threshold. In fact, my sister-in-law is a PA in Ashtabula County, and every urgent care clinic in the county has closed due to lack of demand. I also live in a county that had a field hospital ready to go that saw zero patients.
Note that I did my part. I did not go anywhere for three weeks except my private office (zero employees, just me, and I have my own private entrance) and home.
But now, I'm basically done. We have to learn to live with this virus. For me that means:
(1) Inviting people over for "social distance" pizza parties in our back yard;
(2) Hanging out on the front porch (I bought four new rocking chairs, each about 8 feet apart);
(3) Letting my parents see my son (from a distance);
(4) Hanging out with friends, properly distanced and preferably outside;
(5) Running errands when I feel like it (and wearing a mask if it's a crowded store).
I do plan on going out to eat when that's opened back up. The statistics are so benign for people like me (32 years old) that I'm just not worried about it. But, I still will take extra precautions around the elderly.
I've basically just learned to deal with this. The virus is here to say. Those who think we will have an accelerated vaccine are loons not only for thinking it's possible, but to think the population will rush to have such a vaccination in such rushed circumstances (only 70% get flu vaccine, and I imagine this would be way lower due to uncertainty).
-
The most frustrating thing for me is not being sure when I'll be able to visit friends and family that live in other states. My boyfriend lives a 20-hour drive away, and right now my state has a requirement for anyone coming from out of state to quarantine for 2 weeks. So even if he drives 20 hours and sleeps in his car to come see me, I can't go to work for 2 weeks without breaking the spirit of the quarantine. We think we might be able to manage it in early July, but by that point it'll be 4 months apart.
Similarly, my parents live in another state. I could drive there in a day, but will it be safe to go visit them for Thanksgiving and Christmas? This might be the longest I ever go without spending time with them in person :(
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm choosing to not visit family and friends -- I can do that later once things settle down. ~1.5% of the residents of my state have tested positive (and anybody with half a brain knows we are not testing nearly enough to have accurate numbers).
1.5% of the residents of the state testing positive doesn't mean a 1% risk of dying. Even if the testing is vastly underdone and actually 10% of the residents are actually positive, of whom 1% die, that would imply a 0.1% chance of dying overall.
-
Count me as someone who is pretty much done with "quarantine." Am I social distancing? Yes. But I'm pretty much done with "stay at home."
The entire purpose was to flatten the curve so hospitals would not get overwhelmed. I am in Ohio and we are nowhere near that threshold. In fact, my sister-in-law is a PA in Ashtabula County, and every urgent care clinic in the county has closed due to lack of demand. I also live in a county that had a field hospital ready to go that saw zero patients.
Note that I did my part. I did not go anywhere for three weeks except my private office (zero employees, just me, and I have my own private entrance) and home.
But now, I'm basically done. We have to learn to live with this virus. For me that means:
(1) Inviting people over for "social distance" pizza parties in our back yard;
(2) Hanging out on the front porch (I bought four new rocking chairs, each about 8 feet apart);
(3) Letting my parents see my son (from a distance);
(4) Hanging out with friends, properly distanced and preferably outside;
(5) Running errands when I feel like it (and wearing a mask if it's a crowded store).
I do plan on going out to eat when that's opened back up. The statistics are so benign for people like me (32 years old) that I'm just not worried about it. But, I still will take extra precautions around the elderly.
I've basically just learned to deal with this. The virus is here to say. Those who think we will have an accelerated vaccine are loons not only for thinking it's possible, but to think the population will rush to have such a vaccination in such rushed circumstances (only 70% get flu vaccine, and I imagine this would be way lower due to uncertainty).
I should add that I've chosen the listed activities for mainly three reasons:
(1) Good mental health leads to good physical health. It's not sustainable for me to be so isolated. I'm a very social person. I started having significant sleep and digestive issues towards the end of quarantine that have completely resolved since turning my social life "back on." Might be coincidence but I don't think so.
(2) Vitamin D is excellent for your immune system and for your health in general. I think staying indoors is detrimental to health. It's why I go on hour walks almost every day, regardless of weather (and have done so for years).
(3) Fresh air is also good for you. The evidence so far points that transmission is very low in these types of environments but very high in enclosed environments.
I think it's very possible to have a social life but do so with responsible social distancing. Be creative. It's been great for me and my family.
-
..... One of the only 'consumption' reasons I wish I were really wealthy is so I could design a U-shaped house with a courtyard in the middle and a 2 lane lap pool running down the middle (I even have a greenhouse 'walkway' that crosses the pool designed in my imagination LOL.
Hey, that's the layout of my dream house. With wide walkways along each wing.
Now someone just needs to drop a cool couple million $ on us....
-
I fully agree 'the shit's getting real'.
Another month or two and our kids will have done so much damage to the house that we'll not only lose our deposit when we move eventually but likely be charged extra just for damage repairs.
We have three boys - 5, 2.5, and 6mos, and my Mother (who had the same number and rough age spread) has told us repeatedly that she doesn't think she would have been able to hold it together had similar circumstances arose when we were young.
My wife and I are not, inherently, entitled to a break from our kids (and we do love them), but holy fuck being stuck inside with them for coming on two months is really testing our limits as parents. I'm 100% serious when I say that had someone told us a global pandemic was going to occur and that we would be without support indefinitely, we would have had fewer kids.
We just want a break. A babysitter. Our parents. Our siblings. Rec center childcare. Any-fucking-thing to allow my wife and I to have more than 30 minutes out of the day together that our kids don't need our attention.
We're turning into bitter people, watching most of the people we know with 0-1 kids (or kids older than, say, 8), go through this quarantine being able to 'relax' or keep the damn house clean for longer than 5 minutes.
I'm incredibly fortunate to have kept my job without salary cuts. I've effectively run out of meaningful work to do (see: my username - can't take a Chem lab home with you!) so I can shoulder a lot of the burden that my wife usually carries. But, there is going to come a point where we say 'fuck it'.
You are not alone! We feel the same way. My kids (kindergarten and second graders) were absolutely champs for the first month+. And now they are so sick of each other that they wake up fighting. My husband and I somehow see each other less even though we are in the same house together 24 hours a day.
Working from home parents with young kids are in a particularly weird situation right now: trying to be grateful that they still have jobs while being absolutely gutted energy-wise from burning the candle at both ends.
We'll all make it through, and we're lucky, but that doesn't mean it isn't absolutely, awfully, hard.
-
I am retiring this month. I sold my house and downsized to an apartment so I could easily spend most of my time traveling, including to visit my only child who is living in China, my only sibling and her husband, who live in France, and my mother who lives hundreds of miles away (alone in the house I grew up in) and turns 97 this month. Of course I am disappointed that my plans have been disrupted, but like so many others here I am incredibly grateful that I am fine financially, and well.
I am finishing up a lot of work now, but have mixed feelings about all my impending free time. Most days I appreciate that I don’t have to go go into a workplace, but I would like to be able to pick up some things from my office. I am continually struck by the somewhat contradictory rules currently surrounding me. The (crazy) state I live in is opening all stores, despite inadequate testing and no decline in infections. But my university is on total lockdown that began March 16. No faculty are even allowed on the campus, much less in a building. They recently said we will probably be allowed back in July. I live 1/4 mile outside a city that requires face masks at all times, in a township that has no such rules.
Most of all I am dismayed at how the US has handled the pandemic. I want us to pay our share to international organizations. I fear that our leader’s arrogance is going to result in our missing out on key research and possibly even on key treatments and vaccines, not to mention making Americans personae non grata around the world.
-
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
It's a dumb analogy.
Let's say for sake of argument the fatality rate is 1%. Is that even a meaningful statistic by itself?
No, it's not. In your skittle example, if someone is 35 vs 85, their jars are not even close to equal. The 85 year old jar might be 25% poison skittles and the 35 year old might have.... 0.01% poison. Or even less. And statistically, from observed deaths, percentages by age group are not remotely close but rather multiple orders of magnitude off.
But even still, those percentages only apply if you contract covid.
You also have to multiply your skittles-death-factor by how likely your risk factor actually is for contracting covid. My state has tested close to 2% of the population by test/population. Of those tests, around 10% of those tested have covid.
Let's just generously say that if you choose to go out and about you have a 50% chance of contracting the disease to avoid guessing what someone taking otherwise reasonable precautions might have for getting covid (which in my state would be very, very low right now). You now have to drop the skittle % for death rate in half to account for this risk.
What is your risk factor for those skittle jars now? Well, for someone not in a high risk group, it's practically zero. Which is why that analogy is stupid - it's terrible because people who are not high risk who think about it for anytime at all realize "oh right, I'm not personally going to be impacted at a statistically meaningful rate if I even get covid let alone am perhaps at a low risk for getting it at all" and so it encourages less social distancing amongst the population that it matters nearly the most - asymptomatic carriers.
The goal of social distancing or closing daycares/schools isn't to protect children or even their parents in most cases. It's to prevent covid from spreading to demographics like nursing/assisted living homes. 80%+ of the deaths in my state are people 70 or older with a median age of 83.
Statistically that skittle jar is unlikely to cause anyone young, particularly younger than 50, from having their skittle kill them. It's practically 0%. But that's not the point at all and among other reasons why the analogy is dumb. The point is to prevent them from spreading it to the point that it becomes impossible to keep from hitting everyone that is older and/or overloading the hospital system.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm choosing to not visit family and friends -- I can do that later once things settle down. ~1.5% of the residents of my state have tested positive (and anybody with half a brain knows we are not testing nearly enough to have accurate numbers).
1.5% of the residents of the state testing positive doesn't mean a 1% risk of dying. Even if the testing is vastly underdone and actually 10% of the residents are actually positive, of whom 1% die, that would imply a 0.1% chance of dying overall.
NYC's death rate of reported cases is 10% (likely due to vastly inadequate testing depressing the positive-case numbers), but ok. You do you.
-
I don't even think it's a stupid metaphor for the same reasons you guys are mentioning (death rate). Let's assume that 1% of skittles only makes you very ill (look at Paula Pant's case of covid as an example) instead of killing you. It's still a terrible metaphor because your reward for the other 99% of skittles is still just a skittle.
So your metaphor is terrible in the fact that my chances of both contracting and spreading covid to my in-laws is way less than 1%, and the reward for offloading my kid every couple weeks far outweighs the minuscule risk.
-
I also have 3 young children at home (just 2, 4 and 7). We are both still working from home, and the only way that was going to work was if we split the day and both dropped to part time, I quit/leave of absence... or we hire a nanny. My friend was a lunch lady at a school (she still has some duties for distance learning) - and lives alone, and did not want to spend isolation alone... so we joined households. There's 3 adults balancing 3 jobs around a 1st grader's remote learning schedule. But I am soooo grateful for the extra help. DH and I can take a walk after the kids are in bed together :) we haven't done that since before the first was born.
Our standards are almost as low as when my 3rd was a newborn. We keep the house clean enough to be safe (ie kitchen cooking surfaces)... but there are toys everywhere.
Our local regulations do allow a 'quarantine' family. Where two isolating families with no at risk people can team up as long as it's only with each other. Playdates with said family, babysitting time so parents get a break... and for single parents no need to take kids on errands.
-
Well, I have been working 4-5 days a week interacting and sitting with dozens if not hundreds of people. This includes meetings, job site inspections, etc.
If restaurants opened at 25% capacity, we would go. We’ve had friends over for dinner and other things. It hasn’t been a huge issue. We’ve had takeout a TON.
We are taking precautions, washing our hands a ton, etc.
I’m not going to quit my job, and I’m fine with the very minimal risk in my area of continuing with certain activities.
-
It's definitely tough, but we are surviving. We are in a state that locked down early and people have been taking it very seriously, and not surprisingly we have one of the lowest case rates per capita in the country. DH and I are both working remotely which is very hard with a 5 year-old with special needs and a 7 year-old, but we tag team and do the best we can. We're pretty lucky to have a lot of autonomy in our remote work; with COVID, my workload has dropped and I have few meetings, so I'm able to supervise the kids and still be available if a work issue comes up. We're only leaving the house for groceries, occasional dinner take-out, and drives with the kids to get them out a little bit. We can't take the kids to any parks because the 5 year-old will see a playground and want to play on it and not understand why he can't. I really miss the library. Like *really*. I don't like to buy books and I don't like e-books, so I'm focusing on other crafts and hobbies until the restrictions are lifted a bit.
In our area people have been very harsh on social media berating those who dare venture outside without a mask or who don't move aside quickly enough when they pass someone on the sidewalk. Nevermind that there's little evidence that COVID is spreading through minimal outdoors contact -- the hot spots are all nursing homes, prisons and meatpacking plants, Ms. Judgey Judy on Nextdoor.
Our 5 year-old is regressing somewhat without the structure and support of his school, and that's been hard. Parents of kids with special needs rely on the school/medical/disability systems SO MUCH to keep their kids coping well, and with all that gone in a flash it's really hard. We had his kindergarten IEP meeting via video chat a few days ago and admittedly, it kind of sucked, because I had never met these 10 people who were now making decisions about my kid's placement.
All that said, I still feel lucky. We're both employed, haven't had to take a pay cut, and all in all our kids are doing OK. What I look forward to the most when life gets back to "normal" is being able to take my kids to the park and the library. It's the simple things!
-
I also have 3 young children at home (just 2, 4 and 7). We are both still working from home, and the only way that was going to work was if we split the day and both dropped to part time, I quit/leave of absence... or we hire a nanny. My friend was a lunch lady at a school (she still has some duties for distance learning) - and lives alone, and did not want to spend isolation alone... so we joined households. There's 3 adults balancing 3 jobs around a 1st grader's remote learning schedule. But I am soooo grateful for the extra help. DH and I can take a walk after the kids are in bed together :) we haven't done that since before the first was born.
Our standards are almost as low as when my 3rd was a newborn. We keep the house clean enough to be safe (ie kitchen cooking surfaces)... but there are toys everywhere.
Our local regulations do allow a 'quarantine' family. Where two isolating families with no at risk people can team up as long as it's only with each other. Playdates with said family, babysitting time so parents get a break... and for single parents no need to take kids on errands.
My husband's cousin and his family are quarantining with another family. Only husband's cousin goes out to buy groceries and supplies for the whole group, and they only socialize with each other. I think it's a great idea.
-
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
It's a dumb analogy.
Let's say for sake of argument the fatality rate is 1%. Is that even a meaningful statistic by itself?
No, it's not. In your skittle example, if someone is 35 vs 85, their jars are not even close to equal. The 85 year old jar might be 25% poison skittles and the 35 year old might have.... 0.01% poison. Or even less. And statistically, from observed deaths, percentages by age group are not remotely close but rather multiple orders of magnitude off.
But even still, those percentages only apply if you contract covid.
You also have to multiply your skittles-death-factor by how likely your risk factor actually is for contracting covid. My state has tested close to 2% of the population by test/population. Of those tests, around 10% of those tested have covid.
Let's just generously say that if you choose to go out and about you have a 50% chance of contracting the disease to avoid guessing what someone taking otherwise reasonable precautions might have for getting covid (which in my state would be very, very low right now). You now have to drop the skittle % for death rate in half to account for this risk.
What is your risk factor for those skittle jars now? Well, for someone not in a high risk group, it's practically zero. Which is why that analogy is stupid - it's terrible because people who are not high risk who think about it for anytime at all realize "oh right, I'm not personally going to be impacted at a statistically meaningful rate if I even get covid let alone am perhaps at a low risk for getting it at all" and so it encourages less social distancing amongst the population that it matters nearly the most - asymptomatic carriers.
The goal of social distancing or closing daycares/schools isn't to protect children or even their parents in most cases. It's to prevent covid from spreading to demographics like nursing/assisted living homes. 80%+ of the deaths in my state are people 70 or older with a median age of 83.
Statistically that skittle jar is unlikely to cause anyone young, particularly younger than 50, from having their skittle kill them. It's practically 0%. But that's not the point at all and among other reasons why the analogy is dumb. The point is to prevent them from spreading it to the point that it becomes impossible to keep from hitting everyone that is older and/or overloading the hospital system.
This person does inferential statistics :)
-
The most frustrating thing for me is not being sure when I'll be able to visit friends and family that live in other states. My boyfriend lives a 20-hour drive away, and right now my state has a requirement for anyone coming from out of state to quarantine for 2 weeks. So even if he drives 20 hours and sleeps in his car to come see me, I can't go to work for 2 weeks without breaking the spirit of the quarantine. We think we might be able to manage it in early July, but by that point it'll be 4 months apart.
Similarly, my parents live in another state. I could drive there in a day, but will it be safe to go visit them for Thanksgiving and Christmas? This might be the longest I ever go without spending time with them in person :(
My husbands family lives 2.5 hours away in a neighboring state. We've had one trip to visit them thus far and are planning another one. We can make the trip without stops, so we gather enough groceries and everything to complete our 14 day quarantine in our own home before we visit. When we come back our only trip out is for me to grab enough food for us to go several weeks again, because we shouldn't be going out and about spreading the germs we brought back with us. Its been working fine for us while husband is WFH and I'm on furlough. When (if?) I'm recalled we will have to suspend visits again.
-
Before this pandemic started, I tried to always have a trip or special occasion to look forward to. Now all my plans have been wiped off the board, and there's no way to know when I'll be able to go anywhere or do anything again. Even if the stay-at-home order is lifted in a few weeks, there could be a second wave of cases and a second lockdown in the fall, and everything that was resuming will slam to a halt again. It's frustrating.
I can live without commuting into the office or going to restaurants or flying to overseas destinations, but I'm feeling increasingly comfortable with having small family gatherings in the near future. The risk isn't zero, but it's a risk I'm willing to accept.
After all, even in the best case, there won't be a vaccine for a year or more. There may not be a vaccine for five years. There may not ever be one. We can't shut down the economy and outlaw all social interactions forever.
The point of social distancing isn't to completely stop the spread of the virus, because that's impossible, but to flatten the curve and keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. I'm willing to cooperate to that extent, but I'm not willing to sit in my house indefinitely and accept that my son may never see his grandparents in person again. That's not escaping risk, that's just taking a different kind of risk.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm choosing to not visit family and friends -- I can do that later once things settle down. ~1.5% of the residents of my state have tested positive (and anybody with half a brain knows we are not testing nearly enough to have accurate numbers).
1.5% of the residents of the state testing positive doesn't mean a 1% risk of dying. Even if the testing is vastly underdone and actually 10% of the residents are actually positive, of whom 1% die, that would imply a 0.1% chance of dying overall.
NYC's death rate of reported cases is 10% (likely due to vastly inadequate testing depressing the positive-case numbers), but ok. You do you.
That's because NYC doesn't have good testing protocols. I acknowledged that when I boosted the figure you gave (1.5%) by 7-fold to 10%, to account for better testing. If I wanted to compare apples with apples, I could have simply taken 10% (the NYC death rate) of the figure you gave (1.5% positive tests) to get a final figure of 0.15%. Either way, a huge deviation from your figure of 1%. There is nowhere that is having 1% of its population die.
-
We are basically quarantine partners with two neighbor families in our immediate area. We kept the kids apart for several weeks, but they've started to play together again, only outside and generally a couple feet apart. The adults chat outside and keep 6 feet distance but occasionally come into contact with the kids.
There's still a risk obviously, but it's the best we can do at this point. Grandparents are over 70, which is the #1 risk factor, but they have no other conditions, so we engage in-person, outdoor meetings in masks with them. Of course they would like normal activities, babysitting/drop offs, etc. But they would ignore the risks to see them more. So I see it as our job not to infect them.
I frankly don't care that the risk is small, if they get infected, it could easily be the last we, including their grandchildren, see them in person. It's not even a hard decision even though we would desperately love a break from the kids.
-
I just bought a trampoline for the kids. Might have been the greatest accomplishment of my life.
Also picked up a hillbilly pool for the heat. Gonna be a DIY summer I guess.
What trampoline and from where? We are also considering this, for sanity purposes.
-
We have been discussing this a lot over the last two weeks. It's become clear that the general population of the US will not tolerate an extended, comprehensive lockdown, and that is the only thing that would yield a solution other than the disease burning through the majority of the population until herd immunity is reached. All the input I've seen from experts in the field of virology and epidemiology say they'll be surprised if we have a vaccine in 12-18 months because it's never been done before. There's a first for everything but the hardest part of a vaccine is the trials. Just because we have several candidates right now doesn't mean any of them will be acceptable, though it wouldn't surprise me with this administration to see them pushing the first vaccine candidate that showed promise, even if it had abnormally high risks of side effects. Then you'll have to make the choice to get it or wait for a safer one.
How long will it take for all that to play out? It seems like everyone that actually knows what they're talking about is suggesting it will likely take years. Years. People aren't going to stay away from their parents or children for years. Just not going to happen.
We've been discussing a trip to see my mother and grandfather, and my wife's parents for Mother's Day. An argument could be made that this will be the safest time until a vaccine is available for us to see them. We have been quarantined for over a month. My mom works outside in a job that involves almost no human contact. My grandfather has been isolating as well. Her parents have had more contact so our socializing with them will have to involve more space. As people become less strict in their quarantine efforts due to fatigue, and more people go back to work, creating a web of interaction with others, risk will surely go up for asymptomatic transmission, compared to right now.
To further mitigate risk we've been discussing gathering outside. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that it's even transmissible outdoors if you're not standing on top of one another or touching each other. This makes a certain kind of sense. Air currents dilute the volume of virus expelled from an infected person and if you don't touch them, or surfaces their touching, or breath their air it's not possible for you to get it. So there are some ways that people can safely visit others if they're willing to use their heads and stick to a set of rules, like no touching or getting too close. It'll be a little awkward at first but not as awkward as not seeing your own mother for two years (for those used to frequent contact).
Unfortunately, the general population just can't handle a sensible set of rules like that. Hell, there are people so indignified at the thought of wearing a mask that they think it tramples their freedom. But on an individual level, if people can be smart about how they interact with others this doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation.
-
We canceled our trip to Hawaii and I'm wondering if we are even going to be able to reschedule in the timeline allowed by United? Will next summer even be possible?
-
I just bought a trampoline for the kids. Might have been the greatest accomplishment of my life.
Also picked up a hillbilly pool for the heat. Gonna be a DIY summer I guess.
What trampoline and from where? We are also considering this, for sanity purposes.
Funny you should ask, I made it my mission.
Amazon/walmart/target etc would deliver me one in JULY so that was not gonna fly. I just threw something up on my local FB group and my neighbor had one that he girls had outgrown. I was able to take it apart and set it up again in 2 hours and this is with the help of the world smallest and least helpful construction workers!
Kids out grow them long before they are worn out. So we got lucky.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
It may be reckless but I think there are a fair number of people choosing to go that route.
The way a good friend explained it to me (over the phone:) they continue to take care of the grandkids, an almost one-year-old and a three-year-old so Mom can work from home and dad can still take roofing jobs.
They chose to do this for financial reasons, they would lose everything if they didn't - one income would not be near enough they are in way over their head financially.
Even if it were not - how could she possibly work from home and still take care of a baby and a toddler?
My friend tells me they go nowhere else except to each other's houses but of course, there is shopping and there is dad who works outside the home.
This isn't a perfect world and this isn't a perfect solution, these are simply people trying to deal with their circumstances, accepting more risk to their health for the good of their family - as they see it.
Both grandparents are in their early sixties, one with a heart condition and the other with a multitude of conditions living on pain meds, how she manages to take care of the house, garden and kids I have no idea - she's made of stern stuff.
Many of us have to deal with difficult situations - like my son, who quarantines with his wife and MIL both of them have MS, and his FIL who is in his late seventies and mildly demented.
He has become the sole shopper and everyone else only leaves the house when it is necessary to visit the doctor.
I don't know how he stays sane.
He is super careful and vigilant about everything, mask, gloves, cleaning, showers - the works.
He is terrified of killing his wife (just hit 40, MS, diabetic, overweight - death sentence) by bringing home the virus.
-
We have been discussing this a lot over the last two weeks. It's become clear that the general population of the US will not tolerate an extended, comprehensive lockdown, and that is the only thing that would yield a solution other than the disease burning through the majority of the population until herd immunity is reached. All the input I've seen from experts in the field of virology and epidemiology say they'll be surprised if we have a vaccine in 12-18 months because it's never been done before. There's a first for everything but the hardest part of a vaccine is the trials. Just because we have several candidates right now doesn't mean any of them will be acceptable, though it wouldn't surprise me with this administration to see them pushing the first vaccine candidate that showed promise, even if it had abnormally high risks of side effects. Then you'll have to make the choice to get it or wait for a safer one.
How long will it take for all that to play out? It seems like everyone that actually knows what they're talking about is suggesting it will likely take years. Years. People aren't going to stay away from their parents or children for years. Just not going to happen.
We've been discussing a trip to see my mother and grandfather, and my wife's parents for Mother's Day. An argument could be made that this will be the safest time until a vaccine is available for us to see them. We have been quarantined for over a month. My mom works outside in a job that involves almost no human contact. My grandfather has been isolating as well. Her parents have had more contact so our socializing with them will have to involve more space. As people become less strict in their quarantine efforts due to fatigue, and more people go back to work, creating a web of interaction with others, risk will surely go up for asymptomatic transmission, compared to right now.
To further mitigate risk we've been discussing gathering outside. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that it's even transmissible outdoors if you're not standing on top of one another or touching each other. This makes a certain kind of sense. Air currents dilute the volume of virus expelled from an infected person and if you don't touch them, or surfaces their touching, or breath their air it's not possible for you to get it. So there are some ways that people can safely visit others if they're willing to use their heads and stick to a set of rules, like no touching or getting too close. It'll be a little awkward at first but not as awkward as not seeing your own mother for two years (for those used to frequent contact).
Unfortunately, the general population just can't handle a sensible set of rules like that. Hell, there are people so indignified at the thought of wearing a mask that they think it tramples their freedom. But on an individual level, if people can be smart about how they interact with others this doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation.
Great post, and I've bolded what I agree with most (as I've alluded to above). Almost all the studies show being outside and properly distanced is good for your health and unlikely to transmit the virus. I've basically resumed somewhat of a normal social life, just outside.
-
We're in Italy, so things have been "real" for us for a long time. Our lock down happened on March 9 and was a lot more extreme that the lock downs in many other places. We also live in an apartment with 2 kids with no balcony or other outside space. The only outside space we have in our roof. We were only allowed to leave the apartment for almost 2 months to go food shopping, go to the pharmacy or go to work if we were essential workers (we're not). Our kids were not allowed to leave the apartment. We were only allowed to jog or walk dogs within 200 meters of our apartment -approximately 1 city block. All parks were closed.
Anyway on Monday, they eased up the restrictions here a bit. Parks (but not playgrounds) have reopened and we are allowed to exercise in them while social distancing and wearing masks. We're now allowed to meet friends but we are allowed to meet family members while social distancing. I took the kids to the park yesterday and it was amazing. There were a lot of police around checking everyone and everyone was behaving.
The shit's also real for us as my husband owns a tourism business. He is now a stay at home dad and, thank goodness, I'm able to work from home. Kind of put things into perspective.
-
I'm really struggling.....my mother is in a LTC facility. They went in to lockdown March 14th.....I haven't seen her since and it is weighing heavily on her. Phone calls aren't the same. They started doing facetime visits 3 times a week, so that has cheered her up a little. Because the folks in LTC are the most vulnerable, it is hard to predict when they will let me back in to see her. It breaks my heart to hear her so sad and lonely.
I can deal with the grocery store line-ups and the spotty stock once inside, but it's the human side of things that I'm struggling with. My brother's first grandchild learned to walk without us being able to see it. Videos and facetime just aren't the same (but still grateful for the technology)
-
My spouse and I are both essential workers who deal with the public, so it’s been real for a while, I guess.
The hardest part of all this for me in my personal life is that my dad has an end stage condition and I can’t risk visiting him. A few times I’ve gone to his house and sat in a chair in his yard about 10 feet off his porch and visited for a while, but it isn’t the same. Just sucks knowing that to avoid the risk of making his limited (~2 years) time left even more limited, I need to limit my contact with him.
-
I'm really struggling.....my mother is in a LTC facility. They went in to lockdown March 14th.....I haven't seen her since and it is weighing heavily on her. Phone calls aren't the same. They started doing facetime visits 3 times a week, so that has cheered her up a little. Because the folks in LTC are the most vulnerable, it is hard to predict when they will let me back in to see her. It breaks my heart to hear her so sad and lonely.
One of my extended family said something like "it sounds like grandma is in jail" which feels kind of true.
She is in an assisted living facility and everyone is stuck in their rooms all day with meals being taken directly to their room.
I do not really know a better way to keep folks safe other than expecting unreasonable things from the staff but it makes me feel for people in that situation. She socialized a ton, too, especially at meals. It's really all folks at that age (90+) have going for them.
-
My spouse and I are both essential workers who deal with the public, so it’s been real for a while, I guess.
The hardest part of all this for me in my personal life is that my dad has an end stage condition and I can’t risk visiting him. A few times I’ve gone to his house and sat in a chair in his yard about 10 feet off his porch and visited for a while, but it isn’t the same. Just sucks knowing that to avoid the risk of making his limited (~2 years) time left even more limited, I need to limit my contact with him.
I'm so sorry. I watched one set of cousins go through this with their dad last month (we lost my uncle 3 weeks ago), and another set of cousins are currently going through this with their mom (just went on hospice). It's one of the most heartbreaking things about of all of this. We can't say our goodbyes or grieve as we normally would.
I'm glad that you are able to have some contact with your dad. I hope that rapid testing will soon give you more peace of mind and more freedom to spend time with him.
-
I’ve been tested plenty, but due to my continued exposure at work (I am a nurse in a hospital setting) I will likely not feel safe enough for a long time.
Doesn’t help that my state had a “phased” opening that is kind of a joke.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm choosing to not visit family and friends -- I can do that later once things settle down. ~1.5% of the residents of my state have tested positive (and anybody with half a brain knows we are not testing nearly enough to have accurate numbers).
1.5% of the residents of the state testing positive doesn't mean a 1% risk of dying. Even if the testing is vastly underdone and actually 10% of the residents are actually positive, of whom 1% die, that would imply a 0.1% chance of dying overall.
NYC's death rate of reported cases is 10% (likely due to vastly inadequate testing depressing the positive-case numbers), but ok. You do you.
That's because NYC doesn't have good testing protocols. I acknowledged that when I boosted the figure you gave (1.5%) by 7-fold to 10%, to account for better testing. If I wanted to compare apples with apples, I could have simply taken 10% (the NYC death rate) of the figure you gave (1.5% positive tests) to get a final figure of 0.15%. Either way, a huge deviation from your figure of 1%. There is nowhere that is having 1% of its population die.
Great job, sherlock. If you're going to be so insistent that numbers match perfectly in a rough analogy, I'd love to hear how you came up with my "figure of 1%."
Clearly you're going to do whatever you want no matter what's going on - I just hope you don't kill someone. One of my coworkers is out today because his grandmother just died from this.
-
I've also had a few coworkers who lost older relatives to the virus recently. Maybe that's why I'm uninterested in risking my parents' lives, even if the risk is relatively small.
-
I've also had a few coworkers who lost older relatives to the virus recently. Maybe that's why I'm uninterested in risking my parents' lives, even if the risk is relatively small.
Yuuup. It's not worth the risk for me. Different people have different risk equations, and risk also varies wildly based on locale -- but with 0.23% (19,198) of the people living in NYC (8.399 mil) having died from it so far (and 3.9% of the population with confirmed cases), and with NYC being visible from my backyard...it's just not worth it. 600k+ people normally go through Penn Station every day (including many of my coworkers, but fortunately we've been mostly work from home for ~2 months now). If we estimate that we've tested half (and based on the below link, that's massively optimistic) and the other half are asymptomatic carriers, that would be over 23,000 carriers going through Penn Station on any given day. With quarantine that's massively reduced, thankfully.
Two weeks ago, they were estimating 21% of NYC residents had coronavirus at one point: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/842818125/coronavirus-has-infected-a-fifth-of-new-york-city-testing-suggests
-
...... I watched one set of cousins go through this with their dad last month (we lost my uncle 3 weeks ago), and another set of cousins are currently going through this with their mom (just went on hospice). It's one of the most heartbreaking things about of all of this. We can't say our goodbyes or grieve as we normally would.
For people in your aunt's situation (known limited time left), I wonder what they would choose between
a. Being physically close to their loved ones with a high risk of infection and thus even less time or
b. Probably more time with no/extremely limited physical contact with loved ones.
Especially considering that many people in hospice are in a great deal of pain. (Hence the desire for legalized assisted suicide.)
Sitting here today, I think I would choose the closeness of loved ones but who knows what I'd choose in the actual situation.
This is such a tough situation for so many people. The individual. Their loved ones. Their care providers. The public health authorities. My sympathies to all.
-
I know I'm a bit of an outlier here, but this new reality hasn't been all that bad for me. In many ways, this has been a preview of FIRE for me. I am incredibly grateful for our savings, my wife's continued employment (although it is at risk), and some lucky financial moves that only impacted our NW by ~5% in the market downturn.
Sure, there's things I miss doing and places I wish I could go. I'll be disappointed if we can't do the group camping trip we planned for my 40th. But on balance, this has actually given me the opportunity to spend time on more of the things that are truly important, and less time on the things that aren't important. Although I'm annoyed that TV has crept back into my life.
I am both grateful and lucky (in timing) that I chose the end of 2019 to become a stay at home dad. I had planned to spend more time with my kids (3 and 6). I just get to spend a lot more time with the 6 year old than I originally bargained for. Home schooling for Kindergarten is tough, but rewarding. We keep our standards low and don't take it too seriously. Even so, my daughters are clearly thriving and learning plenty.
I'm also getting a chance to do house and yardwork that's been put off way too long. I'm also cooking more and better food, and trying to make my own wine again.
-
For people in your aunt's situation (known limited time left), I wonder what they would choose between
a. Being physically close to their loved ones with a high risk of infection and thus even less time or
b. Probably more time with no/extremely limited physical contact with loved ones.
Especially considering that many people in hospice are in a great deal of pain. (Hence the desire for legalized assisted suicide.)
Sitting here today, I think I would choose the closeness of loved ones but who knows what I'd choose in the actual situation.
This is such a tough situation for so many people. The individual. Their loved ones. Their care providers. The public health authorities. My sympathies to all.
Yeah, I think this is a moral calculation that more people need to be making. It's a good impulse to do everything possible to protect our elders... but let's say you refuse to visit your grandfather (or whoever) for his own safety, and then he dies from a heart attack three months later. In that case, the only thing your precautions accomplished was to make the last months of his life lonelier and more painful than they had to be.
Like I said before, there's no choice that's free of risk. You just have to choose which risks you're comfortable taking.
-
I've also had a few coworkers who lost older relatives to the virus recently. Maybe that's why I'm uninterested in risking my parents' lives, even if the risk is relatively small.
Same here. The chances are pretty slim-- I rarely leave the house these days, my dad is jjjjust within the high risk age range (60+) and in great health otherwise. But I live with several other adults who-- while practicing good social distancing-- are still going grocery shopping, getting takeout, running errands. I'm not too worried about my health but I know too many people who've gotten seriously sick and/or lost family members to it to be cavalier with his. We all have to weigh the risks, but for me, even if it was a one in a thousand, ten thousand chance-- fuck no.
That's not even touching on my grandparents in their 90's. Thank goodness they're not in the US, or I would be seriously worried about them.
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
Amen.
This thread is the epitome of why I loathe some of the negative mindsets on the MMM forum. what's next are you guys going to tell people what can and can't make them happy?
Oh wait, some of you already do that. lol
GTFO indeed.
-
Wtf are you talking about
-
Around me there's accumulating quarantine fatigue and lifting restrictions - no surprise, we're pretty rural and the community is perhaps deluded in its isolation/self-sufficiency...but it's getting closer, and I'm starting to hold my breath for an explosion.
My 'essential infrastructure' (utilities) husband came home last week with the news that his coworker's wife (an urgent care nurse) has a coworker that she sees everyday who tested positive. This is the closest that it's come to us yet.
I wasn't scared last month, but I am wrestling with it now. I give two, maybe three weeks before we catch it. DH tells me that he's got a lot of solitary field maintenance for the next couple of weeks, and hopefully that'll reduce exposure from his colleague. They have small children - no one expects the nurse to be able to keep the virus to herself in their household.
-
I've also had a few coworkers who lost older relatives to the virus recently. Maybe that's why I'm uninterested in risking my parents' lives, even if the risk is relatively small.
Yuuup. It's not worth the risk for me. Different people have different risk equations, and risk also varies wildly based on locale -- but with 0.23% (19,198) of the people living in NYC (8.399 mil) having died from it so far (and 3.9% of the population with confirmed cases), and with NYC being visible from my backyard...it's just not worth it. 600k+ people normally go through Penn Station every day (including many of my coworkers, but fortunately we've been mostly work from home for ~2 months now). If we estimate that we've tested half (and based on the below link, that's massively optimistic) and the other half are asymptomatic carriers, that would be over 23,000 carriers going through Penn Station on any given day. With quarantine that's massively reduced, thankfully.
Two weeks ago, they were estimating 21% of NYC residents had coronavirus at one point: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/842818125/coronavirus-has-infected-a-fifth-of-new-york-city-testing-suggests
Sounds like you're making an educated choice, glad that's what works best for you.
Luckily I live hundreds of miles away from that area and it's pretty tame to have a friend (who has also been staying at home) over to the back patio, sit on opposite couches, pick up a little Vitamin D, and generally shoot the breeze. No hugs, plenty of sanitization, gloves, protective eyeware, no public transit, social distancing, masks on, no immune-compromised people I'm seeing - it definitely seems like there are many more than 200 Skittles in the bowl I'm grabbing from.
Our mileage all varies.
-
it has become very obvious that some people, not necessarily those commenting in this thread, have been treating schools as convenient babysitters and would have trouble coping with having their kids full time whatever the circumstances, which doesn't say much for their child-rearing skills.
Not a great look to criticize the child rearing skills of parents in an unprecedented situation.
Assuming that schools would *exist* is not poor planning or poor parenting.
In the history of humankind, ”the nuclear family” as we know it is an anomaly made possible by the post WWII economic boom. Most people in the history of people raised their children with extended family, neighbors and friends to help so that they could have a break sometimes. It’s perfectly normal to be stressed out when losing all forms of family and community support.
-
I fully agree 'the shit's getting real'.
Another month or two and our kids will have done so much damage to the house that we'll not only lose our deposit when we move eventually but likely be charged extra just for damage repairs.
We have three boys - 5, 2.5, and 6mos, and my Mother (who had the same number and rough age spread) has told us repeatedly that she doesn't think she would have been able to hold it together had similar circumstances arose when we were young.
My wife and I are not, inherently, entitled to a break from our kids (and we do love them), but holy fuck being stuck inside with them for coming on two months is really testing our limits as parents. I'm 100% serious when I say that had someone told us a global pandemic was going to occur and that we would be without support indefinitely, we would have had fewer kids.
We just want a break. A babysitter. Our parents. Our siblings. Rec center childcare. Any-fucking-thing to allow my wife and I to have more than 30 minutes out of the day together that our kids don't need our attention.
We're turning into bitter people, watching most of the people we know with 0-1 kids (or kids older than, say, 8), go through this quarantine being able to 'relax' or keep the damn house clean for longer than 5 minutes.
I'm incredibly fortunate to have kept my job without salary cuts. I've effectively run out of meaningful work to do (see: my username - can't take a Chem lab home with you!) so I can shoulder a lot of the burden that my wife usually carries. But, there is going to come a point where we say 'fuck it'.
Random Coincidence, we also have 3 boys age 5, 2.75 and 6 mo... lol
-
@MoseyingAlong my father is in perfect mental health and he understands (and participated in decision making, although I might have pressed if he had drawn a different conclusion) what we’re doing although it hurts him, too. I don’t hug him now I’m optimism that I’ll have him to hug later.
FWIW my spouse and I are not single household quarantining. Our neighboring house is two nat’l guard members that are deployed to testing sites and we made the conscious choice to treat our two houses as one for the duration of the crises, since we are all four high exposure persons. Currently they are not able to come home and their two dogs are having a grand sleepover.
-
Sounds like Sweden may have had the right idea after all. We can't keep wide swaths of the economy closed indefinitely even if our citizens were willing to do so.
-
Sounds like Sweden may have had the right idea after all. We can't keep wide swaths of the economy closed indefinitely even if our citizens were willing to do so.
Indefinite closure has never been the part of anybody's plan. The real question is - will people be responsible enough to allow a faster re-opening and an economic recovery? Or will they be so stupid that they cause multiple re-closures and a lot of needless deaths because they fail to follow safe guidelines regarding masks, distancing, and keeping the hell away from high risk groups (like anyone over 60)?
The choice is ours.
Unfortunately the people who seem to be most interested in re-opening are also the least interested in preventing another closure soon . . . because they fail to realize that things have fundamentally changed and things aren't likely getting 'back to normal' any time in the next couple years.
-
It has honestly been pleasant to quarantine with my husband, two college aged sons, and our two dogs. DH is working from home, and the boys' community college classes transitioned to online after their spring break.
Our house isn't big, but having grown up with 6 people in 1000 square feet, our 1700 square feet feels like a mansion. It's an old house, with 3 bedrooms and no dedicated family room, so we turned the large master bedroom into a "family" room, taking us down to 2 bedrooms. Once the boys hit college age they didn't want to share a bedroom (one's a night owl, one's a lark), so our oldest uses the "family" room as his bedroom. Each morning he takes the bedding off the eurolounger and turns it back into a couch, gets dressed, and exits the room so DH can use it as his office. Come evening we all pile in to watch a little TV or a movie (something we've taken up during the pandemic -- I'm don't usually watch TV everyday), then my son turns it back into a bedroom.
We homeschooled K-12, so togetherness is part of our family culture, and our boys grew up with each other as friends and playmates, not just siblings. I'm honestly happier with everyone at home. I also appreciate how strict we were with screens when the boys were growing up, because we are all better at entertaining ourselves because of it. As I type there's an animated game of Star Trek Uno being played, and before that the guitars were out. I've realized our days now aren't unlike our homeschooling days when the boys were younger, except back then we were able to go on field trips, attend a weekly park group, and hang out with friends. I am absolutely accustomed to being with my boys all of the time.
There has been a blessed break from errands and grocery shopping and family gatherings and other obligatory social functions and bike races. I am sinking into the freedom from busyness and anxiety (just don't make me Zoom!). I know which activities I'm willing to let back in, and which I will say no to more often.
We occasionally stop and visit with neighbors outside, staying at least 6 feet apart. Since 3/12 we've had no other contact with people other than my son and I chauffeuring my dad to and from an outpatient procedure 3/16. My DH is working from home, and my boys are on leave of absence from their employer.
We also came to realize this may be how it is for quite some time, easily through summer. It seems unlikely the boys will be back physically at college in August -- I expect the semester to start online. DH will work from home as long as he is allowed to, and since the commute is a 5 minute bike ride, he will negotiate staying home even if most people return to the office, since he can be present at meetings easily. We won't have our summer concert series to attend. Bicycle racing isn't likely to resume this year. At some point, however, I expect our parents to start pushing for visits, especially if social distance guidelines are loosened. Both my MIL and my dad are not adhering to social distancing strictly, although my MIL is trying (my SIL lives with her and isn't doing such a great job). My dad works in an essential business, and frequents stores almost daily. I do kind of understand though, since he lives alone. He plans to move across the country in late summer, so hopefully we can figure out a safe way to help him (and see him) before he goes.
-
We aren't cutting ourselves off from everyone. If we need a break from our kid, I have no problem taking him to his grandparents for a day. Additionally, my wife can keep him alone for a few hours while I go play golf, or I can keep him for a bit while she goes for a walk with a friend.
We're avoiding large gatherings, but we aren't cutting ourselves off from friends and family entirely. We're two months in, and I still don't personally know anyone who has tested positive. We have to balance the risk with our sanity.
That seems pretty reckless with the lives of the grandparents. You mentioned that you and your wife are not isolating yourselves from others (hanging out with friends), so during the period you've contracted the virus and are transmitting it without symptoms it's pretty likely you'll give it to them - and their age will put them in the high risk group.
Again, we (and the grandparents who want to see their grandchildren) are weighing the risk v reward and are deciding that it is not so risky that we shouldn't see each other in person.
Calling it 'pretty likely' that we'll give them the virus is completely false and fear mongering. The odds are well below 1% that we'll get the virus, based on our social interaction.
If there was a jar that had 200 Skittles in it and one of them would kill the person who ate it, would you eat them anyway?
That's a terrible metaphor; I'm not sure why people keep using it.
The reward for letting my in-laws watch my child are numerous:
1. They get to spend time with their grandchild.
2. He gets to spend time with his grandparents.
3. We get a much-needed break, which keeps us sane.
The reward for eating a skittle is a fucking skittle.
A better metaphor would be something like this: "If you had a migraine, and I gave you a bottle with 1,000 pills, 999 of which will cure the migraine and 1 that will kill you, would you take a pill?" The answer to that depends on how bad the headache is. In our case, a 0.1% chance (or more likely less) chance of contracting and spreading the virus is worth the benefits we get from letting our child spend a day with his grandparents once every couple weeks.
People keep using it because some people don't grasp how significant 1% risk is.
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm choosing to not visit family and friends -- I can do that later once things settle down. ~1.5% of the residents of my state have tested positive (and anybody with half a brain knows we are not testing nearly enough to have accurate numbers).
1.5% of the residents of the state testing positive doesn't mean a 1% risk of dying. Even if the testing is vastly underdone and actually 10% of the residents are actually positive, of whom 1% die, that would imply a 0.1% chance of dying overall.
NYC's death rate of reported cases is 10% (likely due to vastly inadequate testing depressing the positive-case numbers), but ok. You do you.
That's because NYC doesn't have good testing protocols. I acknowledged that when I boosted the figure you gave (1.5%) by 7-fold to 10%, to account for better testing. If I wanted to compare apples with apples, I could have simply taken 10% (the NYC death rate) of the figure you gave (1.5% positive tests) to get a final figure of 0.15%. Either way, a huge deviation from your figure of 1%. There is nowhere that is having 1% of its population die.
Great job, sherlock. If you're going to be so insistent that numbers match perfectly in a rough analogy, I'd love to hear how you came up with my "figure of 1%."
Clearly you're going to do whatever you want no matter what's going on - I just hope you don't kill someone. One of my coworkers is out today because his grandmother just died from this.
You're right. The figure you put wasn't 1%, it was 0.5% (1 skittle out of 200). It's still off by a factor of 3. So your numbers are still fudged.
I am going to do whatever I like. My state reported only 14 new cases today, out of 10,000 tests done, and 13 of those were connected to a known outbreak which is being quarantined. In other words, only 1 new case aside from a controlled outbreak. 1 out of 5 million. I think I'll take the odds on that and enjoy a nice road trip today, since I've earned it.
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
Amen.
This thread is the epitome of why I loathe some of the negative mindsets on the MMM forum. what's next are you guys going to tell people what can and can't make them happy?
Oh wait, some of you already do that. lol
GTFO indeed.
People can do whatever they like but having children is just as bad for the environment as jet setting. That was the point of post which you are critiquing.
MMM criticises plenty of over-consumption things like "clown cars" so I don't see why you should be so sensitive to the truth that cars, international travel and children are all luxuries which we choose as lifestyle choices.
-
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
Amen.
This thread is the epitome of why I loathe some of the negative mindsets on the MMM forum. what's next are you guys going to tell people what can and can't make them happy?
Oh wait, some of you already do that. lol
GTFO indeed.
People can do whatever they like but having children is just as bad for the environment as jet setting. That was the point of post which you are critiquing.
MMM criticises plenty of over-consumption things like "clown cars" so I don't see why you should be so sensitive to the truth that cars, international travel and children are all luxuries which we choose as lifestyle choices.
I think the point is that merely looking at kids in terms of their carbon footprint, instead of everything they might accomplish in their lives (including inventions and discoveries that are great for the human race and planet), just comes off as mean and over-simplistic.
But I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole, so I’ll again repeat:
GO OUTSIDE. It is good for you.
-
I have a great deal of sympathy for people stuck in unsatisfactory conditions or unable to give small children the exercise and company they need or get a break for themselves. And there are many people even worse off than that, even without taking into account those who have been ill or died from this virus.
But I am finding it dispiriting that there are people whose main complaint is that they don't want to have to wait in order to bust their carbon budget and destroy the planet by starting to fly around the world again.
Technically, the people having multiple kids are busting their carbon budget and destroying the planet waaaaay more than the people who fly a couple times a year and don't have kids.
Lots of virtue signaling in here. Geesh. Busting a carbon budget for having multiple kids - GTFO...
Yes. The sanctimony is overflowing. GTFO is right.
Amen.
This thread is the epitome of why I loathe some of the negative mindsets on the MMM forum. what's next are you guys going to tell people what can and can't make them happy?
Oh wait, some of you already do that. lol
GTFO indeed.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
-
From someone outside the US looking in, it's kind of shocking that anyone's concern right now would be a holiday. I feel like a lot of the population of the US has no perspective on how knife edge serious your country's situation actually is. You're going to have waaay bigger problems in the next 2 years than not being able to holiday.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
One thing that's pretty obvious that this really shows the difference in spread in densely populated areas. Can this virus start to curb the urbanization trend that's been going on for the last century or two? What are the second and third order effect of such a development?
A dense city both economical and environmental advantages over a more spread out semi-dense population - and some disadvantages too of course.
For totally unrelated reasons, I've cut down on work and only support my old company with a few details that are of the more complex kind - but I do notice how much quicker we get to results when we get the right three or four people in the same conference room as compared to working by e-mail and phone/web. On the other hand, most of what I do is five hours of solitary thinking and writing alone to one hour of interaction with others. The company is 90-95% working from home now, only the bossman and his secretary are there on a daily basis, and others when necessary only.
The second- and third order effect of more distributed work might affect the rural parts of the country in a positive way too. If I don't need my staff in the city center office, it's doesn't matter if they live 3, 30 or 300 km away.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
-
Completely agree that shit is getting real. Everything just feels hard now. Grocery shopping, helping kids with online school, doing work online....
There have been good things. I love working at home and would do it 100% if I could but with two 13 year olds home all day and a large percentage of co-workers who have no idea how to work from home. Ugh.
It's exhausting helping my kids. I love them and of course we will help them but their in this weird spot where they're old enough to get up and start school, but not old enough to troubleshoot when things go wrong or old enough to really cope with being separated from friend groups when that has become so important. So, the mental/ emotional tax for that really sucks.
Overall we're fine. We both have jobs, can feed our family but damn. I'm not sure how we'll do this for months.
-
I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months?
Well, given that we'll still be dealing with covid-19 in 12 months, I'd suspect that we would be doing largely the same thing for the new virus - social distancing and lockdowns when breakouts risk overwhelming the health care systems.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Trudie, sorry your initial question has been completely lost in this thread. It's a good question and I wish more people would answer it!
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Trudie, sorry your initial question has been completely lost in this thread. It's a good question and I wish more people would answer it!
Agree. I'm also interested in hearing others ideas.
-
Isn't looking for loopholes and deciding on an individual level to break your area's social isolation rules because you believe you know better than the doctors advising the lawmakers kind of like you being the passive aggressive version of those people storming state legislatures demanding reopening?
So for those who are not actively lobbying to get the rules changed/lifted, all the while quietly breaking the rules for your own benefit, why do you feel entitled to do that? Does your personal comfort in breaking the rules depend on everyone else following the rules? Is that why you aren't actually putting your energy into getting the rules changed instead of just going about breaking them?
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
There have been far more pros than cons to the current situation for me.
I've been riding the bike daily (when it's not raining, anyway). My wife has been going on walks. We've both spent a lot more time with our child. It's great watching him learn things, instead of seeing that he learned something while we were working.
I've traded my weekly board game group for playing video games. That is a trade-off I don't love, but it's entertaining at least.
@FIRE Artist do you know my (or anyone else's) area's rules? If not, then you probably don't have anything meaningful to add with your virtue signaling.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Trudie, sorry your initial question has been completely lost in this thread. It's a good question and I wish more people would answer it!
Good point - back on topic...
It is indeed "getting real". Personally, I'm with you on the travel front - my wife and I LOVE to travel and currently have a trip planned for September to hike the rim to rim of the Grand Canyon for charity...doubtful that's going to happen at this point but we'll see.
We're both able to work from home, but there's also the possibility that I might lose my job (might not...who knows?). If I do, we'll be fine. We've structured our life to live off of my wife's salary and bank mine. Plus, we have plenty in savings to last us if we both ended up getting canned (highly unlikely).
I live in GA and we're officially back open in this state. However, I don't feel comfortable getting back at it quite yet. We're only going "out" to get groceries and go for the occasional drive (this has rejuvenated my love of driving sports cars). Outside of that, I'm getting outside as much as possible and exercising.
We've also had the occasional get together with neighbors (no physical contact and distanced) which has been nice for some social interaction.
I'm interested in how this is going to shape our world from a philosophical standpoint - what social norms are going to be changed forever, etc? I just hope it doesn't crater our economy and create a depression that lasts for years.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
There have been far more pros than cons to the current situation for me.
I've been riding the bike daily (when it's not raining, anyway). My wife has been going on walks. We've both spent a lot more time with our child. It's great watching him learn things, instead of seeing that he learned something while we were working.
I've traded my weekly board game group for playing video games. That is a trade-off I don't love, but it's entertaining at least.
@FIRE Artist do you know my (or anyone else's) area's rules? If not, then you probably don't have anything meaningful to add with your virtue signaling.
Same here on the video games! I haven't played in YEARS...not really actively since I was a kid actually. Bought a PS4 and have been enjoying FF7 remake and COD. Fun stuff.
-
Isn't looking for loopholes and deciding on an individual level to break your area's social isolation rules because you believe you know better than the doctors advising the lawmakers kind of like you being the passive aggressive version of those people storming state legislatures demanding reopening?
So for those who are not actively lobbying to get the rules changed/lifted, all the while quietly breaking the rules for your own benefit, why do you feel entitled to do that? Does your personal comfort in breaking the rules depend on everyone else following the rules? Is that why you aren't actually putting your energy into getting the rules changed instead of just going about breaking them?
My state's order (Ohio) is 14 pages long, single spaced, with a ton of exceptions to stay home. I'm not sure why they think anybody would read it.
My understanding of the order is to stay home as much as possible, but if you want to gather as a family, be outside and keep the gathering below ten people. I've certainly bent the "family" part but I don't see any scientific distinction between letting grandma and grandpa over versus good friends. In fact, I think the data suggests that it is far more responsible to have my similarly aged younger friends (20s/30s) over than my son's grandparents (60s).
I live on a half-acre lot with plenty of space. The most we've had over is four people and we have had a ton of distance between us (almost comical sometimes, bordering on 15-20 feet).
If this makes me a deviant then whatever.
-
You're right. The figure you put wasn't 1%, it was 0.5% (1 skittle out of 200). It's still off by a factor of 3. So your numbers are still fudged.
I am going to do whatever I like. My state reported only 14 new cases today, out of 10,000 tests done, and 13 of those were connected to a known outbreak which is being quarantined. In other words, only 1 new case aside from a controlled outbreak. 1 out of 5 million. I think I'll take the odds on that and enjoy a nice road trip today, since I've earned it.
That's because it was an analogy, not a mathematically precise illustration.
Isn't looking for loopholes and deciding on an individual level to break your area's social isolation rules because you believe you know better than the doctors advising the lawmakers kind of like you being the passive aggressive version of those people storming state legislatures demanding reopening?
So for those who are not actively lobbying to get the rules changed/lifted, all the while quietly breaking the rules for your own benefit, why do you feel entitled to do that? Does your personal comfort in breaking the rules depend on everyone else following the rules? Is that why you aren't actually putting your energy into getting the rules changed instead of just going about breaking them?
My state's order (Ohio) is 14 pages long, single spaced, with a ton of exceptions to stay home. I'm not sure why they think anybody would read it.
My understanding of the order is to stay home as much as possible, but if you want to gather as a family, be outside and keep the gathering below ten people. I've certainly bent the "family" part but I don't see any scientific distinction between letting grandma and grandpa over versus good friends. In fact, I think the data suggests that it is far more responsible to have my similarly aged younger friends (20s/30s) over than my son's grandparents (60s).
I live on a half-acre lot with plenty of space. The most we've had over is four people and we have had a ton of distance between us (almost comical sometimes, bordering on 15-20 feet).
If this makes me a deviant then whatever.
The general sense I'm getting here is that people who live in rural areas think they're not vulnerable and people in cities don't. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not...but all it takes is one employer, one church service, one supermarket, etc. to have an outbreak and it will explode from there.
Anyway, to get back on point, I had a pallet of stuff delivered from Home Depot a month or two ago and I'm slowly working on renovating my basement. We're also cooking a lot more at home than we used to, which is good!
-
I'm 100% WFH home now, and I'm honestly not sure I can face going back into the office. My productivity is about the same (maybe a bit lower at home), but the difference is when I need a break from work I can do something useful or fun (cook dinner, go for a walk, practice a hobby) rather than "looking busy" at my desk. Luckily, after talking with my boss, she seems fine with me staying WFH for the indefinite future.
We're doing a fair amount of Zoom socializing (trivia nights, cocktail parties, etc). I might be joining an online DnD game soon. I've been playing more online video games as a way of socializing with co-workers. We're walking a lot more.
SO is struggling more with the physical distancing as she is the most social person I've ever met.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Quaratine has been a struggle and a half. I am full-time working from home and trying to care for an infant while my husband works an essential job in an office 4 days a week with 1 WFH day, which was low exposure until a coworker tested positive last week. He's taking one day a week off right now under the CARES act to help me out until that time runs out. Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities. I'm caring for my child, working, and sleeping in that order and nothing else.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Trudie, sorry your initial question has been completely lost in this thread. It's a good question and I wish more people would answer it!
Agree. I'm also interested in hearing others ideas.
I participated in my first virtual choir a few weeks ago! I suspect there will be more now that the American Choral Directors Association and other choral orgs held a webinar and agreed that it would be difficult and ill-advised to sing together indoors for at least a year.
I've become fairly proficient with Zoom and have had lots of meetings with family, friends, and even other freelancers and managers at one of the companies that supplies me with contract work.
I'm not nearly as introverted as I thought I was. I've worked by myself at home for years, but I am very used to getting out multiple times per week and socializing through volunteer work or with family and friends. I do miss the interactions and am grateful for modern technology.
-
I'm not nearly as introverted as I thought I was. I've worked by myself at home for years, but I am very used to getting out multiple times per week and socializing through volunteer work or with family and friends.
I'm in a similar situation. Been WFH for 10+years, but we (used to) get out 2-3 evenings a week for running club, book club, etc. I've realized I'm not nearly as introverted as I might seem!
-
From someone outside the US looking in, it's kind of shocking that anyone's concern right now would be a holiday. I feel like a lot of the population of the US has no perspective on how knife edge serious your country's situation actually is. You're going to have waaay bigger problems in the next 2 years than not being able to holiday.
My concern is more about getting that $3000 I paid for plane tickets back. I mean, credit is fine and all, but if the credit expires before it's safe to use it on a plane trip, then that money is gone, right into United's pocket.
-
From someone outside the US looking in, it's kind of shocking that anyone's concern right now would be a holiday. I feel like a lot of the population of the US has no perspective on how knife edge serious your country's situation actually is. You're going to have waaay bigger problems in the next 2 years than not being able to holiday.
+1 Americans like many of you writing here, middle class and upwards, will be ok. But the bedrock of America will not be. The downward spiral of the last couple of decades (currency bleeding from the country for military activities overseas, then since the financial crisis away and upwards from the working class and to an extent middle-class) will be accelerated by this.
In Hong Kong one of the world's densest cities, our border with China generally porous, we've had no full lockdowns and probably won't. People began social distancing and wearing masks and upping our hygiene immediately on confirmation of the pneumonia in mid-January. Our dept of health was prepared with a pandemic team and was consulted with every decision our usually inept government made. Schools and leisure centers and entertainment venues were closed immediately. Many small businesses are suffering and people have lost work in the hospitality, F&B and education industries, many sacrificing short-term for long-term survival, but we're all in this together, and mask-wearing is a visual sign of this.
Since we've had no community transmission in weeks (total of 4 deaths & 1041 cases in our city of 7.4 million), schools will start opening later this month and things are slowly opening up. We have been preparing since SARS in 2003 for a pandemic, experts have been saying for decades we were headed for one. Our cases now come from Europe and the USA, because you have not handled things well like the countries who dealt with SARS.
To respond to the OP, I've been relishing this extra time to focus on a research proposal, to start a handful of virtual collaborations (planning a two-country exhibition later this year; recent 24-hour studio swap; giving virtual talks with and to organizations). This disconnection from what we knew as everyday life has made connection more imperative. So we are finding ways to do this virtually and physically around the world. It's a really exciting time for those of us who have steady salaries in the creative industries, even though all our original exhibitions this year were cancelled or postponed. We are having to find new ways to connect and create. Difficult but a good challenge.
-
Shifting gears:
- both working from home. I mostly like it, husband does too but really needs his office to be more effective. So, when the requirement to stay at home is lifted, I can see where he will be at work most days, and I may go into work 1-2 days per week. I'm sure my boss would prefer more, but I have 2 kids at home and the younger is 7.
- More time with each other - cooking and eating meals - and playing with the kids. When there was no school, we were doing board games. Now, we are mostly helping them with school, jumping rope outside, having occasional water gun fights.
- Long term plans are needed though. Summer camp is probably not happening, so we will need another "schedule", to keep the kids active, engaged, reading, and doing some fun activities. I'm thinking I should have bought that trampoline that I found on facebook marketplace. But we really don't have space.
- Exercising at home. I'm getting the same amount of exercise as before, but husband is getting more with dog walking and jumping rope with the kids.
- The lack of grocery shopping and figuring out how to procure things when we only shop every 2 weeks is really wearing me down. I use SO MUCH brain power figuring out how to feed everyone.
- Helping homeschool my kids while working FT is a real drag. Summer isn't going to be any better. It would be nice to be able to do more. But, everything is a chore. Teaching the teen to cook. Forcing him to feed himself (literally everything is a battle). Teaching kids to ride a bike, forcing them out for activities. It's just easier to do it myself. There's literally too much to do in the time available.
I'm the closest thing to an extrovert in my house, and it's hard. All my exercise was planned around people. I'm fine running and lifting by myself for now, but I miss my friends.
-
+1 Americans like many of you writing here, middle class and upwards, will be ok. But the bedrock of America will not be. The downward spiral of the last couple of decades (currency bleeding from the country for military activities overseas, then since the financial crisis away and upwards from the working class and to an extent middle-class) will be accelerated by this.
It's been a downward spiral for years. If trump is reelected it's going to get worse before it gets better.
-
From someone outside the US looking in, it's kind of shocking that anyone's concern right now would be a holiday. I feel like a lot of the population of the US has no perspective on how knife edge serious your country's situation actually is. You're going to have waaay bigger problems in the next 2 years than not being able to holiday.
My concern is more about getting that $3000 I paid for plane tickets back. I mean, credit is fine and all, but if the credit expires before it's safe to use it on a plane trip, then that money is gone, right into United's pocket.
Same. I have a 2000$ credit that I was planning to use this summer; it expires in September. ETA: dammit I can't type today!
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
There have been far more pros than cons to the current situation for me.
I've been riding the bike daily (when it's not raining, anyway). My wife has been going on walks. We've both spent a lot more time with our child. It's great watching him learn things, instead of seeing that he learned something while we were working.
I've traded my weekly board game group for playing video games. That is a trade-off I don't love, but it's entertaining at least.
@FIRE Artist do you know my (or anyone else's) area's rules? If not, then you probably don't have anything meaningful to add with your virtue signaling.
Hahah, I love it. Claiming someone else is virtue signaling for presenting a challenging question or dissenting point of view has become the new virtue signaling.
And yes, this quarantine shit’s getting real.
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
We homeschooled for several years but now we pay about $4,000 per child for private school. Meanwhile the public school district spends about $10,000 per pupil with inferior results (closer to $13k if you include capital spending on school buildings and the debt service for previous construction). So no, I am not particularly supportive of more funding for education. We appreciate what the teachers do, and it's certainly easier for my wife not having to plan all the curriculum and do all the instruction for four kids.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Trudie, sorry your initial question has been completely lost in this thread. It's a good question and I wish more people would answer it!
Meaningful is a real challenge for me at the moment.
I've hit something of a bad patch lately. At first I was quite satisfied indulging my introvert tendencies to the max but the longer this goes on the more systemic problems with my life are being exposed. Without the diversions of the office and misc site visits I have to admit I'm actually pretty checked out of my job and am no longer sure I can ride this career the remaining way to FIRE. I'm under a layoff threat now so that choice might be made for me but I have no idea in which direction I should pivot my career and it's anxiety producing to think about. Similar realizations have surfaced for my social and love lives where I've really been forced to face how unsatisfying I've let things get.
To completely misappropriate a Buffett analogy: the water has gone out and it appears I've been swimming naked without realizing it.
In the long run this burgeoning existential crisis will be a good thing but for now it sucks since there are so few opportunities to actually act on this new found motivation to reinvigorate my life. New and meaningful activities are pretty much off the table for the immediate future which only adds to the frustration and gloominess (yeah, I know Zoom is a thing but I am not great at the medium, especially with total strangers). There's a limbo/purgatory feeling to things right now I am decidedly not enjoying.
It's not all bad, though. I'm grateful to have a job where I can WFH and keep getting a full paycheck. Family and friends are all currently healthy. Thanks to the MMM/FIRE philosophy I'm sitting on a modest pile of money and expenses are low enough I can comfortably exist on unemployment benefits alone should that be necessary. I've been reading and playing guitar more than I have in years and my fitness is steadily improving. I'm well positioned to rebound, once that becomes an option.
I know I'm not the only one who has been forced to face some uncomfortable truths during this lock down. I expect a lot of people to also make significant changes to their lives in the near future.
-
You're right. The figure you put wasn't 1%, it was 0.5% (1 skittle out of 200). It's still off by a factor of 3. So your numbers are still fudged.
I am going to do whatever I like. My state reported only 14 new cases today, out of 10,000 tests done, and 13 of those were connected to a known outbreak which is being quarantined. In other words, only 1 new case aside from a controlled outbreak. 1 out of 5 million. I think I'll take the odds on that and enjoy a nice road trip today, since I've earned it.
That's because it was an analogy, not a mathematically precise illustration.
Isn't looking for loopholes and deciding on an individual level to break your area's social isolation rules because you believe you know better than the doctors advising the lawmakers kind of like you being the passive aggressive version of those people storming state legislatures demanding reopening?
So for those who are not actively lobbying to get the rules changed/lifted, all the while quietly breaking the rules for your own benefit, why do you feel entitled to do that? Does your personal comfort in breaking the rules depend on everyone else following the rules? Is that why you aren't actually putting your energy into getting the rules changed instead of just going about breaking them?
My state's order (Ohio) is 14 pages long, single spaced, with a ton of exceptions to stay home. I'm not sure why they think anybody would read it.
My understanding of the order is to stay home as much as possible, but if you want to gather as a family, be outside and keep the gathering below ten people. I've certainly bent the "family" part but I don't see any scientific distinction between letting grandma and grandpa over versus good friends. In fact, I think the data suggests that it is far more responsible to have my similarly aged younger friends (20s/30s) over than my son's grandparents (60s).
I live on a half-acre lot with plenty of space. The most we've had over is four people and we have had a ton of distance between us (almost comical sometimes, bordering on 15-20 feet).
If this makes me a deviant then whatever.
The general sense I'm getting here is that people who live in rural areas think they're not vulnerable and people in cities don't. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not...but all it takes is one employer, one church service, one supermarket, etc. to have an outbreak and it will explode from there.
Anyway, to get back on point, I had a pallet of stuff delivered from Home Depot a month or two ago and I'm slowly working on renovating my basement. We're also cooking a lot more at home than we used to, which is good!
My not thinking I’m vulnerable has nothing to do with my “rural” area and everything to do with the CDC data.
Even with that said, I am curbing my behavior to prohibit possible asymptomatic infection, but I’ve come to terms with the reality that we cannot shut down for a long period of time and we’re going to have to find out another way to deal with this.
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
+2
I can't begin to relate to people who have time for activities or hobbies or what have you. 2 FT WFH parents plus two home schooling kids. Never been busier or more stressed.
-
How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
Trudie, sorry your initial question has been completely lost in this thread. It's a good question and I wish more people would answer it!
I did miss this, and I'm sorry!
We've lived in our neighborhood for 20+ years, and we've walked several times a week for all those years, and yet we always headed off our block to walk. Now we make a point to go around our block at least daily, to walk on both sides of the street, and most of all, to smile, make eye contact, and say hello to our neighbors. Recently I noticed one neighbor has a gorgeous yard I've never gotten close enough to truly appreciate!
We're spending more time sitting on our front porch so we can say hello to neighbors walking by.
I switched our main meal from lunch time to dinner time, in order to create a family meal every evening, something we used to do before the boys graduate from high school. Once the boys started college we rarely had both of them home for the same meal. They're busy with online classes at lunch time, but are available for an early dinner (5:30). It's a chance to reconnect even though we've been in the same house all day.
We're reclaiming Sundays as a day of rest. Being home all of the time, the days can merge into each other and it's easy to work on projects all weekend (cleaning out garage, weeding, etc.). Without the framework of our religious services, Sundays started to feel like Saturday (I'm not loving watching live streams -- the technology feels like a barrier and I miss our singing and praying in unison). I felt we all needed a day without work, a day we could connect with God and each other, and to rest.
I'm talking to my dad each week, and rather than feeling rushed, I'm enjoying it even if the conversation rambles. For once, I'm not rushing around talking to him while I need to be doing other things, or needing to go after a few minutes because we need to leave to get somewhere. Likewise, he has more time to talk to me on Sunday evenings (he used to have standing plans each Sunday late afternoon into evening). It won't last forever, but it's nice now.
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
+2
I can't begin to relate to people who have time for activities or hobbies or what have you. 2 FT WFH parents plus two home schooling kids. Never been busier or more stressed.
As someone who homeschooled my children K-12, I find it absurd that school districts would expect parents who are working from home to also homeschool their children. Homeschooling typically isn't "school at home", and really what they're doing is giving most students more homework with less teaching and support, and saddling parents with yet more to do.
Honestly, if it were happening to me, I would withdraw my children from the school, establish a private school in my home (one way to legally homeschool in my state), and do whatever the heck I wanted. No fear. I'd let my kids read, watch educational TV, play games and do puzzles, bake and cook with me, and play play play. It would basically be responsible unschooling. I'd buy whichever level Teaching Textbooks program they were in for math, and just not worry. I'd "strew the environment" with learning games and activities, art supplies, musical instruments (but not during working hours), and plenty of books.
I find it ridiculous to talk about "learning loss", as if trying to do distance learning from home with working parents is going to make up for what the kids aren't learning in school. It would have been far better to take this pressure off of families, acknowledge that children learn all the time, and worry about "learning loss" when schools resume. But that's not how funding works.
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
+2
I can't begin to relate to people who have time for activities or hobbies or what have you. 2 FT WFH parents plus two home schooling kids. Never been busier or more stressed.
+3
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
It doesn't make me value it more because I'm already a pro-teacher's union marching, paying out the wazoo for school taxes supporter of education.
-
Isn't looking for loopholes and deciding on an individual level to break your area's social isolation rules because you believe you know better than the doctors advising the lawmakers kind of like you being the passive aggressive version of those people storming state legislatures demanding reopening?
So for those who are not actively lobbying to get the rules changed/lifted, all the while quietly breaking the rules for your own benefit, why do you feel entitled to do that? Does your personal comfort in breaking the rules depend on everyone else following the rules? Is that why you aren't actually putting your energy into getting the rules changed instead of just going about breaking them?
The starting point is whether the rules are at all rational. If they are not rational then we can simply feel free to disregard them, particularly when they are difficult to enforce and therefore there is little risk for rule-breakers. I have been saying for about 2 weeks that my state's lockdown laws are irrational and I have been breaking them at will (a mate of mine in the police force confirmed they are only enforcing egregious breaches anyway). Of course, it might be different in the U.S. - Australia = 97 deaths, none under 42yo. US = lots of deaths, and lots of issues with containment, etc.
-
@AnnaGrowsAMustache - From someone inside the US it's appalling to me too. The people on this board who think it's "not a big deal" are, from my perspective, entitled shits. My mother is in hospice, in a care facility. I'm so, so lucky because hers is one of the very few in my area that hasn't had cases of COVID. But one of the reasons for that is that they went on lockdown VERY early, in February. They cycled in and out a couple of times before finally deciding that was it, and barring the doors to all but the staff. Even the hospice workers who tend to my mom and others aren't allowed in, they do everything virtually. So with very little time left to spend with my mom, it's now been two months since I got to give her a hug. And really, I'd like to see the "it's just a flu" crowd, or the "it won't hurt me" crowd, or the "what about the economy" crowd, explain to people with dementia and other memory problems that there's a pandemic going on, sorry that we can't come see you. I'd like to see them visit their loved ones through glass, and have to remind the staff every time that they need to move the phone closer to the window because it confuses her too much to have my voice coming out of the speaker over there. And then needing to repeatedly tap on the glass to get your loved one's attention again, because they can't even remember for a whole minute that you're there so you repeatedly surprise them.
You're missing out on trips? Wah! You miss your friends? Wah! You know what I'm missing out on? Potentially the last months with my mother. If she doesn't get it but it's still circulating in the community then it's too dangerous to let people visit. If it does start spreading in the community then they'll have to be in quarantine anyway, because the risk of spreading it to the community is too high. So either way, as long as this virus is still in circulation at all I don't get to see my mom. People who are breaking the fucking isolation and lockdowns because wah, it's so hard! are making the situation worse for people like me. My siblings were supposed to visit our mom, and none of them are able to now. Will they get to see her again before she dies? Who knows! My mom's younger sister was supposed to visit this spring and, again, they may never get to see each other again before my mom dies. You're missing a "dream" trip somewhere? My heart bleeds for you. Really. But suck it up, put on your big kid pants, and remember that this is not about you. And there are things which are far more important than money.
-
Isn't looking for loopholes and deciding on an individual level to break your area's social isolation rules because you believe you know better than the doctors advising the lawmakers kind of like you being the passive aggressive version of those people storming state legislatures demanding reopening?
So for those who are not actively lobbying to get the rules changed/lifted, all the while quietly breaking the rules for your own benefit, why do you feel entitled to do that? Does your personal comfort in breaking the rules depend on everyone else following the rules? Is that why you aren't actually putting your energy into getting the rules changed instead of just going about breaking them?
The starting point is whether the rules are at all rational. If they are not rational then we can simply feel free to disregard them, particularly when they are difficult to enforce and therefore there is little risk for rule-breakers. I have been saying for about 2 weeks that my state's lockdown laws are irrational and I have been breaking them at will (a mate of mine in the police force confirmed they are only enforcing egregious breaches anyway). Of course, it might be different in the U.S. - Australia = 97 deaths, none under 42yo. US = lots of deaths, and lots of issues with containment, etc.
I actually wish our US state would enforce things more heavily. In my husband's semi-rural hometown, there's a barber who decided that he was above the law and opened up his shop. He's 77 and therefore automatically high risk, he lives and works in the largest town in a county where the infection rates are still increasing, and he's been working 15-hour days because people are driving from several counties over for a haircut. I can only hope he hasn't created a new infection cluster (and that my in-laws aren't going in for haircuts, as he's been their barber for most of their lives).
-
@AnnaGrowsAMustache - From someone inside the US it's appalling to me to. The people on this board who think it's "not a big deal" are, from my perspective, entitled shits. My mother is in hospice, in a care facility. I'm so, so lucky because hers is one of the very few in my area that hasn't had cases of COVID. But one of the reasons for that is that they went on lockdown VERY early, in February. They cycled in and out a couple of times before finally deciding that was it, and barring the doors to all but the staff. Even the hospice workers who tend to my mom and others aren't allowed in, they do everything virtually. So with very little time left to spend with my mom, it's now been two months since I got to give her a hug. And really, I'd like to see the "it's just a flu" crowd, or the "it won't hurt me" crowd, or the "what about the economy" crowd, explain to people with dementia and other memory problems that there's a pandemic going on, sorry that we can't come see you. I'd like to see them visit their loved ones through glass, and have to remind the staff every time that they need to move the phone closer to the window because it confuses her too much to have my voice coming out of the speaker over there. And then needing to repeatedly tap on the glass to get your loved one's attention again, because they can't even remember for a whole minute that you're there so you repeatedly surprise them.
You're missing out on trips? Wah! You miss your friends? Wah! You know what I'm missing out on? Potentially the last months with my mother. If she doesn't get it but it's still circulating in the community then it's too dangerous to let people visit. If it does start spreading in the community then they'll have to be in quarantine anyway, because the risk of spreading it to the community is too high. So either way, as long as this virus is still in circulation at all I don't get to see my mom. People who are breaking the fucking isolation and lockdowns because wah, it's so hard! are making the situation worse for people like me. My siblings were supposed to visit our mom, and none of them are able to now. Will they get to see her again before she dies? Who knows! My mom's younger sister was supposed to visit this spring and, again, they may never get to see each other again before my mom dies. You're missing a "dream" trip somewhere? My heart bleeds for you. Really. But suck it up, put on your big kid pants, and remember that this is not about you. And there are things which are far more important than money.
I am so sorry. This fucking sucks, so much. I am heartbroken for you, and for my cousins going through the same thing right now. It is so profoundly unfair.
-
@SisterX - I am so sorry you aren't able to visit with your mother right now - you have my deepest sympathies. I completely agree with your sentiment.
I am in an urban area that has had hundreds of deaths and thousands of cases and I'm appalled at what is going on with my group of friends. We run a non-profit club for *sport* that normally runs multiple practices a day, 7 days a week. Completely ignoring the financial aspects of keeping the club closed through all of this, they are upset and want to open back up for practices simply because they miss practicing! They want to be "officially" closed but then have practices with hand picked groups of teammates. We have an email thread discussing when we can open up, how to limit transmission, etc for all of the coaches and some of their ideas are insane! They simply want to practice and are trying to look at every loophole they can possible invent to argue that we can open up again - and one of them is a police officer! At least he is being a voice of reason (along with the club owners) who keeps pointing out that we can lose our business license for violating the orders. I just can't justify practicing and violating the orders to satiate my own selfish want to practice and see my friends, thereby putting others at risk. I was an advocate for closing down before the state told us we had to and there were a lot of very heated, angry discussions around that. Then one of our teammates tested positive for the virus and she immediately changed her opinion.
For our part, my husband and I are doing lots of home workouts, taking walks, and spending more time together as a family. I am full time WFH now and he is a full time stay at home dad, so he is really happy having me around to help with feedings and to talk during the day. We think this quarantine time has benefited our family a lot on a personal level, while acknowledging that we are very lucky and that it is created havoc and distress for many others.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event?
The question needs to be a bit broader than "what if we get a similar virus?", because I don't think we should assume the next pandemic will be similar to the current one. If our leaders are sensible(don't hold your breath) they'll work out a series of hypotheticals for viruses with varying degrees of contagiousness and lethality, as well as starting states(mostly-contained versus absolutely not contained).
There *will* be another new virus, and it most likely won't be the same as Covid-19, minus the fact that the primary mode of transmission will be respiratory.
-
@AnnaGrowsAMustache - From someone inside the US it's appalling to me to. The people on this board who think it's "not a big deal" are, from my perspective, entitled shits. My mother is in hospice, in a care facility. I'm so, so lucky because hers is one of the very few in my area that hasn't had cases of COVID. But one of the reasons for that is that they went on lockdown VERY early, in February. They cycled in and out a couple of times before finally deciding that was it, and barring the doors to all but the staff. Even the hospice workers who tend to my mom and others aren't allowed in, they do everything virtually. So with very little time left to spend with my mom, it's now been two months since I got to give her a hug. And really, I'd like to see the "it's just a flu" crowd, or the "it won't hurt me" crowd, or the "what about the economy" crowd, explain to people with dementia and other memory problems that there's a pandemic going on, sorry that we can't come see you. I'd like to see them visit their loved ones through glass, and have to remind the staff every time that they need to move the phone closer to the window because it confuses her too much to have my voice coming out of the speaker over there. And then needing to repeatedly tap on the glass to get your loved one's attention again, because they can't even remember for a whole minute that you're there so you repeatedly surprise them.
You're missing out on trips? Wah! You miss your friends? Wah! You know what I'm missing out on? Potentially the last months with my mother. If she doesn't get it but it's still circulating in the community then it's too dangerous to let people visit. If it does start spreading in the community then they'll have to be in quarantine anyway, because the risk of spreading it to the community is too high. So either way, as long as this virus is still in circulation at all I don't get to see my mom. People who are breaking the fucking isolation and lockdowns because wah, it's so hard! are making the situation worse for people like me. My siblings were supposed to visit our mom, and none of them are able to now. Will they get to see her again before she dies? Who knows! My mom's younger sister was supposed to visit this spring and, again, they may never get to see each other again before my mom dies. You're missing a "dream" trip somewhere? My heart bleeds for you. Really. But suck it up, put on your big kid pants, and remember that this is not about you. And there are things which are far more important than money.
I am so sorry. This fucking sucks, so much. I am heartbroken for you, and for my cousins going through the same thing right now. It is so profoundly unfair.
Absolutely agree. I hope my statements didn't come across as 'this isn't a big deal' just b/c I personally haven't been negatively affected. They were not meant to. I am thankful every day that I've been so lucky, and I have no assurance that will continue. I also want to go on the record saying that I think most people are not taking this pandemic seriously enough in terms of the extreme psychological toll it is taking on a lot of people, and the certain toll it's going to take in the future. ETA, news broke today that our governor issued an executive order freeing a local business owner after the cops arrested her for defying the lockdown to keep her business open. Bitch should be stuck in jail for a month as far as I'm concerned, but our governor is a tool.
-
This helpful article has been published in The Atlantic today:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/05/restaurants-stores-reopen-dos-and-donts/611314/
CAN I VISIT MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY? AND CAN I GIVE THEM A HUG?
To the first question: Yes, but cautiously, while maintaining social distance. All three experts thought that it would be much safer to socialize outdoors—on patios, lawns, driveways, and so on. If you do choose to risk an indoor visit, Marr said it’s a good idea to open the windows and keep the space well ventilated.
Outdoor areas are generally safer than indoor ones because they have better ventilation, more direct sunlight, and more room for people to space themselves out—none of which completely shuts down the transmission of the virus, but all of which seem to reduce it.
Even during outdoor gatherings, it’s best not to get too close to anyone you don’t live with. “Across household boundaries, there should be six feet of distance,” Noymer said.
Sadly, this means no hugs. “There are so many friends I would love to hug right now, but it’s a no,” Carlton said.
If that makes me a "what about the economy" Trumper then whatever.
-
We're in Italy, so things have been "real" for us for a long time. Our lock down happened on March 9 and was a lot more extreme that the lock downs in many other places. We also live in an apartment with 2 kids with no balcony or other outside space. The only outside space we have in our roof. We were only allowed to leave the apartment for almost 2 months to go food shopping, go to the pharmacy or go to work if we were essential workers (we're not). Our kids were not allowed to leave the apartment. We were only allowed to jog or walk dogs within 200 meters of our apartment -approximately 1 city block. All parks were closed.
Anyway on Monday, they eased up the restrictions here a bit. Parks (but not playgrounds) have reopened and we are allowed to exercise in them while social distancing and wearing masks. We're now allowed to meet friends but we are allowed to meet family members while social distancing. I took the kids to the park yesterday and it was amazing. There were a lot of police around checking everyone and everyone was behaving.
The shit's also real for us as my husband owns a tourism business. He is now a stay at home dad and, thank goodness, I'm able to work from home. Kind of put things into perspective.
I'm in Italy too... terrible timing because I moved here for work, but with traveling around Europe as my primary objective. Now, unfortunately all I can do is work.
You say we're allowed to meet friends, do you know more specifics on that? Do you mean "congiunti"? It's rough being an American here in Italy during this situation-- their rules are tough to understand and are always changing. Even the Italians can't figure them out.
-
This helpful article has been published in The Atlantic today:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/05/restaurants-stores-reopen-dos-and-donts/611314/
CAN I VISIT MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY? AND CAN I GIVE THEM A HUG?
To the first question: Yes, but cautiously, while maintaining social distance. All three experts thought that it would be much safer to socialize outdoors—on patios, lawns, driveways, and so on. If you do choose to risk an indoor visit, Marr said it’s a good idea to open the windows and keep the space well ventilated.
Outdoor areas are generally safer than indoor ones because they have better ventilation, more direct sunlight, and more room for people to space themselves out—none of which completely shuts down the transmission of the virus, but all of which seem to reduce it.
Even during outdoor gatherings, it’s best not to get too close to anyone you don’t live with. “Across household boundaries, there should be six feet of distance,” Noymer said.
Sadly, this means no hugs. “There are so many friends I would love to hug right now, but it’s a no,” Carlton said.
If that makes me a "what about the economy" Trumper then whatever.
I don't think it does. There's nothing in that quote that isn't common sense.
-
This situation isn't really all that new - it's just new to us. This is what life was like before we had vaccines. Diseases like polio, measles, diptheria were all contagious with roughly comparable mortality rates and long term side effects. This is what the anti-vaxxers want to go back to, only all the time.
At least antibiotics are still working, despite certain countries allowing them to be fed to livestock and other unnecessary uses.
We all think technology is about smart phones and the internet, when the biological sciences have made huge strides.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/degree_off.png)
-
I'm done with it. I ate in one restaurant last week, and another one today. Went hiking with a friend yesterday. I'm going on a golf trip next weekend. I hope everyone else stays home, though. I like the reduced traffic.
-
I've definitely noticed a surge in vehicle traffic.
The situation in Aus is different though. When people aren't dying, or even being infected, in large numbers, the government lockdown isn't going to be as persuasive nor as effective.
-
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/degree_off.png)
So much this.
-
I'm in Hawaii. I think it's kind of strange here compared to the mainland. Anyone who travels to the islands has to self quarantine for 14 days; this isn't enforced as stringently as people'd like, but they've arrested a couple of tourists for violating it. It's fairly chill to be here as a local these days. The number of people diagnosed with Covid has been in the single digits for two weeks. I'm doing the whole mask thing (it's mandatory in any indoor setting here) and being careful about grocery shopping, but I'm not worried about contracting the virus myself at the moment, given the low rate of infection here.
I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old. Daycare has been closed since mid March. I'm WFH with my husband and the kids in an 850 square foot condo. All the condo amenities are closed (pool, playground) so I take the kids to the beach a lot. The rule at the beach is you can't sit down or hang out; all you can do is play in the water and then leave. I got the kids $20 wetsuits off Amazon so they wouldn't get cold and want to go home so fast (yeah, I know it's 75 degree water but they're wimps about cold).
I mean, it's hard to complain when you have a gorgeous beach mostly to yourself. WFH with two little kids in such a small space totally sucks, but then it's also had moments of awesomeness when I've realized that I didn't know my kids that well before and I'm starting to really know them now.
The social isolation doesn't bother me at all. I'm really thankful for my relationship with my husband; he's great. I'm fairly introverted. I didn't realize how introverted I was until I kept feeling so thankful I didn't have to do all my usual social commitments. Husband and kids is kinda all I really need. Life got reduced to nothing but the stuff I like the most. Even the work trip that I was really, really looking forward to--when it got canceled, I was like, meh, easier to stay home, anyway. We aren't getting to go on our annual mainland trip this year to see family. I know I'll really miss seeing our families, but the travel with kids was always grueling so I'm pretty happy to have such a good excuse to sit this year out.
My kids stress me out because I'm trying to get work done and care for them and it's not really possible to do both well. But then again, they're hilarious and precious and I'm super stoked to have this time with them. In a way it's really an enormous gift and I'm a little sad about it coming to an end at some indeterminate point. I'd never have voluntarily given up daycare but there's a huge silver lining in its having been taken away. I know I won't make a big change and become a SAHM but I'm thankful for having had this opportunity. I'm pretty sure the memories of this time will mostly feel magical and nostalgic for me (barring any major disasters that will make me eat my words in a while).
-
I’m one of the odd folks that kind of likes the quarantine. I don’t like what it’s going to do to the economy or that it puts people in a form of house arrest. But for me? I’m perfectly content to be at home and to take long walks or to enjoy the lack of traffic.
I don’t think this has really expanded horizons so much as enhanced what’s already there. I like being outside. So we spend time outside and garden more. We like to live somewhat frugally. There’s nothing to spend money on, so we’re saving more. And so on.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
-
The social isolation doesn't bother me at all. I'm really thankful for my relationship with my husband; he's great. I'm fairly introverted. I didn't realize how introverted I was until I kept feeling so thankful I didn't have to do all my usual social commitments. Husband and kids is kinda all I really need. Life got reduced to nothing but the stuff I like the most.
I'm right there with you! Introverted (+ social anxiety), and the quarantine has been a much needed break. I'm perfectly happy with my husband and two sons. Once I got past the pandemic anxiety (Do we have enough food? Will the boys have to go to work? Are they going to make me Zoom? Etc.) I realized my overall anxiety is much lower. My stress level is lower. My happiness is higher.
My birthday came, and I didn't have to choose a restaurant so the guys wouldn't have to cook -- I cooked and they cleaned up. Mother's Day is Sunday and I don't have to go to a restaurant with family members -- I get to cook what I want to eat and the guys will clean up. I don't have to figure out how to visit MIL / SMIL#1 / SMIL#2 -- we'll send cards and texts.
I've been saying I wanted a smaller life for years, and now I have it!
-
I’m one of the odd folks that kind of likes the quarantine. I don’t like what it’s going to do to the economy or that it puts people in a form of house arrest. But for me? I’m perfectly content to be at home and to take long walks or to enjoy the lack of traffic.
I don’t think this has really expanded horizons so much as enhanced what’s already there. I like being outside. So we spend time outside and garden more. We like to live somewhat frugally. There’s nothing to spend money on, so we’re saving more. And so on.
No little monsters terrorizing you!
It is interesting how many people are either enjoying it/getting bored(mostly single people) or getting terrorized by their kidlet demon-spawn. I have sympathy for the latter so I try not to complain as a bored single person.
(Joking about the demon-spawn, by the way... for the most part)
-
No little monsters terrorizing you!
It is interesting how many people are either enjoying it/getting bored(mostly single people) or getting terrorized by their kidlet demon-spawn. I have sympathy for the latter so I try not to complain as a bored single person.
(Joking about the demon-spawn, by the way... for the most part)
As the person with a child nicknamed The Demon on these forums, no need to apologize. They really can be sometimes. :) (I'm not enjoying parenting this way, mostly because it threw off our routine, which we loved and which suited all of us. Trying to find a new routine has been challenging.)
-
No way in hell will this last for years.
-
No little monsters terrorizing you!
It is interesting how many people are either enjoying it/getting bored(mostly single people) or getting terrorized by their kidlet demon-spawn. I have sympathy for the latter so I try not to complain as a bored single person.
(Joking about the demon-spawn, by the way... for the most part)
As the person with a child nicknamed The Demon on these forums, no need to apologize. They really can be sometimes. :) (I'm not enjoying parenting this way, mostly because it threw off our routine, which we loved and which suited all of us. Trying to find a new routine has been challenging.)
Makes sense. I know it's hard on small kids too since they don't understand what's going on. I'm glad I live in a suburb right now too, compared to a higher density urban community. Lots of space and parks for everyone to distance a bit.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
-
I'm done with it. I ate in one restaurant last week, and another one today. Went hiking with a friend yesterday. I'm going on a golf trip next weekend. I hope everyone else stays home, though. I like the reduced traffic.
I'm pretty much k. The same place. I'm in the south so things are starting to open.
Honestly I imagine people will self police in their own best interest. Lots of cases and many will stay home, not so many and people will be out and about.
-
I'm done with it. I ate in one restaurant last week, and another one today. Went hiking with a friend yesterday. I'm going on a golf trip next weekend. I hope everyone else stays home, though. I like the reduced traffic.
I'm pretty much k. The same place. I'm in the south so things are starting to open.
Honestly I imagine people will self police in their own best interest. Lots of cases and many will stay home, not so many and people will be out and about.
If people were capable of self policing in their own best interest, there wouldn't have been a pandemic.
-
This is the new normal. Granted I'm in a pretty favorable situation being that I'm introverted, and I can WFH and only have to take care of my dog, which is a breeze. My gf still has to drive to work (hospital), but thankfully she doesn't work around patients. I think we're discovering that she's more introverted than she thought as she is not having a hard time really with the new situation.
-
I just completed Week 15 of quarantine, and if I didn’t have to go back to work next week, I’d still happily be social distancing and generally self-isolating. Being around people is exhausting.
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
I've always valued teachers and have voted for more funding every chance I get.
Especially since both my children attend/ attended schools with predominantly poor students, and in the case of elementary, a school with a very large disabled population.
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
+2
I can't begin to relate to people who have time for activities or hobbies or what have you. 2 FT WFH parents plus two home schooling kids. Never been busier or more stressed.
+1000
I'm also...disappointed that in all the company update meetings we've had, they haven't even tried to address it. Perhaps it is because there are only I think 3 of us, out of 70 people, in this situation (2 full time working parents with YOUNG children).
-
You're missing out on trips? Wah! You miss your friends? Wah! You know what I'm missing out on? Potentially the last months with my mother. If she doesn't get it but it's still circulating in the community then it's too dangerous to let people visit. If it does start spreading in the community then they'll have to be in quarantine anyway, because the risk of spreading it to the community is too high. So either way, as long as this virus is still in circulation at all I don't get to see my mom. People who are breaking the fucking isolation and lockdowns because wah, it's so hard! are making the situation worse for people like me. My siblings were supposed to visit our mom, and none of them are able to now. Will they get to see her again before she dies? Who knows! My mom's younger sister was supposed to visit this spring and, again, they may never get to see each other again before my mom dies. You're missing a "dream" trip somewhere? My heart bleeds for you. Really. But suck it up, put on your big kid pants, and remember that this is not about you. And there are things which are far more important than money.
We can be both. I am genuinely terrified for my Stepfather and in-laws who are elderly (over 70), and sick (with cancer, stepfather). I'm also disappointed at canceling my 50th birthday trip to Hawaii. It's a rare thing for me. I'm so sorry about what you are going through. My parents both died suddenly, but at least when my mom died, I got to see her first.
I'm fascinated at what is happening locally. I have friends and coworkers who want their "Freedoms" and all. Some are Trumpers. They are going out and doing their things regardless. At the same time, the state is starting to open up BUT our county is seeing a fast increase in cases now that we are doing more testing. Most cases at the prison, but that can spread.
I have other friends who really are hurting through the quarantine. Both financially (because their businesses have shut down) but also because they are extroverted outdoors people. So, they are still backpacking, hiking, traveling to other counties, and now ... I am seeing many friends posting beach pictures with their kids and ...their kids friends. I guess I really don't think we are out of the woods, at all... we are totally stressing about any time we have to leave the house. Others though...want life to be normal again. This is the new normal.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
One person decided to veer off topic and post a judgement about people who travel and miss travel because of the carbon implications. So the other did the same about people who have kids because of the carbon implications? How are they not the same? Singling out one particular source of carbon emissions (and likely the children and related decisions emit far more carbon) without considering an entire life's choices, for the sake of superiority and probably virtue signaling. So of there was nothing wrong with the travel post, then how is there something wrong with the kid post?
If someone can, rather out of the blue, cast aspersions at those who travel because of their carbon footprint, then why is it not fair play to cast aspersions at those who have kinds-especially multiple kids--because of their carbon footprint?
Both seem like meaningless virtue signaling from my vantage point.
-
I’m one of the odd folks that kind of likes the quarantine. I don’t like what it’s going to do to the economy or that it puts people in a form of house arrest. But for me? I’m perfectly content to be at home and to take long walks or to enjoy the lack of traffic.
I don’t think this has really expanded horizons so much as enhanced what’s already there. I like being outside. So we spend time outside and garden more. We like to live somewhat frugally. There’s nothing to spend money on, so we’re saving more. And so on.
No little monsters terrorizing you!
It is interesting how many people are either enjoying it/getting bored(mostly single people) or getting terrorized by their kidlet demon-spawn. I have sympathy for the latter so I try not to complain as a bored single person.
(Joking about the demon-spawn, by the way... for the most part)
We do have kids and furry critters at home. They make house-arrest more enjoyable. Now that you mention it, it would be more pretty boring without them.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
One person decided to veer off topic and post a judgement about people who travel and miss travel because of the carbon implications. So the other did the same about people who have kids because of the carbon implications? How are they not the same? Singling out one particular source of carbon emissions (and likely the children and related decisions emit far more carbon) without considering an entire life's choices, for the sake of superiority and probably virtue signaling. So of there was nothing wrong with the travel post, then how is there something wrong with the kid post?
If someone can, rather out of the blue, cast aspersions at those who travel because of their carbon footprint, then why is it not fair play to cast aspersions at those who have kinds-especially multiple kids--because of their carbon footprint?
Both seem like meaningless virtue signaling from my vantage point.
I'd be surprised to find out that anyone posting here is a climate change denier but expressing disappointment at the disconnect between the presumed understanding of the science and the multiple expressed desires to start flying all over the planet once it's allowed doesn't seem like virtue signalling to me.
(Kids are also of course an unsustainable charge on the planet but I don't think anyone was expressing the desire to have more kids as a consequence of quarantine, there's been more about the difficulties of coping with the ones they already have.)
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Every time I see this nonsense, I think it HAS to be satire. I keep looking for the /s...
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
The argument that it didn't escape from a lab in Wuhan is because it never happened before in that city, it just happened 4 times from a lab in Beijing? Sorry if I don't think that's very compelling evidence.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
The argument that it didn't escape from a lab in Wuhan is because it never happened before in that city, it just happened 4 times from a lab in Beijing? Sorry if I don't think that's very compelling evidence.
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) (source: Nature Medicine, a very high quality peer-reviewed journal)
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
One person decided to veer off topic and post a judgement about people who travel and miss travel because of the carbon implications. So the other did the same about people who have kids because of the carbon implications? How are they not the same? Singling out one particular source of carbon emissions (and likely the children and related decisions emit far more carbon) without considering an entire life's choices, for the sake of superiority and probably virtue signaling. So of there was nothing wrong with the travel post, then how is there something wrong with the kid post?
If someone can, rather out of the blue, cast aspersions at those who travel because of their carbon footprint, then why is it not fair play to cast aspersions at those who have kinds-especially multiple kids--because of their carbon footprint?
Both seem like meaningless virtue signaling from my vantage point.
I'd be surprised to find out that anyone posting here is a climate change denier but expressing disappointment at the disconnect between the presumed understanding of the science and the multiple expressed desires to start flying all over the planet once it's allowed doesn't seem like virtue signalling to me.
(Kids are also of course an unsustainable charge on the planet but I don't think anyone was expressing the desire to have more kids as a consequence of quarantine, there's been more about the difficulties of coping with the ones they already have.)
It's more so that some people like travelling and some people like having children and they are equally culpable indulgences, from a "using up the planet's resources" point of view. One is just more socially acceptable.
-
Quarantine is starting to get to me but its not that bad. At the beginning I knew that being the only single person in my family, I would be looking after my 70 year old mother. Knowing that you are being proactive for someone close to you makes quarantining easier. I do have my brother and his family over so our mother can see the kids, I consider this a limited risk because my brother and I co-own a business and see each other 10 hours/5 days a week. Brothers wife is working from home and kids are with her all the time. To minimize the risk, my brother and I shop mid-week before work at 7am, stores are cleaner and have less traffic. We even modified our business, most everything gets shipped, local pickups are contactless.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
The argument that it didn't escape from a lab in Wuhan is because it never happened before in that city, it just happened 4 times from a lab in Beijing? Sorry if I don't think that's very compelling evidence.
I don't think it's impossible that the virus escaped from a lab. I question whether this can be determined in retrospect anyway. And I do think wet markets offer a substantial risk over--say a butcher shop due to live animals, mixing species with poor mitigation against cross-contamination, general hygiene practices.
In any case, it's a failure of regulations or compliance with regulations. It is not foolish to expect more outbreaks like this considering how far we like to push the envelope with regard to our experimentation with pathology and our eagerness to find new food sources. Much like digging coal out of the earth increases the likelihood of gas suffocation in communities. And with increasing global transmission of goods/people, we increase global transmission of infectious diseases.
My biggest hope is that we find useful and pragmatic ways to mitigate risks without bringing the economy to a grinding halt, which has more knock-on effects than most people seem to acknowledge.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
One person decided to veer off topic and post a judgement about people who travel and miss travel because of the carbon implications. So the other did the same about people who have kids because of the carbon implications? How are they not the same? Singling out one particular source of carbon emissions (and likely the children and related decisions emit far more carbon) without considering an entire life's choices, for the sake of superiority and probably virtue signaling. So of there was nothing wrong with the travel post, then how is there something wrong with the kid post?
If someone can, rather out of the blue, cast aspersions at those who travel because of their carbon footprint, then why is it not fair play to cast aspersions at those who have kinds-especially multiple kids--because of their carbon footprint?
Both seem like meaningless virtue signaling from my vantage point.
I'd be surprised to find out that anyone posting here is a climate change denier but expressing disappointment at the disconnect between the presumed understanding of the science and the multiple expressed desires to start flying all over the planet once it's allowed doesn't seem like virtue signalling to me.
(Kids are also of course an unsustainable charge on the planet but I don't think anyone was expressing the desire to have more kids as a consequence of quarantine, there's been more about the difficulties of coping with the ones they already have.)
I don't think anyone was expressing a desire to travel *more* as a consequence of quarantine either. They said travel was something they like and miss, and were shat upon for that because travel is bad for the climate. So too is having kids, and in fact the kids are likely *worse* for the environment in a head-to-head-comparison. So to judge one choice, without knowing someone's other choices, and hurl insults based on it, when there is a very good chance that one major decision in the judger's life is likely far, for worse for the planet than the decision they are judging, seems highly hypocritical. It's like a meth addict chastizing someone for smoking cigarettes because it's bad for health. They may not be wrong, but they look like a raging hypocrite who lacks perspective. And perhaps also someone how wants to jump on a bandwagon of having a pet, trendy stance on an issue. Look how evolved I am! I would never smoke cigarettes! They are disgusting and bad one's health and the health of those around them, and smokers should be ashamed. *takes hit of meth*
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
One person decided to veer off topic and post a judgement about people who travel and miss travel because of the carbon implications. So the other did the same about people who have kids because of the carbon implications? How are they not the same? Singling out one particular source of carbon emissions (and likely the children and related decisions emit far more carbon) without considering an entire life's choices, for the sake of superiority and probably virtue signaling. So of there was nothing wrong with the travel post, then how is there something wrong with the kid post?
If someone can, rather out of the blue, cast aspersions at those who travel because of their carbon footprint, then why is it not fair play to cast aspersions at those who have kinds-especially multiple kids--because of their carbon footprint?
Both seem like meaningless virtue signaling from my vantage point.
I'd be surprised to find out that anyone posting here is a climate change denier but expressing disappointment at the disconnect between the presumed understanding of the science and the multiple expressed desires to start flying all over the planet once it's allowed doesn't seem like virtue signalling to me.
(Kids are also of course an unsustainable charge on the planet but I don't think anyone was expressing the desire to have more kids as a consequence of quarantine, there's been more about the difficulties of coping with the ones they already have.)
I don't think anyone was expressing a desire to travel *more* as a consequence of quarantine either. They said travel was something they like and miss, and were shat upon for that because travel is bad for the climate. So too is having kids, and in fact the kids are likely *worse* for the environment in a head-to-head-comparison. So to judge one choice, without knowing someone's other choices, and hurl insults based on it, when there is a very good chance that one major decision in the judger's life is likely far, for worse for the planet than the decision they are judging, seems highly hypocritical. It's like a meth addict chastizing someone for smoking cigarettes because it's bad for health. They may not be wrong, but they look like a raging hypocrite who lacks perspective. And perhaps also someone how wants to jump on a bandwagon of having a pet, trendy stance on an issue. Look how evolved I am! I would never smoke cigarettes! They are disgusting and bad one's health and the health of those around them, and smokers should be ashamed. *takes hit of meth*
To be clear, I didn't "hurl insults", I just expressed disappointment over plans for future air travel. And given that 1) for environmental reasons I haven't flown to go on holiday since 2001 and 2) I don't have kids I'm don't understand how I'm being hypocritical.
Moore importantly, someone who thinks climate change is "a pet trendy issue" is totally misunderstanding the scale of the problem.
-
It's possible to like children and still acknowledge that you're not doing your part for the planet by having them.
I fully intend to have children, but I have no difficulty acknowledging that they're not good for the environment.
I'm not the one getting defensive about others making fair observations about whether I want children or not!
As they say, if you're going to dish it you have to take it. This all started when someone with children criticised others' (not mine; I don't care for travel) preference for travel on the basis that it was wasteful.
I think the argument that "you're not doing your part for the planet by having kids" is a terribly flawed argument in and of itself. I don't buy it.
Again, the virtue signaling is getting old around here. You can pick apart anyone's life choices one by one if you want and there's no end. It gets old fast.
It was the virtue signaling post about travel that started this, not the response about kids--one that I took to be at least partly tongue in cheek, attempting to highlight what was wrong with the post about travel but applying it to something a bit more controversial.
What was wrong with the post about travel?
One person decided to veer off topic and post a judgement about people who travel and miss travel because of the carbon implications. So the other did the same about people who have kids because of the carbon implications? How are they not the same? Singling out one particular source of carbon emissions (and likely the children and related decisions emit far more carbon) without considering an entire life's choices, for the sake of superiority and probably virtue signaling. So of there was nothing wrong with the travel post, then how is there something wrong with the kid post?
If someone can, rather out of the blue, cast aspersions at those who travel because of their carbon footprint, then why is it not fair play to cast aspersions at those who have kinds-especially multiple kids--because of their carbon footprint?
Both seem like meaningless virtue signaling from my vantage point.
I'd be surprised to find out that anyone posting here is a climate change denier but expressing disappointment at the disconnect between the presumed understanding of the science and the multiple expressed desires to start flying all over the planet once it's allowed doesn't seem like virtue signalling to me.
(Kids are also of course an unsustainable charge on the planet but I don't think anyone was expressing the desire to have more kids as a consequence of quarantine, there's been more about the difficulties of coping with the ones they already have.)
I don't think anyone was expressing a desire to travel *more* as a consequence of quarantine either. They said travel was something they like and miss, and were shat upon for that because travel is bad for the climate. So too is having kids, and in fact the kids are likely *worse* for the environment in a head-to-head-comparison. So to judge one choice, without knowing someone's other choices, and hurl insults based on it, when there is a very good chance that one major decision in the judger's life is likely far, for worse for the planet than the decision they are judging, seems highly hypocritical. It's like a meth addict chastizing someone for smoking cigarettes because it's bad for health. They may not be wrong, but they look like a raging hypocrite who lacks perspective. And perhaps also someone how wants to jump on a bandwagon of having a pet, trendy stance on an issue. Look how evolved I am! I would never smoke cigarettes! They are disgusting and bad one's health and the health of those around them, and smokers should be ashamed. *takes hit of meth*
To be clear, I didn't "hurl insults", I just expressed disappointment over plans for future air travel. And given that 1) for environmental reasons I haven't flown to go on holiday since 2001 and 2) I don't have kids I'm don't understand how I'm being hypocritical.
Moore importantly, someone who thinks climate change is "a pet trendy issue" is totally misunderstanding the scale of the problem.
I entirely understand the severity of the problem, just as that meth addict understands the severity of the smoking problem.
It's not that climate change is a pet issue; it's that calling people out on climate change *and travel in that light* is the pet virtue signaling. We've decided that shaming people over travel is the trendy way to prove our climate change champion bona fides. That specific component of carbon emissions is the one we call out, even if others are worse or more frequent.
-
I think it's quite valid to call out others (in an appropriate setting, mind you) over international air travel as long as one does not have children, and is willing to call out others for having children. They are both indulgences.
-
What is the assumed carbon footprint of a child? If I teach my kid to live in an environmentally sustainable way, does it change the equation?
If I kill myself at 50, I'll have wasted much less resources than someone who lives to be 90. Can I have kids AND do a lot of plane travel with the early suicide option? What about the elderly? They use a lot of resources on travel and eventually on medical stuff/staff. Can I fly more often and have children if I spread covid-19 to a bunch of them? Can we prove any of these things with stats . . . or are we all just sticking our heads in the sand about climate change and hoping that our lifestyle won't have to change?
-
What is the assumed carbon footprint of a child? If I teach my kid to live in an environmentally sustainable way, does it change the equation?
If I kill myself at 50, I'll have wasted much less resources than someone who lives to be 90. Can I have kids AND do a lot of plane travel with the early suicide option? What about the elderly? They use a lot of resources on travel and eventually on medical stuff/staff. Can I fly more often and have children if I spread covid-19 to a bunch of them? Can we prove any of these things with stats . . . or are we all just sticking our heads in the sand about climate change and hoping that our lifestyle won't have to change?
Hey now, you are supposed to be a wage slave “giving back to society” until you are 65, so you have to hang on that long before you off yourself.
-
I think it's quite valid to call out others (in an appropriate setting, mind you) over international air travel as long as one does not have children, and is willing to call out others for having children. They are both indulgences.
Luckily all of our parents indulged in having children or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
I think it's quite valid to call out others (in an appropriate setting, mind you) over international air travel as long as one does not have children, and is willing to call out others for having children. They are both indulgences.
I'll bet you think you believe in evolution, too.
-
I think it's quite valid to call out others (in an appropriate setting, mind you) over international air travel as long as one does not have children, and is willing to call out others for having children. They are both indulgences.
Luckily all of our parents indulged in having children or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yup, and we (especially those of us in certain countries) consume a hell of a lot of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.
-
I entirely understand the severity of the problem, just as that meth addict understands the severity of the smoking problem.
It's not that climate change is a pet issue; it's that calling people out on climate change *and travel in that light* is the pet virtue signaling. We've decided that shaming people over travel is the trendy way to prove our climate change champion bona fides. That specific component of carbon emissions is the one we call out, even if others are worse or more frequent.
I really get a kick out of the "climate change" discussions. It's almost like a secular religion. So if we have faith in the science and live a carbon virtuous lifestyle and just spread the Good Word we'll save the world! Heady stuff I have to admit. I am kind of missing how it ties to a discussion of quarantines under COVID though.
-
I entirely understand the severity of the problem, just as that meth addict understands the severity of the smoking problem.
It's not that climate change is a pet issue; it's that calling people out on climate change *and travel in that light* is the pet virtue signaling. We've decided that shaming people over travel is the trendy way to prove our climate change champion bona fides. That specific component of carbon emissions is the one we call out, even if others are worse or more frequent.
I really get a kick out of the "climate change" discussions. It's almost like a secular religion. So if we have faith in the science and live a carbon virtuous lifestyle and just spread the Good Word we'll save the world! Heady stuff I have to admit. I am kind of missing how it ties to a discussion of quarantines under COVID though.
I have faith in the science, and I try to do what I can.
But I still think we’re fucked.
-
I think it's quite valid to call out others (in an appropriate setting, mind you) over international air travel as long as one does not have children, and is willing to call out others for having children. They are both indulgences.
Luckily all of our parents indulged in having children or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yup, and we (especially those of us in certain countries) consume a hell of a lot of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.
Exactly. I'm not sure how pointing out this fact is in any way controversial.
As for "virtue signaling," is that even possible on an anonymous internet board where no one knows each other and no one is even using their own identities? If that's the sole response to someone pointing out facts, wouldn't it be easier to just say "FAKE NEWS!" and be done with it? ;)
-
I think it's quite valid to call out others (in an appropriate setting, mind you) over international air travel as long as one does not have children, and is willing to call out others for having children. They are both indulgences.
Luckily all of our parents indulged in having children or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yup, and we (especially those of us in certain countries) consume a hell of a lot of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.
Exactly. I'm not sure how pointing out this fact is in any way controversial.
As for "virtue signaling," is that even possible on an anonymous internet board where no one knows each other and no one is even using their own identities? If that's the sole response to someone pointing out facts, wouldn't it be easier to just say "FAKE NEWS!" and be done with it? ;)
People take their online personas pretty serious, or at least many people do, so of course it makes sense to virtue signal. And for some, it's just habit. As for just claiming "fake news" instead, they are different, of course. One can virtue signal over something entirely true (like the meth user ranting about cigarette smoke).
And pointing out the fact that travel is bad for the environment isn't controversial, in and of itself. Doing it in a thread about something else entirely, as an almost non-sequiter, and out of the context of an entire life (which is what it was contrasted to children, though it could have been contrasted to many other things as well) is where it gets tiresome.
Someone merely mentioned missing travel and got the "carbon devil!" response. For all we know, that person has a non-existent carbon footprint and travel is their one indulgence. Should they give that up, too? Maybe, but likely the one commenting has a far worse carbon situation. Or not. People who live in non-solar glass houses that they cool to ridiculously low temperatures and drive to and their Hummers and f-150s ought not to cast stones. And based on one comment, we have no idea whether they person traveling is that guy, or the guy who lives in a tiny glass house, plants trees every weekend for fun, and has a lifestyle that emits almost zero carbon. Or not.
But travel is the carbon cause de jour. So it's the one people pick on, even though it's far less impactful than a lot of other choices (like, for example, having children). Why is it that one mention of travel got that comment, but that comment does happen in every thread where children are mentioned. "Help me reduce my kids' screen time." "CARBON!11!!!1" That doesn't happen. So the defense that it's natural and healthy to point out something bad for the planet and is just "pointing out facts" doesn't seem to quite explain things, and seems a bit disingenuous.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
The argument that it didn't escape from a lab in Wuhan is because it never happened before in that city, it just happened 4 times from a lab in Beijing? Sorry if I don't think that's very compelling evidence.
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) (source: Nature Medicine, a very high quality peer-reviewed journal)
Good read.
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
We homeschooled for several years but now we pay about $4,000 per child for private school. Meanwhile the public school district spends about $10,000 per pupil with inferior results (closer to $13k if you include capital spending on school buildings and the debt service for previous construction). So no, I am not particularly supportive of more funding for education. We appreciate what the teachers do, and it's certainly easier for my wife not having to plan all the curriculum and do all the instruction for four kids.
If you break down test result rankings for American schools by nationality or racial demographic the USA comes out of top for nearly all breakdowns. For example: people of German descent (German-Americans) have higher scores than German students (in Germany); Mexican-Americans higher than Mexican student, etc.
The results are very telling. American public education is actually very good. However, it is true as an aggregate our student scores are not nearly as good.
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
We homeschooled for several years but now we pay about $4,000 per child for private school. Meanwhile the public school district spends about $10,000 per pupil with inferior results (closer to $13k if you include capital spending on school buildings and the debt service for previous construction). So no, I am not particularly supportive of more funding for education. We appreciate what the teachers do, and it's certainly easier for my wife not having to plan all the curriculum and do all the instruction for four kids.
If you break down test result rankings for American schools by nationality or racial demographic the USA comes out of top for nearly all breakdowns. For example: people of German descent (German-Americans) have higher scores than German students (in Germany); Mexican-Americans higher than Mexican student, etc.
The results are very telling. American public education is actually very good. However, it is true as an aggregate our student scores are not nearly as good.
Can you show me the data used to come to this conclusion?
-
As for "virtue signaling," is that even possible on an anonymous internet board where no one knows each other and no one is even using their own identities? If that's the sole response to someone pointing out facts, wouldn't it be easier to just say "FAKE NEWS!" and be done with it? ;)
Complaining about virtue signalling is the new virtue signalling.
-
As for "virtue signaling," is that even possible on an anonymous internet board where no one knows each other and no one is even using their own identities? If that's the sole response to someone pointing out facts, wouldn't it be easier to just say "FAKE NEWS!" and be done with it? ;)
Complaining about virtue signalling is the new virtue signalling.
+1. Lord, it is predictable and eyeroll-inducing.
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
We homeschooled for several years but now we pay about $4,000 per child for private school. Meanwhile the public school district spends about $10,000 per pupil with inferior results (closer to $13k if you include capital spending on school buildings and the debt service for previous construction). So no, I am not particularly supportive of more funding for education. We appreciate what the teachers do, and it's certainly easier for my wife not having to plan all the curriculum and do all the instruction for four kids.
If you break down test result rankings for American schools by nationality or racial demographic the USA comes out of top for nearly all breakdowns. For example: people of German descent (German-Americans) have higher scores than German students (in Germany); Mexican-Americans higher than Mexican student, etc.
The results are very telling. American public education is actually very good. However, it is true as an aggregate our student scores are not nearly as good.
Can you show me the data used to come to this conclusion?
https://cis.org/Report/US-Immigrant-Performance-International-Tests
https://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/
-
Here's a general question. For those with kids now that you see what it is like to have kids at home versus at school, does it make you value what schools and teachers do more? Would it make you more supportive for more state and federal resources for schools and teachers including things like headstart? In my state, education keeps getting defunded. We used to be 48th in spending, not sure where we are now.
We homeschooled for several years but now we pay about $4,000 per child for private school. Meanwhile the public school district spends about $10,000 per pupil with inferior results (closer to $13k if you include capital spending on school buildings and the debt service for previous construction). So no, I am not particularly supportive of more funding for education. We appreciate what the teachers do, and it's certainly easier for my wife not having to plan all the curriculum and do all the instruction for four kids.
If you break down test result rankings for American schools by nationality or racial demographic the USA comes out of top for nearly all breakdowns. For example: people of German descent (German-Americans) have higher scores than German students (in Germany); Mexican-Americans higher than Mexican student, etc.
The results are very telling. American public education is actually very good. However, it is true as an aggregate our student scores are not nearly as good.
Can you show me the data used to come to this conclusion?
https://cis.org/Report/US-Immigrant-Performance-International-Tests
https://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/
Their thesis seems to be that the US does worse than other first world countries because it's harder to educate poor people and the samples have too many poor people. The authors spend much effort trying to correct for the number of poor people sampled, so that the US appears to do better than central Europe, but not Canada, South Korea or Finland.
-
We're in Italy, so things have been "real" for us for a long time. Our lock down happened on March 9 and was a lot more extreme that the lock downs in many other places. We also live in an apartment with 2 kids with no balcony or other outside space. The only outside space we have in our roof. We were only allowed to leave the apartment for almost 2 months to go food shopping, go to the pharmacy or go to work if we were essential workers (we're not). Our kids were not allowed to leave the apartment. We were only allowed to jog or walk dogs within 200 meters of our apartment -approximately 1 city block. All parks were closed.
Anyway on Monday, they eased up the restrictions here a bit. Parks (but not playgrounds) have reopened and we are allowed to exercise in them while social distancing and wearing masks. We're now allowed to meet friends but we are allowed to meet family members while social distancing. I took the kids to the park yesterday and it was amazing. There were a lot of police around checking everyone and everyone was behaving.
The shit's also real for us as my husband owns a tourism business. He is now a stay at home dad and, thank goodness, I'm able to work from home. Kind of put things into perspective.
I'm in Italy too... terrible timing because I moved here for work, but with traveling around Europe as my primary objective. Now, unfortunately all I can do is work.
You say we're allowed to meet friends, do you know more specifics on that? Do you mean "congiunti"? It's rough being an American here in Italy during this situation-- their rules are tough to understand and are always changing. Even the Italians can't figure them out.
Sorry -that was a typo. I meant that we're not allowed to see friends - only "congiunti" - which pretty much everyone interprets to mean relatives and partners. Do you know Italian? If so, I recommend reading the Presidential Decree rather than the various interpretations in the media. It kind of lays things out although there are a few holes.
-
To TOTALLY shift - how is this quarantine shit getting real for us?
We just pulled together (and made live) the website for our house, which we're listing, at least initially, FSBO. The lack of homes for sale in our area has us thinking this is actually an opportunity, and maybe a slim window of one before the reality of this sets in for everyone. (We were about to "put it on the market" 2 days before the governor here shut things down.)
Our plan is to move onto our sailboat and head off, though those options are very limited right now. Looks like it's possible our younger child, currently a college freshman, might be joining us if their school is remote only in the fall.
Here's hoping for a fast sale and a quick close.
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
+2
I can't begin to relate to people who have time for activities or hobbies or what have you. 2 FT WFH parents plus two home schooling kids. Never been busier or more stressed.
+1000
I'm also...disappointed that in all the company update meetings we've had, they haven't even tried to address it. Perhaps it is because there are only I think 3 of us, out of 70 people, in this situation (2 full time working parents with YOUNG children).
On my staff of 30, only one is in this situation. For her I changed up her hours so she could alternate work hours with her husband as much as possible. This has really sucked for her and I'm trying to be as supportive as I can, but she is quite a bit less productive, mostly because her hours now don't align with those of her project teams. This won't be held against her due to the circumstances, but I don't know if I could pull it off if the majority of my staff was in this boat. I'm hoping this ends soon.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
The argument that it didn't escape from a lab in Wuhan is because it never happened before in that city, it just happened 4 times from a lab in Beijing? Sorry if I don't think that's very compelling evidence.
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) (source: Nature Medicine, a very high quality peer-reviewed journal)
Good read.
x2, also this: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/report-says-cellphone-data-suggests-october-shutdown-wuhan-lab-experts-n1202716 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/report-says-cellphone-data-suggests-october-shutdown-wuhan-lab-experts-n1202716)
and this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext#bib35 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext#bib35)
(https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachment/01a2ccc7-8860-4521-acce-10a5ef5bfe42/gr1.jpg)
There's no evidence to say it started in the market either.
-
Instead of my old 9 hour work day, I'm now trying to get in 9 hours a day in between child care. Some days it takes 12-16 hours to work 9 hours and some days I can't get 9 hours in. Because I'm working in fragmented blasts instead of dedicated, focused time, I'm far less efficient and can't get all my work done during the work weeks, so it's spilling into weekends. There's no time for me to even do my old, meaningful activities.
+1
+2
I can't begin to relate to people who have time for activities or hobbies or what have you. 2 FT WFH parents plus two home schooling kids. Never been busier or more stressed.
As someone who homeschooled my children K-12, I find it absurd that school districts would expect parents who are working from home to also homeschool their children. Homeschooling typically isn't "school at home", and really what they're doing is giving most students more homework with less teaching and support, and saddling parents with yet more to do.
Honestly, if it were happening to me, I would withdraw my children from the school, establish a private school in my home (one way to legally homeschool in my state), and do whatever the heck I wanted. No fear. I'd let my kids read, watch educational TV, play games and do puzzles, bake and cook with me, and play play play. It would basically be responsible unschooling. I'd buy whichever level Teaching Textbooks program they were in for math, and just not worry. I'd "strew the environment" with learning games and activities, art supplies, musical instruments (but not during working hours), and plenty of books.
I find it ridiculous to talk about "learning loss", as if trying to do distance learning from home with working parents is going to make up for what the kids aren't learning in school. It would have been far better to take this pressure off of families, acknowledge that children learn all the time, and worry about "learning loss" when schools resume. But that's not how funding works.
This is very much where we are right now. 2 parents working from home in professional jobs. 3 kids--7, 4, and 6 mos. We tag team our calls and their school calls, trading off holding the baby during "listening" calls, trying to encourage the kids to do learning-ish stuff, making and eating food, occasionally cleaning. It's just endless.
And yet, on the whole, I think we're holding up reasonably well. And I owe it all to . . . screen time. Way more screen time than usual. When both parents need to be working, we've got all manner of learning-ish stuff on screens. Khan Academy Kids for the little guy, ChessKid for older guy. And just a bunch of learning-ish toys and books laying around. And realizing that they're little and they'll catch up. With 2 educated, engaged parents and a safe home environment that meets all their needs, they're already in way better shape than a lot of kids. A few months--even a year--of lost instructional time is probably not going to make a difference.
And do I ever have respect for both teachers and homeschool parents who do it well. I could actually see myself enjoying homeschooling if a) I wasn't trying to work at the same time and b) we could go out and do things.
-
And yet, on the whole, I think we're holding up reasonably well. And I owe it all to . . . screen time. Way more screen time than usual. When both parents need to be working, we've got all manner of learning-ish stuff on screens. Khan Academy Kids for the little guy, ChessKid for older guy. And just a bunch of learning-ish toys and books laying around. And realizing that they're little and they'll catch up. With 2 educated, engaged parents and a safe home environment that meets all their needs, they're already in way better shape than a lot of kids. A few months--even a year--of lost instructional time is probably not going to make a difference.
You might be surprised and find that your kids end up being ahead if you just let them do the work without sticking to the school's schedule, help them if they get stuck but let them go at their own pace.
-
Interesting conversation in this thread. I wonder how the responses would vary if COVID-19 were understood to be an occasional event, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime event. What happens if we get a similar virus in 12 months? At what point does the risk aversion during a black swan out-damage the actual event? My biggest concern is that the wet markets have already reopened in China.
A wet market is no different from a butchers shop or a fish market, or anywhere in the US that sells live fish/lobsters/chickens etc. They're not typically filled with masses of unusual species. Of course they have already opened again - because that's how most chinese households buy food. It's normal to go to the markets for fresh produce. Supermarkets are not a thing in most of China. Furthermore, the fact that this probably started with an outbreak at a wet market in Wuhan does not mean that the virus was CAUSED by the wet market. Anyone, customer or stall holder, could have brought that virus in. No one took in an infected frickin pangolin and boom! Pangolins, IF they're the middle species, are killed for their scales which are used in chinese medicine (yes, I know that's horrific but it's not the topic right now). They're not carried around live.
The virus was started in a lab
Nope. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/)
The argument that it didn't escape from a lab in Wuhan is because it never happened before in that city, it just happened 4 times from a lab in Beijing? Sorry if I don't think that's very compelling evidence.
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) (source: Nature Medicine, a very high quality peer-reviewed journal)
Good read.
Relevant exerpt from the above link:
Theories of SARS-CoV-2 origins
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.
-
Since I have Mondays off now and my boss is making me break quarantine to go to the office and job sites anyways -
I’ve organized a backpacking trip with a couple friends on the AT this weekend. 2-day hike + camping in the rain and cold. Because if I don’t get to play outside soon I am going to completely lose my grip on reality.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
If large enough numbers of people choose to flout a quarantine then it’s a nonissue. That seems to be the trend.
-
And yet, on the whole, I think we're holding up reasonably well. And I owe it all to . . . screen time. Way more screen time than usual. When both parents need to be working, we've got all manner of learning-ish stuff on screens. Khan Academy Kids for the little guy, ChessKid for older guy. And just a bunch of learning-ish toys and books laying around. And realizing that they're little and they'll catch up. With 2 educated, engaged parents and a safe home environment that meets all their needs, they're already in way better shape than a lot of kids. A few months--even a year--of lost instructional time is probably not going to make a difference.
You might be surprised and find that your kids end up being ahead if you just let them do the work without sticking to the school's schedule, help them if they get stuck but let them go at their own pace.
I know every district is different. But this is what we are doing. I can't relate to the horror home school stories. Even some of my staff are having trouble. But my wife probably spends about 2 hours a day on it. Most of the work the kids do themselves, computer programs, etc. My kids are easily done by noon, 1pm at the latest, and have finished Thursday with only the short daily activity on Friday to do. So long weekends.
Home schooling has been a total cakewalk for us. It must be awful for the parents with much more intense home school requirements. We are in one of the 5 largest districts in the country as well.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
If large enough numbers of people choose to flout a quarantine then it’s a nonissue. That seems to be the trend.
People flouting quarantine + a second wave could make for an interesting showdown.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
You won't be able to keep people at home when they rightly or wrongly perceive there is little risk to them.
My state only just eased the lockdown a day ago but already the roads are clogged, as they should be, with people going about their daily lives.
I've got a road trip planned for this weekend and I imagine our hiking spot will be choc a bloc with people.
Time will tell if the infection numbers shoot up or not. We are running 10,000 tests a day so we will have a good handle on numbers.
I'm not sure if the strain in Australia is simply less virulent but the hospitalisations are not occurring for healthy young people. Even though we are having 7-15 cases detected each day and an active caseload of 100-120, our hospital numbers keep falling with only 8 people hospitalised in the entire state. Over 85 cases have been connected to a single employer, with the detection occurring over 3 weeks, which tells me that there must be a lot of asymptomatic spread (otherwise the detection and shut-down would have been much faster).
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
Germany did a remarkably fine job of containing the first wave. However, they've eased lockdown and it's already proving fruitful. Their cases "nearly tripled" after easing lockdown (https://www.newsweek.com/germany-sees-new-coronavirus-cases-nearly-triple-infection-rate-rises-after-lockdown-restrictions-1503512). And they're overall doing a much, much better job of testing and contact tracing than the U.S. I'd hold off on gloating for a bit so you don't look like an ass. Remember that it will take a couple of weeks for people to start noticing symptoms, and thus for the cases to start rising dramatically again.
You seem to be severely underestimating this virus. It's not just the death toll that should worry you. Even many survivors face organ damage (not just lungs but also hearts, brains, kidneys (https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/04/17/organ-damage)--you didn't really think that "mild" symptoms such as messing with your brain to make you lose your sense of taste and smell were benign, did you you silly?) that cold very well be permanent. At least, that's what the military is betting on, since they placed a permanent ban on survivors of COVID-19 (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/05/06/coronavirus-survivors-banned-from-joining-the-military/) joining them.
And it's also not "just the old and the already sick" as we were told in the beginning. Now younger people are dying of strokes (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/), and doctors in at least 3 places (UK, US, and Canada) have noticed an alarming upsurge in children coming in with what appears to be a combo of toxic shock syndrome and Kawasaki disease. At least 5 children in NY have died of that (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/kawasaki-disease-up-to-5-ny-children-dead-85-sickened-by-rare-covid-related-illness/2411571/), including a 5 year old who died of heart failure. Because that's a normal thing for healthy five-year-olds to die of.
We still don't even know what the hell this illness is, or what it does to the human body. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/doctors-keep-discovering-new-ways-the-coronavirus-attacks-the-body/ar-BB13SoPn?ocid=spartanntp&fbclid=IwAR0iIFL7ZIlyM3Mr78ZeElvbpM2NZ4wUacmRne05LgbFgP_ZFQgXNNVJD-U) To want to reopen and get back to BAU is the height of stupidity. Even if only "vulnerable" groups stay home, it's still going to exact an excruciating toll, and plenty of people are still going to die.
By all means, be cavalier AF with your own health. When it impacts everyone around you, however, STAY THE FUCK HOME.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
The US hasn't done enough testing to have any idea whatsoever how many people are quietly spreading covid in the community, and that's WITH partial lock down. Your reported death rate is hovering around 6% of reported cases. Given that the overall death rate is supposed to be 1% or less (as extensively argued all over the media including this board), that does suggest that a significant number of people are infected and not reported. When the US reopens, all of those infected people in the community are going to go from infecting 1 or 2 others without knowing it, to infecting hundreds of others without knowing it. And your death toll will soar. There's just no feasible way that isn't going to happen.
-
This is unprecedented - nobody really knows how to fix this or how to prevent the spread while keeping our economy going.
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
I don't understand people going into stores refusing to wear masks - but even if everyone wears masks there is no data to prove it would fully prevent infections.
Not sure when we will have a vaccine with enough doses for everyone - but I don't think things will get back to normal until that point. If no vaccine is made it will be just like the flu and people will become desensitized to it over time as everyone gets sick and the survivors are either immune or get less severe symptoms upon reinfection.
-
This is unprecedented - nobody really knows how to fix this or how to prevent the spread while keeping our economy going.
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
I don't understand people going into stores refusing to wear masks - but even if everyone wears masks there is no data to prove it would fully prevent infections.
Not sure when we will have a vaccine with enough doses for everyone - but I don't think things will get back to normal until that point. If no vaccine is made it will be just like the flu and people will become desensitized to it over time as everyone gets sick and the survivors are either immune or get less severe symptoms upon reinfection.
There's absolutely no guarantee of either of those bolded outcomes happening. We don't know enough. We also have absolutely no idea what the long term health impacts are of having covid, even a mild case. It's clear now that this isn't a respiratory disease; it attacks every part of the body. How will that play out for long term health? Or even long term fertility? We think this is a disaster now. There might well be some vastly worse news coming.
-
There's absolutely no guarantee of either of those bolded outcomes happening. We don't know enough. We also have absolutely no idea what the long term health impacts are of having covid, even a mild case. It's clear now that this isn't a respiratory disease; it attacks every part of the body. How will that play out for long term health? Or even long term fertility? We think this is a disaster now. There might well be some vastly worse news coming.
Absolutely I was only stating the most likely scenarios based on what the experts are saying, but there are certainly many unknowns. There is optimism for a vaccine - let's hope it works out.
-
At least, that's what the military is betting on, since they placed a permanent ban on survivors of COVID-19 (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/05/06/coronavirus-survivors-banned-from-joining-the-military/) joining them.
This is a very interesting article. There are only two reasons I can think of that the military would permanently ban you from joining if you have contracted covid-19:
- You are more than likely to have long term health damage if you survive
- You are not protected (and may be weakened) by contracting the virus once
Either would make the 'open everything up and try to achieve herd' immunity concept a particularly misguided one.
-
At least, that's what the military is betting on, since they placed a permanent ban on survivors of COVID-19 (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/05/06/coronavirus-survivors-banned-from-joining-the-military/) joining them.
This is a very interesting article. There are only two reasons I can think of that the military would permanently ban you from joining if you have contracted covid-19:
- You are more than likely to have long term health damage if you survive
- You are not protected (and may be weakened) by contracting the virus once
Either would make the 'open everything up and try to achieve herd' immunity concept a particularly misguided one.
It's more likely a knee-jerk response to the current situation rather than the US military having more knowledge about the virus than the CDC and everyone else. It's likely the policy will be adjusted once all the facts are known.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May.
Yikes, that's a long time. I'm genuinely surprised that Americans have been willing to comply with the stay-at-home orders as long as they have. I really think people will start to revolt if this drags on into the summer with no end in sight.
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. As others noted, there have been surges in places like Germany that have started to reopen... but that just makes me wonder what the endgame is. We've gotten ourselves into this situation, now how do we get ourselves out?
Is the plan to shut down the economy and keep everyone at home until there's a vaccine? We might hit a home run and have one by January, but what if it takes five or ten years? What if we never invent one?
Or is the plan to keep extending stay-at-home until we understand the virus better and have more effective treatments? But that can only happen if there are more cases for scientists to study and learn from, which means, ironically, that the stay-at-home strategy requires some people to defy it and get sick for the greater good of everyone.
Basically, stay-at-home can buy us time, but what is it buying us time for?
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May.
Yikes, that's a long time. I'm genuinely surprised that Americans have been willing to comply with the stay-at-home orders as long as they have. I really think people will start to revolt if this drags on into the summer with no end in sight.
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. As others noted, there have been surges in places like Germany that have started to reopen... but that just makes me wonder what the endgame is. We've gotten ourselves into this situation, now how do we get ourselves out?
Is the plan to shut down the economy and keep everyone at home until there's a vaccine? We might hit a home run and have one by January, but what if it takes five or ten years? What if we never invent one?
Or is the plan to keep extending stay-at-home until we understand the virus better and have more effective treatments? But that can only happen if there are more cases for scientists to study and learn from, which means, ironically, that the stay-at-home strategy requires some people to defy it and get sick for the greater good of everyone.
Basically, stay-at-home can buy us time, but what is it buying us time for?
Somehow I don't think we have a shortage of cases to study.
-
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. As others noted, there have been surges in places like Germany that have started to reopen...
Yes, the media keeps covering this surge in Germany, but I don't see it. Daily new cases just don't bear it out. The media latches on to anything they can to increase fear.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/
"After a rise in the estimated reproduction rate or ‘R’ to 1.13 at the weekend, Monday saw new cases fall back, but the ‘R’ value at 1.07 was still above the critical threshold of 1.00.
German officials say that ‘R’ becomes more volatile as the overall number of infections declines, and a brief spike is not necessarily dangerous."
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May. Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
For fun, yesterday, I looked up LA county's numbers, because I'd seen that article. I pulled about 8 weeks of data.
LA county's numbers are not coming down, in deaths or new cases. They bounce around a lot but they aren't decreasing.
-
Ours either, and we’re more or less open in my state.
-
For fun, yesterday, I looked up LA county's numbers, because I'd seen that article. I pulled about 8 weeks of data.
LA county's numbers are not coming down, in deaths or new cases. They bounce around a lot but they aren't decreasing.
LA county has been relatively flat the last 2 weeks, but I was referring to national trends. Here is LA county data. (http://%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&fbclid=IwAR3POdjPEh8gr8Mlt9J_oUGHB_ZZoVRRA1cstJ6ZiN9AEWAYiNiVJpwzQwI) (just click on Los Angeles)
LA never experienced a surge, only a moderate increase, and things have been slightly up and and down for the past weeks but not really an upward tick in daily deaths.
Remember, California had the first cases in the country -- estimated to have been in January. CA went nearly 2 full months with no lockdown measures and never experienced a surge. 40 M people.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May.
Yikes, that's a long time. I'm genuinely surprised that Americans have been willing to comply with the stay-at-home orders as long as they have. I really think people will start to revolt if this drags on into the summer with no end in sight.
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. As others noted, there have been surges in places like Germany that have started to reopen... but that just makes me wonder what the endgame is. We've gotten ourselves into this situation, now how do we get ourselves out?
Is the plan to shut down the economy and keep everyone at home until there's a vaccine? We might hit a home run and have one by January, but what if it takes five or ten years? What if we never invent one?
Or is the plan to keep extending stay-at-home until we understand the virus better and have more effective treatments? But that can only happen if there are more cases for scientists to study and learn from, which means, ironically, that the stay-at-home strategy requires some people to defy it and get sick for the greater good of everyone.
Basically, stay-at-home can buy us time, but what is it buying us time for?
I don't think we necessarily know. Originally, it was to not overwhelm the ICUs with patients. Maybe that will be the answer in the long run. Ease restrictions a bit at a time, if you spike in cases and the ICUs start to fill up, then tighten restrictions again.
I feel like a lot of people just don't really care about the deaths because it hasn't affected them at all.
Also, this was an interesting read:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200406-why-smart-people-believe-coronavirus-myths
-
For fun, yesterday, I looked up LA county's numbers, because I'd seen that article. I pulled about 8 weeks of data.
LA county's numbers are not coming down, in deaths or new cases. They bounce around a lot but they aren't decreasing.
LA county has been relatively flat the last 2 weeks, but I was referring to national trends. Here is LA county data. (http://%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&fbclid=IwAR3POdjPEh8gr8Mlt9J_oUGHB_ZZoVRRA1cstJ6ZiN9AEWAYiNiVJpwzQwI) (just click on Los Angeles)
LA never experienced a surge, only a moderate increase, and things have been slightly up and and down for the past weeks but not really an upward tick in daily deaths.
Remember, California had the first cases in the country -- estimated to have been in January. CA went nearly 2 full months with no lockdown measures and never experienced a surge. 40 M people.
I'm in Santa Barbara, our county is seeing a MAJOR surge at the Federal Prison in Lompoc, but not in the south county at all.
However, we JUST got community testing last week. I don't think we can personally say there wasn't a surge when we didn't have enough tests.
I have a few friends who have had it, and a few others who likely had it but were not able to be tested in March when they were sick. However, as I like to point out to all my friends who are SURE they had it, only about 22% of our tests are coming out positive. So even among the sick, only about 1 in 5 actually had the virus.
-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-we-trust-covid-modelling-more-evidence-from-sweden?fbclid=IwAR0779gBJYU4ehIBzoHWJiy1L43wWMn8eNfSzHKqok8pKmndjf9iC47ZV7Y
-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-we-trust-covid-modelling-more-evidence-from-sweden?fbclid=IwAR0779gBJYU4ehIBzoHWJiy1L43wWMn8eNfSzHKqok8pKmndjf9iC47ZV7Y
Swedish society is very different from US society, as has been noted elsewhere on this thread and forum. Before the shutdowns were even announced, my husband's store was as busy as Black Friday for 2 straight weeks. People here were not staying home of their own volition.
-
Swedish society is very different from US society, as has been noted elsewhere on this thread and forum. Before the shutdowns were even announced, my husband's store was as busy as Black Friday for 2 straight weeks. People here were not staying home of their own volition.
Yes. Clearly Sweden has experienced higher rates of cases and deaths than its closest neighbors (though this could be attributed to a number of factors), but I think this article is mainly pointing out how horribly flawed our projection models have been.
Interestingly, most people call it "Sweden's strategy". From a friend who lives there, this is what he related to me:
"Sweden chose the only strategy allowable by law. Curfew laws and lock down laws are only allowed to be used during times of war. Ministerial rule is also forbidden by law, meaning no one can give orders to the head of a Swedish governmental agency, not even the prime minister. The person in charge of a government agency in Sweden is not politically appointed, just someone who worked themselves up to the top. Government agencies are run like non-profit (for the most part) corporations and are ultimately the ones who run the country."
-
For fun, yesterday, I looked up LA county's numbers, because I'd seen that article. I pulled about 8 weeks of data.
LA county's numbers are not coming down, in deaths or new cases. They bounce around a lot but they aren't decreasing.
LA county has been relatively flat the last 2 weeks, but I was referring to national trends. Here is LA county data. (http://%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&fbclid=IwAR3POdjPEh8gr8Mlt9J_oUGHB_ZZoVRRA1cstJ6ZiN9AEWAYiNiVJpwzQwI) (just click on Los Angeles)
LA never experienced a surge, only a moderate increase, and things have been slightly up and and down for the past weeks but not really an upward tick in daily deaths.
Remember, California had the first cases in the country -- estimated to have been in January. CA went nearly 2 full months with no lockdown measures and never experienced a surge. 40 M people.
I'm in Santa Barbara, our county is seeing a MAJOR surge at the Federal Prison in Lompoc, but not in the south county at all.
However, we JUST got community testing last week. I don't think we can personally say there wasn't a surge when we didn't have enough tests.
I have a few friends who have had it, and a few others who likely had it but were not able to be tested in March when they were sick. However, as I like to point out to all my friends who are SURE they had it, only about 22% of our tests are coming out positive. So even among the sick, only about 1 in 5 actually had the virus.
My brother has worked as a prison guard for 7 years. Prisoners are intentionally infecting one another in an attempt to get released. They think if a prison/jail reaches enough critical mass they will release a certain percentage of people, so they are all intentionally trying to infect each other.
There are security videos of this everywhere, but here's one: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/12/california-inmates-jail-coronavirus-spread-eg-orig.cnn
The alarming thing according to my brother is that certain gangs that would NEVER be together are always out in the common areas together now. He jokes about how it took a pandemic for these folks to work together.
-
For fun, yesterday, I looked up LA county's numbers, because I'd seen that article. I pulled about 8 weeks of data.
LA county's numbers are not coming down, in deaths or new cases. They bounce around a lot but they aren't decreasing.
LA county has been relatively flat the last 2 weeks, but I was referring to national trends. Here is LA county data. (http://%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&fbclid=IwAR3POdjPEh8gr8Mlt9J_oUGHB_ZZoVRRA1cstJ6ZiN9AEWAYiNiVJpwzQwI) (just click on Los Angeles)
LA never experienced a surge, only a moderate increase, and things have been slightly up and and down for the past weeks but not really an upward tick in daily deaths.
Remember, California had the first cases in the country -- estimated to have been in January. CA went nearly 2 full months with no lockdown measures and never experienced a surge. 40 M people.
I'm in Santa Barbara, our county is seeing a MAJOR surge at the Federal Prison in Lompoc, but not in the south county at all.
However, we JUST got community testing last week. I don't think we can personally say there wasn't a surge when we didn't have enough tests.
I have a few friends who have had it, and a few others who likely had it but were not able to be tested in March when they were sick. However, as I like to point out to all my friends who are SURE they had it, only about 22% of our tests are coming out positive. So even among the sick, only about 1 in 5 actually had the virus.
My brother has worked as a prison guard for 7 years. Prisoners are intentionally infecting one another in an attempt to get released. They think if a prison/jail reaches enough critical mass they will release a certain percentage of people, so they are all intentionally trying to infect each other.
There are security videos of this everywhere, but here's one: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/12/california-inmates-jail-coronavirus-spread-eg-orig.cnn
The alarming thing according to my brother is that certain gangs that would NEVER be together are always out in the common areas together now. He jokes about how it took a pandemic for these folks to work together.
Federal prisons and jails aren't the same. We are releasing people from the jail, but not federal prison. (My brother is also a prison guard.)
It appears that this particular prison, in any case, did nothing to prevent the spread. No PPE, no cleaning...no attempt at all. According to the news, the county public health department, and people I know who work in local law enforcement.
-
Federal prisons and jails aren't the same. We are releasing people from the jail, but not federal prison. (My brother is also a prison guard.)
It appears that this particular prison, in any case, did nothing to prevent the spread. No PPE, no cleaning...no attempt at all. According to the news, the county public health department, and people I know who work in local law enforcement.
Very aware of all this. The intentional virus spreading is prevalent at jails and prisons because, like I said, they believe they can reach some sort of critical mass to get released (even though that's not what the current policy is). It is being widely discussed among law enforcement, at least here in Ohio.
-
Imagine how terrible the conditions would have to be to intentionally contact a dangerous virus when you know how limited your access to medical care is.
-
Imagine how terrible the conditions would have to be to intentionally contact a dangerous virus when you know how limited your access to medical care is.
Possibly. Or possibly the reason people are in prison/jail in the first place is an inability, for whatever reason, to think through all the consequences of an action.
-
This started out as such a promising thread...
-
Maybe. I’ve worked in corrections and the inmates are people, too.
-
Maybe. I’ve worked in corrections and the inmates are people, too.
Of course. And with many reasons and difficult circumstances behind being incarcerated, including racism, economic and environmental inequalities, lack of education, and addiction.
-
Thanks for acknowledging that. Sorry I started to get bristly there. I hear a lot of people talk down about the incarcerated but for many of us, there but for the grace of god go we.
-
LA today announced they are extending stay at home until end of July. I'd be surprised if this holds, the overall trends continue to come down and it's looking more and more like this wave is going to be coming to an end before long. I think there will be too much pressure to reopen things by the end of May.
Yikes, that's a long time. I'm genuinely surprised that Americans have been willing to comply with the stay-at-home orders as long as they have. I really think people will start to revolt if this drags on into the summer with no end in sight.
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. As others noted, there have been surges in places like Germany that have started to reopen... but that just makes me wonder what the endgame is. We've gotten ourselves into this situation, now how do we get ourselves out?
Is the plan to shut down the economy and keep everyone at home until there's a vaccine? We might hit a home run and have one by January, but what if it takes five or ten years? What if we never invent one?
Or is the plan to keep extending stay-at-home until we understand the virus better and have more effective treatments? But that can only happen if there are more cases for scientists to study and learn from, which means, ironically, that the stay-at-home strategy requires some people to defy it and get sick for the greater good of everyone.
Basically, stay-at-home can buy us time, but what is it buying us time for?
The last 2 months have been excellent practice at dealing with the pandemic. At least for the parts of society that aren't pretending it's fake news.
Waiting for a vaccine isn't a good plan. It could come in 10 months, 2 years or never.
Keeping the economy shut down to this degree is also not a good plan. I'm pretty sure we can't afford to stay in a government mandated shutdown for another 6 months. Our PM Justin is giving money away through a firehose without checking for fraudulent claims or other abuses. Carrying costs on public debt could pose a real burden to the next generation. (As one of the last of the boomers, this isn't really my problem anymore, but we have kids too.)
Going forward, we need to learn to live with the pandemic. As in Sweden, people need to act like responsible adults. Many government restrictions need to be lifted, and we should only be legally restricting high risk activities. Everyone's had time to adjust to the new reality. Now we need to learn to make things work again.
-
Thanks for acknowledging that. Sorry I started to get bristly there. I hear a lot of people talk down about the incarcerated but for many of us, there but for the grace of god go we.
+1.
Thank you for saying this.
-
As in Sweden, people need to act like responsible adults.
Welp, we're fucked.
-
Ok, maybe that one was just a wish!
-
You won't be able to keep people at home when they rightly or wrongly perceive there is little risk to them.
My state only just eased the lockdown a day ago but already the roads are clogged, as they should be, with people going about their daily lives.
I've got a road trip planned for this weekend and I imagine our hiking spot will be choc a bloc with people.
Time will tell if the infection numbers shoot up or not. We are running 10,000 tests a day so we will have a good handle on numbers.
I'm not sure if the strain in Australia is simply less virulent but the hospitalisations are not occurring for healthy young people. Even though we are having 7-15 cases detected each day and an active caseload of 100-120, our hospital numbers keep falling with only 8 people hospitalised in the entire state. Over 85 cases have been connected to a single employer, with the detection occurring over 3 weeks, which tells me that there must be a lot of asymptomatic spread (otherwise the detection and shut-down would have been much faster).
@Bloop Bloop , I think that this is all a bit inaccurate.
I have just visited the area you’re talking about driving around. I have never seen the roads so empty. The major highways were practically empty, except where towns are close together and people need to go from one to another.
The figures show that a very high proportion of people here are taking the virus seriously, and following government lockdowns - that’s the main reason our cases dropped so dramatically when lockdown occurred. It dropped much more quickly than the statisticians expected.
We do have the same strain as elsewhere - the version of the virus we have has been checked. As you may be aware, 60% or more of our cases came from overseas, and most have been traced back to the USA, and we have the more virulent version that is prevalent elsewhere.
The fact that we have about the lowest number of positive cases per test, and hospital admissions per positive case, tends to imply that we’re getting most of them, and our health authorities think that we’re identifying about 90%. It’s concerning that the USA is reporting about six times as many deaths per positive case, since this tends to imply that they have a lot more cases that aren’t being tested.
The 85 cases associated with the meatworks have a reasonable explanation.
............
But this thread is supposed to be about quarantine and our reactions to it. I, personally, don’t have many problems with you going hiking - in fact, you’re supposed to go outdoors and exercise, so it’s within the framework. But I do object to the couple who bumped into the guy behind me in the supermarket queue, who was clearly frightened to death of being there as he was maintaining double social distancing. And he was elderly.
I have frail, elderly parents who need me to visit them regularly to care for them. They live quite a distance from me, but until recently I’ve been driving the 7.5 hours each way, twice a month. With the quarantine, I’ve limited my journeys to the absolutely urgently necessary, so I recently went there for the first time since the quarantine started. It’s been wonderful to have so much time at home, pottering around and doing things I’ve been putting off for a long time! It was difficult visiting my parents because so much that needed to be done involved shopping, taking them to appointments, and some government required outings, yet they’re in their 90s and they’re supposed to be having minimal outside contact.
-
Deborah, I'm not sure we have the same strain as elsewhere because there have been very few cases involving children - as I understand it, other countries have had issues with young people becoming quite ill/transmitting the virus, and that hasn't happened here (even in states that didn't lock down schools like Victoria did) - and the median age of victims has been 80, which is higher than in other countries.
As for traffic, my experience both driving around and walking in the city has been that vehicle traffic and retail traffic has significantly picked up. I think The Age ran an article about this - I'll see if I can find it. All this stuff is monitored by tolling booths and cameras.
-
Deborah, I'm not sure we have the same strain as elsewhere because there have been very few cases involving children - as I understand it, other countries have had issues with young people becoming quite ill/transmitting the virus, and that hasn't happened here (even in states that didn't lock down schools like Victoria did) - and the median age of victims has been 80, which is higher than in other countries.
But didn't Australia have different populations catching the virus? Lots of people on a cruise, who would tend elderly but would also tend towards the more healthy and active elderly rather than the equivalent age nursing home population. Not so many children on most cruises.
And what strain you have in Australia isn't a matter of who caught it, which is more about Australia's geographic position, it's a matter of the scientific analysis of the virus.
-
The people who caught it on the Ruby Princess cruise ship were generally elderly, and a lot of them died - more than from any other cruise ship, including the Diamond Princess. Most Australia acquired cases were caught from these passengers. Most of the overseas acquired cases were Australians coming back here from overseas (usually a holiday). They’ve been put in mandatory quarantine in hotels, paid for by the government for fourteen days.
There have been very few children anywhere who’ve tested positive world wide. It’s only in recent days that the possibility of the children’s illness being related to covid19 has been thought of. When they started looking at figures for this disease in children, they’ve started to put together cases from different countries. And I think (offhand, so I’m probably out) that they reckon that 5 children have died this way in New York. They’ve had many times the number of deaths that we’ve had in Australia, so it would be surprising if we had seen any children with these complications in Australia. Until now they’ve thought that children didn’t get it.
The more they’re learning about it, the more horrible it appears. Young people have thought they got off lightly, but they’re finding that it appears to travel in the blood and attacks multiple organs, and it can severely impact organ function without being obvious. It’s possible that young people who get the virus will be impacted badly for life even if they had a very mild case.
-
The new developments with children are certainly startling and terrifying.
For years we've been hearing about the Standard American Diet and its impacts on health, obesity, diabetes, chronic disease, etc...many of the "underlying conditions" we hear about that are associated with non-geriatric COVID-19 deaths.
Are you aware of any data that suggests the virus impacts people differently around the world based upon their overall health and diet?
-
I can’t imagine there’s been time for any case reviews on that scale
-
At least, that's what the military is betting on, since they placed a permanent ban on survivors of COVID-19 (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/05/06/coronavirus-survivors-banned-from-joining-the-military/) joining them.
This is a very interesting article. There are only two reasons I can think of that the military would permanently ban you from joining if you have contracted covid-19:
- You are more than likely to have long term health damage if you survive
- You are not protected (and may be weakened) by contracting the virus once
Either would make the 'open everything up and try to achieve herd' immunity concept a particularly misguided one.
Or they just don't know and figure there are so few it won't hurt their recruiting. What are some other reasons the military would permanently ban you from joining...oh yea, you are trans. We all know that was well thought out, they must have legitimate reasons for all their decisions....
-
We all know that one's bullshit, but there are other exclusions having to do with physical and mental health so banning COVID surviors isn't unprecedented.
-
Tomorrow Oregon is opening bars and hair salons for most of the state, but not backpacking trailheads. I might become a libertarian.
-
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
The third option is that in old high rise buildings there's shared air, water and sewer pipe works which are spreading disease for even the most compliant. Look at the cities and countries around the world with the worst outbreaks, lots of high rise buildings. This is also theorized to be part of the problem in cruise ships for infections that occurred long after people were locked in their rooms. There doesnt have to be nefarious deviance occurring.
-
The new developments with children are certainly startling and terrifying.
For years we've been hearing about the Standard American Diet and its impacts on health, obesity, diabetes, chronic disease, etc...many of the "underlying conditions" we hear about that are associated with non-geriatric COVID-19 deaths.
Are you aware of any data that suggests the virus impacts people differently around the world based upon their overall health and diet?
Obesity is a very strong indicator (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/latest-evidence-on-obesity-and-covid-19), due at least in part to the added stress it puts on airways. However, they're also linking low levels of vitamin D to mortality (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507131012.htm). The first paragraph: "Previous observational studies have reported an association between low levels of vitamin D and susceptibility to acute respiratory tract infections. Vitamin D modulates the response of white blood cells, preventing them from releasing too many inflammatory cytokines. The COVID-19 virus is known to cause an excess of pro-inflammatory cytokines."
So, get outside for a little bit each day. Good for mental and physical health even aside from getting enough vitamin D. There are also supplement drops made for babies that are easy to give to kids.
-
Obesity is a very strong indicator (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/latest-evidence-on-obesity-and-covid-19), due at least in part to the added stress it puts on airways. However, they're also linking low levels of vitamin D to mortality (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507131012.htm). The first paragraph: "Previous observational studies have reported an association between low levels of vitamin D and susceptibility to acute respiratory tract infections. Vitamin D modulates the response of white blood cells, preventing them from releasing too many inflammatory cytokines. The COVID-19 virus is known to cause an excess of pro-inflammatory cytokines."
So, get outside for a little bit each day. Good for mental and physical health even aside from getting enough vitamin D. There are also supplement drops made for babies that are easy to give to kids.
As someone w/ chronic vitamin D deficiency that is scary! Thanks for sharing.
-
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
The third option is that in old high rise buildings there's shared air, water and sewer pipe works which are spreading disease for even the most compliant. Look at the cities and countries around the world with the worst outbreaks, lots of high rise buildings. This is also theorized to be part of the problem in cruise ships for infections that occurred long after people were locked in their rooms. There doesnt have to be nefarious deviance occurring.
I had a visit with my PCP for an unrelated condition and he advised not do eat at restaurants indoors for awhile for this reason. He said there's been numerous studies that if enough of a viral load gets in the HVAC system, then it just spreads it everywhere.
Again, I'm standing by my position that being outside is arguably the best thing you could be doing during this.
-
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
The third option is that in old high rise buildings there's shared air, water and sewer pipe works which are spreading disease for even the most compliant. Look at the cities and countries around the world with the worst outbreaks, lots of high rise buildings. This is also theorized to be part of the problem in cruise ships for infections that occurred long after people were locked in their rooms. There doesnt have to be nefarious deviance occurring.
Also in a lot of buildings things like mail, laundry and trash are in communal areas. And don't forget the elevators. If I were to go down to the basement to do laundry, I'd consider myself "home," but my risk of exposure is much higher than for someone who has in-unit laundry. I'd have to get in the elevator with others, use a facility where others are also doing laundry and breathing/talking, and touch a lot of commonly touched surfaces.
-
Somebody posted this blog article in another thread. Written by an immunologist and has some excellent diagrams where they've traced the spread of a single person in a restaurant and a single person in an office.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them
Bottom line, indoor exposure, especially over time is going to get you. A brief conversation on the sidewalk - probably fine. A person on the other side of an office with air not moving around much - you're probably getting sick.
-
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
The third option is that in old high rise buildings there's shared air, water and sewer pipe works which are spreading disease for even the most compliant. Look at the cities and countries around the world with the worst outbreaks, lots of high rise buildings. This is also theorized to be part of the problem in cruise ships for infections that occurred long after people were locked in their rooms. There doesnt have to be nefarious deviance occurring.
Also in a lot of buildings things like mail, laundry and trash are in communal areas. And don't forget the elevators. If I were to go down to the basement to do laundry, I'd consider myself "home," but my risk of exposure is much higher than for someone who has in-unit laundry. I'd have to get in the elevator with others, use a facility where others are also doing laundry and breathing/talking, and touch a lot of commonly touched surfaces.
This is why I start my social distancing procedures the instant I step out my door - my mask is on, I have paper towel in hand to touch elevator buttons, etc. Mask stays on until I am outside or in my car.
-
Somebody posted this blog article in another thread. Written by an immunologist and has some excellent diagrams where they've traced the spread of a single person in a restaurant and a single person in an office.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them
Bottom line, indoor exposure, especially over time is going to get you. A brief conversation on the sidewalk - probably fine. A person on the other side of an office with air not moving around much - you're probably getting sick.
My (excellent) local public health agency actually suggested county residents read this same blog post. Indoor riskier than outdoors and longer time of exposure riskier than shorter time of exposure. For instance, walking into a restaurant to pick up an order (indoors but short time) less risky than dining indoors (indoors and long time).
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
Hasn't been long enough. Just wait.
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
Hasn't been long enough. Just wait.
There's been no spike in Aus/NZ despite it having been over a week since reopening. I guess we'll know for sure in 1-2 weeks' time.
-
NZ is close to elimination, and has only been properly reopened for 5 days. Not something to model decisions on for regions in very different situations.
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
You need at least 3 weeks to see an effect, for people to catch it (14 day isolation period, remember, because it can take a long time to show) and then be sick enough to go to hospital and be tested.
-
NY says most new cases are people that aren't required to go into to work - meaning they are either getting it going to essential places like the grocery stores and/or they can't help themselves and are ignoring the restrictions aside from work. People are social and many will break whatever rules are in place - not sure any policy can stop that entirely.
The third option is that in old high rise buildings there's shared air, water and sewer pipe works which are spreading disease for even the most compliant. Look at the cities and countries around the world with the worst outbreaks, lots of high rise buildings. This is also theorized to be part of the problem in cruise ships for infections that occurred long after people were locked in their rooms. There doesnt have to be nefarious deviance occurring.
Considering most of the infections in NY are happening in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, this doesn't seem especially likely to me. (For non-NYers, those areas do not have very many residential highrises compared to Manhattan.)
-
You need at least 3 weeks to see an effect, for people to catch it (14 day isolation period, remember, because it can take a long time to show) and then be sick enough to go to hospital and be tested.
Several states began easing lockdowns at the end of April.
-
You need at least 3 weeks to see an effect, for people to catch it (14 day isolation period, remember, because it can take a long time to show) and then be sick enough to go to hospital and be tested.
Several states began easing lockdowns at the end of April.
Like Texas? Which is now having another surge. (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/18/857943858/coronavirus-cases-surge-in-texas-panhandle-as-state-continues-to-reopen) From the article: "Amaraillo alone reported more than 700 new cases on Saturday." Then it will take time to filter out to other areas.
You don't seem to grasp how this works. It's not that things will show up within two weeks. It's that it will take at least two weeks before things really start happening. And even then it will be a slow growth at first, negligible and easy for people like you to dismiss. Before exponential growth kicks in and suddenly it's a shitshow all over again. You're mistakenly discounting all the new cases as being not so bad. China locked down an entire province again (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-18/over-100-million-in-china-s-northeast-thrown-back-under-lockdown) over 35 cases and 1 new death. Why? Probably because they've already seen how bad things can get, and how quickly it can grow out of control.*
*I don't want to a renew a "but China/but US" argument. Suffice to say that BOTH countries have been handling things horribly from start to finish. No, I don't trust the numbers the Chinese government has put out. But I don't trust our numbers either. There are any number of ways officials have been fudging the data to make themselves look less incompetent. That's a human failing, not one of any particular government.
-
Like Texas?
New case count is mostly dependent on testing volumes, so it's not a very reliable metric to evaluate penetration. Hospital rates and death rates are better indicators.
Texas has had a relatively flat death rate.
(https://i.imgur.com/kAvbncb.png)
New cases, while not a reliable data point due to testing volume, have also been relatively flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/dFl5BWC.png)
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
My state? I am in cali, was just responding to the poster above in regards to TX.
AU is a totally different comparison and not really a good comparison to what's happening in the US for a lot of reasons but no need to get into that. There are a lot of different variables at play when trying to compare different geographic regions.
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
My state? I am in cali, was just responding to the poster above in regards to TX.
AU is a totally different comparison and not really a good comparison to what's happening in the US for a lot of reasons but no need to get into that. There are a lot of different variables at play when trying to compare different geographic regions.
If only we were an isolated island nation...
-
@HBFIRE - And it still takes time for the death rate to catch up to the rate of infection. How is that a hard concept? If they're seeing a thousand new cases a day that's 7,000/week. At a death rate of 1.15% (which is on the lower end of what I've been seeing) that's 80.5 people a week dying in 2-3 weeks. Fun. And that's assuming that the number of cases doesn't exponentially go up, which it will too.
There's also manipulation of the data (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-18/georgia-coronavirus-numbers-reopening-manipulated-data-brian-kemp?fbclid=IwAR3MwfeWtbattw1ft7Hw_VEzMRfqNLnrQDY1iN1W3LN5_auf6HVnsqBSKc0) going on by interested parties to open things up as fast as possible, because there's money to be made. So the data we're looking at might actually be a bit too rosy.
Greed is a hell of a drug. Money > people's lives.
Edit: I mathed wrong and put the decimal in the wrong place when I made a calculation. Originally said 805 deaths/7000 cases and that's quite wrong.
-
@HBFIRE - And it still takes time for the death rate to catch up to the rate of infection. How is that a hard concept? If they're seeing a thousand new cases a day that's 7,000/week. At a death rate of 1.15% (which is on the lower end of what I've been seeing) that's 805 people a week dying in 2-3 weeks. Fun. And that's assuming that the number of cases doesn't exponentially go up, which it will too.
There's also manipulation of the data (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-18/georgia-coronavirus-numbers-reopening-manipulated-data-brian-kemp?fbclid=IwAR3MwfeWtbattw1ft7Hw_VEzMRfqNLnrQDY1iN1W3LN5_auf6HVnsqBSKc0) going on by interested parties to open things up as fast as possible, because there's money to be made. So the data we're looking at might actually be a bit too rosy.
Greed is a hell of a drug. Money > people's lives.
Lives are swappable for money. We do it every time we build a freeway. The US does it every time a gun is sold. The question is how much a life is worth and how to actuarially adjust for the age and demographics of covid-19 victims. A hard question to answer and not one that anyone has, as far as I can tell, gone on public record to discuss because it's not aesthetically pleasing but it's a question of social policy.
I suspect the US is leaning too far in the "open up" direction but there is a legitimate balancing act to be calculated here.
-
California coronavirus cases: Tracking the outbreak - Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago · Tallies continue to climb. Over the past week, the state has averaged 1,747 new cases and 74.6 new deaths per day.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/
Careful with LA times, it loves click bait. Here is the actual data. (https://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19PublicDashboard/Covid-19Public?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&fbclid=IwAR3POdjPEh8gr8Mlt9J_oUGHB_ZZoVRRA1cstJ6ZiN9AEWAYiNiVJpwzQwI)
Notice deaths and hospitalization rate is flat. What has increased is testing, hence we're identifying a higher percentage of cases. Cases have climbed very moderately simply due to much higher testing volumes.
-
Actually, there are figures, and I read them in an article recently. I think it said that Australia values lives at $4.9m while the US values lives at $10m. The article was about whether our lockdown was actually worth it economically, and they decided that it was.
-
Actually, there are figures, and I read them in an article recently. I think it said that Australia values lives at $4.9m while the US values lives at $10m. The article was about whether our lockdown was actually worth it economically, and they decided that it was.
Can you link the article? We've spent something like $150b on stimulus measures so at $5m per life that would need to have been 30k lives saved. Also worthwhile noting that given our median age of covid victim is 80, there needs to be a QALY adjustment for the death toll and I'd be interested to see how the author factored in the QALY calculation.
I'd be happy just for the concept of QALY to be common discourse so that we can all discuss public policy around lockdown rather than thinking that there aren't costs on both sides.
-
I can't find it easily, and I have other priorities. It was reported in one of ABC or The Age or The Guardian.
Someone else has done a QALY for deaths. 11 years. It surprised the researchers, who thought it would be much lower given the number of elderly lives lost. It was reported in The Economist.
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
Deborah, Amarillo is a single small city (~200,000 people) in the state of Texas that just reported >700 cases in one day, due to increased testing (mostly at meat packing plants that are riddled with Covid, as I understand it). Texas itself has (so far) ~50,000 identified cases, and has been averaging about 1,000 new cases per day for the past few weeks (eyeballing the graph), but ticking slowly up. That huge number is b/c Texas recently ramped up its testing capacity, so more cases are being id than when stay at home orders were in effect in April.
At this point, 1,362 people have died in Texas, and the daily death numbers for the past 2 weeks have been swinging wildly up or down (min. 15 deaths on 3 May/max. 51 deaths on 14 May) depending on the day, so it's very hard at this point to get a handle on what the outcome of the 'reopening' that occurred at the beginning of May is going to be on death rates. There's so much variability around the mean right now, we'd need several more weeks of data to get an idea of how the reopening will affect the death rate.
ETA: I think we are reopening too soon and it's going to get really ugly by midsummer, but I hope to hell I'm wrong.
-
Actually, there are figures, and I read them in an article recently. I think it said that Australia values lives at $4.9m while the US values lives at $10m. The article was about whether our lockdown was actually worth it economically, and they decided that it was.
Can you link the article? We've spent something like $150b on stimulus measures so at $5m per life that would need to have been 30k lives saved. Also worthwhile noting that given our median age of covid victim is 80, there needs to be a QALY adjustment for the death toll and I'd be interested to see how the author factored in the QALY calculation.
I'd be happy just for the concept of QALY to be common discourse so that we can all discuss public policy around lockdown rather than thinking that there aren't costs on both sides.
I think both of these will largely be from a US perspective, but I haven't read/listened to the entire podcast:
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
https://www.wired.com/story/how-much-is-human-life-worth-in-dollars/
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
A shift in the IHME model projected fatalities...
As people have been moving around more -- and as social distancing measures have been relaxed -- the model has projected more deaths.
But IHME at the University of Washington, said that fewer people are forecasted to die (than projected).
"We were surprised," said Chris Murray, the chairman of the school's Health Metrics Sciences department. "We were expecting to probably go up because of the big surge in mobility."
Murray told CNN's Anderson Cooper that they didn't find a correlation between mobility and deaths.
-
California coronavirus cases: Tracking the outbreak - Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago · Tallies continue to climb. Over the past week, the state has averaged 1,747 new cases and 74.6 new deaths per day.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/
Careful with LA times, it loves click bait. Here is the actual data. (https://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19PublicDashboard/Covid-19Public?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no&fbclid=IwAR3POdjPEh8gr8Mlt9J_oUGHB_ZZoVRRA1cstJ6ZiN9AEWAYiNiVJpwzQwI)
Notice deaths and hospitalization rate is flat. What has increased is testing, hence we're identifying a higher percentage of cases. Cases have climbed very moderately simply due to much higher testing volumes.
I've actually been tracking just LA County for a bit. They are flat, but high. Still. Average of 950 new cases and 45 deaths per day. Not going up, but also not decreasing. Definitely not out of trouble.
-
I've actually been tracking just LA County for a bit. They are flat, but high. Still. Average of 950 new cases and 45 deaths per day. Not going up, but also not decreasing. Definitely not out of trouble.
Yes, the thing with not having a spike is there will be a longer plateau. Still, we are several orders of magnitude below what we thought was going to happen even with social distancing and lockdowns. No one thought there would be 5 empty beds for each patient.
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
A shift in the IHME model projected fatalities...
As people have been moving around more -- and as social distancing measures have been relaxed -- the model has projected more deaths.
But IHME at the University of Washington, said that fewer people are forecasted to die (than projected).
"We were surprised," said Chris Murray, the chairman of the school's Health Metrics Sciences department. "We were expecting to probably go up because of the big surge in mobility."
Murray told CNN's Anderson Cooper that they didn't find a correlation between mobility and deaths.
SHOCKING! Well.....not really.
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
Deborah, Amarillo is a single small city (~200,000 people) in the state of Texas that just reported >700 cases in one day, due to increased testing (mostly at meat packing plants that are riddled with Covid, as I understand it). Texas itself has (so far) ~50,000 identified cases, and has been averaging about 1,000 new cases per day for the past few weeks (eyeballing the graph), but ticking slowly up. That huge number is b/c Texas recently ramped up its testing capacity, so more cases are being id than when stay at home orders were in effect in April.
At this point, 1,362 people have died in Texas, and the daily death numbers for the past 2 weeks have been swinging wildly up or down (min. 15 deaths on 3 May/max. 51 deaths on 14 May) depending on the day, so it's very hard at this point to get a handle on what the outcome of the 'reopening' that occurred at the beginning of May is going to be on death rates. There's so much variability around the mean right now, we'd need several more weeks of data to get an idea of how the reopening will affect the death rate.
ETA: I think we are reopening too soon and it's going to get really ugly by midsummer, but I hope to hell I'm wrong.
what site are you using to see those kind of daily cases/deaths for Texas, because that's not what I'm seeing.
This thing is so frustrating, not one link/article/person is reporting the same damn thing.
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
Deborah, Amarillo is a single small city (~200,000 people) in the state of Texas that just reported >700 cases in one day, due to increased testing (mostly at meat packing plants that are riddled with Covid, as I understand it). Texas itself has (so far) ~50,000 identified cases, and has been averaging about 1,000 new cases per day for the past few weeks (eyeballing the graph), but ticking slowly up. That huge number is b/c Texas recently ramped up its testing capacity, so more cases are being id than when stay at home orders were in effect in April.
At this point, 1,362 people have died in Texas, and the daily death numbers for the past 2 weeks have been swinging wildly up or down (min. 15 deaths on 3 May/max. 51 deaths on 14 May) depending on the day, so it's very hard at this point to get a handle on what the outcome of the 'reopening' that occurred at the beginning of May is going to be on death rates. There's so much variability around the mean right now, we'd need several more weeks of data to get an idea of how the reopening will affect the death rate.
ETA: I think we are reopening too soon and it's going to get really ugly by midsummer, but I hope to hell I'm wrong.
what site are you using to see those kind of daily cases/deaths for Texas, because that's not what I'm seeing.
This thing is so frustrating, not one link/article/person is reporting the same damn thing.
New York Times...what numbers have you been seeing? Higher, lower?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-by-country.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_NN_p_20200325&instance_id=17048&nl=morning-briefing®i_id=102821642§ion=topNews&segment_id=22795&te=1&user_id=38b61291ed78b730c681046f524f69e9
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
Deborah, Amarillo is a single small city (~200,000 people) in the state of Texas that just reported >700 cases in one day, due to increased testing (mostly at meat packing plants that are riddled with Covid, as I understand it). Texas itself has (so far) ~50,000 identified cases, and has been averaging about 1,000 new cases per day for the past few weeks (eyeballing the graph), but ticking slowly up. That huge number is b/c Texas recently ramped up its testing capacity, so more cases are being id than when stay at home orders were in effect in April.
At this point, 1,362 people have died in Texas, and the daily death numbers for the past 2 weeks have been swinging wildly up or down (min. 15 deaths on 3 May/max. 51 deaths on 14 May) depending on the day, so it's very hard at this point to get a handle on what the outcome of the 'reopening' that occurred at the beginning of May is going to be on death rates. There's so much variability around the mean right now, we'd need several more weeks of data to get an idea of how the reopening will affect the death rate.
ETA: I think we are reopening too soon and it's going to get really ugly by midsummer, but I hope to hell I'm wrong.
what site are you using to see those kind of daily cases/deaths for Texas, because that's not what I'm seeing.
This thing is so frustrating, not one link/article/person is reporting the same damn thing.
It's almost as if the people in charge don't actually want us to know how bad this thing really is. Hmmm. Extreme vigilance should be used now that it's clear no one cares about people or the data, just the economic engine. I'd rather have people think I look dumb in a mask for a while that some unreliably stated chance of having blood clots or long term lung damage, or other organ damage, or any of the other wild side effects some people are experiencing with this thing.
-
Meanwhile, in Georgia...
The state of Georgia made it look like its covid cases were going down ***by putting the dates out of order on its chart*** May 5 was followed by April 25, then back to May again, whatever made it look like a downslope.
https://news.yahoo.com/georgias-coronavirus-numbers-made-reopening-183733274.html
-
You're still over 1000 cases A DAY in your state? Australia has 24 million people and you have 29 million, so we're compatible. We've had less than 100 deaths in total, and we've had about 7000 cases in total and a million tests. And you're open? We're gradually opening, and might be reasonably open in July.
Deborah, Amarillo is a single small city (~200,000 people) in the state of Texas that just reported >700 cases in one day, due to increased testing (mostly at meat packing plants that are riddled with Covid, as I understand it). Texas itself has (so far) ~50,000 identified cases, and has been averaging about 1,000 new cases per day for the past few weeks (eyeballing the graph), but ticking slowly up. That huge number is b/c Texas recently ramped up its testing capacity, so more cases are being id than when stay at home orders were in effect in April.
At this point, 1,362 people have died in Texas, and the daily death numbers for the past 2 weeks have been swinging wildly up or down (min. 15 deaths on 3 May/max. 51 deaths on 14 May) depending on the day, so it's very hard at this point to get a handle on what the outcome of the 'reopening' that occurred at the beginning of May is going to be on death rates. There's so much variability around the mean right now, we'd need several more weeks of data to get an idea of how the reopening will affect the death rate.
ETA: I think we are reopening too soon and it's going to get really ugly by midsummer, but I hope to hell I'm wrong.
what site are you using to see those kind of daily cases/deaths for Texas, because that's not what I'm seeing.
This thing is so frustrating, not one link/article/person is reporting the same damn thing.
It's almost as if the people in charge don't actually want us to know how bad this thing really is. Hmmm. Extreme vigilance should be used now that it's clear no one cares about people or the data, just the economic engine. I'd rather have people think I look dumb in a mask for a while that some unreliably stated chance of having blood clots or long term lung damage, or other organ damage, or any of the other wild side effects some people are experiencing with this thing.
It’s not being talked about much, but it’s pretty obvious that we’ve embraced the “build population immunity” strategy. We’re months or years from a vaccine, and compliance with the quarantine wasn’t exactly awe inspiring a month ago, let alone now.
-
The
market virus can remain irrational in waiting longer than you the economy can remain solvent.
This chart just isn't rolling off fast enough.
-
The market virus can remain irrational in waiting longer than you the economy can remain solvent.
This chart just isn't rolling off fast enough.
Think it's bad now? Wait until you see the increases that come from our re-opening too quickly!
-
The market virus can remain irrational in waiting longer than you the economy can remain solvent.
This chart just isn't rolling off fast enough.
Think it's bad now? Wait until you see the increases that come from our re-opening too quickly!
Certainly possible. But if this virus is simply biding its time, the burning economy will eventually become the larger problem. Only time will tell.
-
not being talked about much, but it’s pretty obvious that we’ve embraced the “build population immunity” strategy. We’re months or years from a vaccine, and compliance with the quarantine wasn’t exactly awe inspiring a month ago, let alone now.
I don't think they know enough to know if herd immunity is even possible with this virus. I've been hearing about people getting reinfected and people that recovered getting new problems that develop after recovery. I am not sure if we fully understand how long people walk around spreading the disease with no symptoms. Since information flow isn't perfect it's hard to know if this is due to faulty testing or if this isn't a once-and-done virus.
Either way I am convinced that here in the USA a long quarantine will never work for many reasons. I am glad to be in a position where I am not dependent on working. We will continue to be careful, but I feel bad for people that are being forced back to work that have no other options and are forced back to working conditions that may or may not be safe.
-
This is interesting.
Why do some COVID-19 patients infect many others, whereas most don’t spread the virus at all? (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all#)
Without social distancing, this reproduction number (R) is about three. But in real life, some people infect many others and others don’t spread the disease at all. In fact, the latter is the norm, Lloyd-Smith says: “The consistent pattern is that the most common number is zero. Most people do not transmit.”
-
This is interesting.
Why do some COVID-19 patients infect many others, whereas most don’t spread the virus at all? (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all#)
Without social distancing, this reproduction number (R) is about three. But in real life, some people infect many others and others don’t spread the disease at all. In fact, the latter is the norm, Lloyd-Smith says: “The consistent pattern is that the most common number is zero. Most people do not transmit.”
Substantial lack of hygiene from outliers? As a tradesman I knew a few people that seemed allergic to basic hygiene practices. They didn't seem to understand it either. Or maybe there's something more unique to these peoples' biology.
-
not being talked about much, but it’s pretty obvious that we’ve embraced the “build population immunity” strategy. We’re months or years from a vaccine, and compliance with the quarantine wasn’t exactly awe inspiring a month ago, let alone now.
I don't think they know enough to know if herd immunity is even possible with this virus. I've been hearing about people getting reinfected and people that recovered getting new problems that develop after recovery. I am not sure if we fully understand how long people walk around spreading the disease with no symptoms. Since information flow isn't perfect it's hard to know if this is due to faulty testing or if this isn't a once-and-done virus.
Either way I am convinced that here in the USA a long quarantine will never work for many reasons. I am glad to be in a position where I am not dependent on working. We will continue to be careful, but I feel bad for people that are being forced back to work that have no other options and are forced back to working conditions that may or may not be safe.
It's not conclusive but more studies are coming out indicating that testing positive a second time isn't actually reinfection, rather it's dead virus cells causing a false positive. The was of evidence is building that direction. The number of studies is also growing that indicate a bout with the disease does typically leave someone with antibodies that help fight against the possibility of future infection.
There's a bit of irony possible here in that if no vaccine is found soon, the countries that get to herd immunity the quickest will be able to resume normal operations first. So through our sheer stupidity we may actually end up in a stronger long term economic position than other countries that have warded it off by locking down. We'd probably suffer greater short term economic consequences in the short term. Wouldn't that be a shitty feather to be able to put in incompetent leaders' caps.
-
There's more than one way to do the reopening with minimal harm, using a combination of the following tools:
- delay reopening
- gradual reopening to allow social distancing
- widespread testing
- contact tracing
- collect and share good data and accurate advice
- support accelerated research into new tests, vaccines and treatment
- everybody wears masks in public and at work
etc.
Want to reopen? Fine, then wear masks and change your ways.
Don't want to wear a mask? Fine, then stay at home.
But what I don't get is the stubborn, head in the sand insistence that we can have it all: end the quarantine and immediately start running around like we did before, partying maskless in crowds.
This shit is indeed real. The steady drip-drip of deaths continues here in NY... every other day we are still hearing of friends and relatives of friends passing. Often they're described as "not of Covid" ... usually a stroke, a heart attack, "natural causes". But why so many? We have to look at the total number of deaths of all medical causes to see what's happening.
-
Since covid19 makes blood clots, some of those things could easily be Covid instigated deaths.
-
not being talked about much, but it’s pretty obvious that we’ve embraced the “build population immunity” strategy. We’re months or years from a vaccine, and compliance with the quarantine wasn’t exactly awe inspiring a month ago, let alone now.
I don't think they know enough to know if herd immunity is even possible with this virus. I've been hearing about people getting reinfected and people that recovered getting new problems that develop after recovery. I am not sure if we fully understand how long people walk around spreading the disease with no symptoms. Since information flow isn't perfect it's hard to know if this is due to faulty testing or if this isn't a once-and-done virus.
Either way I am convinced that here in the USA a long quarantine will never work for many reasons. I am glad to be in a position where I am not dependent on working. We will continue to be careful, but I feel bad for people that are being forced back to work that have no other options and are forced back to working conditions that may or may not be safe.
It's not conclusive but more studies are coming out indicating that testing positive a second time isn't actually reinfection, rather it's dead virus cells causing a false positive. The was of evidence is building that direction. The number of studies is also growing that indicate a bout with the disease does typically leave someone with antibodies that help fight against the possibility of future infection.
There's a bit of irony possible here in that if no vaccine is found soon, the countries that get to herd immunity the quickest will be able to resume normal operations first. So through our sheer stupidity we may actually end up in a stronger long term economic position than other countries that have warded it off by locking down. We'd probably suffer greater short term economic consequences in the short term. Wouldn't that be a shitty feather to be able to put in incompetent leaders' caps.
They may get back to a normal, but what will be the state of their workforce? What will be the state of their medical care workers?
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
Psychologically, I'm ready to be done. Living by oneself in the current environment is definitely a source of cumulative psychological stress.
Not wearing a mask is kind of silly, though. Out of all the things we're going through right now, wearing a mask takes minimal expense/effort. I get the psychological stress of isolation/lack of socialization, as well as the hardships of everyone who has lost income. At this point we're at the end of what people will tolerate in terms of the unsustainable actions(business closures, etc.). The focus now needs to be on the practically sustainable efforts that can get us to the finish line with the best possible outcome.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
Psychologically, I'm ready to be done. Living by oneself in the current environment is definitely a source of cumulative psychological stress.
Not wearing a mask is kind of silly, though. Out of all the things we're going through right now, wearing a mask takes minimal expense/effort. I get the psychological stress of isolation/lack of socialization, as well as the hardships of everyone who has lost income. At this point we're at the end of what people will tolerate in terms of the unsustainable actions(business closures, etc.). The focus now needs to be on the practically sustainable efforts that can get us to the finish line with the best possible outcome.
There really is so much tension all over. My crazy ass libertarian friends are "over it", haven't known anyone who has died, are itching to get out there, and only show the data that shows there are no problems. Will never admit anything different.
My super conservative (on the health front, not politically) friends are urging people to continue to stay home. It's not safe.
My husband has done all the grocery shopping. I think I might have to pick it up. I miss it. Still, going out is STRESSFUL with wearing a mask, washing hands, wiping down groceries...even when he occasionally has to go to the office, there are protocols.
The thing is, I am not sure why we haven't eased up on the stress. It's good to wash hands, wear masks, be careful, but honestly we don't have many cases here right now. We've had a total of <80 in this town, we increase at the rate of 1 every few days. It's NOT that widespread. I'm not going to run out and eat at a restaurant, but grocery shopping shouldn't cause us intense anxiety and we really don't need to wipe down every takeout container.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
I am seeing this all around me. Even usually careful people are starting to relax their social distancing standards. I am doing my best to educate and remind my family to have patience and continue good practices. Its hard.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
I am seeing this all around me. Even usually careful people are starting to relax their social distancing standards. I am doing my best to educate and remind my family to have patience and continue good practices. Its hard.
Humans are good at handling short, obvious danger disruptions. Long lasting things that are medium risk and require daily work? Not so much.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
I am seeing this all around me. Even usually careful people are starting to relax their social distancing standards. I am doing my best to educate and remind my family to have patience and continue good practices. Its hard.
Same here, I noticed. We went near a farmer's market and no one was observing any distancing. The booths are supposed to allow a certain number of people in a time for browsing/buying but only some seemed to be following it. Some people were in lines, like for buying flowers, and they were definitely not 6' apart. So we just left. Another time, I went to a plant/nursery store to grab a few edibles and similar thing. I found it pretty stressful. Also, some people were just letting their kids running around. My personal favorite - the mask wearers that just keep them on their chin only, not even bothering to cover the nose or mouth. Why even have a mask then? Another day, we were walking our groceries home and a couple of people were walking, clearly saw us coming, and didn't even try to single-file or otherwise give us space. In fact, they seemed to try to want to ram us off the sidewalk and bump our shoulders (we were single-filing and there's no where to avoid them on our side unless we want to go into some bushes). This happened another time with some other people sans groceries. Most times we will + other people will give each other a wide berth or walk on the street/bike lane whenever we see someone on the same path. People at the grocery store seem pretty good at observing social distancing and being generally courteous, though, so I don't mind going there.
-
People are still generally being pretty good in my area. About half, or slightly more, are wearing masks. Most people are in stores. (Although I, too, have seen plenty of people who have them over just their mouths.)
There was a good article in Salon about having "quarantine bubbles" (https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/05/why-i-decided-to-join-a-quarantine-bubble-and-you-should-too.html?fbclid=IwAR2PfTBqec17d-rJmTF5J__yzGVuHz44IOqmWycabnQIDIWeyaSPcpUdWV8)--basically a pod of like-minded people who socialize but only with each other, after setting up rules. (You want to make sure that if your family is sanitizing groceries and wearing masks and only sending one person to the store then the others in your group are too.) This both drastically reduces risk and effectively eliminates lockdown fatigue. I think it's a good idea, and I think we're going to try to implement something like it with one family we know. Our extroverted kids need friends. We went for a social distancing walk with them the other day (wearing masks) and the kids did a great job, with a few reminders, keeping masks on and keeping some distance. And everyone felt better after.
However, it's also important to keep in mind that our testing is so messed up that no one really knows what TF is going on (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/cdc-and-states-are-misreporting-covid-19-test-data-pennsylvania-georgia-texas/611935/?fbclid=IwAR0D8D9jhEcaTVX4svm3GV3D2Ev9AwtpvVrWKseF0cBCHztKCHP22UDVb1I). The CDC and many states have been mixing together results from virus tests and (horribly inaccurate) antibody tests. Can't look bad if we don't have an accurate picture of things, can we?
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
Well if it makes you feel any better, I went to the grocery store this morning in Waxhaw NC. All the employees were wearing masks and so were most of the customers. Maybe I just got lucky....
I definitely agree with you that there is a growing"done with it" attitude. I'm getting a little cabin fever myself.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
I am seeing this all around me. Even usually careful people are starting to relax their social distancing standards. I am doing my best to educate and remind my family to have patience and continue good practices. Its hard.
I’m not seeing much in the way of tension, but it’s pretty obvious that the social distancing is being relaxed and people are observing the restrictions, well, notsomuch. That’s to be expected. The idea here from the start was to not overwhelm the medical system. In most places we’ve achieved that. Without a vaccine we are not going to be able to avoid widespread infection of the population over time. This will become endemic. Which is not to say we should throw caution to the wind and have COVID parties. It just means that an expectation that the majority of us will avoid it is probably not realistic.
-
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
I am seeing this all around me. Even usually careful people are starting to relax their social distancing standards. I am doing my best to educate and remind my family to have patience and continue good practices. Its hard.
I'll admit it. We had a social distancing party for mother's day (at a friend's house, in the front yard). Individually packaged snacks. Everyone had masks and stood 6' apart to talk. Hand sanitizer and wipes. Bring your own cup.
Only thing that would have made it better was hugs.
-
I'll admit it. We had a social distancing party for mother's day (at a friend's house, in the front yard). Individually packaged snacks. Everyone had masks and stood 6' apart to talk. Hand sanitizer and wipes. Bring your own cup.
Only thing that would have made it better was hugs.
I don't understand why this would be something to "admit". Maybe you were being sarcastic? Or is the only allowable interaction with non-household members by video call? That's not my understanding of the protocols.
-
I will add that I had a positive experience of going to another grocery store, and masks were universal for the staff; more than half of customers, too.
-
I'll admit it. We had a social distancing party for mother's day (at a friend's house, in the front yard). Individually packaged snacks. Everyone had masks and stood 6' apart to talk. Hand sanitizer and wipes. Bring your own cup.
Only thing that would have made it better was hugs.
I don't understand why this would be something to "admit". Maybe you were being sarcastic? Or is the only allowable interaction with non-household members by video call? That's not my understanding of the protocols.
Depends on who you ask. Everyone has their own idea of what is acceptable. Multiple families in one front yard!!
-
We've been in a pretty tight bubble with my in-laws and one other family with two kids close in age to our own. MiL was taking the lead in school work with our kids.
Things have disintegrated. My in-laws want to drive several states away to see my brother-in-law (also has young children). I don't have a way to prevent this, except to remind them that they cannot use restrooms at gas stations. We're trying to settle on some ways we can modify our behavior during the drive to make things safer.
-
We've been in a pretty tight bubble with my in-laws and one other family with two kids close in age to our own. MiL was taking the lead in school work with our kids.
Things have disintegrated. My in-laws want to drive several states away to see my brother-in-law (also has young children). I don't have a way to prevent this, except to remind them that they cannot use restrooms at gas stations. We're trying to settle on some ways we can modify our behavior during the drive to make things safer.
I've been a bit surprised/confused by the whole restroom reluctance thing. My understanding was that the way you got it was essentially from folks breathing their "droplets" onto you or you touching an item that was infected by the droplets and then touching your eyes/nose.
For the last ~15 years or so I've used a paper towel (or my shirt in the absence of paper towels) to open the door after washing my hands in a public restroom so it's been a loooong time since I've touched a dirty restroom handle. many restrooms even have a trash receptacle right by the door for you to toss your dirty tissue into while holding the door with your foot/elbow.
Anyhow, seems relatively low risk to me.
Just curious as I've heard a bunch of folks mention it. My in-laws have been strict quarantining for 2.5 weeks and are driving about 7 hours to assist my sister in law with childcare as her and her husband are wearing thin working from home with their 18 month old and she's instructed them to pee on the side of the road only; seems overkill to me but what do I know.
I've personally been deemed an "essential" construction worker in Maryland so I've been more or less doing my normal life work wise (anything but normal outside of work) including the occasional bathroom use at Lowes/Home Depot; not to mention the port a johns shared by ~100 men each week. So far so good.
I will add that I had a positive experience of going to another grocery store, and masks were universal for the staff; more than half of customers, too.
In Maryland masks are required inside all stores; seen some folks with them down below their noses and stuff but don't think I've seen anyone without a mask at all in over a month.
People are still generally being pretty good in my area. About half, or slightly more, are wearing masks. Most people are in stores. (Although I, too, have seen plenty of people who have them over just their mouths.)
There was a good article in Salon about having "quarantine bubbles" (https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/05/why-i-decided-to-join-a-quarantine-bubble-and-you-should-too.html?fbclid=IwAR2PfTBqec17d-rJmTF5J__yzGVuHz44IOqmWycabnQIDIWeyaSPcpUdWV8)--basically a pod of like-minded people who socialize but only with each other, after setting up rules. (You want to make sure that if your family is sanitizing groceries and wearing masks and only sending one person to the store then the others in your group are too.) This both drastically reduces risk and effectively eliminates lockdown fatigue. I think it's a good idea, and I think we're going to try to implement something like it with one family we know. Our extroverted kids need friends. We went for a social distancing walk with them the other day (wearing masks) and the kids did a great job, with a few reminders, keeping masks on and keeping some distance. And everyone felt better after.
However, it's also important to keep in mind that our testing is so messed up that no one really knows what TF is going on (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/cdc-and-states-are-misreporting-covid-19-test-data-pennsylvania-georgia-texas/611935/?fbclid=IwAR0D8D9jhEcaTVX4svm3GV3D2Ev9AwtpvVrWKseF0cBCHztKCHP22UDVb1I). The CDC and many states have been mixing together results from virus tests and (horribly inaccurate) antibody tests. Can't look bad if we don't have an accurate picture of things, can we?
A lot of my friends/family are doing that with neighbors or friends....but no one wants an essential worker going into the field in their bubble :(
Luckily I do work with my Dad and Brother in law so we are essentially in the same bubble by default so we've seen them and my mom/sister and niece/nephew pretty regularly. Be nice to see some other friends or my wife's family soon though.
-
I've been a bit surprised/confused by the whole restroom reluctance thing. My understanding was that the way you got it was essentially from folks breathing their "droplets" onto you or you touching an item that was infected by the droplets and then touching your eyes/nose.
For the last ~15 years or so I've used a paper towel (or my shirt in the absence of paper towels) to open the door after washing my hands in a public restroom so it's been a loooong time since I've touched a dirty restroom handle. many restrooms even have a trash receptacle right by the door for you to toss your dirty tissue into while holding the door with your foot/elbow.
Anyhow, seems relatively low risk to me.
From what I've read, the virus may be present in the faeces of those infected. Flushing toilets can aerosolises this viral matter, enabling it to be breathed in by others in the restroom at the time or soon after.
-
ote]
From what I've read, the virus may be present in the faeces of those infected. Flushing toilets can aerosolises this viral matter, enabling it to be breathed in by others in the restroom at the time or soon after.
Yeah, there is to date no evidence of any spread via fecal matter. This virus is being spread almost exclusively via droplet air transmission (coughing, sneezing, and heavy breathing). Surface transmission is not what we thought, either. In fact, super spreaders are spreading 80% of infections via droplet transmission. (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all?fbclid=IwAR2uoBTS7xgJ55ZxDJmMf3l17GYUZAWx7lfkj28PviZDodv8FVoTOZ9KZ8U)
-
ote]
From what I've read, the virus may be present in the faeces of those infected. Flushing toilets can aerosolises this viral matter, enabling it to be breathed in by others in the restroom at the time or soon after.
Yeah, there is to date no evidence of any spread via fecal matter. This virus is being spread almost exclusively via droplet air transmission (coughing, sneezing, and heavy breathing). Surface transmission is not what we thought, either. In fact, super spreaders are spreading 80% of infections via droplet transmission. (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all?fbclid=IwAR2uoBTS7xgJ55ZxDJmMf3l17GYUZAWx7lfkj28PviZDodv8FVoTOZ9KZ8U)
True. And one should still close the lid before you flush. Covid isn't the only thing the gets aerosolized from feces.
-
Question: What is up with the wearing masks only over your mouth thing?
Is there anyone on these boards who does that who would explain the reasoning? I get that people might pull their mask down outside because its easier to breathe, then pull it up in a higher risk area like a store. But when I do that, I pull it off my face entirely. (Also I see people in stores doing it, especially older people)
I suspect people are breathing through their mouth and out their nose instead, and this avoids fogging. But then I've seen a number not wearing glasses who do this.
I don't think I can possibly ask someone in person without sounding really agro and judgy, unfortunately. I suspect are just being dumb, that wearing a mask makes them feel safer even though it isn't making them safer and its wasting PPE. But if there is actually a good reason for it I'd love to know.
-
Many places I've gone to, including gas stations that were open, kept their bathrooms closed. It has been a huge challenge to find an open public restroom in places since restaurants, fast food, most stores, parks, etc, even if open for take out and shopping, don't open bathrooms. My town has opened public bathrooms at some parks and along the newly opened beach bike path otherwise ....
I suspect that many places are doing this deliberately, to reduce the amount of time that people want to spend congregating in any area. If parks had their bathrooms open then even more people would likely flock to them for longer periods of time, and time seems to be one of the factors (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242846836.html) as to whether or not you'll get this.
-
This will sound terrible but is anyone seeing an education/income factor in who wears a mask?
If I visit the fancy grocery store here in town everyone - staff and customers are wearing masks.
At Lowe's the staff is wearing safety gear but the majority of customers aren't.
Today I visited a Harbor Freight in a lower income part of town and nobody was wearing a mask - staff, customers - and nobody visiting the 3-4 stores that I could see in the strip mall.
We live in a "red state" and out governor was eager to reopen. A big portion of the population seems to think the emergency is over now even though our local cases are spiking.
A quick trip for carryout last night showed us that several of the franchise restaurants were quite busy - even with sit down customers. One had people milling around outside waiting for a table. No safety gear seen by me.
Our biggest risk is out extrovert eldest. Old enough to know better but convinced that visiting their favorite friend is okay...
-
IME the poorer folks and the upper middle have masks. It’s the middle middle and lower middle who can’t imagine a world where it affects them or they affect others.
-
IME the poorer folks and the upper middle have masks. It’s the middle middle and lower middle who can’t imagine a world where it affects them or they affect others.
It's the not being able to imagine affecting others that gets me. The Gov of ND is asking that idiots be gentle with those wearing masks, because you don't know what they might be going through. Heaven forbid they are going through an understanding of epidemiology! And my parents do live in one of the place (not ND), where people have made rude, if not threatening comments to them about wearing masks.
-
IME the poorer folks and the upper middle have masks. It’s the middle middle and lower middle who can’t imagine a world where it affects them or they affect others.
It's the not being able to imagine affecting others that gets me. The Gov of ND is asking that idiots be gentle with those wearing masks, because you don't know what they might be going through. Heaven forbid they are going through an understanding of epidemiology! And my parents do live in one of the place (not ND), where people have made rude, if not threatening comments to them about wearing masks.
So...the same people whining about personal freedom and wanting people to choose their own level of risk are now bullying those who choose to wear masks and thus have to be lectured like kindergarteners? The cognitive dissonance, narcissism, and immaturity make my head hurt.
-
IME the poorer folks and the upper middle have masks. It’s the middle middle and lower middle who can’t imagine a world where it affects them or they affect others.
It's the not being able to imagine affecting others that gets me. The Gov of ND is asking that idiots be gentle with those wearing masks, because you don't know what they might be going through. Heaven forbid they are going through an understanding of epidemiology! And my parents do live in one of the place (not ND), where people have made rude, if not threatening comments to them about wearing masks.
This is totally cracking me up.
Sigh.......
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
I’m so sorry. I’m similarly fed up.
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
Sorry to hear that and I hope their condition improves. (ETA: The science is not quite there yet for that.) One of our neighbors, a septuagenarian awaiting a bone marrow transplant, just tested positive. For now he's allowed to be at home, hopefully it stays that way. His next-door neighbor, like many of our neighbors, has been throwing big pool parties and cookouts every few days for weeks now. This is really maddening to watch.
-
I think they’re dead, @hops
No condition to improve.
-
I think they’re dead, @hops
No condition to improve.
Ah, I misread who had the respirator! Will edit that part of the post.
-
ote]
From what I've read, the virus may be present in the faeces of those infected. Flushing toilets can aerosolises this viral matter, enabling it to be breathed in by others in the restroom at the time or soon after.
Yeah, there is to date no evidence of any spread via fecal matter. This virus is being spread almost exclusively via droplet air transmission (coughing, sneezing, and heavy breathing). Surface transmission is not what we thought, either. In fact, super spreaders are spreading 80% of infections via droplet transmission. (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all?fbclid=IwAR2uoBTS7xgJ55ZxDJmMf3l17GYUZAWx7lfkj28PviZDodv8FVoTOZ9KZ8U)
Here they are monitoring the level of infection in the community through the amount of virus in the waste water in the waste water treatment plant. Though they don’t believe it can spread through the water.
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
I’m so sorry. I’m similarly fed up.
Here's a guy who's upset because the police have closed down his gym.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOseD1OVrb4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOseD1OVrb4)
TLDR version. He's ex-military (although a pretty scruffy ex-military) and his gym is his business. He was using enhanced cleaning procedures, limiting the number of members in the facility to 10, but the police came and shut him down anyway. He's upset that his constitutional rights have been violated.
This is confusing to me. As ex-military, shouldn't he be aware that he has responsibilities as well as rights? He's the last person I would expect to be complaining about having to close his gym.
The gym I go to is also closed. It's probably going to go bankrupt and have to restart when the pandemic is over. I support the closing though. Gyms seem like the perfect place to exchange germs.
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
I’m so sorry. I’m similarly fed up.
Here's a guy who's upset because the police have closed down his gym.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOseD1OVrb4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOseD1OVrb4)
TLDR version. He's ex-military (although a pretty scruffy ex-military) and his gym is his business. He was using enhanced cleaning procedures, limiting the number of members in the facility to 10, but the police came and shut him down anyway. He's upset that his constitutional rights have been violated.
This is confusing to me. As ex-military, shouldn't he be aware that he has responsibilities as well as rights? He's the last person I would expect to be complaining about having to close his gym.
The gym I go to is also closed. It's probably going to go bankrupt and have to restart when the pandemic is over. I support the closing though. Gyms seem like the perfect place to exchange germs.
I completely understand why he's upset, and I would be too, but unfortunately the science isn't in his favor. It's a really shitty situation with no easy answer.
-
Reporting from Long Island, NY. I know a few people that know of people who have died from this. No one is taking it lightly. Everyone is distancing and masking. Looks like this week some things are going to open up.
-
Reporting from Long Island, NY. I know a few people that know of people who have died from this. No one is taking it lightly. Everyone is distancing and masking. Looks like this week some things are going to open up.
My brother lives up in the Canadian arctic. He thinks this whole thing is overblown, and panic driven from govts and media. They had two cases up there, and zero deaths.
A friend of mine is Italian. Lots of older relatives in Italy. Several of them died. He is much more concerned and distraught over this virus than my brother.
It seems many people rely on their personal experiences to guide their perception here. Probably not a good strategy from either perspective.
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
I’m so sorry. I’m similarly fed up.
Here's a guy who's upset because the police have closed down his gym.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOseD1OVrb4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOseD1OVrb4)
TLDR version. He's ex-military (although a pretty scruffy ex-military) and his gym is his business. He was using enhanced cleaning procedures, limiting the number of members in the facility to 10, but the police came and shut him down anyway. He's upset that his constitutional rights have been violated.
This is confusing to me. As ex-military, shouldn't he be aware that he has responsibilities as well as rights? He's the last person I would expect to be complaining about having to close his gym.
The gym I go to is also closed. It's probably going to go bankrupt and have to restart when the pandemic is over. I support the closing though. Gyms seem like the perfect place to exchange germs.
This gym is 15 minutes up the road from me. I don't know what the hell happened there but it was some kind of stink or something. The town's police chief resigned and the Town Council called an emergency meeting, probably to deal with fallout to the police department. The gym should not have been open but from what I gather from local news the police did not act in a professional matter.
-
One of my neighbours a couple houses down was carted off in a plastic covered stretcher by two paramedics in full body condoms and respirators last night. Couldn't see who it was, but the couple who lives their is in their early 50s with no medical problems. Makes my really happy that we're going full speed ahead with re-opening everything (and damn the torpedoes).
So, y'know. I'm having a lot of trouble empathizing with the assholes ridiculing and attacking those who are trying to responsibly limit spread of this disease.
I'm so sorry. That really sucks.
Friends of ours have an uncle (not US based) who died of this.
And one staff member tested positive at my mom's place. Everyone else has tested negative (thank goodness!) but that staff person was admitted to the hospital. I don't know the name, but it's someone who worked on my mom's floor. It's someone who cared for my mom in ways that I can't. It's someone I've interacted with frequently, since I knew and liked all the staff on that floor. It really just sucks.
-
For all of you that have loved ones, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who are very sick or have died, I am very sorry.
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
It's arrogance. Where I live in NC, the "I don't need no stinking mask" arrogance seems to be especially prevalent among white people aged 30-60. Their "freedom" just smells like death to me. I went grocery shopping today . . . probably won't go back for a long time. We're going to be rationing here and literally doing the eat all the food in your house challenge for the rest of the summer.
-
For all of you that have loved ones, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who are very sick or have died, I am very sorry.
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
It's arrogance. Where I live in NC, the "I don't need no stinking mask" arrogance seems to be especially prevalent among white people aged 30-60. Their "freedom" just smells like death to me. I went grocery shopping today . . . probably won't go back for a long time. We're going to be rationing here and literally doing the eat all the food in your house challenge for the rest of the summer.
Here in the UK it's all over the news that the Prime Minister's top advisor took a 250 mile trip when he knew he and his wife had the virus. The lockdown was breaking up in any case - it's lovely summer weather and a bank holiday today - but this news and the refusal to accept that anything was wrong with what he did or that the rules apply to him will drive a coach and horses through any further attempts to enforce it. There is a lot of anger about it all.
-
For all of you that have loved ones, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who are very sick or have died, I am very sorry.
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
It's arrogance. Where I live in NC, the "I don't need no stinking mask" arrogance seems to be especially prevalent among white people aged 30-60. Their "freedom" just smells like death to me. I went grocery shopping today . . . probably won't go back for a long time. We're going to be rationing here and literally doing the eat all the food in your house challenge for the rest of the summer.
Ugh. If you can manage to go grocery shopping either very early on a weekend morning or on a weekday, the crowds will be lighter and you may see more people in masks. Also, my parents swear by curbside pickup. Eating what you have is great, but if you run out of something essential you may want to place a pickup order if that’s available. It might make things a bit less stressful over the summer.
-
This will sound terrible but is anyone seeing an education/income factor in who wears a mask?
If I visit the fancy grocery store here in town everyone - staff and customers are wearing masks.
At Lowe's the staff is wearing safety gear but the majority of customers aren't.
Today I visited a Harbor Freight in a lower income part of town and nobody was wearing a mask - staff, customers - and nobody visiting the 3-4 stores that I could see in the strip mall.
We live in a "red state" and out governor was eager to reopen. A big portion of the population seems to think the emergency is over now even though our local cases are spiking.
A quick trip for carryout last night showed us that several of the franchise restaurants were quite busy - even with sit down customers. One had people milling around outside waiting for a table. No safety gear seen by me.
Our biggest risk is out extrovert eldest. Old enough to know better but convinced that visiting their favorite friend is okay...
I've been out frequently and I don't see it.
Its mostly the ignorant people that don't wear masks.
People just need to understand that wearing masks is not to protect yourself but others. Just like smoking but much worst consequences. I mean people would still be smoking everywhere if laws weren't passed down.
What I don't understand is why don't more stores require people to wear masks when entering. Its the exact same as requiring to wear clothing/shoes when entering. By requiring this, you can greatly help reduce the spread.
-
Some stores have required it. Some states have required it (Hawaii, apparently, go Hawaii.)
But, here in NC, I'm guess mask wearing is pretty much breaking down along party lines more than anything. It makes no sense to me that restrictions are being relaxed here when we have more new cases per day in my state than ever, but what do I know?
Here in the UK it's all over the news that the Prime Minister's top advisor took a 250 mile trip when he knew he and his wife had the virus. The lockdown was breaking up in any case - it's lovely summer weather and a bank holiday today - but this news and the refusal to accept that anything was wrong with what he did or that the rules apply to him will drive a coach and horses through any further attempts to enforce it. There is a lot of anger about it all.
They traveled knowing they were positive cases? Why? Where did they need to go so badly?
-
Some stores have required it. Some states have required it (Hawaii, apparently, go Hawaii.)
But, here in NC, I'm guess mask wearing is pretty much breaking down along party lines more than anything. It makes no sense to me that restrictions are being relaxed here when we have more new cases per day in my state than ever, but what do I know?
Here in the UK it's all over the news that the Prime Minister's top advisor took a 250 mile trip when he knew he and his wife had the virus. The lockdown was breaking up in any case - it's lovely summer weather and a bank holiday today - but this news and the refusal to accept that anything was wrong with what he did or that the rules apply to him will drive a coach and horses through any further attempts to enforce it. There is a lot of anger about it all.
They traveled knowing they were positive cases? Why? Where did they need to go so badly?
To their country estate, of course!
It is the same.oroblem we gave. In the US, the "leaders" refuse to comply, why should anyone else?
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
And we are now about a month into reopening things, lowest death total in over 2 months. People sure have gotten quiet about the surge we were going to get when reopening. I'm not getting my hopes up that they will admit they were wrong.
(https://i.imgur.com/j9QChPu.png)
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
And we are now about a month into reopening things, lowest death total in over 2 months. People sure have gotten quiet about the surge we were going to get when reopening. I'm not getting my hopes up that they will admit they were wrong.
(https://i.imgur.com/j9QChPu.png)
It takes weeks to be sick enough to get on a ventilator, and it takes weeks to die on a ventilator. Don't be impatient. It won't be long. It'll rise just slowly at first, like when the pandemic started. And then all hell will break loose. Again.
-
I'm just outside of Chicago. Our little affluent suburb is doing fairly well- most of the deaths have been in senior facilities. But I don't have to travel far to find serious outbreaks. Restaurants take out only. Masks required and number of people limited in stores. Chicago beaches closed. Parks closed, except for walking. You can't climb on playground equipment or play on the fields. If you didn't have a yard and had kids, it would be awful. Husband I are retired- although as a COBOL programmer- he's back teleworking to help pay unemployment claims. I am not planning to rush up to Wisconsin and eat in a restaurant- I don't see that happening for a long time. But I cannot do most of the things I did- church- online but a poor substitute. I helped cook for a rotating shelter once on a month- that is gone. My husband did computer literacy classes at a halfway house- that is gone. Library closed. The craft classes I took at the community center- gone.
-
For all of you that have loved ones, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who are very sick or have died, I am very sorry.
I will add that--here in NC--people are starting to seem "done" with this quarantine. No one is masking in stores. Even in my own household there's a lot of tension.
It's arrogance. Where I live in NC, the "I don't need no stinking mask" arrogance seems to be especially prevalent among white people aged 30-60. Their "freedom" just smells like death to me. I went grocery shopping today . . . probably won't go back for a long time. We're going to be rationing here and literally doing the eat all the food in your house challenge for the rest of the summer.
Here in the UK it's all over the news that the Prime Minister's top advisor took a 250 mile trip when he knew he and his wife had the virus. The lockdown was breaking up in any case - it's lovely summer weather and a bank holiday today - but this news and the refusal to accept that anything was wrong with what he did or that the rules apply to him will drive a coach and horses through any further attempts to enforce it. There is a lot of anger about it all.
I watched him on BBC last night trying to explain himself. Hilarious! Once BoJo figures out how much this is hurting him, Dominic will be history.
-
I've only see this CDC data presented one or two places but it shows a best estimate of fatality rate of 0.4% for symptomatic individuals. Asymptomatic individuals are estimated at 35% which means the overall fatality rate is about 0.26%.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box
COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios
For Pandemic Scenario 5:
This Scenario represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: that the parameter values will change as more data become available.
Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020
Here's a breakdown of the major variables between the best cast and worst case scenarios as well as the best estimate.
R0 is 2-3 with a best estimate of 2.5
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, all ages is 0.2% to 1.0% with a best estimate of 0.4% overall, or 1 in 250
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 0-49 is 0.02% to 0.1% with a best estimate of 0.05% or 1 in 2,000
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 65+ is 0.6% to 3.2% with a best estimate of 1.3%, or 1 in 77
Percent of infections that are asymptomatic are 20% to 50% with a best estimate of 35%.
This data is not presented as the results of some new study, it's planning factors for healthcare professionals. Still, this is far lower than a lot of the numbers still being thrown around. When I search on Google News for "CDC Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio" I get a few articles touting the 35% asymptomatic number, but only a couple talking about the overall implications of a ~0.3% infection fatality ratio.
-
I've only see this CDC data presented one or two places but it shows a best estimate of fatality rate of 0.4% for symptomatic individuals. Asymptomatic individuals are estimated at 35% which means the overall fatality rate is about 0.26%.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box
COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios
For Pandemic Scenario 5:
This Scenario represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: that the parameter values will change as more data become available.
Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020
Here's a breakdown of the major variables between the best cast and worst case scenarios as well as the best estimate.
R0 is 2-3 with a best estimate of 2.5
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, all ages is 0.2% to 1.0% with a best estimate of 0.4% overall, or 1 in 250
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 0-49 is 0.02% to 0.1% with a best estimate of 0.05% or 1 in 2,000
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 65+ is 0.6% to 3.2% with a best estimate of 1.3%, or 1 in 77
Percent of infections that are asymptomatic are 20% to 50% with a best estimate of 35%.
This data is not presented as the results of some new study, it's planning factors for healthcare professionals. Still, this is far lower than a lot of the numbers still being thrown around. When I search on Google News for "CDC Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio" I get a few articles touting the 35% asymptomatic number, but only a couple talking about the overall implications of a ~0.3% infection fatality ratio.
That’s very interesting and thanks for posting. One big piece of info that seems to get left out in this, probably because we just don’t know, is the number of people who are picking up long term problems as a result. E.g. permanent or semi-permanent lung damage. This is some really nasty crud.
-
I've only see this CDC data presented one or two places but it shows a best estimate of fatality rate of 0.4% for symptomatic individuals. Asymptomatic individuals are estimated at 35% which means the overall fatality rate is about 0.26%.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box
COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios
For Pandemic Scenario 5:
This Scenario represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: that the parameter values will change as more data become available.
Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020
Here's a breakdown of the major variables between the best cast and worst case scenarios as well as the best estimate.
R0 is 2-3 with a best estimate of 2.5
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, all ages is 0.2% to 1.0% with a best estimate of 0.4% overall, or 1 in 250
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 0-49 is 0.02% to 0.1% with a best estimate of 0.05% or 1 in 2,000
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 65+ is 0.6% to 3.2% with a best estimate of 1.3%, or 1 in 77
Percent of infections that are asymptomatic are 20% to 50% with a best estimate of 35%.
This data is not presented as the results of some new study, it's planning factors for healthcare professionals. Still, this is far lower than a lot of the numbers still being thrown around. When I search on Google News for "CDC Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio" I get a few articles touting the 35% asymptomatic number, but only a couple talking about the overall implications of a ~0.3% infection fatality ratio.
That’s very interesting and thanks for posting. One big piece of info that seems to get left out in this, probably because we just don’t know, is the number of people who are picking up long term problems as a result. E.g. permanent or semi-permanent lung damage. This is some really nasty crud.
Or kidney or heart damage. This virus isn’t just hitting the lungs.
-
I am, quite frankly, highly skeptical of US numbers at this point. The CDC has been fudging testing numbers to include both actual COVID tests and antibody test results ([url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/25/doctors-condemn-secrecy-over-false-negative-covid-19-tests]both of which (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/22/860981956/scientists-say-new-lower-cdc-estimates-for-severity-of-covid-19-are-optimistic?fbclid=IwAR23YPs6PcvBmpTaWI01jGt6jT9HPmMSR2AnUQj2Y_r7fcqEkzCyn5kDgtc) have been unreliable (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/why-the-accuracy-of-sars-cov-2-antibody-tests-varies-so-much-67513)). Plus, now the Trump admin is saying that coronavirus cases from nursing homes don't need to be counted before May 6th. both of those are going to bring the CFR waaaaaay down. But hey, it's not like it's an election year, so why would anyone want to mess with the numbers to make this administration look slightly less incompetent? MAGA! /s
As for the number of cases not rising in states that have reopened, yes they are (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/26/coronavirus-as-states-reopen-us-hospitalizations-rise.html). "South Carolina had the biggest weekly increase at 42%." (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-trends-graphic-idUSKBN2321WY) The overall number might be going down because NY is now getting under control, but new places are--surprise!--flaring up right on time. This is just the beginning, since these people likely got sick right at the beginning of restrictions being lifted. It's not the crest of the wave, it's the start of a new one. States are starting to see another uptick in hospitalizations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/26/coronavirus-update-us/?rand=1), which is a better metric than testing because if we don't test then the numbers can't look bad (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/05/15/trump-without-doing-covid-19-coronavirus-testing-we-would-have-very-few-cases-here-is-the-reaction/#f975b69518c8)!
People point to Sweden but not only are they not even close to herd immunity (only 7-8% of people in the worst affected areas have had it or have antibodies to it (https://www.npr.org/2020/05/25/861923548/stockholm-wont-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-sweden-s-chief-epidemiologist-says)) but they've also been suffering the same economic effects (https://www.wsj.com/articles/sweden-has-avoided-a-coronavirus-lockdown-its-economy-is-hurting-anyway-11588870062).
As for COVID not being in poop, apparently it can be tested in sewage and can be used as a "leading indicator" (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20105999v1), so make of that what you will.
-
I've only see this CDC data presented one or two places but it shows a best estimate of fatality rate of 0.4% for symptomatic individuals. Asymptomatic individuals are estimated at 35% which means the overall fatality rate is about 0.26%.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#box
COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios
For Pandemic Scenario 5:
This Scenario represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: that the parameter values will change as more data become available.
Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020
Here's a breakdown of the major variables between the best cast and worst case scenarios as well as the best estimate.
R0 is 2-3 with a best estimate of 2.5
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, all ages is 0.2% to 1.0% with a best estimate of 0.4% overall, or 1 in 250
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 0-49 is 0.02% to 0.1% with a best estimate of 0.05% or 1 in 2,000
Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio, age 65+ is 0.6% to 3.2% with a best estimate of 1.3%, or 1 in 77
Percent of infections that are asymptomatic are 20% to 50% with a best estimate of 35%.
This data is not presented as the results of some new study, it's planning factors for healthcare professionals. Still, this is far lower than a lot of the numbers still being thrown around. When I search on Google News for "CDC Symptomatic Case Fatality Ratio" I get a few articles touting the 35% asymptomatic number, but only a couple talking about the overall implications of a ~0.3% infection fatality ratio.
That’s very interesting and thanks for posting. One big piece of info that seems to get left out in this, probably because we just don’t know, is the number of people who are picking up long term problems as a result. E.g. permanent or semi-permanent lung damage. This is some really nasty crud.
Or kidney or heart damage. This virus isn’t just hitting the lungs.
Or brain and nervous system. It seems to just keep on giving.
-
I have a pair of close friends who are completely anti-mask and anti-quarantine. Every single day they make facebook posts about how their freedoms are being infringed upon and the husband even posted the other day bragging about going to the grocery store without a mask on. He works at Target and has been working through the whole pandemic, so he is exposed every single day and he can't seem to understand that he is exposing others by going around without a mask on. He says if you are scared you can wear a mask but he won't be doing it. (Although he does wear one at work since he is required to. He just complains about it).
Then last week they decided to take a road trip from Denver to Mount Rushmore. They honestly don't see anything wrong with what they did. They ate every meal in restaurants and stayed in hotels. They made a million facebook posts during the trip and kept commenting on how nice it was to be in states that didn't require masks and how great it was to sit down in a restaurant to eat and to not see a mask in sight. Apparently WY, NE, and SD didn't have the same quarantine rules as CO. I just hope they didn't leave a path of infection behind them. There is a reason why the "safer at home" orders in CO say that you shouldn't travel more than 10 miles from your home or leave your county.
-
I have a pair of close friends who are completely anti-mask and anti-quarantine. Every single day they make facebook posts about how their freedoms are being infringed upon and the husband even posted the other day bragging about going to the grocery store without a mask on. He works at Target and has been working through the whole pandemic, so he is exposed every single day and he can't seem to understand that he is exposing others by going around without a mask on. He says if you are scared you can wear a mask but he won't be doing it. (Although he does wear one at work since he is required to. He just complains about it).
Then last week they decided to take a road trip from Denver to Mount Rushmore. They honestly don't see anything wrong with what they did. They ate every meal in restaurants and stayed in hotels. They made a million facebook posts during the trip and kept commenting on how nice it was to be in states that didn't require masks and how great it was to sit down in a restaurant to eat and to not see a mask in sight. Apparently WY, NE, and SD didn't have the same quarantine rules as CO. I just hope they didn't leave a path of infection behind them. There is a reason why the "safer at home" orders in CO say that you shouldn't travel more than 10 miles from your home or leave your county.
What selfish, childish babies. I have lost tolerance for people who are so privileged that they do not understand the difference between "essential rights" and "I want to do whatever I want, whenever and however I want, regardless of consequences." If their rights were truly infringed upon, they wouldn't be able to travel interstate or go to work at all. Good lord.
-
What selfish, childish babies. I have lost tolerance for people who are so privileged that they do not understand the difference between "essential rights" and "I want to do whatever I want, whenever and however I want, regardless of consequences." If their rights were truly infringed upon, they wouldn't be able to travel interstate or go to work at all. Good lord.
My brother sent me a link to a beautiful Twitter thread on this subject:
https://twitter.com/stephycha/status/1264707268181757952?s=21
"I dislike inconvenience and discomfort as much as the next person, but I wore a mask while giving birth to a whole-ass baby. Who are these feeble losers who whine about wearing masks to run half-hour errands? I kept the mask on while I lost 1.5 liters of blood, and for the two days I spent in recovery. I kept it on when I saw my baby in the NICU, even though it meant waiting to kiss him until we went home. But sure, you need your deep breaths in the frozen food aisle, what the fuck."
-
Everyone has different tolerance levels for personal discomfort. I can stay up 15 hours straight working - but I wouldn't expect others to make the same sacrifice.
Not everyone has the same risk/cost calculation in their heads for each situation and each sacrifice.
Personally I find wearing a mask very irritating. It fogs up my glasses too. So I don't wear one.
-
Everyone has different tolerance levels for personal discomfort. I can stay up 15 hours straight working - but I wouldn't expect others to make the same sacrifice.
Not everyone has the same risk/cost calculation in their heads for each situation and each sacrifice.
Personally I find wearing a mask very irritating. It fogs up my glasses too. So I don't wear one.
Would you still avoid the irritation of a mask if you lived in a high risk area and could be infectious? You are very privileged living in Australia right now.
-
Everyone has different tolerance levels for personal discomfort. I can stay up 15 hours straight working - but I wouldn't expect others to make the same sacrifice.
Not everyone has the same risk/cost calculation in their heads for each situation and each sacrifice.
Personally I find wearing a mask very irritating. It fogs up my glasses too. So I don't wear one.
Ah yes, God forbid you avoid killing someone else because it would fog up your glasses.
And just because YOU don't have to bear the brunt of a risk/cost analysis doesn't mean the people around you aren't forced into that. Even more so if you don't wear a mask.
I get that you're in Australia, but pushing the "masks are pointless" narrative in any way, shape, or form is unhelpful at the very least, and catastrophic at worst.
-
Everyone has different tolerance levels for personal discomfort. I can stay up 15 hours straight working - but I wouldn't expect others to make the same sacrifice.
Not everyone has the same risk/cost calculation in their heads for each situation and each sacrifice.
Personally I find wearing a mask very irritating. It fogs up my glasses too. So I don't wear one.
Would you still avoid the irritation of a mask if you lived in a high risk area and could be infectious? You are very privileged living in Australia right now.
In that case I would definitely wear a mask.
-
Everyone has different tolerance levels for personal discomfort. I can stay up 15 hours straight working - but I wouldn't expect others to make the same sacrifice.
Not everyone has the same risk/cost calculation in their heads for each situation and each sacrifice.
Personally I find wearing a mask very irritating. It fogs up my glasses too. So I don't wear one.
Ah yes, God forbid you avoid killing someone else because it would fog up your glasses.
And just because YOU don't have to bear the brunt of a risk/cost analysis doesn't mean the people around you aren't forced into that. Even more so if you don't wear a mask.
I get that you're in Australia, but pushing the "masks are pointless" narrative in any way, shape, or form is unhelpful at the very least, and catastrophic at worst.
Everyone has to do his/her own cost/benefit analysis. If the people around me are that worried they can wear a mask and gloves, or not go outside, or do what they like. Only about 10-15% of the people around me are wearing a mask, so I guess that's the great thing about having individual choice. Pushing the "masks are imperative" narrative is just as misleading.
-
In a pandemic, it’s not about doing our own thing; it’s about understanding how we all affect each other, and we need to behave in ways that protect ourselves and each other.
-
Everyone has to do his/her own cost/benefit analysis. If the people around me are that worried they can wear a mask and gloves, or not go outside, or do what they like. Only about 10-15% of the people around me are wearing a mask, so I guess that's the great thing about having individual choice. Pushing the "masks are imperative" narrative is just as misleading.
Masks are much more effective at keeping contagion IN than keeping contagion OUT. If everybody were to wear a mask when out and about, the time needed to quarantine and to wear masks at all would be shorter. Well, Australia is happily isolated and I don't know what your covid numbers are like, so it may not be so much of an issue where you are.
Sure is in NY, though. We're basically back to where we were when the quarantine started, and fools are running around without masks and complaining about any measures being taken to slow the reopening. Why, if these numbers were scary enough to start a quarantine back in March, are they not so scary now, thousands of deaths later?
-
Everyone has to do his/her own cost/benefit analysis. If the people around me are that worried they can wear a mask and gloves, or not go outside, or do what they like. Only about 10-15% of the people around me are wearing a mask, so I guess that's the great thing about having individual choice. Pushing the "masks are imperative" narrative is just as misleading.
Sure is in NY, though. We're basically back to where we were when the quarantine started, and fools are running around without masks and complaining about any measures being taken to slow the reopening. Why, if these numbers were scary enough to start a quarantine back in March, are they not so scary now, thousands of deaths later?
Bloop Bloop has consistently demonstrated an inability to understand that sometimes things you do have a chance of negatively affecting those around you, and that if everyone does those things it becomes a certainty. This is a blindness that afflicts libertarian-minded people sometimes, and I'm afraid there's no configuration of words you can put in an internet comment that can pull back the wool over the eyes.
-
Everyone has to do his/her own cost/benefit analysis. If the people around me are that worried they can wear a mask and gloves, or not go outside, or do what they like. Only about 10-15% of the people around me are wearing a mask, so I guess that's the great thing about having individual choice. Pushing the "masks are imperative" narrative is just as misleading.
Masks are much more effective at keeping contagion IN than keeping contagion OUT. If everybody were to wear a mask when out and about, the time needed to quarantine and to wear masks at all would be shorter. Well, Australia is happily isolated and I don't know what your covid numbers are like, so it may not be so much of an issue where you are.
Sure is in NY, though. We're basically back to where we were when the quarantine started, and fools are running around without masks and complaining about any measures being taken to slow the reopening. Why, if these numbers were scary enough to start a quarantine back in March, are they not so scary now, thousands of deaths later?
This. I don't like wearing a mask either, but if it means we can move about more freely and safely in indoor spaces it seems like a fair trade-off.
-
Here are a few articles that I (more educated in vetting & interpreting pandemic info than your average bear) think are compelling and interesting.
People are trying to make decisions about their personal risk and their risk to those around them. But many people are encountering mis-/dis-information about coronavirus that impact their ability to make reasonable decisions. Here is an article from the journal Nature about the state of the coronavirus "infodemic": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01452-z (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01452-z) (I can post links to resources on identifying coronavirus mis-/dis-information if folks are interested)
Decision-making is fraught with cognitive biases even in the best of circumstances. During periods of high uncertainty and stress, cognitive biases are exacerbated. That's why professionals in high stress environments (like fighter jet pilots or critical care resuscitation teams for example) rely on checklists and protocols and receive training in cognitive biases. People who are attempting to make personal risk/benefit decisions are being influenced in all sorts of ways that they're not aware of. Here is an article from Knowable about our ability to make decisions during the pandemic: https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2020/how-we-make-decisions-during-pandemic (https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2020/how-we-make-decisions-during-pandemic)
And, for the love of all that is holy, masks are effective. Full stop. Period. 6 ft may not even be far enough apart. The duration of time in riskier environments (like anywhere indoors) directly impacts the risk of transmission. Here's a brief article from the journal Science: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197.full.pdf (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197.full.pdf)
In summary, don't think that you can make better decisions than public health experts, wear a mask, keep at least 6 feet distance, avoid prolonged time in indoor environments, and protect your community members who may be forced to work in risky environments or who may be more susceptible to becoming critically ill from infection.
-
Thanks Dr Kidstache. I'm wearing (and reusing, unfortunately) an N95 mask when I shop because a cloth mask will protect others from me, but won't protect me from them. My grocery store is really good about distancing, my Lowes not so much.
-
Everyone has to do his/her own cost/benefit analysis. If the people around me are that worried they can wear a mask and gloves, or not go outside, or do what they like. Only about 10-15% of the people around me are wearing a mask, so I guess that's the great thing about having individual choice. Pushing the "masks are imperative" narrative is just as misleading.
Masks are much more effective at keeping contagion IN than keeping contagion OUT. If everybody were to wear a mask when out and about, the time needed to quarantine and to wear masks at all would be shorter. Well, Australia is happily isolated and I don't know what your covid numbers are like, so it may not be so much of an issue where you are.
Sure is in NY, though. We're basically back to where we were when the quarantine started, and fools are running around without masks and complaining about any measures being taken to slow the reopening. Why, if these numbers were scary enough to start a quarantine back in March, are they not so scary now, thousands of deaths later?
These 2 statements. I don't understand how people JUST don't GET it. "If you want to wear a mask to be safe."
NOOOOO. YOU WEAR A MASK TO PROTECT ME. I WEAR A MASK TO PROTECT YOU. DUH.
The only "cost/benefit" analysis that anyone should be doing should be with respect to COVID-19 cases in your own little area. (Assuming that you don't have requirements to wear one.)
We are required to wear a mask in stores or restaurants or while waiting to enter either. So that's what we do. We have face coverings ready for if we are out walking/ running and have to pass someone closely.
If I were in NYC I'd 100% be wearing a mask. Locally, while walking, not so much because we can social distance AND we have low rates of infection. BUT I STILL HAVE IT READY.
-
I have a pair of close friends who are completely anti-mask and anti-quarantine. Every single day they make facebook posts about how their freedoms are being infringed upon and the husband even posted the other day bragging about going to the grocery store without a mask on. He works at Target and has been working through the whole pandemic, so he is exposed every single day and he can't seem to understand that he is exposing others by going around without a mask on. He says if you are scared you can wear a mask but he won't be doing it. (Although he does wear one at work since he is required to. He just complains about it).
Then last week they decided to take a road trip from Denver to Mount Rushmore. They honestly don't see anything wrong with what they did. They ate every meal in restaurants and stayed in hotels. They made a million facebook posts during the trip and kept commenting on how nice it was to be in states that didn't require masks and how great it was to sit down in a restaurant to eat and to not see a mask in sight. Apparently WY, NE, and SD didn't have the same quarantine rules as CO. I just hope they didn't leave a path of infection behind them. There is a reason why the "safer at home" orders in CO say that you shouldn't travel more than 10 miles from your home or leave your county.
This is EXACTLY why our trip to the Black Hills was cancelled this summer. We wear masks to protect others more than ourselves. But I don’t want to put up with people who only care more about themselves than those they might make ill.
-
This is all Pelosi's fault lol
-
Everyone has to do his/her own cost/benefit analysis. If the people around me are that worried they can wear a mask and gloves, or not go outside, or do what they like. Only about 10-15% of the people around me are wearing a mask, so I guess that's the great thing about having individual choice. Pushing the "masks are imperative" narrative is just as misleading.
Sure is in NY, though. We're basically back to where we were when the quarantine started, and fools are running around without masks and complaining about any measures being taken to slow the reopening. Why, if these numbers were scary enough to start a quarantine back in March, are they not so scary now, thousands of deaths later?
Bloop Bloop has consistently demonstrated an inability to understand that sometimes things you do have a chance of negatively affecting those around you, and that if everyone does those things it becomes a certainty. This is a blindness that afflicts libertarian-minded people sometimes, and I'm afraid there's no configuration of words you can put in an internet comment that can pull back the wool over the eyes.
The only thing I have consistently demonstrated is the ability to think critically and not lap up doomsayers' prognostications.
If I was in NYC I'd probably wear a mask. Living as I do in Australia, where the community transmission cases per day is <5 for the whole country (all other cases are relatives of known carriers, or quarantined overseas travellers undergoing checks), the chance is infinitesimally small. The government only recommends that front-line workers wear a mask. So no, I will not wear a mask. Nor do I go around everyday wearing a hi-vis jacket, even though I am sure that doing so would make me less likely to be involved in a pedestrian versus car accident (That said, if I was riding a bike, I'd wear such a jacket for sure.)
As for me not wearing a mask contributing to the risk of transmission, the risk is so infinitesimally small (because of our tiny numbers) that I don't feel it is rational or ethically justifiable that I and the vast majority of the population in the "normal risk" category be subjected to wearing a mask.
Note that none of our leaders is wearing a mask either in everyday situations so I'd say I have the utilitarian calculus right.
-
NOOOOO. YOU WEAR A MASK TO PROTECT ME. I WEAR A MASK TO PROTECT YOU. DUH.
The only "cost/benefit" analysis that anyone should be doing should be with respect to COVID-19 cases in your own little area. (Assuming that you don't have requirements to wear one.)
We are required to wear a mask in stores or restaurants or while waiting to enter either. So that's what we do. We have face coverings ready for if we are out walking/ running and have to pass someone closely.
If I were in NYC I'd 100% be wearing a mask. Locally, while walking, not so much because we can social distance AND we have low rates of infection. BUT I STILL HAVE IT READY.
Yep. I don't wear a mask when outside walking/cycling when I can put plenty of distance between myself and others(and am unlikely to be in the presence of the same person for more than a few seconds). I wear a mask when I'm inside/there's a potential for greater exposure.
The cost of wearing a mask is minimal - a few dollars and minor annoyance, and the benefit on the population level is decidedly non-negligible, so I can't justify not wearing a mask in cases where there is a risk of transmission - i.e. when I'm going anywhere indoors.
The only thing that would be likely to change this calculus for me would be if I lived in an area where the infection rate was essentially nil(for example, Australia, or a rural region of the US essentially untouched by the virus).
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
And we are now about a month into reopening things, lowest death total in over 2 months. People sure have gotten quiet about the surge we were going to get when reopening. I'm not getting my hopes up that they will admit they were wrong.
And here we are 8 weeks post reopening, lowest death total since March 26th. No nationwide spikes despite mass reopening and mass protest. Sure, there have been regional spikes, but not nationwide. In fact, numbers continue to drop. I don't expect the people who claimed things will spike will comment on this.
(https://i.imgur.com/mwvJ7pZ.png)
-
Those claiming there would be a massive surge as we reopen, I just hope they will admit they were wrong if/when that doesn't happen.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
And we are now about a month into reopening things, lowest death total in over 2 months. People sure have gotten quiet about the surge we were going to get when reopening. I'm not getting my hopes up that they will admit they were wrong.
And here we are 8 weeks post reopening, lowest death total since March 26th. No nationwide spikes despite mass reopening and mass protest. Sure, there have been regional spikes, but not nationwide. In fact, numbers continue to drop. I don't expect the people who claimed things will spike will comment on this.
(https://i.imgur.com/mwvJ7pZ.png)
Your case rate is just starting to climb. Happy?
-
Your case rate is just starting to climb. Happy?
Testing rates continue to climb. Case rate is proportional to testing rate. The data to watch is hospitalization rate and death rate.
Cases are actually slowly declining with slight plateau despite increased testing.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZmGaCYD.png)
-
Your case rate is just starting to climb. Happy?
Testing rates continue to climb. Case rate is proportional to testing rate. The data to watch is hospitalization rate and death rate.
People get symptoms, they get tested, they get really sick, they're hospitalised and they die. That process from beginning to end takes months. MONTHS. So if you're only watching death rates, you're effectively seeing a snapshot of what things were like 1-3 months ago. Any changes will take that long to come through. I don't really know why you're having an issue here. There is a highly transmissable virus loose, with no treatment and no cure. Avoiding interaction is the only way of preventing it. Opening up interaction will increase the incidence of infection. It's simple cause and effect, and one that has been demonstrated over thousands of years. This is not rocket science. It's like a ball falling off the table and hitting the floor. Cause and effect. You seem quite keen on trying to prove the ball won't hit the floor. You're just incorrect. It's that simple.
-
Your case rate is just starting to climb. Happy?
Testing rates continue to climb. Case rate is proportional to testing rate. The data to watch is hospitalization rate and death rate.
People get symptoms, they get tested, they get really sick, they're hospitalised and they die. That process from beginning to end takes months. MONTHS. So if you're only watching death rates, you're effectively seeing a snapshot of what things were like 1-3 months ago. Any changes will take that long to come through. I don't really know why you're having an issue here. There is a highly transmissable virus loose, with no treatment and no cure. Avoiding interaction is the only way of preventing it. Opening up interaction will increase the incidence of infection. It's simple cause and effect, and one that has been demonstrated over thousands of years. This is not rocket science. It's like a ball falling off the table and hitting the floor. Cause and effect. You seem quite keen on trying to prove the ball won't hit the floor. You're just incorrect. It's that simple.
You claimed nearly 2 months ago we should wait and see and that there would be a massive spike. There hasn't been. Now you're claiming to keep waiting even longer. I'll revisit here in a few weeks to report lower numbers.
-
Hey, anyone know what's up with the weekly cycle in death rates? (i.e. every 7 days there's a new low, and then rates go back up a bit...)
-
Hey, anyone know what's up with the weekly cycle in death rates? (i.e. every 7 days there's a new low, and then rates go back up a bit...)
yes it has to do with when numbers are reported
-
The people who report the numbers take the weekend off.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
I think international travel will be a large factor going forward.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
Please stop with this dangerous misinformation bullshit. Florida has now seen over 1000 new cases every day for the last 5 days (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243346466.html). North Carolina has been determined to beat their personal best and keeps setting new records, over 1,100 each day for more than three days. (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/live-blog/2020-06-06-coronavirus-news-n1226456/ncrd1226726#blogHeader) Cases in the U.S. as a whole have been rising slowly but steadily since Memorial day (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/us-coronavirus-cases-have-been-slowly-ticking-up-since-memorial-day.html). And that's with places such as NY finally getting control of it! (https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/nyc-reports-no-new-coronavirus-deaths-for-first-time-since-mid-march/)
Stop spreading disinformation. It's not wanted here. This is not a hoax, it's not a joke. People's lives are at stake. To downplay that is despicable. It's also out of line with what every reputable epidemiologist in the world is saying.
-
Please stop with this dangerous misinformation bullshit. Florida has now seen over 1000 new cases every day for the last 5 days. North Carolina has been determined to beat their personal best and keeps setting new records, over 1,100 each day for more than three days.
Again, confirmed cases are proportional to testing. Why people continue to use it as an indicator is bewildering. In both states, testing continues to ramp up. Here is the data that matters. People are tired of embellishment and fear mongering.
FL death curve: (https://i.imgur.com/Qqoj3W9.png)
NC death curve: (https://i.imgur.com/arESJqi.png)
Cases in the U.S. as a whole have been rising slowly but steadily since Memorial day
This is easy to dispute.
(https://i.imgur.com/Al0CzBK.png)
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
Please stop with this dangerous misinformation bullshit. Florida has now seen over 1000 new cases every day for the last 5 days (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243346466.html). North Carolina has been determined to beat their personal best and keeps setting new records, over 1,100 each day for more than three days. (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/live-blog/2020-06-06-coronavirus-news-n1226456/ncrd1226726#blogHeader) Cases in the U.S. as a whole have been rising slowly but steadily since Memorial day (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/us-coronavirus-cases-have-been-slowly-ticking-up-since-memorial-day.html). And that's with places such as NY finally getting control of it! (https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/nyc-reports-no-new-coronavirus-deaths-for-first-time-since-mid-march/)
Stop spreading disinformation. It's not wanted here. This is not a hoax, it's not a joke. People's lives are at stake. To downplay that is despicable. It's also out of line with what every reputable epidemiologist in the world is saying.
It's not disinformation. The case increases are due to massively increased testing. As I said, there hasn't been any increase in deaths. Ergo, we are getting on top of the pandemic. The fact that we are getting on top of the pandemic does not mean there are not still localised clusters. That fact is so obvious that I didn't feel like it was necessary for me to point it out. The fact that we are getting on top of the virus also doesn't mean that people's lives aren't at stake or that all precautions should be thrown out the window. We have gotten on top of rabies but people still die of rabies, occasionally, and it's still a deadly disease. You are imputing into my statement things I never said, due to your own inability to comprehend natural language.
Many "reputable epidemiologists" are quite happy with our current state of opening up. E.g., New Zealand just announced that from Monday they will be going down to stage 1 restrictions with almost everything open. Australia is rapidly opening up. Many parts of the States are happily opening up.
-
Thank you HBFIRE for injecting some sensible statistics into the thread.
People naturally have a pessimism bias - most responsible people will plan for the worst-case outcome. So it was with the pandemic. But things are rarely as bad, or as good, as they seem at first blush.
-
When you are looking at bold assertions and predictions, it's useful to understand how good the individual's track record is on this topic.
My train of thought is also shared by Sweden, and we'll see how it all fares in the wash up. Yes, Sweden has had more deaths but I suspect they will also have a lot less economic damage.
Kudos to Sweden for taking a balanced approach which looks at the long-term viability of suppression plus the interests of the rest of the population (jobs, economy, etc).
I still favour Sweden's approach. Yes, people have died, but its economy has stayed stable.
But less economic damage.
In a few years when all is done and dusted and people can look at this in the cold light of rationality (rather than through the lens of fear), we can assess the final death toll and economic toll, do some QALY calculations and see which approach was the preferable one.
Time will tell, Marty. Let's wait for the GDP and unemployment figures in 3, 6 and 12 months' time. At least Sweden has had the guts to be the "control" group for the rest of the world.
Sweden's top scientist admits their open wide strategy might have been sub-optimal.
Oh well, at least it was worth a go - I would concur with the view that maybe an in-between approach - harsher than Sweden but looser than New Zealand - would have been optimal. But hindsight is 20/20, and anyway in the coming months and years when we get all the death / casualty figures and the economic figures we can analyse it all and use it to better respond to the next pandemic.
So not the right strategy after all.
Since Australia's stage 2 and stage 3 restrictions have resulted in fewer deaths per capita than New Zealand's stage 4 restrictions, then we've not only saved lives but also livelihoods. Your country went in too hard, too early.
Well, NZ ... locked down harder than us, and so will, I assume, have a bigger economic bill per capita than us
Nope. NZ have both eradicated and set themselves up for a return to economic growth faster than pretty much any other Western nation on earth.
Every country has managed to flatten the curve, with or without harsh lockdown measures.
Nope. Not even close. Daily cases worldwide are now 30% higher than when this statement was made and continue to climb.
Give those developing countries 1-2 more weeks and their curve will have peaked too just like everyone else's.
Nope. None of the countries that were pointed out have flattened their curve. In fact, all continue to set new high marks for cases every few days.
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
In the words of Jim Rohn, "Accuracy builds credibility".
-
It's death numbers that matter, Gremlin, not case numbers. The reasoning has been made very clear to you in the previous posts.
As for my comments re Sweden and NZ, (1) I am right in saying that we won't know the economic versus human life toll for some time, since the figures aren't yet available and (2) as soon as Sweden's top scientist said that their approach was wrong, I pointed that out, in fact I was the first in the thread to do so.
It's easy to cherry pick posts. I could cherry pick a shit ton of posts from earlier on with people saying that an easing of lockdowns would lead to disastrous consequences - which have never arisen; it's just business as usual.
I am quite happy to admit where I got my calls wrong, because the only thing I want is a good QALY/triage-based outcome to this whole crisis. Meanwhile, others who have been warning of a "second wave" are yet to admit that the predictions never came to pass. I made a $100 bet with another forumite here that the U.S. wouldn't top 1m deaths in 18 months. So far you'd need what, another 880,000 deaths for me to have been wrong?
-
As for my comments re Sweden and NZ, (1) I am right in saying that we won't know the economic versus human life toll for some time, since the figures aren't yet available and (2) as soon as Sweden's top scientist said that their approach was wrong, I pointed that out, in fact I was the first in the thread to do so.
As for the bolded part, can you direct me to what you read more exactly? Since I'm Swedish, I've read and listen to much of the statements from Mr Anders Tegnell (who is the person I assume you're referring to) but I don't think he's yet said "we were wrong" that frankly.
From what I have seen, there has been two related statements, the first about that we failed our old people - most of deaths in the 80+ age group happened in the elderly care system which did not take enough measures according to most.
The other statement I saw was more recent and there he said that "If we encountered the same disease, knowing what we know today, I think we would end up doing something in the middle between what Sweden did, and what the rest of the world did."
(source of the latter: https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7487415 Sveriges Radio is sort of the Swedish NPR)
I read the tone in the latter (and in the more extensive Swedish reporting of the same interview) as a bit different from "we were wrong". I may however have missed somethings. I don't watch all the news all the time. :)
Edit: And just a day or two later he said "We still consider our strategy good".
( Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/tegnell-sjalvkritisk-mer-atgarder-hade-behovts + my translation)
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
Please stop with this dangerous misinformation bullshit. Florida has now seen over 1000 new cases every day for the last 5 days (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243346466.html). North Carolina has been determined to beat their personal best and keeps setting new records, over 1,100 each day for more than three days. (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/live-blog/2020-06-06-coronavirus-news-n1226456/ncrd1226726#blogHeader) Cases in the U.S. as a whole have been rising slowly but steadily since Memorial day (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/us-coronavirus-cases-have-been-slowly-ticking-up-since-memorial-day.html). And that's with places such as NY finally getting control of it! (https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/nyc-reports-no-new-coronavirus-deaths-for-first-time-since-mid-march/)
Stop spreading disinformation. It's not wanted here. This is not a hoax, it's not a joke. People's lives are at stake. To downplay that is despicable. It's also out of line with what every reputable epidemiologist in the world is saying.
It's not disinformation. The case increases are due to massively increased testing. As I said, there hasn't been any increase in deaths. Ergo, we are getting on top of the pandemic. The fact that we are getting on top of the pandemic does not mean there are not still localised clusters. That fact is so obvious that I didn't feel like it was necessary for me to point it out. The fact that we are getting on top of the virus also doesn't mean that people's lives aren't at stake or that all precautions should be thrown out the window. We have gotten on top of rabies but people still die of rabies, occasionally, and it's still a deadly disease. You are imputing into my statement things I never said, due to your own inability to comprehend natural language.
Many "reputable epidemiologists" are quite happy with our current state of opening up. E.g., New Zealand just announced that from Monday they will be going down to stage 1 restrictions with almost everything open. Australia is rapidly opening up. Many parts of the States are happily opening up.
The situation in Australia and NZ is very different from what's happening in the US. Australia and NZ managed to stem the virus early in its trajectory, and so there are very few cases there now. You could probably say that Australia and NZ are on top of the pandemic and in a good state to go back to mostly normal.
The US is in a completely different spot. New infections are declining a little overall, but there are still quite a lot of new cases every day. To say that the US is on top of the pandemic is extremely premature at best. For one thing, it's summer up here. It's possible it's seasonal, and if so that could have bad implications for October. People are also still observing social distancing to some extent. A lot of people are working remotely, and schools are closed. If the population as a whole starts to slowly get more lax, it could take off again very easily.
@lemanfan To what extent are Swedes observing precautions voluntarily? That may be a big factor.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed. We are crunching the pandemic and even these protests and the re-opening of most parts of these countries has not led to an increase in deaths. The pandemic is old news now, and we have broken the back of it.
Please stop with this dangerous misinformation bullshit. Florida has now seen over 1000 new cases every day for the last 5 days (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243346466.html). North Carolina has been determined to beat their personal best and keeps setting new records, over 1,100 each day for more than three days. (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/live-blog/2020-06-06-coronavirus-news-n1226456/ncrd1226726#blogHeader) Cases in the U.S. as a whole have been rising slowly but steadily since Memorial day (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/us-coronavirus-cases-have-been-slowly-ticking-up-since-memorial-day.html). And that's with places such as NY finally getting control of it! (https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/nyc-reports-no-new-coronavirus-deaths-for-first-time-since-mid-march/)
Stop spreading disinformation. It's not wanted here. This is not a hoax, it's not a joke. People's lives are at stake. To downplay that is despicable. It's also out of line with what every reputable epidemiologist in the world is saying.
It's not disinformation. The case increases are due to massively increased testing. As I said, there hasn't been any increase in deaths. Ergo, we are getting on top of the pandemic. The fact that we are getting on top of the pandemic does not mean there are not still localised clusters. That fact is so obvious that I didn't feel like it was necessary for me to point it out. The fact that we are getting on top of the virus also doesn't mean that people's lives aren't at stake or that all precautions should be thrown out the window. We have gotten on top of rabies but people still die of rabies, occasionally, and it's still a deadly disease. You are imputing into my statement things I never said, due to your own inability to comprehend natural language.
Many "reputable epidemiologists" are quite happy with our current state of opening up. E.g., New Zealand just announced that from Monday they will be going down to stage 1 restrictions with almost everything open. Australia is rapidly opening up. Many parts of the States are happily opening up.
The situation in Australia and NZ is very different from what's happening in the US. Australia and NZ managed to stem the virus early in its trajectory, and so there are very few cases there now. You could probably say that Australia and NZ are on top of the pandemic and in a good state to go back to mostly normal.
The US is in a completely different spot. New infections are declining a little overall, but there are still quite a lot of new cases every day. To say that the US is on top of the pandemic is extremely premature at best. For one thing, it's summer up here. It's possible it's seasonal, and if so that could have bad implications for October. People are also still observing social distancing to some extent. A lot of people are working remotely, and schools are closed. If the population as a whole starts to slowly get more lax, it could take off again very easily.
@lemanfan To what extent are Swedes observing precautions voluntarily? That may be a big factor.
Again... see above. New infections are a direct result of the number of tests that are performed and this count has been increasing dramatically. It should be expected that the number of new cases every day should be increasing... but since they are level or decreasing even though the tests are increasing that is evidence that things are improving. Death count a far more accurate (though delayed) picture of what is going on currently.
-
Again... see above. New infections are a direct result of the number of tests that are performed and this count has been increasing dramatically. It should be expected that the number of new cases every day should be increasing... but since they are level or decreasing even though the tests are increasing that is evidence that things are improving. Death count a far more accurate (though delayed) picture of what is going on currently.
Probably location dependent. Our local infections are increasing, but without increased testing. I have a spreadsheet. % of positive cases going up, # of total test results about the same., for the last month anyway.
-
obably location dependent. Our local infections are increasing, but without increased testing. I have a spreadsheet. % of positive cases going up, # of total test results about the same., for the last month anyway.
California? Positive % has been pretty flat at ~ 5%.
(https://i.imgur.com/rUIq2pZ.png)
Cases have also been relatively flat the last couple of weeks.
(https://i.imgur.com/vuUkUnt.png)
-
@lemanfan To what extent are Swedes observing precautions voluntarily? That may be a big factor.
It varies, of course. But from what I see most people are. The elderly (70+) especially so. 90% of my friends and colleagues are working from home.
The bigs risk that people talk about now are crows of young people (18-25-ish). Up until a week ago the big fear was the high school graduation which is this week (grade 12) where the kids want to party - and do party. This however is mostly limited to 100 or 200 at a time. Since last week we have also seen crowds of thousands protesting and rioting in an american spirit in the big cities... During the Valpurgis (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpurgis_Night")celebrations (last of April), my city and several other spread chicken manure in the parks where the teenagers normally party to stop them. It didn't stop them but it moved them and then the rain made them go home :)
So drunk kids and political protests aside, people are to a large extent following the recommendations, from what I can see.
The next challenge starts soon, when people will probably migrate to rural areas for vacation. They can usually be more isolated there, but the hospital capacity in these areas is also very very limited. The official recommendation to avoid internal travel was lifted last week, but we're still obliged to socially distance and wash our hands.
Very few, perhaps 1 in 500 that I see wear a mask. Masks are not mandated, not even recommended for non-care workers.
-
California? Positive % has been pretty flat at ~ 5%.
Yes, but I am speaking specifically of my county in California, not California as a whole. It's a big state. I worry less about all of California and more about our county + Los Angeles county.
Los Angeles % positive rate fluctuating around 8%. However, that is still concerning:
1. 8% is high. For opening up, we want < 8% (per state guidelines from somewhere)
2. Recent % weekly positive rates have been 5%, but they are now creeping up closer to 10%, with decreased testing.
3. This means total # of positive cases in LA is going up.
4. Our county is opening up, so plenty of Angelenos are coming into town for vacation and weekend getaways. This does not give me the warm fuzzies.
-
Yes, it's very location dependent. The overall decline comes from the improving situation in NY and NJ since they have been dominating the numbers. Even in the places in the US where there has been an unmistakable improvement things are not under control. It's still spreading, and it wouldn't take much for the situation to deteriorate. It's not like the countries that have fought it back to just an occasional case here and there.
-
From our local news (https://www.wral.com/as-cases-climb-cooper-warns-of-consequences-of-virus-spread/19135950/): North Carolina recorded the highest one-day increase in cases over the weekend with 1,370, contributing to a total during the pandemic of nearly 36,500 as of Monday morning. North Carolina exceeded 1,000 virus-related deaths on Monday and had 740 patients currently hosptialized — also a new record.
While the number of completed tests has continued to grow robustly to more than 520,000 overall, state Health and Human Services Secretary Mandy Cohen said North Carolina now ranks among the states with the highest percentage of positive cases.
So of course the some in the state legislature want to have a packed convention in the state, with no masks or distancing required.
-
It sounds as though you're referring to the RNC convention planned this August in the state. It's one of those difficult tradeoffs, where the economic impact of bringing these people into the region is substantial, but the risk in virus spread associated with that is also substantial.
If only we had a nominee who had spent some time building credibility by making only true statements regarding the virus and the ways of mitigating it.
-
Look at that, an "alarming" rise in cases in Arizona since reopening. From the article, "Arizona has seen a rise in COVID-19 case totals and hospitalizations recently, trends Humble considers alarming. The state reported Monday that 79% of inpatient beds and 77% of ICU beds were filled, leaving 1,506 inpatient beds and 363 ICU beds open. ...Flanagan said there are signs that community spread of COVID-19 in metro Phoenix is growing beyond what was expected because of the state’s reopening plan."
Hospitalizations rise well before deaths. This is not dependent upon testing. And the person quoted, a former health director for the state, thinks they're headed for "field hospitals and/or another stay-at-home order".
Gee, I wonder which would be better? Field hospitals, or just asking people to stay home whenever possible?
-
Here on Long Island, NY the cases have dropped to almost nothing and we are re-opening "phase 2" tomorrow. People have to act properly if they want the numbers to come down. Masks, distancing, washing, awareness is what works.
-
Here on Long Island, NY the cases have dropped to almost nothing and we are re-opening "phase 2" tomorrow. People have to act properly if they want the numbers to come down. Masks, distancing, washing, awareness is what works.
But but, MUH FREEDOM.
We are moving on to partial phase 3. So, gyms and bars but not nail salons or places that do facials, etc. So many fucking people commenting about how people wearing masks are sheep, and stupid, and if you are worried stay home. Uh, do you not realize that the whole point is to protect each other? The elderly, the sick, the immuno-compromised. That's the actual point. Like wearing a mask will kill you. "But it's 90 degrees today, let's see how the mask wearers stick to it."
Look sweetie, use some critical thinking and common sense. What we've learned over the last few months is that indoors, and airborne = much more risky than outdoors, and surface-borne. So, wash your hands. If you are indoors with people, wear a mask. If you are outdoors, keep a buff or fabric around your neck, to use if you are forced to pass someone within 6'. When outdoors, keep your distance. It's like these people are stupid. Or incapable of nuance, or understanding statistics and risk reduction.
-
Here's another one: Texas reporting their highest single day number of hospitalizations yet (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/08/872660425/texas-reports-record-breaking-covid-19-hospitalizations-as-state-reopens?fbclid=IwAR1AYS13IvRNm5726JXDf5izr5Ff9nmZYw1vrHNZNuTk2axfcRNdptzm9vQ).
From the article: "Texas Department of State Health Services figures show 1,935 people were admitted as hospital patients for coronavirus-related treatment. That is up from a previous record of 1,888 on May 5.
"The department's new figures were released as Gov. Greg Abbott moves forward with a plan to open bars, restaurants, amusement parks and other businesses to 50% capacity."
Texas was also the first state (or among the first states?) to open up, so they're going to be the leading edge on this one. The fact that both their cases and their hospitalizations are going up shows that it's not just testing capacity changing things around. Expect their death rate to start ticking up again also.
Later in the article: "But even in states where officials left stringent restrictions in place, the number of newly diagnosed cases are rising. ...The pattern holds true worldwide. On Monday, the World Health Organization warned that the outbreak is worsening around the globe. The U.N. body said the world had recorded its highest daily jump of cases — 136,000. And the United States and Brazil continue to report the highest number of new cases on a daily basis with roughly 20,000 each."
I'm still not able to visit my mom in person.
-
Following. I'm just glad my DH went back to work in the office, my gym reopened at 50% capacity and my 2 yr old and 3.5 yr old and I are back to visiting my parents 2.2 miles away for help. That was the hardest, being stuck at home with 2 under 4 and a DH WFH that slacked off like a 16 yr old with the stupidest gamer habit and sleep schedule when it was just the 4 of us. Getting back in the office made him spend his time more efficiently than when he was staying home. I, in a way have, too. I get plenty of social interaction through social media, texts and my family. The kids surprisingly haven't really asked about going out I guess b/c they're so close in age. We are good. I did mourn the loss of cruises in terms of traveling. It will be a while before that happens again.
It’s really starting to sink in that quarantine and social distancing measures are going to last months into years. Until there are treatments and a vaccine, life is going to be different. We FIREd and moved a year ago and are generally very happy with our new circumstances. But, I really can’t foresee going into a restaurant anytime soon, traveling, getting on a plane, or having friends over for dinner. I’m doing okay and fully realize we have it better than many. But, we’ve had to cancel two trips — something we were relishing in retirement. On the upside, we’re not spending much money. We’re planting a huge garden, which gets us outside and doing something that reaps dividends. I had one volunteer gig I really enjoyed and really miss. It will be a long time before we can go back. I’m on a couple of committees at my church but am sick of Zoom meetings. Lol. The problem is, we’re all stuck at home so don’t have excuses. I think I may just have to refuse meetings for a couple of weeks. Seriously. I think boundaries are crucial right now.
We were supposed to be on a much-anticipated trip to Europe now right now. Now I’m just hope that we’ll be able to do it in the not too distant future.
But it’s sinking in that life is going to be altered for awhile. How are others shifting gears and also engaging in new, meaningful activities?
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
Our family just started a hard two week quarantine (any shopping will be curbside pick up only) so that we can visit my parents. We can just make it there on a single tank of gas so we feel okay trying this. My kids haven't seen their grandparents since the holidays and I can tell my parents are getting depressed. Just want to put the quarantine idea out there if it makes it possible to visit your mother!
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
You can only control what you can control. Wearing a mask, social distancing, etc. Other people, not so much. If at all. Compliance is key: we can put up all the restrictions we want. If people won’t follow them then we’re not going to get the desired end state.
-
Look at that, an "alarming" rise in cases in Arizona since reopening. From the article, "Arizona has seen a rise in COVID-19 case totals and hospitalizations recently, trends Humble considers alarming. The state reported Monday that 79% of inpatient beds and 77% of ICU beds were filled, leaving 1,506 inpatient beds and 363 ICU beds open. ...Flanagan said there are signs that community spread of COVID-19 in metro Phoenix is growing beyond what was expected because of the state’s reopening plan."
Hospitalizations rise well before deaths. This is not dependent upon testing. And the person quoted, a former health director for the state, thinks they're headed for "field hospitals and/or another stay-at-home order".
Gee, I wonder which would be better? Field hospitals, or just asking people to stay home whenever possible?
As an AZ resident, I'm betting they'll make the military throw up some field hospitals vs. reverting back to Phase 1.
And another fun fact: it's been reported that our Republican governor has not talked with the Democratic mayor of Phoenix in months on this or any other topic. He also didn't inform her that the state was going under curfew for a week (which just ended Monday 8th). His excuse is that he's talking with the City Manager. So yeah, we have some Trump-level political tantrum stuff happening in addition to literally being in the middle of a pandemic.
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
Our family just started a hard two week quarantine (any shopping will be curbside pick up only) so that we can visit my parents. We can just make it there on a single tank of gas so we feel okay trying this. My kids haven't seen their grandparents since the holidays and I can tell my parents are getting depressed. Just want to put the quarantine idea out there if it makes it possible to visit your mother!
It is a good plan, so long as everyone controls their home, trusts the others will comply, and accepts the risks (however greatly reduced they are).
I presumed that when he said cannot he was forbidden, as in she lives somewhere that has gone on lockdown and is not allowing any visitors. My grandmother lives in her own independent living apartment, but it is in a facility that has everything from full apartment to 24hr bedside nursing. They have closed the dining room (if you are not cooking your own meals they are delivered to your room), no visitors allowed in, and no residents are allowed out.
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
Yeah, I mean, places in the US are opening back up, but not because much has changed. More because people are bored and putting pressure on elected officials.
Most of my local friends are starting to go out and do stuff again. DH and I are not changing our behavior at all. We're not going to start going to restaurants, our gym, etc. etc. Not getting my hair cut, either.
Of everyone in our circle, the one friend that is doing the same as us... is an epidemiologist.
-
Here in northeastern NJ, things are slowly getting back to normal with the number of cases dropping quite rapidly. According to various online trackers, about 17% of the population of NJ has been infected (cumulatively). The resting rate has really been ramped up and it's now really easy to get tested now.
On a personal note, I myself had covid back in early April although my case was thankfully quite mild. I was in bed for about five days and but the time the test results came back as positive, I was already on the mend. I'm donating blood in a few days for antibodies in my serum.
-
I went to physiotherapy today, under the new rules:
1. 2 patients in the clinic at a time. (The other 8 beds were stacked in the corner).
2. Patients have to wear a mask.
3. Physiotherapist wears a mask and gloves.
4. Physiotherapist assistant spends most of his time cleaning, disinfecting, and cleaning, anywhere a patient has been. When I asked him how he felt about it, he said "It took so much work getting to this point, we shouldn't take any chances."
I felt pretty safe from contagion under these circumstances.
-
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic
How pandemics end (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html)
"In other words, pandemics can end not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease. Allan Brandt, a Harvard historian, said something similar was happening with Covid-19: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by sociopolitical processes.”
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
Yeah, I mean, places in the US are opening back up, but not because much has changed. More because people are bored and putting pressure on elected officials.
Most of my local friends are starting to go out and do stuff again. DH and I are not changing our behavior at all. We're not going to start going to restaurants, our gym, etc. etc. Not getting my hair cut, either.
Of everyone in our circle, the one friend that is doing the same as us... is an epidemiologist.
Our weekend potluck group started up again. Soft startup. The person who sent the text is a non-vaxxer who just says "take vitamin C!" She's also in her 60s, as his her husband. And in fact, 2/3 of the adults in our group are in their 60s. So...I'm pretty sure most people are bailing. At least I know of us and 3 other families who said "not ready".
We go grocery shopping with masks, and only about every 1.5 weeks (I finally started). I went to the beach yesterday. Walked there with kid #2, wore our buffs around our neck. Walked through people to the water, dipped in our toes. Chatted 6' from friends who were there. Left and called husband to pick us up. We get takeout once a week.
While friends are vacationing elsewhere...we are planning a long weekend staycation. On Saturday - stay away from downtown. Go kayaking (easy to physically distance). On Sunday, get up early and go for a short hike in the back country and take a dip in the river. By 11 am, it gets busy back there with locals who bring coolers and snacks and floaties. Save beach days for weekdays, and in the morning. It gets hot and busy in the afternoon. Will probably pick the close by beach on day 1, and then a further away one on day 2 (which takes a longish walk to get to, so fewer people). Go home for lunch (or takeout) and spend the afternoon at home reading, playing games, etc.
Everybody needs a haircut. I may dig out the wahl cutters and give it a go on one or more boys.
-
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic
How pandemics end (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html)
"In other words, pandemics can end not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease. Allan Brandt, a Harvard historian, said something similar was happening with Covid-19: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by sociopolitical processes.”
Whilst there is some element of truth to that in some cases, the key phrase is "learn to live with" the disease. It's important to unpack what that means. It's not a decision that can be made at an individual level when transmission in a pandemic is dependent on community behaviour. Learning to live with the disease comes with a community-level acceptance of the risks and trade-offs required for a given level of exposure. And there are winners and losers from every trade-off. It doesn't come from everyone simply acting in line with an outcome that leads to them being winners as an individual. Ultimately, everyone loses in that scenario.
And so in order to "learn to live with" the disease, you need to have, at a community/state/national level, some overarching consensus of the price you are willing to pay. That price is not just as a one-off but ongoing. "Learning to live with" something requires that ongoing payment.
Some communities have done this. NZ for example. Through some combination of exceptional leadership and providence, they have reached an overarching consensus that their version of "living with the disease" is by eradicating, maintaining exceptional test and trace practices, a willingness to aggressively isolate if needed and keeping their borders shut to other nations where the virus is out of control. There is no doubt a cost to this. Their tourism industry is going to feel a real dose of pain - some companies will go bust, some people's livelihoods will be decimated - but as a nation they have come to a consensus as to what "living with the virus" looks like and the NZ mantra to "be kind" is making a real difference to mitigate that pain for those most affected.
Taiwan is a similar story, as is South Korea. Both have taken a similar tack but with the added expectation of turbo-charged personal hygiene practices. The needs of the community being supported by actions of its individuals, all willing to pay that price in order to "live with the disease".
In comparison, the US is deeply divided. There is no overarching consensus as to what "living with the disease" looks like in the US and each day that consensus becomes less and less likely. There is no communal willingness to share the pain and sufficiently support those who are likely to feel the most pain, be it economic or health (or for many scenarios, both), to mitigate the downside of whatever that consensus may look like. Any degree of willingness that exists is only at the individual level. You see it every day on this forum, be it in commentary around masks, social distancing, scaling up of personal hygiene practices or opening and closing of businesses/services. You see it from your President. Instead of genuinely "learning to live with the disease", there is instead an underlying inference that others need to "learn to live with the disease" on my terms. And that's not the same.
"Learning to live with the disease" involves changing behaviours, it involves community acceptance and it involves paying a price. So far the US has been unable to agree on any of these.
-
"Learning to live with the disease" involves changing behaviours, it involves community acceptance and it involves paying a price. So far the US has been unable to agree on any of these.
Interesting. At least in my community, I'm seeing evidence of all of the above by how people are acting compared to a few months ago. I don't think this comes about through "agreement". It comes about through cultural behavior. From what I can tell, the majority of people have grown exhausted from the panic and their behavior reflects this.
-
"Learning to live with the disease" involves changing behaviours, it involves community acceptance and it involves paying a price. So far the US has been unable to agree on any of these.
Interesting. At least in my community, I'm seeing evidence of all of the above by how people are acting compared to a few months ago. I don't think this comes about through "agreement". It comes about through cultural behavior. From what I can tell, the majority of people have grown exhausted from the panic and their behavior reflects this.
I don't doubt that's true of a segment of the population. Everything I see on the news and everything I read here and elsewhere suggests that's nowhere near sufficiently universal to drive the sort of consensus seen in other nations that have genuinely come to terms with living with the disease. As you've suggested, recent actions have come about through exhaustion, rather than a collective willing acceptance to pay the price that those actions demand. There is not a consensus in paying the price of new set of actions - that's yet to be paid - rather a rebellion against the price that was being asked previously.
I acknowledge that I could be wrong, in which case the US no longer has a health issue with coronavirus nor will there be any ongoing economic ramifications and everything's back to business as usual. But if that's the case, there's absolutely no need for someone like you @HBFIRE to be on here spelling out various arguments as to why people need to get on with their lives and "live with the virus". They'd already be doing so and so would you. The fact that they aren't and you aren't is actually a fair indication that that consensus doesn't yet exist. And the irony is that the more you try to argue otherwise, the more you're simply proving the point.
So either the problem is solved. Or it isn't.
-
But if that's the case, there's absolutely no need for someone like you @HBFIRE to be on here spelling out various arguments as to why people need to get on with their lives and "live with the virus".
I don't think I've done that. I'm interested mostly in the general statistics of the virus, which is what I generally comment on. I'm merely commenting that I think people are moving on and getting back to day to day life. They've decided, whether right or wrong, the risk isn't worth panicking over any longer. This appears to be what causes the end of a pandemic rather than an authoritative announcement. This is also evidenced by the significant drop in media coverage. The media now has bigger fish to fry.
-
But if that's the case, there's absolutely no need for someone like you @HBFIRE to be on here spelling out various arguments as to why people need to get on with their lives and "live with the virus".
I don't think I've done that. I'm interested mostly in the general statistics of the virus, which is what I generally comment on. I'm merely commenting that I think people are moving on and getting back to day to day life. They've decided, whether right or wrong, the risk isn't worth panicking over any longer. This appears to be what causes the end of a pandemic rather than an authoritative announcement. This is also evidenced by the significant drop in media coverage. The media now has bigger fish to fry.
I think this is true. You're right that people have kind of finished with it. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it's also finished with them. I guess we'll see how that plays out long term, but I don't think it will get the kind of coverage Covid has had up until now.
-
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic
How pandemics end (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html)
"In other words, pandemics can end not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease. Allan Brandt, a Harvard historian, said something similar was happening with Covid-19: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by sociopolitical processes.”
Whilst there is some element of truth to that in some cases, the key phrase is "learn to live with" the disease. It's important to unpack what that means. It's not a decision that can be made at an individual level when transmission in a pandemic is dependent on community behaviour. Learning to live with the disease comes with a community-level acceptance of the risks and trade-offs required for a given level of exposure. And there are winners and losers from every trade-off. It doesn't come from everyone simply acting in line with an outcome that leads to them being winners as an individual. Ultimately, everyone loses in that scenario.
And so in order to "learn to live with" the disease, you need to have, at a community/state/national level, some overarching consensus of the price you are willing to pay. That price is not just as a one-off but ongoing. "Learning to live with" something requires that ongoing payment.
Some communities have done this. NZ for example. Through some combination of exceptional leadership and providence, they have reached an overarching consensus that their version of "living with the disease" is by eradicating, maintaining exceptional test and trace practices, a willingness to aggressively isolate if needed and keeping their borders shut to other nations where the virus is out of control. There is no doubt a cost to this. Their tourism industry is going to feel a real dose of pain - some companies will go bust, some people's livelihoods will be decimated - but as a nation they have come to a consensus as to what "living with the virus" looks like and the NZ mantra to "be kind" is making a real difference to mitigate that pain for those most affected.
Taiwan is a similar story, as is South Korea. Both have taken a similar tack but with the added expectation of turbo-charged personal hygiene practices. The needs of the community being supported by actions of its individuals, all willing to pay that price in order to "live with the disease".
In comparison, the US is deeply divided. There is no overarching consensus as to what "living with the disease" looks like in the US and each day that consensus becomes less and less likely. There is no communal willingness to share the pain and sufficiently support those who are likely to feel the most pain, be it economic or health (or for many scenarios, both), to mitigate the downside of whatever that consensus may look like. Any degree of willingness that exists is only at the individual level. You see it every day on this forum, be it in commentary around masks, social distancing, scaling up of personal hygiene practices or opening and closing of businesses/services. You see it from your President. Instead of genuinely "learning to live with the disease", there is instead an underlying inference that others need to "learn to live with the disease" on my terms. And that's not the same.
"Learning to live with the disease" involves changing behaviours, it involves community acceptance and it involves paying a price. So far the US has been unable to agree on any of these.
Because the risk (economic, health or otherwise) to individuals, or certain groups, can be higher/lower than for the general population, "learning to live with" the disease can mean different things for different people. Some groups might be subject to more or less onerous conditions. There might not be a consensus on which groups or which conditions those might be. And that's okay. Everyone probably has to do something to help the community, but that "something" is going to vary in intensity and duration.
-
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic
How pandemics end (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html)
"In other words, pandemics can end not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease. Allan Brandt, a Harvard historian, said something similar was happening with Covid-19: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by sociopolitical processes.”
Whilst there is some element of truth to that in some cases, the key phrase is "learn to live with" the disease. It's important to unpack what that means. It's not a decision that can be made at an individual level when transmission in a pandemic is dependent on community behaviour. Learning to live with the disease comes with a community-level acceptance of the risks and trade-offs required for a given level of exposure. And there are winners and losers from every trade-off. It doesn't come from everyone simply acting in line with an outcome that leads to them being winners as an individual. Ultimately, everyone loses in that scenario.
And so in order to "learn to live with" the disease, you need to have, at a community/state/national level, some overarching consensus of the price you are willing to pay. That price is not just as a one-off but ongoing. "Learning to live with" something requires that ongoing payment.
Some communities have done this. NZ for example. Through some combination of exceptional leadership and providence, they have reached an overarching consensus that their version of "living with the disease" is by eradicating, maintaining exceptional test and trace practices, a willingness to aggressively isolate if needed and keeping their borders shut to other nations where the virus is out of control. There is no doubt a cost to this. Their tourism industry is going to feel a real dose of pain - some companies will go bust, some people's livelihoods will be decimated - but as a nation they have come to a consensus as to what "living with the virus" looks like and the NZ mantra to "be kind" is making a real difference to mitigate that pain for those most affected.
Taiwan is a similar story, as is South Korea. Both have taken a similar tack but with the added expectation of turbo-charged personal hygiene practices. The needs of the community being supported by actions of its individuals, all willing to pay that price in order to "live with the disease".
In comparison, the US is deeply divided. There is no overarching consensus as to what "living with the disease" looks like in the US and each day that consensus becomes less and less likely. There is no communal willingness to share the pain and sufficiently support those who are likely to feel the most pain, be it economic or health (or for many scenarios, both), to mitigate the downside of whatever that consensus may look like. Any degree of willingness that exists is only at the individual level. You see it every day on this forum, be it in commentary around masks, social distancing, scaling up of personal hygiene practices or opening and closing of businesses/services. You see it from your President. Instead of genuinely "learning to live with the disease", there is instead an underlying inference that others need to "learn to live with the disease" on my terms. And that's not the same.
"Learning to live with the disease" involves changing behaviours, it involves community acceptance and it involves paying a price. So far the US has been unable to agree on any of these.
Because the risk (economic, health or otherwise) to individuals, or certain groups, can be higher/lower than for the general population, "learning to live with" the disease can mean different things for different people. Some groups might be subject to more or less onerous conditions. There might not be a consensus on which groups or which conditions those might be. And that's okay. Everyone probably has to do something to help the community, but that "something" is going to vary in intensity and duration.
I actually agree with that. But lack of consensus is driving what’s happening in the US right now and it’s not cost free. The World Bank is forecasting a bigger and deeper recession for the US than most other Western nations and a worse health outcome than most peer nations. All choices have costs, even the choice not to reach consensus. The lack of consensus is proving itself to come with both a higher economic cost and a higher health cost. As you say, that's okay. That's the choice that's being made.
-
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic
How pandemics end (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html)
As an apparently healthy looking guy with an unfortunate autoimmune condition all of this makes me even more nervous still. Again, where's the shared sacrifice? Everyone wants what they want and they want it now...evidently the elderly and pre-conditioned are expendable.
"In other words, pandemics can end not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease. Allan Brandt, a Harvard historian, said something similar was happening with Covid-19: “As we have seen in the debate about opening the economy, many questions about the so-called end are determined not by medical and public health data but by sociopolitical processes.”
Whilst there is some element of truth to that in some cases, the key phrase is "learn to live with" the disease. It's important to unpack what that means. It's not a decision that can be made at an individual level when transmission in a pandemic is dependent on community behaviour. Learning to live with the disease comes with a community-level acceptance of the risks and trade-offs required for a given level of exposure. And there are winners and losers from every trade-off. It doesn't come from everyone simply acting in line with an outcome that leads to them being winners as an individual. Ultimately, everyone loses in that scenario.
And so in order to "learn to live with" the disease, you need to have, at a community/state/national level, some overarching consensus of the price you are willing to pay. That price is not just as a one-off but ongoing. "Learning to live with" something requires that ongoing payment.
Some communities have done this. NZ for example. Through some combination of exceptional leadership and providence, they have reached an overarching consensus that their version of "living with the disease" is by eradicating, maintaining exceptional test and trace practices, a willingness to aggressively isolate if needed and keeping their borders shut to other nations where the virus is out of control. There is no doubt a cost to this. Their tourism industry is going to feel a real dose of pain - some companies will go bust, some people's livelihoods will be decimated - but as a nation they have come to a consensus as to what "living with the virus" looks like and the NZ mantra to "be kind" is making a real difference to mitigate that pain for those most affected.
Taiwan is a similar story, as is South Korea. Both have taken a similar tack but with the added expectation of turbo-charged personal hygiene practices. The needs of the community being supported by actions of its individuals, all willing to pay that price in order to "live with the disease".
In comparison, the US is deeply divided. There is no overarching consensus as to what "living with the disease" looks like in the US and each day that consensus becomes less and less likely. There is no communal willingness to share the pain and sufficiently support those who are likely to feel the most pain, be it economic or health (or for many scenarios, both), to mitigate the downside of whatever that consensus may look like. Any degree of willingness that exists is only at the individual level. You see it every day on this forum, be it in commentary around masks, social distancing, scaling up of personal hygiene practices or opening and closing of businesses/services. You see it from your President. Instead of genuinely "learning to live with the disease", there is instead an underlying inference that others need to "learn to live with the disease" on my terms. And that's not the same.
"Learning to live with the disease" involves changing behaviours, it involves community acceptance and it involves paying a price. So far the US has been unable to agree on any of these.
Because the risk (economic, health or otherwise) to individuals, or certain groups, can be higher/lower than for the general population, "learning to live with" the disease can mean different things for different people. Some groups might be subject to more or less onerous conditions. There might not be a consensus on which groups or which conditions those might be. And that's okay. Everyone probably has to do something to help the community, but that "something" is going to vary in intensity and duration.
I actually agree with that. But lack of consensus is driving what’s happening in the US right now and it’s not cost free. The World Bank is forecasting a bigger and deeper recession for the US than most other Western nations and a worse health outcome than most peer nations. All choices have costs, even the choice not to reach consensus. The lack of consensus is proving itself to come with both a higher economic cost and a higher health cost. As you say, that's okay. That's the choice that's being made.
-
But if that's the case, there's absolutely no need for someone like you @HBFIRE to be on here spelling out various arguments as to why people need to get on with their lives and "live with the virus".
I don't think I've done that. I'm interested mostly in the general statistics of the virus, which is what I generally comment on. I'm merely commenting that I think people are moving on and getting back to day to day life. They've decided, whether right or wrong, the risk isn't worth panicking over any longer. This appears to be what causes the end of a pandemic rather than an authoritative announcement. This is also evidenced by the significant drop in media coverage. The media now has bigger fish to fry.
I don't happen to like it, but "living with the virus" is probably how this will end up. There has been no end of PSAs and media coverage and rules and edicts with regard to masking up and social distancing. And folks just aren't doing it in some places. You can't fix pathologically irresponsible.
-
US Hospital Census Data. Starting to see some similarity to market panic forecasts.
(https://i.imgur.com/L4essvO.jpg)
-
While we've been US-focused it looks like everybody's favorite example, Sweden, is having a noticeable uptick, too. It had the highest number of new cases in Europe outside of Russia yesterday, and that's with a pretty small population.
-
While we've been US-focused it looks like everybody's favorite example, Sweden, is having a noticeable uptick, too. It had the highest number of new cases in Europe outside of Russia yesterday, and that's with a pretty small population.
Just out of curiosity, what source and what number is that?
If it refers to the number of "confirmed cases of infection", please note that Sweden just now is increasing testing for persons with mild symptoms. Up until very recently, you could basically only get a test in (in the public healthcare system) if you either was a hospital worker/care giver or if you were ill enough to be considered for hospitalization from respiratory symptoms.
But now, testing is being increased to anyone with also mild symptoms.
Official statistics up until June 7th is shown here:
(https://i.ibb.co/HYJ0tyy/Sk-rmklipp.jpg)
From top to bottom:
The pink is positive test for care givers.
The green that increased last week are these new tests
The purple in the bottom are people hospitalized with COVID-19 (all hospitalization, not just ICU).
This basically means that we last week (week 23, june 1-7) had a 35% increase in the number of tests, and also a high number of increase in confirmed cases, mostly mild cases. We did not have an increase in hospitalizations due to the illness. Yes, it is still many cases, but increased testing affects how you should interpret the tests. Since I'm not showing any symptoms, I still cannot get tested here in Sweden (to the best of my knowledge).
So, still many cases, and I shall not say I'm happy with the situation... but it is what it is - I would not really use the word "uptick".
Source: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/folkhalsorapportering-statistik/statistik-a-o/sjukdomsstatistik/covid-19-veckorapporter/senaste-covidrapporten/ taken today (june 12, 2020) and https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/globalassets/statistik-uppfoljning/smittsamma-sjukdomar/veckorapporter-covid-19/2020/covid-19-veckorapport-vecka-23-final.pdf
(sorry, Swedish sources only)
-
Just out of curiosity, what source and what number is that?
If it refers to the number of "confirmed cases of infection", please note that Sweden just now is increasing testing for persons with mild symptoms. Up until very recently, you could basically only get a test in (in the public healthcare system) if you either was a hospital worker/care giver or if you were ill enough to be considered for hospitalization from respiratory symptoms.
But now, testing is being increased to anyone with also mild symptoms.
Thanks for the clarification. I was just using the straight number from Worldometer. Numbers always need some context.
Even if it's not an actual uptick, it's still a revelation that the actual numbers are still pretty high for a country with so few people. But you seem aware. It's just that there are people on this side of the Atlantic who like to point to Sweden as some kind of example of social distancing being unneeded.
(Swedish doesn't scare me. It's close enough to English that I can navigate it with a good dose of help from Google Translate. If it were Finnish, though, I would give up.)
-
US Hospital Census Data. Starting to see some similarity to market panic forecasts.
(https://i.imgur.com/L4essvO.jpg)
The markets would have had a lot of trouble had the fed not pumped in trillions of dollars.
I query whether bolstering the shares of rich people was worth the massive deficit that we will eventually have to pay back.
-
Even if it's not an actual uptick, it's still a revelation that the actual numbers are still pretty high for a country with so few people. But you seem aware. It's just that there are people on this side of the Atlantic who like to point to Sweden as some kind of example of social distancing being unneeded.
As a Swede, I'm quite used to having my countries choices used for various political statements in primarily the USA without people actually wanting to know the full truth, as the full complex picture may not support their thesis. And the case even was before this pandemic.
Sweden do have social distancing mandates, but a little bit less so than other countries. The latest update was to still isolate, especially for the 70+ crowd, but internal travel up to 2 hours from your residence is no longer discouraged. Before, we were recommended to refrain from domestic travel at all, especially to or from Stockholm.
We do have the financial effects of the pandemic - not sure if they are less than in other comparable countries. I live in the center of a mid size city and about a third of the stores near my apartment have either closed down in a controlled fashion, folded into bankruptcy or are in some sort of bankruptcy protection. All stores and restaurants that are still open operate at a reduced time schedule and with a bare minimum staff. But the less strict lockdown may also be a way to keep up the social distancing for a bit longer than with a more strict lockdown which we have seen will sometimes create backlashes and protests.
As for the absolute numbers... yes, high, especially in some cities. If you'd take away the 80+ age group I'm not so sure the numbers would be that different from other countries, but I don't have the energy to make the comparison for real so let's assume were harder hit than our neighbors. Like many countries, we are pretty far from the New Zeeland situation, but also below current max ICU capacity.
The changes imposed by this situation will remain for a long long time.
(Swedish doesn't scare me. It's close enough to English that I can navigate it with a good dose of help from Google Translate. If it were Finnish, though, I would give up.)
Smart.
-
Sweden do have social distancing mandates, but a little bit less so than other countries. The latest update was to still isolate, especially for the 70+ crowd, but internal travel up to 2 hours from your residence is no longer discouraged. Before, we were recommended to refrain from domestic travel at all, especially to or from Stockholm.
I'm behind my time... we're now (starting monday) allowed to travel freely within Sweden, but more or less discouraged to take public transport when doing so, especially for the elderly.
-
Apparently a young woman (20s, no prior health concerns) in Chicago underwent a double lung transplant due to COVID-19 (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/875486356/first-known-u-s-lung-transplant-for-covid-19-patient-performed-in-chicago). The picture of her lung is incredible. If you're easily grossed out it just might make you throw up.
Also, here's a fascinating article about the patients for whom the symptoms linger for months (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/). Many of them got sick in March and are still battling symptoms. (Here's another article. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/weird-hell-professor-advent-calendar-covid-19-symptoms-paul-garner)) Almost all of these people weren't sick enough to be admitted to the hospital so technically they're classified as "mild" cases.
US Hospital Census Data. Starting to see some similarity to market panic forecasts.
Where did you get that graph? Genuinely curious, because I can't find it anywhere.
-
Apparently a young woman (20s, no prior health concerns) in Chicago underwent a double lung transplant due to COVID-19 (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/875486356/first-known-u-s-lung-transplant-for-covid-19-patient-performed-in-chicago). The picture of her lung is incredible. If you're easily grossed out it just might make you throw up.
Also, here's a fascinating article about the patients for whom the symptoms linger for months (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/). Many of them got sick in March and are still battling symptoms. (Here's another article. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/weird-hell-professor-advent-calendar-covid-19-symptoms-paul-garner)) Almost all of these people weren't sick enough to be admitted to the hospital so technically they're classified as "mild" cases.
You’ve just invoked the “well, they didn’t die and that’s the only metric that counts” crowd.
(I agree with you, but good luck getting this point across. It hasn’t worked yet.)
-
Personally I'm still nervous about returning to business as usual. I know everyone's gotten bored with quarantining and they've decided they've had enough, they deserve a summer break, etc... What happened to shared sacrifice?
No authoritative, scientific organization has announced an end to the pandemic, so I'll still staying put as long as possible. Yes, I miss being out there, going on vacations, visiting my mom, etc... but you gotta do what you can to stay healthy and keep others healthy.
Yeah, I mean, places in the US are opening back up, but not because much has changed. More because people are bored and putting pressure on elected officials.
Most of my local friends are starting to go out and do stuff again. DH and I are not changing our behavior at all. We're not going to start going to restaurants, our gym, etc. etc. Not getting my hair cut, either.
Of everyone in our circle, the one friend that is doing the same as us... is an epidemiologist.
Our weekend potluck group started up again. Soft startup. The person who sent the text is a non-vaxxer who just says "take vitamin C!" She's also in her 60s, as his her husband.
Dear Jaysus. If it were me I would defriend them now... a super-spreader event waiting to happen.
And That old saw about Vitamin C. It does sweet FA for COVID. Vitamin D might actually be very helpful in reducing cytokine storm but needs more study. Several times when I bring up Vitamin D and how most Canadians are deficient I hear 'Oh! Well I'm already taking Vitamin C'. As in, I don't need to take D, because, you know, C is also a Vitamin.
By the way, Vitamin D is why white people are white. If you live up north and you are black, you will not get enough D because your skin blocks too much UV to get a good conversion rate.
Anyway, I looked up the studies on C and COVID, and as I suspected, it does not help.
-
Several times when I bring up Vitamin D and how most Canadians are deficient I hear 'Oh! Well I'm already taking Vitamin C'. As in, I don't need to take D, because, you know, C is also a Vitamin.
I wonder how long it would take for a fake "scientific" paper that argues that if you can't get Vitamin D you can just take Vitamin C as a stand-in because they are "vitaminically adjacent" to spread via Facebook shares? Is the R naught of such a proposition higher or lower than the Covid R naught in a given population?
-
D stands for Data Collection and Bill Gates added a nanochip to vitamin D supplements to track citizens.
-
D stands for Data Collection and Bill Gates added a nanochip to vitamin D supplements to track citizens.
C stands for Collection of Data though, so if you take vitamin C and walk near a 5G network Bill Gates can read your mind. So, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Disclaimer- the preceeding message is only as factually acurate as anything you might hear from the president of the US. React accordingly.
-
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/vitamin-d-covid-19/
Vitamin D may protect from viral infection and ameliorate the symptoms of Covid-19, including the cytokine storm.
One of the recent vitamin D studies demonstrated that in 20 European countries, an association exists between low levels of vitamin D and higher numbers of Covid-19 cases and mortality. Vitamin D levels are found to be severely low for the older population in these countries, especially in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland. As these are some of the more vulnerable populations to developing Covid-19, this might play an important role in vulnerability to the disease.
Another recent Indonesian retrospective cohort study of 780 Covid-19 patients indicated that the majority of death cases had below-normal vitamin D levels and that vitamin D status was strongly associated with Covid-19 mortality.
Vitamin D has a known effect on the immune system, as previous studies have found an association between susceptibility to respiratory tract infections and low vitamin D levels.
-
After seeing my PCP recently for a completely unrelated reason, she wanted to go over Covid-19 precautions since I'm on immunosuppressants. As part of that conversation she went over the latest reports about vitamin D and asked to check mine, since deficiency's common in Crohn's patients. A few days later she called to say I'd need to take prescription vitamin D for three months until a recheck. It's the only pandemic tweak any of my doctors have made to my care so far (besides a routine scope being delayed).
-
Today marked the lowest US covid-19 death toll since March 25th. Amazingly, Brazil and Mexico both reported higher numbers.
-
Today marked the lowest US covid-19 death toll since March 25th. Amazingly, Brazil and Mexico both reported higher numbers.
Maybe don’t get too optimistic yet.
Record spikes in new coronavirus cases, hospitalizations sweep parts of U.S. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/record-spikes-in-new-coronavirus-cases-hospitalizations-sweep-parts-of-u-s-idUSKBN23L0JB)
Perhaps more troubling for health officials, many of these states are also seeing record hospitalizations - a metric not affected by increased testing.
-
Maybe don’t get too optimistic yet.
Right. However, total US tests performed are now 500K+/day as opposed to 300K/day just 2 weeks ago. We are testing at a much higher rate and positive % is now at ~ 4-5%. Drastically lower than it was in early April when it was 15-20%.
-
We’ve BEEN testing at these rates for about 6 weeks in many areas. The increase is real.
-
We’ve BEEN testing at these rates for about 6 weeks in many areas. The increase is real.
It definitely varies by area, I'm referring to total US testing numbers. We are now at 500K+, and just 2 weeks ago we were at approximately 300K tests performed/day. Hospitalization rates though, are something to definitely monitor.
-
Maybe don’t get too optimistic yet.
Right. However, total US tests performed are now 500K+/day as opposed to 300K/day just 2 weeks ago. We are testing at a much higher rate and positive % is now at ~ 4-5%. Drastically lower than it was in early April when it was 15-20%.
Somehow, you keep missing the point about record COVID-19 hospitalizations in several states. That’s not an effect of increased testing.
-
Somehow, you keep missing the point about record COVID-19 hospitalizations in several states. That’s not an effect of increased testing.
I acknowledged above that is something we will want to monitor.
-
Here is the CDC data for total US hospitalizations by week. We are at about 1/3 of where we were at the peak and trending downward. Obviously curves are local and can vary, but the overall US trend is continuing downward. The media will cherry pick data to make the overall picture seem dire. Should have a new week to update on here within the next day to see if the trend is continuing.
(https://i.imgur.com/8f91sGr.png)
-
Here is the CDC data for total US hospitalizations by week. We are at about 1/3 of where we were at the peak and trending downward. Obviously curves are local and can vary, but the overall US trend is continuing downward. The media will cherry pick data to make the overall picture seem dire. Should have a new week to update on here within the next day to see if the trend is continuing.
Is it really "cherry-picking" though? Like, if I live in L.A. then it really doesn't matter so much to me if the cases in Maine are staying flat, but it REALLY matters of the cases in my area are going up or down. Particularly if I or any of my loved ones locally have any risk factors. To say that cases and hospitalizations are going up astronomically in FL, TX, SC, etc., isn't "cherry-picking". It's reporting relevant data. Just because it doesn't fit with your narrative that "it's over, there's nothing to see here" doesn't make it not relevant to the conversation. And the attitude you have toward this, trying to run a victory lap at this point in the game, is EXACTLY why cases are starting to trend upward again pretty much everywhere. Just because you are done with taking precautions (if you ever did) doesn't mean that the virus has gone away. As of today, the US had just under 20,000 new cases and 326 new deaths (via this source (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)). There's also very strong evidence that there is political pressure to hide the actual figures (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-fired-its-coronavirus-data-scientist-now-shes-publishing-the-statistics-on-her-own/ar-BB15pzoh). Surprise, FL has an unknown illness that's killing more people than they're reporting died of COVID (https://covid19science.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-cheating-is-getting-worse.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR2Dlk9h-Whd2NFUxYYTEqJC4VPQPDUGehx24M1qBabKGFM3wr5WNf1RlyU). Doesn't that seem a little strange to you? NY has at least been listing people who died without a positive test as probable COVID deaths and reporting them as such. FL and other states have not. They just have people dying at far higher than historical rates during a pandemic for no known reason. It couldn't possibly be tied to the fact that they want to put people back to work in a hurry and distract from their disastrous unemployment website, or the fact that only 8% of unemployed people in FL actually got their benefits (https://www.wjhg.com/content/news/Most-Floridians-who-apply-for-unemployment-benefits-wont-receive-them-according-to-research-570059161.html), to make the governor look better. No one would be that heartless. Right?
-
Missy B - “Vitamin D levels are why white people are white.” I think you mean melanin?
-
Missy B - “Vitamin D levels are why white people are white.” I think you mean melanin?
Different level on the "why", I guess?
-
Interesting in HBFIRE's graph that the big decline in hospitalisations has been in the 65+ group, with working age hospitalisations holding steadier.
That could be the result of older people taking more precautions? And working age people unwilling or unable (because economic pressures) to?
(I'm assuming not all the vulnerable old people in the USA have died yet.)
-
After seeing my PCP recently for a completely unrelated reason, she wanted to go over Covid-19 precautions since I'm on immunosuppressants. As part of that conversation she went over the latest reports about vitamin D and asked to check mine, since deficiency's common in Crohn's patients. A few days later she called to say I'd need to take prescription vitamin D for three months until a recheck. It's the only pandemic tweak any of my doctors have made to my care so far (besides a routine scope being delayed).
I think we've compared notes on our health issue before, I have the same condition and also pretty severe. I'm surprised you aren't already on vitamin D as in my country vitamin D is routinely prescribed for everyone with Crohn's, because there's evidence it helps fight the inflammation. So hopefully it will have a positive effect on your health! I read the same research so my healthy partner is now taking vitamin D as well, as a precaution. He isn't likely to be very deficient because he has a very light skin and we live in a northern area and goes outside every day. But this feels like one of the few things we can do to lower the risk.
From what I've heard from my doctor (who is the biggest authority in my country) users of biologicals aren't in the highest risk category when it comes to Covid-19 so I hope he's right. A 'mild' Covid infection could be pretty serious for us, but the severe reaction where the body goes into cytokine storm doesn't seem to happen in users of biologicals, since our immune system is so weak it can't attack itself. Which is why some biologicals are considered as Covid-19 meds. On one hand a medicine would be revolutionary but I would be very scared if my medication turned out to be the cure. I'd likely be low priority since I'm not going to die if I don't get my meds next week, but I could die if I couldn't get them for a year.
Hopefully my doctor is right, but we're still early in the pandemic so he has warned me to continue to behave like I am in the highest risk category just in case.
Which is easy since I work from home, but unfortunately I have heard I will likely loose my job in the fall. I'm glad my boss has already informally let me know so I have enough time to brush up my CV and get ready to find a new job, but I enjoy this job and I hate jobhunting.
-
Here is the CDC data for total US hospitalizations by week. We are at about 1/3 of where we were at the peak and trending downward. Obviously curves are local and can vary, but the overall US trend is continuing downward. The media will cherry pick data to make the overall picture seem dire. Should have a new week to update on here within the next day to see if the trend is continuing.
Is it really "cherry-picking" though? Like, if I live in L.A. then it really doesn't matter so much to me if the cases in Maine are staying flat, but it REALLY matters of the cases in my area are going up or down. Particularly if I or any of my loved ones locally have any risk factors. To say that cases and hospitalizations are going up astronomically in FL, TX, SC, etc., isn't "cherry-picking". It's reporting relevant data. Just because it doesn't fit with your narrative that "it's over, there's nothing to see here" doesn't make it not relevant to the conversation. And the attitude you have toward this, trying to run a victory lap at this point in the game, is EXACTLY why cases are starting to trend upward again pretty much everywhere. Just because you are done with taking precautions (if you ever did) doesn't mean that the virus has gone away. As of today, the US had just under 20,000 new cases and 326 new deaths (via this source (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)). There's also very strong evidence that there is political pressure to hide the actual figures (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-fired-its-coronavirus-data-scientist-now-shes-publishing-the-statistics-on-her-own/ar-BB15pzoh). Surprise, FL has an unknown illness that's killing more people than they're reporting died of COVID (https://covid19science.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-cheating-is-getting-worse.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR2Dlk9h-Whd2NFUxYYTEqJC4VPQPDUGehx24M1qBabKGFM3wr5WNf1RlyU). Doesn't that seem a little strange to you? NY has at least been listing people who died without a positive test as probable COVID deaths and reporting them as such. FL and other states have not. They just have people dying at far higher than historical rates during a pandemic for no known reason. It couldn't possibly be tied to the fact that they want to put people back to work in a hurry and distract from their disastrous unemployment website, or the fact that only 8% of unemployed people in FL actually got their benefits (https://www.wjhg.com/content/news/Most-Floridians-who-apply-for-unemployment-benefits-wont-receive-them-according-to-research-570059161.html), to make the governor look better. No one would be that heartless. Right?
I think there is a lot of cherry picking of stats going on with all sides but in regards to the article there is a line. "In Louisiana, which had been one of the earlier virus hot spots, new cases were again on the rise with over 1,200 - the most there since May 21." That is a factual statement but ignores the fact that a testing site just began reporting data to the state. So on June 12, there were 9,861 tests and 523 cases (5.3%) reported and on June 13, there were 24,289 tests and 1,288 cases (5.3%). (June 14, there was 336 cases but Sunday is always the lowest number each week) This testing site that just began reporting had tests back to April 25. The May 21 date also had another large site begin reporting. The statewide 7 day average without the old tests is 440 with almost 10,000 actual tests given per day.
-
Just because it doesn't fit with your narrative that "it's over, there's nothing to see here" doesn't make it not relevant to the conversation.
I never stated it's over. I'm providing the actual data and allowing everyone to draw their own conclusion. Media driven panic is harmful. It's important to look at the actual stats objectively. It's similar to the stock market in a way.
Just because you are done with taking precautions (if you ever did) doesn't mean that the virus has gone away.
You seem to make a lot of presumptions. I've never indicated what precautions I personally take. Please don't make baseless attacks, let's keep it civil.
NY has at least been listing people who died without a positive test as probable COVID death
This is true, and is problematic in itself. NY also tested patients who were probable Covid 19 cases (symptomatic) with a positive rate in the range of 5-30%. With this low of a "success" rate, how can we confidently diagnose deaths as "probable" that were never tested?
-
I think we've compared notes on our health issue before, I have the same condition and also pretty severe. I'm surprised you aren't already on vitamin D as in my country vitamin D is routinely prescribed for everyone with Crohn's, because there's evidence it helps fight the inflammation. So hopefully it will have a positive effect on your health! I read the same research so my healthy partner is now taking vitamin D as well, as a precaution. He isn't likely to be very deficient because he has a very light skin and we live in a northern area and goes outside every day. But this feels like one of the few things we can do to lower the risk.
From what I've heard from my doctor (who is the biggest authority in my country) users of biologicals aren't in the highest risk category when it comes to Covid-19 so I hope he's right. A 'mild' Covid infection could be pretty serious for us, but the severe reaction where the body goes into cytokine storm doesn't seem to happen in users of biologicals, since our immune system is so weak it can't attack itself. Which is why some biologicals are considered as Covid-19 meds. On one hand a medicine would be revolutionary but I would be very scared if my medication turned out to be the cure. I'd likely be low priority since I'm not going to die if I don't get my meds next week, but I could die if I couldn't get them for a year.
Hopefully my doctor is right, but we're still early in the pandemic so he has warned me to continue to behave like I am in the highest risk category just in case.
Which is easy since I work from home, but unfortunately I have heard I will likely loose my job in the fall. I'm glad my boss has already informally let me know so I have enough time to brush up my CV and get ready to find a new job, but I enjoy this job and I hate jobhunting.
I'm sorry to hear about your job, Imma, and hope something changes that will allow you to keep it.
I've taken vitamin D at various points in the past with no measurable effect on my conditions, but I'm glad the PCP mentioned her Covid-19 concerns and ordered the labs. My GI (an esteemed IBD specialist) and rheumatologist have repeatedly stressed to keep taking biologics, along with the usual advice on staying home, wearing masks in public, and hand-washing. They're less keen on steroids and aren't prescribing them as much if there are alternatives.
Our IBD cases might be a bit different in that I've had extensive surgery and if I recall correctly, you've avoided that so far. The deficiency I struggle with the most is potassium. My diet's rich in it, I just don't absorb much of it. To avoid hospitalization for hypokalemia I use prescription potassium powder packets daily (because I don't absorb the pills, either). Dehydration is one of our chief worries, should I get Covid-19, since it happens very rapidly for j-pouch patients even when we're healthy.
Despite our best efforts to avoid hospitalization during this, I had complications and needed a minor operation a few weeks ago. The timing was accidentally close to perfect because the hospital was nearly empty, which was somewhat eerie. The C19 patients were kept far away from the rest of us and many staffers wore shields over their masks. I wore a mask whenever I could even though one of the nurses (the same one who, unprompted, shared anti-vaxxer views) said it wasn't necessary.
-
@hops you're right, so far I have refused surgery. Of course dehydration from a 'mild' case can be dangerous then, even if you don't go into cytokine storm. And so is hypokalemia. I'm sorry to hear you needed surgery, hopefully you're recovering well. I also still get my biologicals every 6 weeks and hospitals are indeed a bit creepy now. In my country medical masks can only be used for Covid-19 patients and severely immunocompromised patients (chemo) as there's still a shortage, so my nurses have to treat me without a mask. That feels pretty scary, even though everyone is checked twice for symptoms and temperature before they enter hospital. I have a minor flare-up in my joints and we are indeed trying to manage that without steroids. I hate steroids anyway so I'm fine with that. I honestly haven't really noticed vitamin D being very effective either, but doctors around here are pretty strict about it.
-
@hops you're right, so far I have refused surgery. Of course dehydration from a 'mild' case can be dangerous then, even if you don't go into cytokine storm. And so is hypokalemia. I'm sorry to hear you needed surgery, hopefully you're recovering well. I also still get my biologicals every 6 weeks and hospitals are indeed a bit creepy now. In my country medical masks can only be used for Covid-19 patients and severely immunocompromised patients (chemo) as there's still a shortage, so my nurses have to treat me without a mask. That feels pretty scary, even though everyone is checked twice for symptoms and temperature before they enter hospital. I have a minor flare-up in my joints and we are indeed trying to manage that without steroids. I hate steroids anyway so I'm fine with that. I honestly haven't really noticed vitamin D being very effective either, but doctors around here are pretty strict about it.
That does sound scary, particularly with asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread. Every single hospital employee I saw here (of any sort) was masked. Some wore cloth masks, either due to necessity or possibly for comfort. Most wore surgical masks. A few wore N95s they possibly bought themselves. Some nurses had face shields and others didn't. I brought my own masks out of an abundance of caution.
Since discharge I've visited both a hospital-based surgeon's office and a doctor in a freestanding clinic. The protocol for gaining entrance to the buildings (answering a symptom and exposure questionnaire, having your temperature taken, being issued a mask if you can't provide your own) was quick and hassle-free. The feeling of relative security there was striking compared to how I would've felt if plopped in the middle of a grocery store or Walmart, with the proudly unmasked "Muh freedoms!" contingent defiantly jeopardizing everyone else's health.
-
Here is the CDC data for total US hospitalizations by week. We are at about 1/3 of where we were at the peak and trending downward. Obviously curves are local and can vary, but the overall US trend is continuing downward. The media will cherry pick data to make the overall picture seem dire. Should have a new week to update on here within the next day to see if the trend is continuing.
The thing is that the graph you're showing is very concerning. These are exponential curves. A small difference in the coefficient can mean the difference between a slow exponential decay (exactly like in this graph) and unstable exponential growth. Basically what that means is that what everybody is doing right now is just barely containing virus. As people gradually practice less and less social distancing that coefficient slowly rises. As soon as that coefficient gets over 1, we go back into unstable exponential growth. If you don't see a strong exponential decay, it means things are barely under control.
-
BEIJING (AP) — China increased testing and lockdown measures in parts of the capital Tuesday to control what appeared to be its largest coronavirus outbreak in more than two months.
The 40 new cases reported Tuesday included 27 in Beijing, bringing the city’s total to 106 since Friday.
Many of the recent cases have been linked to Beijing’s Xinfadi wholesale market and authorities have been testing market workers, anyone who visited the market in the past two weeks and anyone who came into contact with either group.
Fresh meat and seafood in the city and elsewhere in China was also being inspected on the unlikely chance that was how the virus spread.
https://apnews.com/772a8215aef0d656bab9efe29fe90990
-
NY has at least been listing people who died without a positive test as probable COVID death
This is true, and is problematic in itself. NY also tested patients who were probable Covid 19 cases (symptomatic) with a positive rate in the range of 5-30%. With this low of a "success" rate, how can we confidently diagnose deaths as "probable" that were never tested?
I wouldn't call it "problematic" at all. This is how a large fraction of causes of death are decided in normal times - unless there's foul play suspected that triggers an investigation, or obvious causes like visible physical trauma cause of death is often an inference based on symptoms. Listing someone as killed by Covid when they die of severe respiratory symptoms outside the normal flu season isn't exactly a stretch.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
Note: Not all of these excess deaths are necessarily due to Covid - some are likely patients with other medical issues who died due to the overall strain on the medical system/not getting treatment they needed, as well as a small number of suicides/substance abuse-related deaths - but it's highly likely the real death toll from the virus itself is being undercounted, not overcounted. And data doesn't suggest that we're overcounting deaths - quite the opposite, in fact.
-
BEIJING (AP) — China increased testing and lockdown measures in parts of the capital Tuesday to control what appeared to be its largest coronavirus outbreak in more than two months.
The 40 new cases reported Tuesday included 27 in Beijing, bringing the city’s total to 106 since Friday.
Many of the recent cases have been linked to Beijing’s Xinfadi wholesale market and authorities have been testing market workers, anyone who visited the market in the past two weeks and anyone who came into contact with either group.
Fresh meat and seafood in the city and elsewhere in China was also being inspected on the unlikely chance that was how the virus spread.
https://apnews.com/772a8215aef0d656bab9efe29fe90990
Yup, they’ve also re-closed down schools. Gr. 1-3 were slated to open on Monday, but that’s not happening anymore. In Shanghai, many companies have declared Beijing a no-fly zone (as in their employees are not going to Beijing for business trips anymore), and in schools here, any child who has been in Beijing in the last two weeks or who has a family member who lives in the same household who has been in Beijing in the past two weeks is not allowed to come to school for two weeks. Since our school year ends the end of June, essentially the child is not allowed to return to school until the following school year.
-
BEIJING (AP) — China increased testing and lockdown measures in parts of the capital Tuesday to control what appeared to be its largest coronavirus outbreak in more than two months.
The 40 new cases reported Tuesday included 27 in Beijing, bringing the city’s total to 106 since Friday.
Many of the recent cases have been linked to Beijing’s Xinfadi wholesale market and authorities have been testing market workers, anyone who visited the market in the past two weeks and anyone who came into contact with either group.
Fresh meat and seafood in the city and elsewhere in China was also being inspected on the unlikely chance that was how the virus spread.
https://apnews.com/772a8215aef0d656bab9efe29fe90990
Yup, they’ve also re-closed down schools. Gr. 1-3 were slated to open on Monday, but that’s not happening anymore. In Shanghai, many companies have declared Beijing a no-fly zone (as in their employees are not going to Beijing for business trips anymore), and in schools here, any child who has been in Beijing in the last two weeks or who has a family member who lives in the same household who has been in Beijing in the past two weeks is not allowed to come to school for two weeks. Since our school year ends the end of June, essentially the child is not allowed to return to school until the following school year.
It ain't over till it's over. I've been saying this whole time that the COVID situation will take a year or longer to play out. We're all programmed for a weekly or biweekly news cycle, but this isn't it.
I sympathize with people who have kids right now.
-
NY has at least been listing people who died without a positive test as probable COVID death
This is true, and is problematic in itself. NY also tested patients who were probable Covid 19 cases (symptomatic) with a positive rate in the range of 5-30%. With this low of a "success" rate, how can we confidently diagnose deaths as "probable" that were never tested?
I wouldn't call it "problematic" at all. This is how a large fraction of causes of death are decided in normal times - unless there's foul play suspected that triggers an investigation, or obvious causes like visible physical trauma cause of death is often an inference based on symptoms. Listing someone as killed by Covid when they die of severe respiratory symptoms outside the normal flu season isn't exactly a stretch.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
Note: Not all of these excess deaths are necessarily due to Covid - some are likely patients with other medical issues who died due to the overall strain on the medical system/not getting treatment they needed, as well as a small number of suicides/substance abuse-related deaths - but it's highly likely the real death toll from the virus itself is being undercounted, not overcounted. And data doesn't suggest that we're overcounting deaths - quite the opposite, in fact.
One of the issues with the 'missing' deaths is the extent to which comorbidities have an impact. Because COVID-19 is the new disease, there is a lot of focus on the comorbidities that increase the likelihood of dying from CV19. But in terms of understanding the overall impact on health, we should also be considering what other causes of death that CV19 is a comorbidity for. In other words, there is a disproportionate focus on:
If I have XXX then it increases the likelihood of me dying from CV19; in comparison to...
If I have CV19 then it increases the likelihood of me dying from YYY.
If CV19 is a comorbidity for other illnesses, then it's a given that there will be a spike in other causes of death when there's a spike in CV19 cases.
-
It's death numbers that matter, Gremlin, not case numbers.
So yesterday saw the highest number of new cases reported worldwide that we've seen to date. It also saw the highest number of deaths worldwide since the 6th of May. Trendline for both new cases and daily deaths worldwide is now tracking higher.
-
It's death numbers that matter, Gremlin, not case numbers.
So yesterday saw the highest number of new cases reported worldwide that we've seen to date. It also saw the highest number of deaths worldwide since the 6th of May. Trendline for both new cases and daily deaths worldwide is now tracking higher.
For the sake of accuracy, it's worth noting that most of the spike in Yesterday's death total was a blip in India's reported deaths, from ~400/day to ~2000. This looks like an artifact of when the deaths were reported rather than an actual spike in deaths - India's cases are climbing, but this doesn't fit "the curve". Take that out, and the global trend over the past few weeks has been roughly flat, with declines in the US and Europe offset by increases in Central/South America.
-
Here is the CDC data for total US hospitalizations by week.
(https://i.imgur.com/8f91sGr.png)
updated. lowest in 3 months. 25% of peak levels.
(https://i.imgur.com/eGO7cUp.png)
-
Here is the CDC data for total US hospitalizations by week.
(https://i.imgur.com/8f91sGr.png)
updated. lowest in 3 months. 25% of peak levels.
(https://i.imgur.com/eGO7cUp.png)
But then read the disclaimer:
"The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in children (persons younger than 18 years) and adults. The current network covers nearly 100 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and four additional states through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IA, MI, OH, and UT). The network represents approximately 10% of US population (~32 million people)."
Lab confirmed positives among hospitalized patients only in 100 counties in 14 states.
Are there trends in these data? Yes. Are those trends representative of what is going on in the entire country? Not necessarily.
-
Lab confirmed positives among hospitalized patients only in 100 counties in 14 states.
Are there trends in these data? Yes. Are those trends representative of what is going on in the entire country? Not necessarily.
This is a great point. Important to watch other data trends as well since this one is not comprehensive. Does anyone know of any source that compiles all US hospitalization data? I couldn't find anything that is comprehensive.
Here is the death trend data for the US below. It was the lowest recorded week in 3 months:
(https://i.imgur.com/YwDCL9I.png)
-
This analysis from the BBC is less encouraging for the USA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53088354
The data comes from the Covid Tracking Project at The Atlantic.
-
I can't even find a currently hospitalized number for my local area, only total, which tells me nothing.
-
I can't even find a currently hospitalized number for my local area, only total, which tells me nothing.
I live in orange county calif (same as @HBFIRE ) and we have a pretty good website thru our counties healthcare agency. List everything from daily new cases, testing, deaths, hospitalizations, people in ICU, # of deaths or cases by age, in nursing homes, jails, etc. With graphs near the bottom of the page. It has shown both increases in cases (maybe due to greater testing), deaths and hospitalization.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
Nice. I am due south of you and our county site is not as clear.
-
Has anyone discovered what causes the weekly cycle in US cases?
-
Has anyone discovered what causes the weekly cycle in US cases?
It seems to be fewer tests getting processed on weekends, than a catch up. The world cases are on a similar cycle. Somehow, I doubt the C takes Sundays off, but they are consistently lower, even for reporting of deaths.
-
Has anyone discovered what causes the weekly cycle in US cases?
Having worked in multiple hospitals, I would guess that Sundays have many less admin staff rostered, and admin staff are the ones reporting the numbers. The numbers are only lower because fewer hospitals are reporting on a Sunday. Then as the week goes on, the cases rise because the Monday/Tuesday hell is over and tasks like reporting get to the top of the priority list!
-
I can't even find a currently hospitalized number for my local area, only total, which tells me nothing.
I live in orange county calif (same as @HBFIRE ) and we have a pretty good website thru our counties healthcare agency. List everything from daily new cases, testing, deaths, hospitalizations, people in ICU, # of deaths or cases by age, in nursing homes, jails, race, gender, by city, etc. With graphs near the bottom of the page. It has shown both increases in cases (maybe due to greater testing), deaths and hospitalization.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
This is true. We are still below the threshold required by the state to enter the next stage of opening.
-
And the south and west, the cases are increasing, and it's affecting more younger people now.
-
This thread has been a fascinating read, in retrospect of what we've been through since it was started.
My husband and I are in the crowd that have not been heavily affected by stay at home orders. We have a big house on a large lot, and no kids. We've both been teleworking since March. The biggest change for him as a dedicated gym-goer, is having to work out at home. In the longer term, he referees high school football, and is fretting about the powers that be in that world making unwise decisions to continue HS sports in the fall, and fellow officials being dumbasses about the precautions that should be taken if sports do move forward.
For me, I miss going to the gym as well, but my main activities are horse-related, as well as running and gardening, so not much has changed. We minimize shopping trips and wear masks when we go out. We did have tickets for a few concerts from July through October that we were really looking forward to, and of course those are postponed/canceled. Horse shows were canceled this spring, but they are starting to ramp back up; that doesn't really impact my plans, but I'm hoping that it doesn't touch off Covid spread in the horse community, which could result in barns needing to be closed down.
Husband will probably be asked to return to his office soon, though he is trying to put it off until after he visits his family in California over 4th of July, and my dad visits shortly after that. I just started a new job with a Denver-based team, so working remotely instead of going into my old office (same organization as my previous job) is just as effective and I don't have to deal with all the social distancing and health check stations that are entailed with going to the office currently.
And the south and west, the cases are increasing, and it's affecting more younger people now.
That is just what I was noticing, delving more into our state data (Idaho). We have about 4,000 cases statewide, and looking at demographics, the 20-29 age group has surged, with 25% of the cases. It's hard to say if this is due to their social behavior, or if this age group is more likely to be working in the service industry, or a combination of both. While we've had an uptick in positive cases as our state re-opens, it looks like that might be related to testing numbers. However, we did get a surge in our county this week, and I wonder if it has to do with restaurants and bars opening back up. Also, there has been a surge in the Magic Valley counties, which is more rural, but still one of the population centers for the state. I think there was a bit of a feeling of insulation there, but OTOH, there are several food processing plants out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're hotspots. A few weeks ago I went to eastern Idaho for a few days for work. I brought all my own food and declined hotel house keeping, and only worked with people out in the field. I did go for a run on the greenbelt after work, and it seemed business as usual over there, so I won't be surprised if that area gets hit soon too.
There is also a hotspot in rural eastern Oregon, linked to a small-town church. https://www.lagrandeobserver.com/coronavirus/union-county-covid-19-testing-underway-as-case-total-tops-250/article_be789bec-b256-11ea-bdf2-23540f50a7b4.html This can really flare quickly in that situation, it seems. Aren't any churches holding outdoor services, given the time of year? I'm expecting things to get worse again in the fall when outdoor activities become less appealing.
-
And the south and west, the cases are increasing, and it's affecting more younger people now.
Yep
-
What I've been finding the most interesting lately is the research that we might not (if these studies bear out, almost certainly don't) produce antibodies long-term. There's this one (https://news.yahoo.com/even-group-entirely-healthy-young-173343759.html), about the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Concerning because it's a group of young and otherwise healthy people--otherwise they wouldn't be able to be in the military. Just 60% of those with confirmed cases showed antibodies after a couple of months.
Then there are a couple of studies out of Wuhan that have similar findings (https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-antibodies-lost-10-wuhan-study-patients-within-21-days-1511850). One of the studies cited has yet to be peer-reviewed and published, but the fact that there are now quite a few (these are just the most recent) studies suggesting we might not have long-term immunity to this...well.
This article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/06/19/immunity-to-covid-19-infection-may-fade-quickly/?fbclid=IwAR1V-bThp_vr9HHkF9kfTdc54VqLnW9H0JtVSjUbljMQDcgLkvM3cXna1t4#3878e8fc72e1) I think talks about one of the studies out of Wuhan previously mentioned. The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6). Anyway, the article points out that the study found 2/3 of asymptomatic patients had lung damage. So even though they couldn't feel it, didn't realize they were sick, they will have long-term, likely permanent, lung damage.
Arizona also passed 50,000 cases (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/arizona-passes-50-000-mark-in-confirmed-coronavirus-cases/ar-BB15NbR0). My state of WA has had a combined total of less than 29,000 cases (https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/NovelCoronavirusOutbreak2020COVID19/DataDashboard) and we're still under lockdown. Arizona, what are you doing? Same question to Texas (https://www.tpr.org/post/san-antonio-reports-1300-new-cases-over-weekend-daily-testing-capacity-increase-5000) and Florida (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243694827.html). What the hell, guys?
For the people on here who like to say cases are increasing because of increased testing, not because of increased cases, guess again (https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/more-oregonians-catching-coronavirus-because-the-virus-is-spreading-more-not-just-because-of-increased-testing.html).
Last, here's an article about trying to get back-testing for potential cases in CA all the way to the beginning of the year (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-21/babies-children-december-deaths-join-the-wait-for-covid-19-testing). Coroners and doctors had a bunch of mysterious cases (including pediatric deaths) when testing was still incredibly limited, but they suspect that the first confirmed death was far from the first actual death in the state. Which brings up more questions about when, exactly, it actually started circulating?
-
Lab confirmed positives among hospitalized patients only in 100 counties in 14 states.
Are there trends in these data? Yes. Are those trends representative of what is going on in the entire country? Not necessarily.
This is a great point. Important to watch other data trends as well since this one is not comprehensive. Does anyone know of any source that compiles all US hospitalization data? I couldn't find anything that is comprehensive.
Here is the death trend data for the US below. It was the lowest recorded week in 3 months:
(https://i.imgur.com/YwDCL9I.png)
Indeed I think it's really important to remember that these hospital capacity measures are ultimately local. Open ventillators in NY won't help my elderly parents who are in Hays County, Texas. I'm nervously watching the Texas numbers increase as I simultaneously detect very little alarm among anyone who lives there.
-
What I've been finding the most interesting lately is the research that we might not (if these studies bear out, almost certainly don't) produce antibodies long-term. There's this one (https://news.yahoo.com/even-group-entirely-healthy-young-173343759.html), about the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Concerning because it's a group of young and otherwise healthy people--otherwise they wouldn't be able to be in the military. Just 60% of those with confirmed cases showed antibodies after a couple of months.
Then there are a couple of studies out of Wuhan that have similar findings (https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-antibodies-lost-10-wuhan-study-patients-within-21-days-1511850). One of the studies cited has yet to be peer-reviewed and published, but the fact that there are now quite a few (these are just the most recent) studies suggesting we might not have long-term immunity to this...well.
This article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/06/19/immunity-to-covid-19-infection-may-fade-quickly/?fbclid=IwAR1V-bThp_vr9HHkF9kfTdc54VqLnW9H0JtVSjUbljMQDcgLkvM3cXna1t4#3878e8fc72e1) I think talks about one of the studies out of Wuhan previously mentioned. The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6). Anyway, the article points out that the study found 2/3 of asymptomatic patients had lung damage. So even though they couldn't feel it, didn't realize they were sick, they will have long-term, likely permanent, lung damage.
Arizona also passed 50,000 cases (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/arizona-passes-50-000-mark-in-confirmed-coronavirus-cases/ar-BB15NbR0). My state of WA has had a combined total of less than 29,000 cases (https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/NovelCoronavirusOutbreak2020COVID19/DataDashboard) and we're still under lockdown. Arizona, what are you doing? Same question to Texas (https://www.tpr.org/post/san-antonio-reports-1300-new-cases-over-weekend-daily-testing-capacity-increase-5000) and Florida (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243694827.html). What the hell, guys?
For the people on here who like to say cases are increasing because of increased testing, not because of increased cases, guess again (https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/more-oregonians-catching-coronavirus-because-the-virus-is-spreading-more-not-just-because-of-increased-testing.html).
Last, here's an article about trying to get back-testing for potential cases in CA all the way to the beginning of the year (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-21/babies-children-december-deaths-join-the-wait-for-covid-19-testing). Coroners and doctors had a bunch of mysterious cases (including pediatric deaths) when testing was still incredibly limited, but they suspect that the first confirmed death was far from the first actual death in the state. Which brings up more questions about when, exactly, it actually started circulating?
This is so worrisome, since so many people are pinning major hopes on a vaccine. It might be quite awhile before they figure out how to do that if we don't produce antibodies long term.
Eradication, or even control, is going to be impossible if people don't change their behavior, and in the US, people don't seem to want to.
-
Eradication, or even control, is going to be impossible if people don't change their behavior, and in the US, people don't seem to want to.
I'm not hoping for a vaccine that lasts years, as MMR does. I just hope for one that works for more than a year, so I can get my annual Covid shot just like I get my annual flu shot.
Of course a vaccine that is good for 5 or 10 years would be so much better, but we already deal with one disease (flu) that requires an annual vaccine.
-
Eradication, or even control, is going to be impossible if people don't change their behavior, and in the US, people don't seem to want to.
I'm not hoping for a vaccine that lasts years, as MMR does. I just hope for one that works for more than a year, so I can get my annual Covid shot just like I get my annual flu shot.
Of course a vaccine that is good for 5 or 10 years would be so much better, but we already deal with one disease (flu) that requires an annual vaccine.
The problem here is that these people showed a lack of antibodies within *months*. Are we going to get quarterly COVID vaccines? I mean, if we have to I'm sure we'll adapt to that. But what if it is like the flu in that we have multiple strains (which, actually, we've already got) and antibodies for one strain don't protect against another strain? Are we going to go with the flu shot strategy then--give everyone COVID shots for what they think will be the most prevalent strain for the next few months and then just hope they're right?
This is a quagmire and the only good answer is that we should have locked down in the beginning for as long as it took to get things as completely under control as humanly possible. This "herd immunity" idea is proving to be bullshit even more as time goes on and we learn more.
-
The problem here is that these people showed a lack of antibodies within *months*. Are we going to get quarterly COVID vaccines?
Dengue Fever is like that, where you can get it over and over again, but there is still a vaccine. Of course, it's only 76% effective and has such bad antibody-dependent enhancement that they will only give you the vaccine after you have already had the disease. And that's how millions of people live their lives.
-
It's death numbers that matter, Gremlin, not case numbers.
So yesterday saw the highest number of new cases reported worldwide that we've seen to date. It also saw the highest number of deaths worldwide since the 6th of May. Trendline for both new cases and daily deaths worldwide is now tracking higher.
For the sake of accuracy, it's worth noting that most of the spike in Yesterday's death total was a blip in India's reported deaths, from ~400/day to ~2000. This looks like an artifact of when the deaths were reported rather than an actual spike in deaths - India's cases are climbing, but this doesn't fit "the curve". Take that out, and the global trend over the past few weeks has been roughly flat, with declines in the US and Europe offset by increases in Central/South America.
Rolling waves of the virus hitting different regions at different times can mean that you have steady infection/death numbers for quite a while - this does not mean that for any given geographic location, the virus peaks and then subsides over time. As js82 correctly pointed out.
US deaths are easing. Australian deaths have stopped. UK deaths are easing. Etc.
In a month's time India's deaths will ease.
-
Eradication, or even control, is going to be impossible if people don't change their behavior, and in the US, people don't seem to want to.
I'm not hoping for a vaccine that lasts years, as MMR does. I just hope for one that works for more than a year, so I can get my annual Covid shot just like I get my annual flu shot.
Of course a vaccine that is good for 5 or 10 years would be so much better, but we already deal with one disease (flu) that requires an annual vaccine.
The problem here is that these people showed a lack of antibodies within *months*. Are we going to get quarterly COVID vaccines? I mean, if we have to I'm sure we'll adapt to that. But what if it is like the flu in that we have multiple strains (which, actually, we've already got) and antibodies for one strain don't protect against another strain? Are we going to go with the flu shot strategy then--give everyone COVID shots for what they think will be the most prevalent strain for the next few months and then just hope they're right?
This is a quagmire and the only good answer is that we should have locked down in the beginning for as long as it took to get things as completely under control as humanly possible. This "herd immunity" idea is proving to be bullshit even more as time goes on and we learn more.
This is why I used "hope". If we have to get one two or three times a year that will be a logistic mess. Or we get vaccinated before travel to areas that have higher levels of infection, just like we do now if we are travelling to areas with other diseases (I.e. tropical diseases for those of us not normally exposed to them).
Lockdowns only work well as long as movement is minimized. I don't see them as long term solutions. Changes in social behavior and better disease management are what we have to learn.
-
Yah my brother and sister in law, and their kids, are gallivanting around acting like everything is fine, not taking precautions, going on vacation, going to the bar, having their kids hang out with other kids, going places in the car with their kids and their friends. Worst part? Both of them work in nursing homes. Totally irresponsible people...and they'll probably get through this physically unscathed...
And me? I've been staying home, laying low, following all of the precautions and I'll probably get it the first time I go to the grocery store because I have been "blessed" with a nasty autoimmune condition!
Want another fun fact? Nursing home administrators did not want to test their employees (nurses, aides that work multiple jobs, etc...) because if they DID test, and they WERE positive then they couldn't come to work! "If we test everyone that works in our homes we won't have anyone to come in and take care of the residents!". -A real quote from a nursing home administrator.
Irresponsible.
-
The problem here is that these people showed a lack of antibodies within *months*. Are we going to get quarterly COVID vaccines?
Dengue Fever is like that, where you can get it over and over again, but there is still a vaccine. Of course, it's only 76% effective and has such bad antibody-dependent enhancement that they will only give you the vaccine after you have already had the disease. And that's how millions of people live their lives.
You left out the part where I said, "if we have to, I guess we'll adapt to that." I didn't rule it out. I just wanted to point out that, as RetiredAt63 put it, it would be a logistical nightmare. Particularly within the U.S. healthcare system as it currently is. Most people would not be able to get it, or get it as often as needed, and so we would basically just be living with this endemic horrible illness. Beyond all of the health implications, since this is a money blog, what on earth would that do to our economy? That seems like a collapse situation to me. There's no way our system could handle people being out of work that long at random times during outbreaks, the number of hospitalizations, the rolling lockdowns, and the medical bills. We just couldn't.
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier. And no matter what, even if we locked down while I was typing this, our deaths would be a minimum of 123,223 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries).
Instead we're choosing fuck-all and, if not precisely a collapse scenario, then at least one where the "greatest and best nation on earth" is severely diminished on the world stage. Between Trump and now this, no one is looking to us as leaders.
-
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier.
Will thankfully never happen, and it shouldn't. The costs involved would be astronomical. Real economic devastation and the long term financial/health costs would be incalculable. The costs would last at least a generation.
-
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier.
Will thankfully never happen, and it shouldn't. The costs involved would be astronomical. Real economic devastation and the long term financial/health costs would be incalculable. The costs would last at least a generation.
Because what's happening now isn't and won't? Because giving money essentially free to corporations through QE, bailouts, and nearly interest-free loans while letting average people go hungry (see: the crazy numbers of people relying on food banks) is a good solution?
-
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier.
Will thankfully never happen, and it shouldn't. The costs involved would be astronomical. Real economic devastation and the long term financial/health costs would be incalculable. The costs would last at least a generation.
Yeah, hundreds or thousands of people dead will be much easier to deal with.
-
The problem here is that these people showed a lack of antibodies within *months*. Are we going to get quarterly COVID vaccines?
Dengue Fever is like that, where you can get it over and over again, but there is still a vaccine. Of course, it's only 76% effective and has such bad antibody-dependent enhancement that they will only give you the vaccine after you have already had the disease. And that's how millions of people live their lives.
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier. And no matter what, even if we locked down while I was typing this, our deaths would be a minimum of 123,223 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries).
A total lockdown would never have been 100% effective in the U.S. People still need to work at power plants, keep clean water flowing, keep our food distribution system operating, etc. Millions would still have to be working outside their home unless we're all going to sit in the dark drinking water we saved up in our bathtubs while slowly starving to death and dying from other medical issues. With so many asymptomatic cases and a relatively long infectious period this is a very difficult disease to contain. Even China which was willing to go much further to lock things down ultimately is still dealing with cases continuing to pop up.
Yes we could have done better. But I don't think it was ever realistic to expect total elimination in a country as large and connected to the rest of the world as the U.S. Especially not when the virus may have been circulating earlier than we though in the U.S. potentially back in December, certainly by January.
-
Because what's happening now isn't and won't? Because giving money essentially free to corporations through QE, bailouts, and nearly interest-free loans while letting average people go hungry (see: the crazy numbers of people relying on food banks) is a good solution?
You need supply chains for people to eat. You need supply chains to make PPE. You need supply chains to make ventilators. You need supply chains to maintain transit.
I'm not convinced of your total lockdown plan.
-
Depends on what you call total lockdown. Clearly the nations that have had total lockdown have also had supply chains and health care still running.
-
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier.
Will thankfully never happen, and it shouldn't. The costs involved would be astronomical. Real economic devastation and the long term financial/health costs would be incalculable. The costs would last at least a generation.
Yeah, hundreds or thousands of people dead will be much easier to deal with.
A rent and mortgage moratorium for 300+ million people would cost, what, trillions of dollars? Leading to all sorts of economic effects and inflation, and economic devastation from lost industry. You do have to do the sums and sort out the QALY figures for the deaths that have occurred.
-
Depends on what you call total lockdown. Clearly the nations that have had total lockdown have also had supply chains and health care still running.
And how many have managed to eliminate SARS-COV-2 entirely? Two? And if they open up trade or travel they'll get it again. But yes, if you are an island this might work.
-
24 but most are small. Laos is amazing.
-
I'm at a loss at this point. Cases and deaths where I live are now surging. The curve is quite steeply going up.
There is a mandatory mask order now in place, but there is no enforcement and apparently people don't give a shit about themselves or each other, so it is just being ignored. Took a car for the required annual inspection to our local shop and I was the only one wearing a mask. The ladies who work in their indoor office and interact with the public all day inside a building? No masks. Cashiers at the grocery had masks pulled down around their neck instead of over their mouths. Several people stocking the shelves at the grocery store did not have masks at all.
So, I guess the reports above about nursing homes and the workers there don't surprise me at all. We have big brains, but, as a species, we are assholes.
Oh, and college football is ramping back up! Yay? Boots on the ground say Clemson football has now tested it's players 3 times each. First round revealed three positives. Two weeks later they are up to 23 players positive and 5 coaches (that was the report to the media), but the player we know there said there are already more cases than that. Bama reportedly has 40 players who are now positive. Roll Tide!
The only good news about this is that my son has realized that all these big football factories who are recruiting him just treat their players like cattle. He got super duper sick for 3 weeks in March, sickest I've ever seen anyone with coughing and breathing problems and fever, and his HS coach called him constantly to harass him about missing workouts. Seriously, I was worried he could die and his asshole coach was on speakerphone questioning his desire to play football. Coach then insisted that we come in to talk with him in person so I went in by myself and told him "what the fuck is wrong with you?!" More politely than that, of course, but hopefully he got the message. School shut down the next week. So now son is listening much more seriously to the Ivy league coaches that he was dismissing before. Every cloud has a silver lining.
-
I'm at a loss at this point. Cases and deaths where I live are now surging. The curve is quite steeply going up.
There is a mandatory mask order now in place, but there is no enforcement and apparently people don't give a shit about themselves or each other, so it is just being ignored. Took a car for the required annual inspection to our local shop and I was the only one wearing a mask. The ladies who work in their indoor office and interact with the public all day inside a building? No masks. Cashiers at the grocery had masks pulled down around their neck instead of over their mouths. Several people stocking the shelves at the grocery store did not have masks at all.
So, I guess the reports above about nursing homes and the workers there don't surprise me at all. We have big brains, but, as a species, we are assholes.
Oh, and college football is ramping back up! Yay? Boots on the ground say Clemson football has now tested it's players 3 times each. First round revealed three positives. Two weeks later they are up to 23 players positive and 5 coaches (that was the report to the media), but the player we know there said there are already more cases than that. Bama reportedly has 40 players who are now positive. Roll Tide!
The only good news about this is that my son has realized that all these big football factories who are recruiting him just treat their players like cattle. He got super duper sick for 3 weeks in March, sickest I've ever seen anyone with coughing and breathing problems and fever, and his HS coach called him constantly to harass him about missing workouts. Seriously, I was worried he could die and his asshole coach was on speakerphone questioning his desire to play football. Coach then insisted that we come in to talk with him in person so I went in by myself and told him "what the fuck is wrong with you?!" More politely than that, of course, but hopefully he got the message. School shut down the next week. So now son is listening much more seriously to the Ivy league coaches that he was dismissing before. Every cloud has a silver lining.
In the most Alabama press conference ever, Gov. MeeMaw talked about saving the football and then quoted a bible verse. And no one listened. Maybe if Saban came out and told everyone to wear masks then they would listen. The mayor of Tuscaloosa came out recently and said that the city absolutely can't survive the loss of a football season.
-
A total/complete US lockdown would never have worked for the exact reason we saw TP, Hand Sanitizer, Disinfectant, and Canned GOod shortages - the supply chains, for better or worse, are not equipped to handle such a massive shift in consumer demand.
Most major food and consumer product companies operate under Lean principles, especially 'Just-in-time' manufacturing - companies only make exactly the amount of things that they expect to be demanded by consumers, when the consumers are expected to demand them.
But it's not just food companies or TP manufacturers, it's anything that relies on more than one intermediary between the raw material (even vegetables/fruits) and the consumer. You can't suddenly just wash harvest, wash, sort, and package 10x the amount of apples required to supply the nation for 2 months' lockdown and then close the apple orchards, sorting facilities, and warehouses!
There was a point in history where companies would keep a much bigger inventory buffer because we never had anything like predictive analytics or real time consumer trend data. Companies could also start up a production run much faster and turn product around to the consumer much sooner than now - there were hardly the same number of regulations and standards that had to be adhered to decades ago. Those same standards and regulations are what have driven down foodborne illness and faulty products to incredibly low numbers today.
We couldn't shut down the country, because the simple fact is that we would run out of food. You could probably park RV's outside every power plant, water treatment facility, etc. and have crews of essential workers living onsite. You could probably have nurses and doctors live in hotels for 2 months that are carefully monitored and cleaned. But even if you were to identify a list of all the food and consumer product manufacturers, the list of people that are absolutely essential to keeping those supply chains running is in the millions. You'll need the line worker, quality supervisor, mechanic, janitor, shift lead, lab tech, truck driver, warehouse picker, etc. etc. All those people will need gas, and food, and the list just balloons. And that's just food! The same thing goes for medial supplies, drugs, consumer products, etc. etc.
Maybe something would change in the future. Maybe we'll figure out a way to have strategic stockpiles of MRE's or keep more canned goods in warehouses, or how to keep supply chains running with a skeleton crew and keep those people away from the rest of a population if/when another Covid rears its head. But to say "We should have shut down the country" is a very naive and uninformed post-mortem.
-
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier.
Will thankfully never happen, and it shouldn't. The costs involved would be astronomical. Real economic devastation and the long term financial/health costs would be incalculable. The costs would last at least a generation.
Because what's happening now isn't and won't? Because giving money essentially free to corporations through QE, bailouts, and nearly interest-free loans while letting average people go hungry (see: the crazy numbers of people relying on food banks) is a good solution?
That tends to be an affect of shutting down millions of workplaces putting those people out of work. Suicides and domestic violence also tend to increase. A nationwide lockdown would not make that any better. The time to lock down was in January, when they could have been very localized, but we were too busy with impeachment. It's endemic now.
-
A total/complete US lockdown would never have worked for the exact reason we saw TP, Hand Sanitizer, Disinfectant, and Canned GOod shortages - the supply chains, for better or worse, are not equipped to handle such a massive shift in consumer demand.
Most major food and consumer product companies operate under Lean principles, especially 'Just-in-time' manufacturing - companies only make exactly the amount of things that they expect to be demanded by consumers, when the consumers are expected to demand them.
But it's not just food companies or TP manufacturers, it's anything that relies on more than one intermediary between the raw material (even vegetables/fruits) and the consumer. You can't suddenly just wash harvest, wash, sort, and package 10x the amount of apples required to supply the nation for 2 months' lockdown and then close the apple orchards, sorting facilities, and warehouses!
There was a point in history where companies would keep a much bigger inventory buffer because we never had anything like predictive analytics or real time consumer trend data. Companies could also start up a production run much faster and turn product around to the consumer much sooner than now - there were hardly the same number of regulations and standards that had to be adhered to decades ago. Those same standards and regulations are what have driven down foodborne illness and faulty products to incredibly low numbers today.
We couldn't shut down the country, because the simple fact is that we would run out of food. You could probably park RV's outside every power plant, water treatment facility, etc. and have crews of essential workers living onsite. You could probably have nurses and doctors live in hotels for 2 months that are carefully monitored and cleaned. But even if you were to identify a list of all the food and consumer product manufacturers, the list of people that are absolutely essential to keeping those supply chains running is in the millions. You'll need the line worker, quality supervisor, mechanic, janitor, shift lead, lab tech, truck driver, warehouse picker, etc. etc. All those people will need gas, and food, and the list just balloons. And that's just food! The same thing goes for medial supplies, drugs, consumer products, etc. etc.
Maybe something would change in the future. Maybe we'll figure out a way to have strategic stockpiles of MRE's or keep more canned goods in warehouses, or how to keep supply chains running with a skeleton crew and keep those people away from the rest of a population if/when another Covid rears its head. But to say "We should have shut down the country" is a very naive and uninformed post-mortem.
THIS!
We gave our best shot at it for 2 months, and at some point we had to begin manufacturing, seeing, doing business, trading, building treating and whatever else was on pause. Because we are not a communist country we can't just suspend all laws and detain people for going outside on a federal level. I dislike Trump, but people are blaming him for lacking the federal power to mandate things that can only be given as guidelines at the state, county or local level. Unlike in China where they only allowed 1 person out of the house every 3-4 days for food under threat of being arrested (or possibly just disappearing). The same China that welded people's apartment complex doors shut once too many people in the complex had COVID. People on this forum banging on about how that would have been better might suddenly have found themselves disagreeing once their designated day to go to the grocery store or the pharmacy didn't get them their lifesaving supplies or their door got welded shut. Or imagine having no food in any of the stores and then waiting in a 600 person long line to receive rice. It happened there. People in the US waited in long lines at the food bank (due to lack of $$), but there was still food because the supply chains were only somewhat messed up. In China where the roads were barricaded there was very little availability for food to come inside Wuhan.
So China did all that, squashed the curve, waited until it was safe to re-open and STILL are having major hotspot problems in other cities months later. Personally I'll take the world where I was allowed to leave my home.
Also, as a nation we employ workers, we don't own them. We can't compel our essential workers to live in hotels and not expect them to quit. Those nursing home workers make $12 an hour and wipe grandma's drool and ass. They get frequent injuries from lifting patients who are bedridden. But yes, lets harass them for not being mandated to give up their lives because we want the security of someone else taking care of our elderly 24/7 because "its just too hard". But don't pay them more.
The people talking about "how things should be" (without doing the realistic post mortems you mentioned Chemistk) appear to be stuck in a mindset of just expecting things to be better by wishing for them. If that had worked we would have wished the virus away long before it reached this level. Wishes don't do much. Being realistic about science, economics, laws and policy is much more helpful but those sitting in their homes wringing their hands don't want to be practical. Its easier just to blame people. It makes people think they have more power than they do against the virus.
-
Going back to my point that we should have done a nation-wide lockdown early on, with heroic measures to keep people propped up (delivering food, stimulus checks, rent and mortgage moratoriums, debt forgiveness, etc.) for the two months it would take. But since we didn't do that before we should do it now, only this time it's going to be a lot more painful precisely because we didn't do it earlier.
Will thankfully never happen, and it shouldn't. The costs involved would be astronomical. Real economic devastation and the long term financial/health costs would be incalculable. The costs would last at least a generation.
Yeah, hundreds or thousands of people dead will be much easier to deal with.
A rent and mortgage moratorium for 300+ million people would cost, what, trillions of dollars? Leading to all sorts of economic effects and inflation, and economic devastation from lost industry. You do have to do the sums and sort out the QALY figures for the deaths that have occurred.
You come across as the kind of guy who'd be touting the economic benefits of the Holocaust if we were in the 1930s.
-
Personally I'll take the world where I was allowed to leave my home.
Being realistic about science, economics, laws and policy is much more helpful but those sitting in their homes wringing their hands don't want to be practical. Its easier just to blame people. It makes people think they have more power than they do against the virus.
Spot on. Wish I could "like" this post.
-
Figures are out from the IMF today https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/06/24/WEOUpdateJune2020 of what they predict as the fall out. It's interesting that the countries who hit the lockdown hard appear to be the ones that are expected to have LESS effects on their economy in the coming couple of years.
-
We gave our best shot at it for 2 months, and at some point we had to begin manufacturing, seeing, doing business, trading, building treating and whatever else was on pause.
I'm sorry that was your 'best shot'.
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot. And their supposed 'shutdowns' weren't as extensive as China's.
This is a shitshow for so very many nations and people, but for the 'leader of the free world' (country, not Pres) there are other/ additional things that could have been done (and still could be), and done better, and throwing up your hands / proclaiming 'gave it our best shot' is just risible (in a tragic, non-funny way).
ETA: Sorry for the snark, especially given that so many are suffering, but I'm beyond frustrated that so much disinformation and so many bad faith arguments are being employed in so many places.
-
We gave our best shot at it for 2 months, and at some point we had to begin manufacturing, seeing, doing business, trading, building treating and whatever else was on pause.
I'm sorry that was your 'best shot'.
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot. And their supposed 'shutdowns' weren't as extensive as China's.
This is a shitshow for so very many nations and people, but for the 'leader of the free world' (country, not Pres) there are other/ additional things that could have been done (and still could be), and done better, and throwing up your hands / proclaiming 'gave it our best shot' is just risible (in a tragic, non-funny way).
Agree.
Also, please don’t make statements about how it’s like in China unless you are actually in China experiencing all of this. Wherever you are getting your information about what is going on in China is extremely biased. I’m actually in China now and have been in China for nine years, and what you described in your post is not accurate. It may be happening here and there, but I can promise you that the gates of my complex have not been welded shut, and that the majority of the people here have freedom to move about and go about their daily life.
-
That was quite the strawman you guys set up there. Really quickly too, well done.
I never said we should have a "total lockdown". Of course we need people to keep water running and all of that. And there were plans in place for how to keep things running in such a situation! We had them! There was a whole fuckin' playbook left by the Obama administration! For what? To what end?
And seriously, that was our best shot at a lockdown? A half-assed, poorly planned, state-by-state response? It wasn't long enough. Non-essential travel wasn't restricted. Rules weren't enforced. We were given SHIT advice by the administration, which still changes pretty much daily and constantly contradicts what actual epidemiologists and doctors are telling us to do. This was a terrible response. My DOG could have done a better job at coordinating a lockdown.* If you think that was a good response to this...well. There's no argument because you're just going to think what you want to think rather than looking at the clear evidence of what other countries did that worked.
Who said it should have been done in January? YES. At the very least we should have a) restricted travel faster and harder than we did (more countries) and b) had someone who's not an incompetent nincompoop in the WH, ignoring his own fucking intelligence agencies and the CDC who were saying this was a big deal. Those two items alone would have helped enormously.
But don't worry--they're shutting down more testing sites (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-federal-government-to-end-funding-some-covid-19-test-sites.html?__source=sharebar%7Cfacebook&par=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR2A1S1x2qdFuv_c3hJ7ehLgORVSEf-M66Iw2IW-SRWLuU0YKun_MaDTfN0) so now we'll know even less about how bad things are really getting in the U.S. Can't wait! Apparently when the orange phlegm wad said he wanted less testing it turns out he wasn't joking, as many of his defenders claimed.
*But seriously, he has anxiety and doesn't like to be far from home. More people should be like him right now.
-
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot.
Quite a few countries had real world experience with SARs and already had testing, tracing, and PPE on day one. That could have been us if George W Bush, Obama, or Trump had prepared us.
-
That was quite the strawman you guys set up there. Really quickly too, well done.
I didn't mean to lambaste you for a particular line of thought - my earlier post (about the unrealistic expectations around shutting down the whole country completely) was addressed toward anyone who could be reading (or is otherwise curious) about how unfathomable it would be to do so in our current climate. I do not assume you hold these views or are naive to the realities that we face in our country's inflexibility.
In general, I also agree with you in that we could have done a heck of a better job. I think much of this particular flavor of the discussion has been carried out in the earlier sections of the Covid threads, so I won't elaborate further.
-
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot.
Quite a few countries had real world experience with SARs and already had testing, tracing, and PPE on day one. That could have been us if George W Bush, Obama, or Trump had prepared us.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/towards_epidemic_prediction-federal_efforts_and_opportunities.pdf
-
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot.
Quite a few countries had real world experience with SARs and already had testing, tracing, and PPE on day one. That could have been us if George W Bush, Obama, or Trump had prepared us.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/towards_epidemic_prediction-federal_efforts_and_opportunities.pdf
Yeah, I call bullshit on the blaming previous presidents. The US had preparations in place. The stupid man currently leading the US dismantled them and ignored his experts.
Thanks Obama!
-
I'm at a loss at this point. Cases and deaths where I live are now surging. The curve is quite steeply going up. . .
Oh, and college football is ramping back up! Yay? Boots on the ground say Clemson football has now tested it's players 3 times each. First round revealed three positives. Two weeks later they are up to 23 players positive and 5 coaches (that was the report to the media), but the player we know there said there are already more cases than that. Bama reportedly has 40 players who are now positive. Roll Tide!
In the most Alabama press conference ever, Gov. MeeMaw talked about saving the football and then quoted a bible verse. And no one listened. Maybe if Saban came out and told everyone to wear masks then they would listen. The mayor of Tuscaloosa came out recently and said that the city absolutely can't survive the loss of a football season.
Lol Gov. MeeMaw! She totally is that! You are right that Saban is the only person who could scold Bama fans into behaving properly and get them to listen. Fortunately for the fans, pretty much all of the COVID-positive players are asymptomatic from what I am hearing. Doesn't mean they will stay that way or that no damage is being done to their insides, but money machine of big time football will likely carry on in any case.
-
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot.
Quite a few countries had real world experience with SARs and already had testing, tracing, and PPE on day one. That could have been us if George W Bush, Obama, or Trump had prepared us.
W did, or at least started to. It was the other two that didn't replenish the stockpile or really care that much about pandemics.
-
disclosing: I am a consistent Trump opponent, but I really try my best to set aside my biases. It feels like this problem has exposed Trump's flaws pretty badly.
- Trump consistently projects an attitude of not wanting to test people because the numbers might make him look bad
- Trump put Mike Pence in charge of the Corona Virus task force instead of, you know, someone with infectious disease expertise
- Trump did implement that Travel ban, but it was only for non-US citizens, and Trump's bans look an awful lot like immigration policy he's wanted all along
- Trump has consistently disinvested in resources and personnel that would have been useful during this pandemic
- Trump shows poor discipline in his messaging, promoting Hydroxychloroquine, the bleach thing, etc.
- Trump's disregard for the safety of people who wish to appear at his own political events, including the Tulsa rally and the RNC
- I've made an exhaustive search, and I cannot find any evidence of Trump expressing empathy for the 120,000 dead from this illness. How could a person not feel this, not be moved by this catastrophe.
It's possible to believe Trump will be better for the economy, or on law/judges than Biden. The stock market will probably not go up as fast if Biden wins in November, and it's hard to see how he can because the q3 rebound will make economic data look fantastic.
-
...
It's possible to believe Trump will be better for the economy, or on law/judges than Biden. The stock market will probably not go up as fast if Biden wins in November, and it's hard to see how he can because the q3 rebound will make economic data look fantastic.
It's far from being a foregone conclusion that Q3 will look fantastic. Texas is teetering on the brink of shutting back down, and either way, the coronavirus is headed back up in over half the US states. Hardly a backdrop for a massive rebound or anything that will look impressive YoY.
-
...
It's possible to believe Trump will be better for the economy, or on law/judges than Biden. The stock market will probably not go up as fast if Biden wins in November, and it's hard to see how he can because the q3 rebound will make economic data look fantastic.
It's far from being a foregone conclusion that Q3 will look fantastic. Texas is teetering on the brink of shutting back down, and either way, the coronavirus is headed back up in over half the US states. Hardly a backdrop for a massive rebound or anything that will look impressive YoY.
On top of that, the pandemic is directly changing voter demographics. The pandemic has already killed 3000 people in Florida alone. How would that have affected the 2000 election of this had happened then? The chances of this election also being really close is pretty good.
-
The only reasonable answer about Florida in 2000 is that everything affects it. Every single thing. it was a perfect example of a close election in which our abilities to produce an accurate count were not up to the task.
Of course, saying that the vote count was essentially a tie is not the same thing as saying that the election should have been: Had the Supreme Court not intervened, the Florida legislature would most likely have, and awarded the electoral votes to Bush anyway.
You may suspect from my username that I was living in Texas at the time, and this is true. However, I recently listened to an excellent podcast called "Fiasco" by Leon Neyfakh about this Florida issue, and it was enlightening.
-
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot.
Quite a few countries had real world experience with SARs and already had testing, tracing, and PPE on day one. That could have been us if George W Bush, Obama, or Trump had prepared us.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/towards_epidemic_prediction-federal_efforts_and_opportunities.pdf
Quite a few countries around the world seem to have done considerably better by a long shot.
Quite a few countries had real world experience with SARs and already had testing, tracing, and PPE on day one. That could have been us if George W Bush, Obama, or Trump had prepared us.
W did, or at least started to. It was the other two that didn't replenish the stockpile or really care that much about pandemics.
Both of these efforts pale in comparison to what Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea accomplished. Of course it helps that they all have functional federal bureaucracies and health care systems.
-
It's hard to see how Q3 will be amazing when we're still getting nearly 1.5 million new jobless claims each week (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/1-48-million-people-filed-first-time-unemployment-last-week-n1232090?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR0WVWtMFBZkJ5TWpOzTB3UUg0nlovFCH2KZVBy6EC0GjSpMA1Z47T4PVog) in the midst of reopening everything. Pardon me if I don't think that seems like it's setting up a V-shaped or even U-shaped recovery.
Just because the stock market is still flying high doesn't mean the economy is doing well. Isn't the stock market a lagging indicator in the economy (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laggingindicator.asp#:~:text=Other%20lagging%20indicators%20are%20economic,to%20forecast%20and%20make%20predictions.)?
-
A friend of mine likes to call it the "rich people feelings graph"
-
My mother wants to go on a roadtrip with my grandmother to visit some family members who might not even appreciate the visit. She thinks it's okay because the retirement home is now permitting departures up to 24 hours. As if a virus wears a stopwatch...
And she wants me to come along. To sit in a car for eight hours, and combine three households in a single car. No, I don't think so. Not fun, not worth it, not safe.
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
If it were me, I would only visit them while outdoors, at a distance of a few feet (no contact). They can stay in a hotel, especially as that's probably what your SIL would have done on her vacation anyway. That's entirely their choice; if they could be trusted to respect you and your children and self-isolate for 14 days beforehand, it would be a different story.
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
If it were me, I would only visit them while outdoors, at a distance of a few feet (no contact). They can stay in a hotel, especially as that's probably what your SIL would have done on her vacation anyway. That's entirely their choice; if they could be trusted to respect you and your children and self-isolate for 14 days beforehand, it would be a different story.
Agree with this. You need to protect yourselves. So: that means that you need to CLEARLY DEFINE the parameters by which you will see them if they CHOOSE to come. That is their choice. Your choice will be to have them stay elsewhere, only see them outdoors, socially distanced.
You are not saying they can't come. You're saying what your limits are.
It's always good to remember at these moments: NO is a complete sentence.
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
If it were me, I would only visit them while outdoors, at a distance of a few feet (no contact). They can stay in a hotel, especially as that's probably what your SIL would have done on her vacation anyway. That's entirely their choice; if they could be trusted to respect you and your children and self-isolate for 14 days beforehand, it would be a different story.
Agree with this. You need to protect yourselves. So: that means that you need to CLEARLY DEFINE the parameters by which you will see them if they CHOOSE to come. That is their choice. Your choice will be to have them stay elsewhere, only see them outdoors, socially distanced.
You are not saying they can't come. You're saying what your limits are.
It's always good to remember at these moments: NO is a complete sentence.
This. I would feel very emotionally invalidated and consequently in a sour mood if my family violated my boundaries like this.
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
If I were you I would just say no they can't come stay with you. They'll get over it. They are family and they will forgive you. Maybe you can say "Normally I would love for you to visit but in the current circumstances we are socially isolating and not accommodating guests. After this whole thing is over and we're vaccinated we should all plan a family reunion". Or you could say your child's doctor recommends you to isolate for her/his safety.
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
If I were you I would just say no they can't come stay with you. They'll get over it. They are family and they will forgive you. Maybe you can say "Normally I would love for you to visit but in the current circumstances we are socially isolating and not accommodating guests. After this whole thing is over and we're vaccinated we should all plan a family reunion". Or you could say your child's doctor recommends you to isolate for her/his safety.
That last one--if your family is going to get bent out of shape by you wanting to set up guidelines and rules I would shamelessly use your child's ill health, since that is actually a big part of why you're setting up those rules. Remind them that you're trying to keep a child alive and out of the hospital. No one wants your kid to have to go to the hospital, right?
And if you need further bolstering, there are added risks to you as well (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/health/coronavirus-pregnant-risks-cdc-study/index.html). There have been abnormalities in the placentas (https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-placenta-injury-pregnancy.html) of pregnant women who contracted COVID, though thankfully I haven't heard of any babies who've been harmed by it.
Good luck. It's so difficult navigating all of these issues, and especially hard when the people you love won't take basic commonsense harm reduction strategies seriously.
-
Thank you all. You provided validation to what I was already thinking and good points that I can use when talking to them. You guys are the best!
-
Not to try and scare you, but a cousin of mine in her 30s and otherwise healthy co reacted COVID and ended up on a vent. She did survive and is home now, but the stress on her body caused her to lose a very wanted 2nd tri pregnancy.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
We could have a whole thread about how well predictions in the older threads aged.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
I may have an unpopular opinion but I still see the US on the first wave. It feels like it just moved from one location to others but not that it ever truly went down significantly/left. Perhaps that is how we say we won't have a second wave - just have an insanely long first wave until there is a vaccine or we have some other form of immunity. My area is just starting to get cases increasing but the numbers still are low as we are a rural area. I expect our numbers to start jumping once schools/colleges are back in session.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
2/3 ain't bad. Pobody's perfect.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
2/3 ain't bad. Pobody's perfect.
It may be 1/3 soon with England acting like this (https://www.cnn.com/videos/travel/2020/06/25/europe-uk-major-incident-coronavirus-germany-robertson-tsr-vpx.cnn).
Are we counting the entire UK, though? Because in Scotland they're apparently crushing it. And probably wishing, between this and Brexit, that they had voted to leave the UK a few years ago after all.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
We don't have a second wave.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
2/3 ain't bad. Pobody's perfect.
The second wave seems to be starting in australia in Melbourne.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
2/3 ain't bad. Pobody's perfect.
The second wave seems to be starting in australia in Melbourne.
No, Melbourne is still getting rid of the first wave.
-
There's not going to be a second wave in the States, or UK, or Australia. That ship has sailed.
This aged well. Although UK and Aus appear to be doing ok, so... partial credit?
2/3 ain't bad. Pobody's perfect.
I can't help but think of the movie "Mars Attacks!" where Jack Nicholson is talking to the American people after Martians killed all the Congressmen saying, "We still have two out of three branches of the Federal government and that ain't bad!"
-
I recently read about two studies that indicated that after getting over covid-19, antibodies appear to drop off considerably within 3-4 months. It varied depending on the patient's response (severity of symptoms), but this early study indicated that people may be able to get the virus again within 3-4 months. I don't know if this will impact the duration of a vaccine's ability protect from future infections, but it's concerning.
I have travelled enough and read enough that I know Americans are not always seen in the best light. Watching how both our elected officials and a lot of our general public has and is handling this epidemic doesn't exactly make me proud as an American.
I agree with the general notion that continued economic shutdown is unrealistic, but I also think we could do a much better job of mitigating our risk of spreading the virus. Even if you don't believe masks are very effective, I don't understand why people can't or won't wear them in public. Even worse, here in Florida, they often won't even respect the 6 ft social distancing and when you call them out, they get offended. The arrogant/ignorant North American stereotype personified. We are over 120,000 deaths in the US, even if this number is inflated by less than accurate reporting, what number will it take to get people to take this more seriously?
-
I recently read about two studies that indicated that after getting over covid-19, antibodies appear to drop off considerably within 3-4 months. It varied depending on the patient's response (severity of symptoms), but this early study indicated that people may be able to get the virus again within 3-4 months. I don't know if this will impact the duration of a vaccine's ability protect from future infections, but it's concerning.
I have travelled enough and read enough that I know Americans are not always seen in the best light. Watching how both our elected officials and a lot of our general public has and is handling this epidemic doesn't exactly make me proud as an American.
I agree with the general notion that continued economic shutdown is unrealistic, but I also think we could do a much better job of mitigating our risk of spreading the virus. Even if you don't believe masks are very effective, I don't understand why people can't or won't wear them in public. Even worse, here in Florida, they often won't even respect the 6 ft social distancing and when you call them out, they get offended. The arrogant/ignorant North American stereotype personified. We are over 120,000 deaths in the US, even if this number is inflated by less than accurate reporting, what number will it take to get people to take this more seriously?
I actually think the bigger the number gets, the more abstract and unreal and unthreatening it is going to seem to many people, psychologically, until such time as a critical mass of people actually know someone personally affected. ETA, and maybe not even then, if the people they know were asymptomatic young people.
-
I recently read about two studies that indicated that after getting over covid-19, antibodies appear to drop off considerably within 3-4 months. It varied depending on the patient's response (severity of symptoms), but this early study indicated that people may be able to get the virus again within 3-4 months. I don't know if this will impact the duration of a vaccine's ability protect from future infections, but it's concerning.
One study I saw had that result for asymptomatic people. People who got sick had antibodies for longer. But really, at this point there are so many variables that the only certain thing to say is that we need more studies, from a bunch of countries, over a longer period of time.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
Curious - type 1 or 2? Type 1 is autoimmune, and type 2 is genetics, plus age/diet/stress, and steroids can really mess things up (hopefully temporarily).
-
Isn't it still to early to declare some countries "winners" or "losers"? Sure NZ or Vietnam look good now, but what if we're only in the top of the 2nd inning. By this time next year, maybe .5%-1% of every country's population may have died from it.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
Curious - type 1 or 2? Type 1 is autoimmune, and type 2 is genetics, plus age/diet/stress, and steroids can really mess things up (hopefully temporarily).
I am also VERY curious about this. I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
Curious - type 1 or 2? Type 1 is autoimmune, and type 2 is genetics, plus age/diet/stress, and steroids can really mess things up (hopefully temporarily).
I am also VERY curious about this. I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.
I don't know. I don't know if the family knows yet. The inflammation from a major infection can certainly trigger autoimmune disease in someone who is susceptible (disclaimer: I have a doctorate in immunology and received some training from a rheumatoid arthritis expert). For example, I developed active celiac disease after having H1N1 flu.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
Curious - type 1 or 2? Type 1 is autoimmune, and type 2 is genetics, plus age/diet/stress, and steroids can really mess things up (hopefully temporarily).
I am also VERY curious about this. I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.
I don't know. I don't know if the family knows yet. The inflammation from a major infection can certainly trigger autoimmune disease in someone who is susceptible (disclaimer: I have a doctorate in immunology and received some training from a rheumatoid arthritis expert). For example, I developed active celiac disease after having H1N1 flu.
Type 1 is what doctors are running into. COVID is going after beta cells in the body, which are responsible for producing insulin.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
Curious - type 1 or 2? Type 1 is autoimmune, and type 2 is genetics, plus age/diet/stress, and steroids can really mess things up (hopefully temporarily).
I am also VERY curious about this. I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.
This scares me tremendously. I already have an autoimmune disease and had some odd side effects from my very mild case of the flu this spring. And once you have one autoimmune disease, my endo said it is common to cross into another. With having family history of additional autoimmune diseases and diabetes, I’d be one of the “lucky” ones to add a really fun consequence if I get COVID.
My coworker has a much scarier autoimmune disorder than I do. She had mild symptoms for years (when she looks back) but after she had sepsis, her symptoms were off the charts and caused significant issues in her ability to maintain the job she had. She’s now changed fields completely and still struggles with painful flares that effect her daily life and limit what she can do.
-
Interesting review of the aftermath of coronavirus... I'd heard of diabetes as a risk factor, but diabetes also seems to be showing up for the first time after covid infection.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-doctors-know-so-far-about-the-lingering-symptoms-of-coronavirus
Happened to a friend's mother. She wasn't diabetic before COVID-19.
Curious - type 1 or 2? Type 1 is autoimmune, and type 2 is genetics, plus age/diet/stress, and steroids can really mess things up (hopefully temporarily).
I am also VERY curious about this. I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.
This scares me tremendously. I already have an autoimmune disease and had some odd side effects from my very mild case of the flu this spring. And once you have one autoimmune disease, my endo said it is common to cross into another. With having family history of additional autoimmune diseases and diabetes, I’d be one of the “lucky” ones to add a really fun consequence if I get COVID.
My coworker has a much scarier autoimmune disorder than I do. She had mild symptoms for years (when she looks back) but after she had sepsis, her symptoms were off the charts and caused significant issues in her ability to maintain the job she had. She’s now changed fields completely and still struggles with painful flares that effect her daily life and limit what she can do.
Yes, I also have two confirmed autoimmune disorders (both mild, thankfully) and also experienced a truly scary period of crazy symptoms several years ago that have never been explained nor diagnosed, though testing (mostly) ruled out a bunch of the really bad stuff, including MS, RA, lupus, polymyositis, guillain-barre, and myasthenia gravis. I had multiple symptoms that fit all those possibilities. I suspect that a slight chest cold I had that barely bothered me at the time, just happened to set things off a couple weeks later.
It took almost 6 months for the symptoms to subside completely and I was partially disabled for a couple months. I still have no concrete answers as to what happened to me, and I worry about it happening again. I want NO part of Covid19.
-
Half of the people I live next to / with have pretty much given up on being careful, it's stressful. I don't know how to keep safe anymore but hopefully if I keep wearing masks in public and washing my hands I can at least protect someone else out there if I do end up getting covid and don't realize it.
-
Two of my sibs also have multiple autoimmune disorders. (Thankfully mild, as these things go.) The fact that having one autoimmune disorder puts you at risk for others is something that both of their doctors have talked to them about.
A friend of mine actually got Guillain-Barre Syndrome after having either the chicken pox or scarlet fever as a kid. Has one major lifelong affliction (an anaphelactic allergy to a common food) and IBS-like issues due to that. She's terrified of what might happen if she got COVID.
For my part, I just have a history of blood clotting issues, a family history of autoimmune diseases, and type A blood (https://www.livescience.com/why-covid-19-coronavirus-deadly-for-some-people.html). What could go wrong? /s
All of us appear like healthy young people. We exercise. We eat well. We're at healthy weights. But we're still at risk. I wish more people understood that the "vulnerable" population is far greater than they think it is. So many people still operate under the idea that it's "just grandma" we'd be sacrificing. (Apparently they also don't care about their grandmothers.) So they don't wear masks, and they don't distance, and they get annoyed that someone else could call them out for it because, c'mon, you don't look like I could kill you by coughing on you!
-
My mom is coming to visit for 5 days at the end of July. I’ve lived in my current state for 11 years and she has never visited before, but this time around she is actually coming, when there is a pandemic going on. She doesn’t social distance or believe in masks and we have toyed with the idea of asking her to quarantine herself for 2 weeks prior to her visit, but I know she won’t do it and bringing it up will just piss her off.
Then yesterday SIL called and said since her vacation got cancelled she and her husband will be taking a road trip from IN to ND, SD, MT, and they want to swing through CO to stay with us for a few days. They would arrive the day my mom leaves and stay 2-3 days before heading home.
We love our family and we really miss them, but we cancelled our summer plans to visit them for a reason. It isn’t safe to travel right now. We have a baby with complex medical issues and I’m pregnant again. But the others don’t see the problem. Luckily neither of them are from counties that have had huge case loads, but they could pick it up in the airport / on the road trip and then bring it into our house :(
If I were you I would just say no they can't come stay with you. They'll get over it. They are family and they will forgive you. Maybe you can say "Normally I would love for you to visit but in the current circumstances we are socially isolating and not accommodating guests. After this whole thing is over and we're vaccinated we should all plan a family reunion". Or you could say your child's doctor recommends you to isolate for her/his safety.
On my wife's side of the family, we are going through this right now. We'd decided to pull the plug on a three-household trip in August. The three households are visiting now. It's pretty clear to us that one of the other two--who live in a low-density area of Missouri--just aren't taking this virus seriously. Where they live, it may be more reasonable to do so, but the vacation we're cancelling would have taken place in Florida, a state that currently seems determined to ignore this virus and focus on opening their economy, and I'm grateful to not have to manage the virus there with these naifs.
-
There are people out there (my brother and sister in law, for example...the ones who both work in nursing homes) who simply ignore the realities and proceed with their vacation plans, share close quarters with extended family members (who don't normally share a living space) and think it's safe "because we're family".
Their kids are getting in the car and going places with their friends and their parents are driving them...closed spaces...inside cars...and then go on vacation with extended family sharing close quarters and thing it's ok "because we're family" (see paragraph above).
It is maddening. Absolutely maddening. There is NO shortage of public service announcements regarding COVID-19 on the radio, on television, on the news, so on and so forth... they say they're concerned and taking it seriously but their actions show they are seriously "cavalier"... that is the word that seems to be best describe their actions..."cavalier"... they feel invincible and I personally think it's because they make a lot of money and can normally buy solutions to whatever twinge of inconvenience they normally feel. Money can't protect them when they run around acting cavalier.
But like I said before, they'll probably come out of this unscathed after completely flouting the guidelines for the duration... whereas I'll probably get it the one time I go to the grocery store and I'll be f***ed because I have an autoimmune disease!
Cavalier!
-
Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.
-
1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.
-
1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.
I haven't looked at the latest IFR projections by age, but from what I recall it stratifies very heavily towards 70+. The IFR last time I looked was less than the flu if you are under 21, and slightly worse than the flu if you are 21-30 (still far below 0.1%). For the 30-50 cohort, it was ~ 0.05-0.2%. Then it starts rising fairly rapidly. So if you are under the age of 60, 1 out of 400 is probably conservative.
-
1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.
I haven't looked at the latest IFR projections by age, but from what I recall it stratifies very heavily towards 70+. The IFR last time I looked was less than the flu if you are under 21, and slightly worse than the flu if you are 21-30 (still far below 0.1%). For the 30-50 cohort, it was ~ 0.05-0.2%. Then it starts rising fairly rapidly. So if you are under the age of 60, 1 out of 400 is probably conservative.
Where are you getting your data from? The only study I'm aware of that calculates age-specific IFRs (as opposed to CFRs) is a pre-print and the data is only from Geneva, Switzerland. Doesn't seem very generalizeable, but you're right that the IFR is driven heavily by an IFR of 5.6% in the 65+ age group.
The crude IFR seems to be clustered around 1% in multiple studies.
-
Where are you getting your data from? The only study I'm aware of that calculates age-specific IFRs (as opposed to CFRs) is a pre-print and the data is only from Geneva, Switzerland. Doesn't seem very generalizeable, but you're right that the IFR is driven heavily by an IFR of 5.6% in the 65+ age group.
The crude IFR seems to be clustered around 1% in multiple studies.
About a month ago the age stratification was published. I'll see if I can dig it up. I'm sure it's been updated since. I also believe the general IFR was estimated in the 0.3-0.5%. range. The CDC estimated it at 0.3%.
Here is one source that's interesting:
(https://i.imgur.com/1TbKKXC.png)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32240634/
CFR by age (much higher than IFR, normally by an order of magnitude):
(https://i.imgur.com/C8KFEqF.png)
-
Thanks @HBFIRE. I'm wondering what will happen when we have reliable U.S. based seroprevalence studies to inform true IFR estimates, especially using U.S. data, since we have some unique risk factors for severe COVID (high obesity rates in particular).
-
My family is more relaxed about this than I but still pretty much social distancing. My mother has only visited my grandfather once since this started from distance. My aunt that works as a nurse regularly visits my grandfather with her family but does not see it as a problem. But my mothers visits are a problem as we live in a more high risk country. The reasoning makes absolutely no sense as my mother is only going to work and to the store.
My mother told me yesterday that one of my sisters friends that works as a nurse in an ambulance had gotten covid from work and infected her husband. Her father-in-law had also got it and died. My sister is a nurse that is going back to work from a maternity leave this fall.
-
1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.
I haven't looked at the latest IFR projections by age, but from what I recall it stratifies very heavily towards 70+. The IFR last time I looked was less than the flu if you are under 21, and slightly worse than the flu if you are 21-30 (still far below 0.1%). For the 30-50 cohort, it was ~ 0.05-0.2%. Then it starts rising fairly rapidly. So if you are under the age of 60, 1 out of 400 is probably conservative.
I was assuming that you are an adult and that your father in law is thus at least 50. For someone of that age or greater I think 1/400 is pretty optimistic.
-
Ah yes, everyone is over it. But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.
I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?
-
Ah yes, everyone is over it. But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.
I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?
At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?
-
Ah yes, everyone is over it. But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.
I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?
At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?
Very few people in my community wear masks. I'm surprised at how few elderly people are wearing them at the grocery store.
-
Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.
The odds of dying from going to a restaurant or from going on vacation with members of your extended family are very different from the odds of dying once you already have the disease, since there's a much less than 100% chance that you'll contract the disease from interacting with a particular person.
For example, in my county roughly 1 out of 4,000 residents tested positive for COVID last week. If I go have dinner at a random friend's house, assuming that friend leads a lifestyle with perfectly average COVID risk, I might then have a 1 out of 4,000 chance of contracting the disease.
Based on the data @HBFIRE posted above, someone in my age bracket has roughly a 1 in 30 chance of getting seriously ill once they have the disease, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying. So by visiting my friend I might have a 1 in 120,000 (4,000 x 30) chance of getting seriously ill and a 1 in 1.6 million chance of dying. If it was just me we're talking about I'd take those odds every day. No matter what happens I'm not going to see another 1.6 million days on this Earth, or even 120,000.
The problem is it's not just me we're talking about. Look at a 70-year-old who has more like 1 in 6 odds of becoming seriously ill, put them in a grocery store with 25 other people who aren't wearing masks or caring about physical distancing, and they might be taking a 1 in 1000 chance of serious illness just from getting groceries with today's relatively low case numbers. As more low-risk people like me decide to go around eating dinner at friends' houses knowing they have little to fear personally, those case numbers are going to increase. Even a ten-fold increase wouldn't make me fear for myself going to one friend's house (1 in 12,000 odds of serious illness are still not really that bad), but bumping that senior citizen's chance of illness buying groceries up to a 1% chance is really a pretty terrible thing. That's why I limit my social contact and wear a mask. It's not me I'm worried about. The amount of disregard people are showing for others in their community is pretty saddening.
-
If 1 in 4000 tested positive last week, there would be many more people in your county who are infectious.
-
Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.
The odds of dying from going to a restaurant or from going on vacation with members of your extended family are very different from the odds of dying once you already have the disease, since there's a much less than 100% chance that you'll contract the disease from interacting with a particular person.
For example, in my county roughly 1 out of 4,000 residents tested positive for COVID last week. If I go have dinner at a random friend's house, assuming that friend leads a lifestyle with perfectly average COVID risk, I might then have a 1 out of 4,000 chance of contracting the disease.
Based on the data @HBFIRE posted above, someone in my age bracket has roughly a 1 in 30 chance of getting seriously ill once they have the disease, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying. So by visiting my friend I might have a 1 in 120,000 (4,000 x 30) chance of getting seriously ill and a 1 in 1.6 million chance of dying. If it was just me we're talking about I'd take those odds every day. No matter what happens I'm not going to see another 1.6 million days on this Earth, or even 120,000.
The problem is it's not just me we're talking about. Look at a 70-year-old who has more like 1 in 6 odds of becoming seriously ill, put them in a grocery store with 25 other people who aren't wearing masks or caring about physical distancing, and they might be taking a 1 in 1000 chance of serious illness just from getting groceries with today's relatively low case numbers. As more low-risk people like me decide to go around eating dinner at friends' houses knowing they have little to fear personally, those case numbers are going to increase. Even a ten-fold increase wouldn't make me fear for myself going to one friend's house (1 in 12,000 odds of serious illness are still not really that bad), but bumping that senior citizen's chance of illness buying groceries up to a 1% chance is really a pretty terrible thing. That's why I limit my social contact and wear a mask. It's not me I'm worried about. The amount of disregard people are showing for others in their community is pretty saddening.
The math gets even more complicated, however, when you consider that the elderly's probability of dying approaches 1 as they age anyway. So how much societal restriction(insurance) should be purchased in order to avoid adding risk to someone who's already at risk due to pre-existing factors(in this case, age)? Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?
I have been limiting my social contact but trying to ramp up my outdoor social contact. People need to live, too. I can tell my mental health is suffering somewhat.
If 1 in 4000 tested positive last week, there would be many more people in your county who are infectious.
Depending on the false positive rate, which is hard to know.
-
Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.
The odds of dying from going to a restaurant or from going on vacation with members of your extended family are very different from the odds of dying once you already have the disease, since there's a much less than 100% chance that you'll contract the disease from interacting with a particular person.
For example, in my county roughly 1 out of 4,000 residents tested positive for COVID last week. If I go have dinner at a random friend's house, assuming that friend leads a lifestyle with perfectly average COVID risk, I might then have a 1 out of 4,000 chance of contracting the disease.
Based on the data @HBFIRE posted above, someone in my age bracket has roughly a 1 in 30 chance of getting seriously ill once they have the disease, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying. So by visiting my friend I might have a 1 in 120,000 (4,000 x 30) chance of getting seriously ill and a 1 in 1.6 million chance of dying. If it was just me we're talking about I'd take those odds every day. No matter what happens I'm not going to see another 1.6 million days on this Earth, or even 120,000.
The problem is it's not just me we're talking about. Look at a 70-year-old who has more like 1 in 6 odds of becoming seriously ill, put them in a grocery store with 25 other people who aren't wearing masks or caring about physical distancing, and they might be taking a 1 in 1000 chance of serious illness just from getting groceries with today's relatively low case numbers. As more low-risk people like me decide to go around eating dinner at friends' houses knowing they have little to fear personally, those case numbers are going to increase. Even a ten-fold increase wouldn't make me fear for myself going to one friend's house (1 in 12,000 odds of serious illness are still not really that bad), but bumping that senior citizen's chance of illness buying groceries up to a 1% chance is really a pretty terrible thing. That's why I limit my social contact and wear a mask. It's not me I'm worried about. The amount of disregard people are showing for others in their community is pretty saddening.
And this analysis also completely discounts the high number of people who are likely going to end up with lifelong health problems due to this. Lung damage, Type 1 diabetes, even brain damage. Sorry, even if I had zero risk factors and wasn't around anyone with any risk factors ever I STILL wouldn't want to mess around with this virus. Just the chance that I'd be one of the 2/3rds of asymptomatic cases that ends up with serious lung problems is more risk than I'm willing to take. I like being able to run and bike and dance and walk long distances too much, thanks.
This is not a virus that gets less scary the more we learn about it. And lest you think that I'm just anxious about illness in general, I got swine flu as a healthy 20-something and while it was miserable, I was fine. This one is special. This is the one people SHOULD be worried about. Not just for the fatalities, but for the longterm health implications. Particularly in a country without socialized healthcare! Are these people also brushing off the possibility of overwhelming medical bills if they get it and need care but live?
People have been pretty good about masks where I live but it actually tends to be the older people I see walking (or in yesterday's case, shuffling) around with their masks around their chins. And teenagers, but that one is slightly more understandable to me simply because of how the teenage brain works regarding risk assessment and mortality.
-
The tests around here are 94% - 97% accurate. The number of asymptotic people (and won’t be tested) is calculated to be 15%. The number of people who won’t go to get tested is reasonably high - I’d say at least 25%. The number of people who are infectious for more than a week is reasonably high, let’s say 50%.
-
Ah yes, everyone is over it. But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.
I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?
At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?
TBH, I blame, first -
the parents who threw the damn party
Then, the parents who attended the party with their kids. Some of these kids I know (in addition to the birthday girl), and they regularly hang out with their grandparents.
Not to mention...a bunch of these kids have parents my age or a bit older, so...50's. We aren't so young anymore.
-
I am also VERY curious about this. I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.
No need to wait until after.
There's a discussion I've been involved in as to whether this is simply creating an early manifestation of a underlying or undiscovered issue or whether it introduces something new. That is, are we seeing something that would've made the last five years of someone's life pretty shitty now making the last sixty-five years pretty shitty or is it that we've got a new bunch of people who are now wearing it?
-
Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?
Because they need to eat. Yeah they may be dying in the next decade anyway. That doesn't make it okay to speed up the process by negligently avoiding reasonable precautions that would help avoid exposing them to deadly viruses.
If 1 in 4000 tested positive last week, there would be many more people in your county who are infectious.
Sure. We have ramped up testing significantly in recent weeks, such that anyone with any concern should be able to go and get it checked out. The people who still don't get tested for whatever reason do increase the risk a bit compared to what I stated, just as I overstated the risk by a bit by assuming that being in a room with an infected person is guaranteed to result in you getting infected (which seems to not quite be true).
You could really drill down in any number of different ways to try and hone in on an exact number, but for most purposes a reasonable order of magnitude estimate is good enough. If the real risk is one in a million compared to two in a million or one in two million, would that really change your behavior? Probably not much. But if it gets to 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000, that can make a difference.
-
Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?
Is this a real question?
They need to eat.
Not all locations have grocery delivery or in store pickup.
Not every at risk person has people to shop for them.
Not every person lives in an area where there are services to shop for them.
My stepfather is a diabetic cancer patient in his 70s. He needs to eat. He shops usually at the two small local stores, always wears a mask, saves Walmart trips for once a month or two. But he needs to eat.
He's rural. There's no grocery delivery.
-
Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?
Is this a real question?
They need to eat.
Not all locations have grocery delivery or in store pickup.
Not every at risk person has people to shop for them.
Not every person lives in an area where there are services to shop for them.
My stepfather is a diabetic cancer patient in his 70s. He needs to eat. He shops usually at the two small local stores, always wears a mask, saves Walmart trips for once a month or two. But he needs to eat.
He's rural. There's no grocery delivery.
Thank you. Are elderly people supposed to remove themselves entirely from the world so as not to inconvenience young people even slightly?
-
Ah yes, everyone is over it. But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.
I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?
At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?
TBH, I blame, first -
the parents who threw the damn party
Then, the parents who attended the party with their kids. Some of these kids I know (in addition to the birthday girl), and they regularly hang out with their grandparents.
Not to mention...a bunch of these kids have parents my age or a bit older, so...50's. We aren't so young anymore.
I'd say that's pretty reasonable. But nobody is making the grandparents take visitors. They're adults with free will, who are choosing to see the kids/grandkids. Hopefully they're fully aware of the risks involved before making choices like that.
-
I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic. (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it). My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.
-
Keeping the elderly from contacts isn’t as simple as them staying at home!
My parents are in their 90s. They are still living at home. They both have walking frames and are frail and elderly. They both have carers who visit them each day to shower them, to clean their home, to do the grocery shopping (neither of them can lift much more than a kilogram, so getting groceries delivered isn’t enough - it needs to be put away), and the gardening. So they have a constant stream of interactions, just to live.
The carers aren’t the same people each day, and they go from home to home assisting elderly people like my parents, but also shopping for them, so they also need to interact with others in the community to do their jobs.
My parents also need to see doctors, pay bills (they don’t have credit cards, and are unlikely to be able to learn to use them now), and get things repaired. They can’t change light globes because they’re not nimble. They try to use their computer, but it constantly stops working (for instance, the keyboard drops and the batteries fall out, so they put them back in the wrong way round because they can’t see the diagram very well, so the computer stops working), so they need someone to come and fix it.
They are far better off in this arrangement than in a nursing home. We all live in Australia, where we haven’t had the enormous numbers of people dying in nursing homes (although a couple of our nursing homes have had outbreaks), but even here, the elderly with home care (like my parents) are less than half as likely to get covid19 as the elderly in nursing homes.
-
I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.
I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.
-
I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.
I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.
That's the problem, though. I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?
-
I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic. (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it). My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.
At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed. I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop. So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list. I call my dad. From the next aisle over, his phone rings. He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online. And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.
-
I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic. (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it). My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.
At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed. I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop. So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list. I call my dad. From the next aisle over, his phone rings. He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online. And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.
My MIL is one of those people for whom shopping for new fun things is her principal hobby. She just loves to go to Target and wander through the aisles looking at trinkets, or going to multiple stores for just the right sweater. When this whole thing started, my husband was routinely getting furious at her because she would call her brother (she can't drive) to pick her up from her assisted living to take her out for a day of "running errands," literally none of which were anything pressing or important. She even managed to make coronavirus an excuse for it -- she had looked up online how to make homemade hand sanitizer, which required her to run to a bunch of different stores for ingredients. Even though she admitted to my husband that she had more than enough sanitizer already and didn't need any more.
It's been quite an uphill battle with her. In fact, she's out and about today, "running errands" with her brother and then going to visit my FIL, who is in a memory care facility in a different location.
At least she wears a mask now.
-
I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic. (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it). My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.
At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed. I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop. So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list. I call my dad. From the next aisle over, his phone rings. He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online. And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.
My MIL is one of those people for whom shopping for new fun things is her principal hobby. She just loves to go to Target and wander through the aisles looking at trinkets, or going to multiple stores for just the right sweater. When this whole thing started, my husband was routinely getting furious at her because she would call her brother (she can't drive) to pick her up from her assisted living to take her out for a day of "running errands," literally none of which were anything pressing or important. She even managed to make coronavirus an excuse for it -- she had looked up online how to make homemade hand sanitizer, which required her to run to a bunch of different stores for ingredients. Even though she admitted to my husband that she had more than enough sanitizer already and didn't need any more.
It's been quite an uphill battle with her. In fact, she's out and about today, "running errands" with her brother and then going to visit my FIL, who is in a memory care facility in a different location.
At least she wears a mask now.
My mom is like this too. I don't understand this. She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop. I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip. But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to. I want to be in and out as quickly as possible. I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.
-
My mom is like this too. I don't understand this. She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop. I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip. But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to. I want to be in and out as quickly as possible. I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.
My husband is like this. He was lamenting the other day that the one thing he really misses due to covid is the ability to just go to the mall to walk around for a few hours. I told him I don't miss it at all because I would much rather walk outside. We joke that I'm an addict and he's a pusher - I can avoid buying things unless you put me in front of them and then it's hard to say no. If we go to the mall I will inevitable see something that I want and I will buy it. He can walk around the mall for 3 hours without even the slightest inclination to buy anything.
-
I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic. (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it). My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.
At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed. I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop. So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list. I call my dad. From the next aisle over, his phone rings. He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online. And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.
My MIL is one of those people for whom shopping for new fun things is her principal hobby. She just loves to go to Target and wander through the aisles looking at trinkets, or going to multiple stores for just the right sweater. When this whole thing started, my husband was routinely getting furious at her because she would call her brother (she can't drive) to pick her up from her assisted living to take her out for a day of "running errands," literally none of which were anything pressing or important. She even managed to make coronavirus an excuse for it -- she had looked up online how to make homemade hand sanitizer, which required her to run to a bunch of different stores for ingredients. Even though she admitted to my husband that she had more than enough sanitizer already and didn't need any more.
It's been quite an uphill battle with her. In fact, she's out and about today, "running errands" with her brother and then going to visit my FIL, who is in a memory care facility in a different location.
At least she wears a mask now.
My mom is like this too. I don't understand this. She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop. I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip. But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to. I want to be in and out as quickly as possible. I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.
Oh, God, yes. Me, too. I had to go to a mall last summer (I forget why -- I think it was a repair for my phone?) and damn, did I hightail it out of there as soon as I possibly could.
-
My mom is like this too. I don't understand this. She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop. I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip. But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to. I want to be in and out as quickly as possible. I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.
My husband is like this. He was lamenting the other day that the one thing he really misses due to covid is the ability to just go to the mall to walk around for a few hours. I told him I don't miss it at all because I would much rather walk outside. We joke that I'm an addict and he's a pusher - I can avoid buying things unless you put me in front of them and then it's hard to say no. If we go to the mall I will inevitable see something that I want and I will buy it. He can walk around the mall for 3 hours without even the slightest inclination to buy anything.
A few years back, I had avoided being in a mall for a long time, and then I made a trip to one for some reason -- I probably needed a specific type of clothing like a sweater that would be appropriate to wear over a dress at a wedding, or something. For something like that, I prefer to go to a mall because I have a better chance of at least finding the thing I need.
I very clearly remember that after about half an hour of being in the mall and going to different shops to find this item, I started feeling really antsy and bad about myself. Seeing all the new products in the windows, all the pretty clothing that would make me look stylish, etc... and I realized all at once, like a thunderbolt, how incredibly corrosive the whole place and experience was. It was pretty damn enlightening. I got my item and got out of there as soon as I could, and I have religiously avoided malls and any stores that sell "lifestyle" products ever since.
-
I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.
I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.
That's the problem, though. I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?
I used to work with people with intellectual disabilities, where the natural tendency was to try to protect them from all harm. At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk. Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision. I think this might apply in your situation. It may not be what you would do, but if they aren't harming anyone else, then they have that right to decide to do something that could have a bad outcome for themselves.
-
At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk. Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision.
I like this!
-
I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.
I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.
That's the problem, though. I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?
I used to work with people with intellectual disabilities, where the natural tendency was to try to protect them from all harm. At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk. Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision. I think this might apply in your situation. It may not be what you would do, but if they aren't harming anyone else, then they have that right to decide to do something that could have a bad outcome for themselves.
In a pandemic, everyone taking a risk for themselves is also taking a risk for everyone around them.
-
I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.
I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.
That's the problem, though. I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?
I used to work with people with intellectual disabilities, where the natural tendency was to try to protect them from all harm. At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk. Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision. I think this might apply in your situation. It may not be what you would do, but if they aren't harming anyone else, then they have that right to decide to do something that could have a bad outcome for themselves.
In a pandemic, everyone taking a risk for themselves is also taking a risk for everyone around them.
I absolutely agree SunnyDays - I recently became more familiar with this concept.
Moneyjenga - I interpret this as not assigning more risk to another, against their wishes, because I see them as more "vulnerable." Thus giving them the dignity of making that risk-cost determination for themselves. Is that fair?
-
While I absolutely agree with the concept and practice of Dignity of Risk, on a broader level, taking a risk for oneself in a pandemic translates into taking risks for everyone you're in contact with as well. This is because much of the transmission happens before someone is symptomatic (and for 40% of people infected they don't even know they are). So you are exposing others to risk, though largely unwittingly, if you do get exposed.
I believe this is the perspective MJ was expressing?
-
While I absolutely agree with the concept and practice of Dignity of Risk, on a broader level, taking a risk for oneself in a pandemic translates into taking risks for everyone you're in contact with as well. This is because much of the transmission happens before someone is symptomatic (and for 40% of people infected they don't even know they are). So you are exposing others to risk, though largely unwittingly, if you do get exposed.
I believe this is the perspective MJ was expressing?
I agree. And I'm another person who agrees with the concept of Dignity of Risk, though I hadn't heard the term before. I was arguing the same thing over 20 years ago, when my dad's brother was trying to talk my dad into intervening in their financial disaster of a sister's life.
But yeah, I think the analogy sort of breaks down in a pandemic.
-
Yeah, I don’t see the concept of Dignity Of Risk working in a pandemic. If you take a risk to hang out with others, you are automatically assigning more risk to others (the people with whom you come in contact) without their consent and against their wishes (since I assume no one wishes to be infected). As mentioned, Dignity of Risk works if they are not harming anyone else. In a pandemic, they may be unintentionally harming a lot of people. And therefore boundaries are needed.
-
In the specific scenerio that I described and SunnyDays was responding to, it's the risk of harm to them that I had specifically referred to. Grandparents getting visits from family members (us) who are taking precautions around others. The point is that we might unwittingly spread it to them despite these precautions and whether they should be allow to accept that risk. They also wear masks in public and wash their hands.
-
In the specific scenerio that I described and SunnyDays was responding to, it's the risk of harm to them that I had specifically referred to. Grandparents getting visits from family members (us) who are taking precautions around others. The point is that we might unwittingly spread it to them despite these precautions and whether they should be allow to accept that risk. They also wear masks in public and wash their hands.
But there's the reverse of that too. What if they're so desperate to see their grandkids that they don't tell you they went to the store and forgot their mask? I can definitely think of a few grandparents I know who would be manipulative enough (not that they'd think of themselves that way) to take a risk and hide it because, in their minds, they'd be the only ones at risk in that scenario. And maybe they are the ones most at risk but they're not the only ones at risk.
-
While I absolutely agree with the concept and practice of Dignity of Risk, on a broader level, taking a risk for oneself in a pandemic translates into taking risks for everyone you're in contact with as well. This is because much of the transmission happens before someone is symptomatic (and for 40% of people infected they don't even know they are). So you are exposing others to risk, though largely unwittingly, if you do get exposed.
I believe this is the perspective MJ was expressing?
We allow a lot of "spread out" risk in society. For example we don't require drivers to take out insurance to cover others for property damage done by the driver's negligent driving. So what happens when an insured person writes off your car is that your own insurance pays for it and the cost gets spread to all the other responsible insured out there. Likewise we don't require business owners or individuals to take out bankruptcy insurance - we just let them write off their debts and their creditors just eat the loss as a bad debt. So until we get that level of personal responsibility sorted - where those most likely to default are precisely the ones who are allowed to not self-insure - then I am reluctant to criticise the present situation, where it is mainly young people (those least likely to default) who are not "self-insuring".
-
My son graduated from high school in early June. A party was planned, months ago to include grandmothers from faraway states: New Hampshire and Arizona (we live in California), to attend the ceremony and celebrate with a family party. It was much anticipated by all. By late March/early April, it was abundantly clear these loving grandparents would not be attending. They are smart and well-informed women and knew the risk would be ill-advised. It was sad; the ceremony was a drive-by and six local family members attended a socially distanced outdoor party.
We're all sorry about it, but would be much sorrier if someone got ill/spread disease. Not worth it.
-
We allow a lot of "spread out" risk in society. For example we don't require drivers to take out insurance to cover others for property damage done by the driver's negligent driving.
Uh ... yes we do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance_in_the_United_States#Requirements_by_state). Almost all states require insurance against property damage.
(Ok, I get that you're upside-down so YMMV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance#Australia), but the forum typically has a USA perspective.)
Likewise we don't require business owners or individuals to take out bankruptcy insurance - we just let them write off their debts and their creditors just eat the loss as a bad debt.
Even though you say "likewise", this is not a good analogy for the current pandemic's risk calculus. Creditors loan money after an opportunity to assess the borrower's viability, and with an understanding that they are taking on risk in order to profit. Creditors are informed and willing participants. That's not the case for the pandemic. In the pandemic, acquaintances and strangers that come into contact with you are put at risk, without the opportunity to review your viral hygiene practices, and certainly without expectation of profiting from the encounter.
So until we get that level of personal responsibility sorted - where those most likely to default are precisely the ones who are allowed to not self-insure - then I am reluctant to criticise the present situation, where it is mainly young people (those least likely to default) who are not "self-insuring".
When I read this, I think you're saying that "because brankruptcy insurance isn't mandatory, we shouldn't criticize young people for acting in ways that spread the virus" ... but I must be reading it wrong; it's such a non-sequitur that I can't imagine that's what you actually meant.
-
Risk is often socialized to others but we do try to weigh this pretty carefully as a society. If you crash your motorcycle on the side of a mountain, an EMT might get run over when aiding you. This doesn't mean we ban motorcycles. Medical staff still treat people with blood-borne diseases, etc. The further the risk branches out from consent the more complex this gets, but it's not novel, it's just trickier math than usual.
As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that. Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers. A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.
Meanwhile, Canada's inflation adjusted GDP per capita has dropped to 1999 levels.
-
The thing to balance against risk is what is the cost of lessening the risk. As an over 60 person with a 97 year old mother, all I am asking of others is that they wear masks. Every single time one is within 6 feet of non family members. My daughter has been working in China for the past year. She wears a mask when out. It is required for her to ride on public transport, to teach her class, to walk down a public sidewalk. Wearing masks is a key reason why many Asian countries have resumed near normal economic activity and daily life. Having older people Just avoid others will continue to limit the economy in ways mask-wearing will not. Seniors spend a lot of money. Seniors/retirees provide a lot of beneficial volunteer work. Many Seniors/retirees provide child care for their grandchildren. And many seniors/retirees have earned their retirement by serving in essential roles for 40+ Years.
I noticed today that England has issued new rules for weddings. The rules include no food or beverages because people cannot wear masks then, along with a 30 person limit on size for a brief ceremony. I would love to visit England this year, as I had planned, but that will not be permitted because Americans are totally refusing to take the steps to lessen our infection rate.
-
But there's the reverse of that too. What if they're so desperate to see their grandkids that they don't tell you they went to the store and forgot their mask? I can definitely think of a few grandparents I know who would be manipulative enough (not that they'd think of themselves that way) to take a risk and hide it because, in their minds, they'd be the only ones at risk in that scenario. And maybe they are the ones most at risk but they're not the only ones at risk.
^ this. My parents were blase about being careful at first. When I pushed on social distance my dad actually said "We are all going to die sometime, if I die a little earlier it isn't the end of the world." I had to remind him that I have health issues that put me at risk and I would rather not die and leave my young children motherless.
I had to stop myself from "ok boomer"-ing him.
They eventually agreed to self quarantine for two weeks so we could go and see them, and I know they are being more careful than most people, but I still don't think they are being as careful as we are. For instance, they refuse to do curbside grocery pick up because they are intimidated by on-line grocery shopping.
-
As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that. Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers. A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.
One issue with this is that many of the at-risk older adults are not "elderly" in the traditional sense. My mom is 71 (so firmly in the at-risk category) but very healthy and in normal times volunteers 3 days a week, coordinates her church's outreach efforts to a soup kitchen, runs a scholarship fund, socializes with her friends, etc, etc. She likely has 20 more years of life in front of her (her statistical life expectancy is 92) so dying of COVID would significantly shorten her lifespan.
Realistically, she is doing everything she can to lower her risk. But she still has to grocery shop and go to the doctor, and those things are riskier at higher levels of community spread.
-
Risk is often socialized to others but we do try to weigh this pretty carefully as a society. If you crash your motorcycle on the side of a mountain, an EMT might get run over when aiding you. This doesn't mean we ban motorcycles. Medical staff still treat people with blood-borne diseases, etc. The further the risk branches out from consent the more complex this gets, but it's not novel, it's just trickier math than usual.
As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that. Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers. A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.
Meanwhile, Canada's inflation adjusted GDP per capita has dropped to 1999 levels.
You seem to be making an implicit assumption that Canada's economy would have kept on as normal if no restrictions had been put in place. I keep seeing the false choice between the economy and public health, when they go hand in hand. Will people carry on with normal economic activity when they see people around them getting seriously ill? What are the economic costs of large portions of the population taking weeks of sick leave? What are the economic costs of having to pay for so much medical care? What are the economic costs of even a small group of people having long-term disabilities? What are the economic costs of losing even a small percentage of experienced doctors and nurses?
The actual economic choice is between a short-term hit and a long drawn-out drag that very likely could be worse in the long run. One way or the other, any economic comparisons to years not involving pandemics don't make any sense right now.
-
Risk is often socialized to others but we do try to weigh this pretty carefully as a society. If you crash your motorcycle on the side of a mountain, an EMT might get run over when aiding you. This doesn't mean we ban motorcycles. Medical staff still treat people with blood-borne diseases, etc. The further the risk branches out from consent the more complex this gets, but it's not novel, it's just trickier math than usual.
As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that. Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers. A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.
Meanwhile, Canada's inflation adjusted GDP per capita has dropped to 1999 levels.
You seem to be making an implicit assumption that Canada's economy would have kept on as normal if no restrictions had been put in place. I keep seeing the false choice between the economy and public health, when they go hand in hand. Will people carry on with normal economic activity when they see people around them getting seriously ill? What are the economic costs of large portions of the population taking weeks of sick leave? What are the economic costs of having to pay for so much medical care? What are the economic costs of even a small group of people having long-term disabilities? What are the economic costs of losing even a small percentage of experienced doctors and nurses?
The actual economic choice is between a short-term hit and a long drawn-out drag that very likely could be worse in the long run. One way or the other, any economic comparisons to years not involving pandemics don't make any sense right now.
That's because that strawman's in your head. Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months. The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist. I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
-
I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
I don't think this inference is valid, simply because in most of those states the amount of virus is (was) low. If the amount of virus were high, you would likely see different behavior.
-
My point was that the risk assessment is not so simple. It is becoming apparent, however, that western countries don't have a culture of caring about strangers, and that's why they don't want to wear masks, and it's probably going to lead to worse short-term outcomes. The long term outcome is still not known, however. Herd immunity might still be required, etc.
-
That's because that strawman's in your head. Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months. The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist. I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
Here in Wisconsin, our stay at home order was struck down by the state Supreme Court on May 13th. Since then some local governments have created their own restrictions, but in much of the state businesses have been free to operate however they see fit. I can tell you from first hand experience that many of those businesses are struggling to get enough customers to stay viable. A significant portion of our population are choosing to "stay home" regardless of what the government has said. And we haven't had that many COVID cases yet; I would guess that if the case count climbs people would pull back even more.
It's an imperfect comparison, because we *did* have a stay at home order for over a month, but there's clearly still a substantial ongoing impact of the disease on the economy. Perhaps it wouldn't have been quite as bad without the stay at home order, but I'm confident it still would have been quite bad.
Also an imperfect comparison, but we can look at the economic impact in Sweden vs other Nordic countries. The only data I've seen there is a bit out of date, but Sweden didn't seem to be fairing better than the others.
-
Also an imperfect comparison, but we can look at the economic impact in Sweden vs other Nordic countries. The only data I've seen there is a bit out of date, but Sweden didn't seem to be fairing better than the others.
And, why is the imperfect comparator [ETA: often] Sweden? Only because their shutdown orders weren't as fulsome? Taiwan and other countries (Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, NZ, etc.) did things differently and suffered less economic pullback than continental North America and Sweden and are in pretty good shape.
ETA: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1278317083412115456 (https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1278317083412115456)
-
And, why is the imperfect comparator [ETA: often] Sweden? Only because their shutdown orders weren't as fulsome? Taiwan and other countries (Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, NZ, etc.) did things differently and suffered less economic pullback than continental North America and Sweden and are in pretty good shape.
If you're looking for demographically similar countries with very different COVID responses, Sweden and it's Nordic neighbors are the obvious choice.
I agree that there's value in understanding the response of many other countries as well, most of whom have handled the situation better than the US.
-
Also an imperfect comparison, but we can look at the economic impact in Sweden vs other Nordic countries. The only data I've seen there is a bit out of date, but Sweden didn't seem to be fairing better than the others.
And, why is the imperfect comparator [ETA: often] Sweden? Only because their shutdown orders weren't as fulsome? Taiwan and other countries (Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, NZ, etc.) did things differently and suffered less economic pullback than continental North America and Sweden and are in pretty good shape.
ETA: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1278317083412115456 (https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1278317083412115456)
The laissez faire comparator is Sweden, because it's the only other industrialized country that has been as casual about the virus as we have. (Them even moreso than us.) The countries you mentioned all took drastic measures to stop the virus. If someone is going to argue that we did too little to stop the virus, and cites the asian countries as exemplars, how could I contest it? They are right. But normally, in this forum, when conservative folks say, "the government should have done things different," they mean the government should have done less, and we'd be better off economically. The asian countries are not data points in support of this view.
-
In fact, even NZ is not a data point to support that view. People have compared our (Australia) economic recovery with others, and we're doing better than many others, but NZ is doing better than us. I can't remember where I saw the graph, but it had lockdown vs economic hit, and it was somewhat surprising.
-
That's because that strawman's in your head. Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months. The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist. I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
I have seen plenty of posts that are built on the assumption that the pandemic will have only mild economic effects. That's not a strawman.
I'm not saying that people will be afraid to leave their house, but this is not even close to over yet. We don't yet have a point for comparison for what the economy would have looked like if we hadn't taken measures to stop the pandemic. Even if not a quick shock, the virus promises to be a long drawn-out drag on the US economy. Meanwhile people in countries like Italy and New Zealand will be able to get back to picking up the pieces and getting on with it soon.
-
That's because that strawman's in your head. Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months. The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist. I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
You left out of your assessment the massive disinformation campaign that's been happening by those most eager to get the economy going again, no matter what the cost. At every turn people have minimized and dismissed this virus, from the initial "it's just the flu" crowd to the "it's only old people" crowd to the fucking president saying, yet again, that it's going to magically disappear. People aren't taking this seriously because so many of them have been told over and over and over and over and over again that it's not a big deal. They think people are exaggerating, or that it's a "hoax", or that some miracle drug or a bit of bleach will cure them. And they are in for a rude awakening, as is apparent from the number of articles about someone who got it and is consequently pleading with others to take it seriously now.
Even in this thread, despite evidence that I and others have supplied, people are still arguing that it's "just" the sick and the elderly who will be affected (please note that both Texas (https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/01/texas-day-care-coronavirus-cases-rising/) and Florida (https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+surge+in+covid+among+children&oq=florida+surge+in+covid+among+children&aqs=chrome..69i57.9328j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) are seeing a surge in pediatric cases), or that it's going to magically disappear any day now. (Not that they use those words, but that's the point.)
So yeah, the people who buy into the myth that this is a hoax, or not so bad, or only affects old people, sure they'll go back to bars and restaurants because why not? Right up until they start getting sick, and their friends and family start getting sick, and then people they know start going to the hospital or dying. Because "it can't happen to us" is a very powerful thing in many people's minds, and as wrenchturner has said complex risk analysis is difficult. Many of the people we're seeing out doing risky things probably don't have enough knowledge of this issue to perform proper risk assessments. I don't think they want to get sick, go to the hospital, or die. I think they probably don't understand just what they're getting into. And that's by design, via the misinformation that's been spread all along.
-
That's because that strawman's in your head. Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months. The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist. I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
You left out of your assessment the massive disinformation campaign that's been happening by those most eager to get the economy going again, no matter what the cost. At every turn people have minimized and dismissed this virus, from the initial "it's just the flu" crowd to the "it's only old people" crowd to the fucking president saying, yet again, that it's going to magically disappear. People aren't taking this seriously because so many of them have been told over and over and over and over and over again that it's not a big deal. They think people are exaggerating, or that it's a "hoax", or that some miracle drug or a bit of bleach will cure them. And they are in for a rude awakening, as is apparent from the number of articles about someone who got it and is consequently pleading with others to take it seriously now.
Even in this thread, despite evidence that I and others have supplied, people are still arguing that it's "just" the sick and the elderly who will be affected (please note that both Texas (https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/01/texas-day-care-coronavirus-cases-rising/) and Florida (https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+surge+in+covid+among+children&oq=florida+surge+in+covid+among+children&aqs=chrome..69i57.9328j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) are seeing a surge in pediatric cases), or that it's going to magically disappear any day now. (Not that they use those words, but that's the point.)
So yeah, the people who buy into the myth that this is a hoax, or not so bad, or only affects old people, sure they'll go back to bars and restaurants because why not? Right up until they start getting sick, and their friends and family start getting sick, and then people they know start going to the hospital or dying. Because "it can't happen to us" is a very powerful thing in many people's minds, and as wrenchturner has said complex risk analysis is difficult. Many of the people we're seeing out doing risky things probably don't have enough knowledge of this issue to perform proper risk assessments. I don't think they want to get sick, go to the hospital, or die. I think they probably don't understand just what they're getting into. And that's by design, via the misinformation that's been spread all along.
You mean like this guy?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-man-who-posted-regret-attending-party-died-day-later-n1232675
-
Oh hey, Herman Cain went to Trump's Tulsa rally, and by the way he's been hospitalized with Covid.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-updates-us-reports-record-high-number-cases/story?id=71570923&fbclid=IwAR3Q5Xvdg0HEjVz9mm474BS1-LhomL7MkyH1GEUvZhWSJrN1qlOX_h85pjo&fbclid=IwAR1_hP1cGUVC6fmPO3MPMXklSCYIbEdsyySCbLE3HO6EZ1VFF1_qtpMjfrY&fbclid=IwAR2IwayoeKd2fHPc55T3HkNfntFqq2glZsgoSpBqF4n46pcOKK-g5IpwiqE&fbclid=IwAR2MAJr09hCuveYPHw-gJNiWwaY8AiL4gr8C4EKwqTS81tWwg6hlF1R9Ggg
-
That's because that strawman's in your head. Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months. The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist. I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.
You left out of your assessment the massive disinformation campaign that's been happening by those most eager to get the economy going again, no matter what the cost. At every turn people have minimized and dismissed this virus, from the initial "it's just the flu" crowd to the "it's only old people" crowd to the fucking president saying, yet again, that it's going to magically disappear. People aren't taking this seriously because so many of them have been told over and over and over and over and over again that it's not a big deal. They think people are exaggerating, or that it's a "hoax", or that some miracle drug or a bit of bleach will cure them. And they are in for a rude awakening, as is apparent from the number of articles about someone who got it and is consequently pleading with others to take it seriously now.
Even in this thread, despite evidence that I and others have supplied, people are still arguing that it's "just" the sick and the elderly who will be affected (please note that both Texas (https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/01/texas-day-care-coronavirus-cases-rising/) and Florida (https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+surge+in+covid+among+children&oq=florida+surge+in+covid+among+children&aqs=chrome..69i57.9328j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) are seeing a surge in pediatric cases), or that it's going to magically disappear any day now. (Not that they use those words, but that's the point.)
So yeah, the people who buy into the myth that this is a hoax, or not so bad, or only affects old people, sure they'll go back to bars and restaurants because why not? Right up until they start getting sick, and their friends and family start getting sick, and then people they know start going to the hospital or dying. Because "it can't happen to us" is a very powerful thing in many people's minds, and as wrenchturner has said complex risk analysis is difficult. Many of the people we're seeing out doing risky things probably don't have enough knowledge of this issue to perform proper risk assessments. I don't think they want to get sick, go to the hospital, or die. I think they probably don't understand just what they're getting into. And that's by design, via the misinformation that's been spread all along.
You mean like this guy?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-man-who-posted-regret-attending-party-died-day-later-n1232675
Exactly like that guy. Poor guy went to a party and someone WHO HAD TESTED POSITIVE AND KNEW IT went as well, but because he himself wasn't very sick he didn't tell anyone until it was too late. Once again, circle back to my point above that people will lie to you to get what they want. Grandparents will absolutely lie to be able to see their grandchildren, because "it's not so bad" or "I'm the only one at risk here". Those who are desperate for social interaction with lie and conceal so that people will hang out with them. So in this case, someone who thought he knew all the risks involved ended up dying because someone else concealed info, and took the risk on everyone else's behalf.
-
^^^^^^ So sad when ignorance costs lives - apparently several others at this party later also tested positive. ^^^^^
The friend told Macias that he was aware of the diagnosis when he attended the gathering but that because he was not showing symptoms, he did not believe he could infect anyone else.
I can't believe people are this uninformed even after our so called "fake media" has hammered home this point even Fox reported a few times that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
I guess I am just bummed out this morning in general - cases hit a record 10,100 something in Florida yesterday and my favorite (delivery) restaurant had to shut down overnight because their employees tested positive.
The hospitalizations are way up incl about 20% hospitalization of the 25-34 age group. Our hospital beds are filling up fast.
Lately, I have been wondering whether the virus has morphed and whether we are seeing new strains (mainly because Florida managed to escape relatively unscathed the first time around), but this (new?) continuing wave just seems more infectious, but I hadn't seen any mention of that in the news.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/coronavirus-mutation-spread-study/index.html?utm_term=1593771997677ef995fda663d&utm_source=Five+Things+for+Friday%2C+July+3%2C+2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=222226_1593771997678&bt_ee=i8XFmW6XHys9TPdHrfdl%2B5zjAy5BAL3WbzcMFNbyRh3QxwaaHOxKcswTUCbwgNYc&bt_ts=1593771997678
From the article:
"Meanwhile, a new mutation of the coronavirus has made its way from Europe to the US. A study says the new form makes the virus more likely to infect people but does not seem to make them any sicker. It could complicate the race to find an effective vaccine.
The researchers call the new mutation G614, and they show that it has almost completely replaced the first version to spread in Europe and the US, one called D614."
Reports of college students throwing parties with the intention to give a prize to the first infected - that's just beyond words - lord help us all.
-
Lately, I have been wondering whether the virus has morphed and whether we are seeing new strains (mainly because Florida managed to escape relatively unscathed the first time around), but this (new?) continuing wave just seems more infectious, but I hadn't seen any mention of that in the news.
Viruses are constantly mutating a little. There is some speculation that there is a new mutation that increases infectivity, but it's far from proven. The most efficient explanation is that Floridians have changed their behavior. If a mutation were to blame, you'd see spikes everywhere, and it would not be more severe in the states that had reopened most.
-
Oh hey, Herman Cain went to Trump's Tulsa rally, and by the way he's been hospitalized with Covid.
I have my popcorn, watching the death cult off themselves now.
-
My local online neighborhood forum has its share of die-hard Trumpsters, who are now all blaming "violent protestors" for the jump in Covid-19. They all agree that increased testing = increased cases.
This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path: if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?
-
My local online neighborhood forum has its share of die-hard Trumpsters, who are now all blaming "violent protestors" for the jump in Covid-19. They all agree that increased testing = increased cases.
This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path: if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?
So many people saying this, though the data shows otherwise.
Increased testing can result in increases cases, but it's like people don't know what percentages mean...
-
This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path: if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?
Yes, this is depressing.
That and a complete inability of people to give a shit about others or even act in their own true self interest.
My step mom had a very serious health event a couple of weeks ago and just came home from the hospital on a bunch of new immunosuppressant prescriptions. Both are near 80 years old now.
I thought my Dad understood what that combination of the pandemic and his wife being on several immunosuppressant drugs meant because he told me "we are on total lockdown for the next two weeks a least. No grocery store trips, nothing. But we have lots of food here. We are fine." Then I call him two days later and he says "we went to the store this morning to buy bird seed, so now we are all set."
Bird seed. For outdoor wild birds. They prioritized that over the doctor's orders about their survival, even after she was just hospitalized in serious condition for a couple of weeks. What can you even say at that point?
-
After reading Trudie's original post, I decided that my replies were getting away from her original question. So I've decided to post what I've been doing to beat back any quarantine blues:
my current favorite diversion is looking online for my dream cabin-in-the-woods property. (only a dream at this point because of finances, but …) It would be 5-10 acres, have a stream running through it, have a working well and septic and electricity, and have enough wooded acreage to be private. A small 1-2 bedroom cabin would already exist, but there'd be room to add another one for family and guests. We'd install a greenhouse, shed and/or barn.
I realize that day-to-day life there would be very unlike my life here in the suburbs, and I'm really a city person at heart, but it's been fun looking at homesteads for sale on Zillow and Trulia. Maybe one day.
-
My local online neighborhood forum has its share of die-hard Trumpsters, who are now all blaming "violent protestors" for the jump in Covid-19. They all agree that increased testing = increased cases.
This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path: if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?
Not that facts actually matter to the die-hard Trump cult, but the protests aren't the driving factor in making cases surge (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/protests-in-seattle-and-elsewhere-dont-appear-to-be-driving-virus-surge-researchers-say/). Parties and people acting irresponsibly are (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/24/883017035/what-contact-tracing-may-tell-about-cluster-spread-of-the-coronavirus).
And here we are at the 4th of July. Myself, I don't really think we've got much to celebrate, but that's apparently not the consensus if the fireworks that have been going off near my house for the past week and a half are any indication. So two weeks from now is going to be an absolute nightmare. Not only will cases surge harder after all the parties people will inevitably go to, but that's also when the deaths are supposed to start rising from the beginning of the surge. (With an average 25 days from infection to death, mid-July to--??? will make this very real very quickly to at least some people.)
We were told just a few months ago that, worst case scenario, we'd have 200,000 deaths by September (https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/502220-harvard-health-expert-anticipates-100000-more-us). We've already got an official death toll (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/933243?nlid=136226_3901&src=wnl_newsalrt_200702_MSCPEDIT&uac=366415HX&impID=2444944&faf=1) of just under 132,000 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/) and, lest you were worried we actually took some time to prepare for things this time, hospitals are once again running low on PPE already (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/demand-ppe-soars-again-amid-shortage-us-cases-rise). I do not take any pleasure in stating that it's going to be a horror show in the coming months.
-
At least your government has cornered the world’s supply of remdesivir. That might help you.
-
At least your government has cornered the world’s supply of remdesivir. That might help you.
No it won't. I live in a blue state and don't have a trust fund.
-
At least your government has cornered the world’s supply of remdesivir. That might help you.
The only silver lining at this point is that from where I stand, is that current data seems to suggest that IFR is now somewhat lower than it was initially.
Some of this may be the fact that we've developed better treatment protocols(See: the Dexamethasone study, remdesivir, recent HCQ study). Some of it may be that this part of the wave is more decentralized than the initial wave in NYC area and parts of Europe, meaning that there's not as much local overstressing of medical systems(yet). Some of it may be that the general direction of viral mutation tends to favor less-deadly strains, since it's those who are asymptomatic or have very mild infections who are most likely to be out and about and pass the virus on to others.
-
The only silver lining at this point is that from where I stand, is that current data seems to suggest that IFR is now somewhat lower than it was initially.
Some of this may be the fact that we've developed better treatment protocols(See: the Dexamethasone study, remdesivir, recent HCQ study). Some of it may be that this part of the wave is more decentralized than the initial wave in NYC area and parts of Europe, meaning that there's not as much local overstressing of medical systems(yet). Some of it may be that the general direction of viral mutation tends to favor less-deadly strains, since it's those who are asymptomatic or have very mild infections who are most likely to be out and about and pass the virus on to others.
I'm not so sure. The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is coming down (very rapidly), not necessarily the IFR. We're identifying a far higher % of total infections now (at least in the US) with nearly 5x the rate of testing we had in April (~700K tests/day compared to ~ 150K/tests a day). This just raises the denominator for CFR calculations. I actually think the US virus prevalance is much less than it was in late March through mid April, by a significant margin. Also, we were mainly testing serious cases in the past, this drove up the CFR as cases had higher risk of death (cases with serious symptoms/elderly). This is no longer the case, now we test anyone who wants tested -- so we're identifying a much higher % of younger/less serious cases. If we had done this in the past the CFR wouldn't have been nearly as high. Looks like this week will be the lowest fatality total since the end of March.
-
The only silver lining at this point is that from where I stand, is that current data seems to suggest that IFR is now somewhat lower than it was initially.
Some of this may be the fact that we've developed better treatment protocols(See: the Dexamethasone study, remdesivir, recent HCQ study). Some of it may be that this part of the wave is more decentralized than the initial wave in NYC area and parts of Europe, meaning that there's not as much local overstressing of medical systems(yet). Some of it may be that the general direction of viral mutation tends to favor less-deadly strains, since it's those who are asymptomatic or have very mild infections who are most likely to be out and about and pass the virus on to others.
I'm not so sure. The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is coming down (very rapidly), not necessarily the IFR. We're identifying a far higher % of total infections now (at least in the US) with nearly 5x the rate of testing we had in April (~700K tests/day compared to ~ 150K/tests a day). This just raises the denominator for CFR calculations. I actually think the US virus prevalance is much less than it was in late March through mid April, by a significant margin. Also, we were mainly testing serious cases in the past, this drove up the CFR as cases had higher risk of death (cases with serious symptoms/elderly). This is no longer the case, now we test anyone who wants tested -- so we're identifying a much higher % of younger/less serious cases. If we had done this in the past the CFR wouldn't have been nearly as high. Looks like this week will be the lowest fatality total since the end of March.
Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.
So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?
Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.
-
Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.
So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?
Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.
Yes good point. Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers). Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves. It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of. Many theories but nothing substantiated. Speculating - perhaps those at risk have done a much better job of protecting themselves and now it's mainly the low risk population being infected.
-
Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.
So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?
Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.
Yes good point. Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers). Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves. It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of. Many theories but nothing substantiated.
You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/virus-fatality-picture-is-obscured-by-ultimate-lagging-indicator) while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.html)
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false. Young people can and do get seriously sick with this, and end up in the hospital (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/texas-medical-center-icu-capacity-beds-younger-covid-19-patients/285-5415a9f3-aab8-46f6-ac91-da931b2ab3a4), or "recovered" because they test negative but they're still massively sick (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52548843), or die from it (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-5-month-old-baby-fdny-firefighter-dies-from-covid-19-family-says/). That is misinformation you're peddling there. Stop it.
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
-
Having kids in sports in college who have reported and are getting tested the numbers coming in that are positive are staggering. One of my biggest concerns is when Gen Pop returns between Covid and Protesting things are going to really get out of control. Time will tell I just hope my worries are for not.
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'. There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems. These are not being tracked in daily stats though.
Younger people die less often. How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.
-
The curve of daily cases reported in our states is tracking pretty much exactly right behind state closure and reopening measures. At the end of March, cases were climbing rapidly, Stay at Home order issued March 25, then we bumped along for two months getting 20-30 new cases per day for almost two months. Getting into Stage 3/4 of reopening, we are now getting 300-400 new cases per day. Yes, testing has increased, but I just checked, and the positive test rate has basically doubled to 9% the last week of June. After this 4th of July weekend, the shit's going to hit the fan in a real way. Our county had to go backwards on the reopening about two weeks ago, but I don't think people got the message. They also seem to think that reopening means precautions aren't needed. There's just no cure for stupid and we all pay the price in this scenario.
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'. There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems. These are not being tracked in daily stats though.
Younger people die less often. How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.
Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.
-
We have been trying to use our boat midweek because people at the marina just don't care. Our slip neighbor comes from a more infected city, and leans over the side of the boat to talk to us while we are still on the dock. Unfortunately, DH won't always make the time midweek, so we just don't get to use the boat much that thanks to these selfish so and so.
Saw a FB from someone at the old marina bragging about renaming their BBQ as a protest, so all good.
-
Having kids in sports in college who have reported and are getting tested the numbers coming in that are positive are staggering. One of my biggest concerns is when Gen Pop returns between Covid and Protesting things are going to really get out of control. Time will tell I just hope my worries are for not.
Yes, alas, student athletes are once again the guinea pigs, and they have no say about it. All like to play their sport and many are reliant on their scholarships to fund their educations, so I don't expect we'll see many, if any, athletes quitting over COVID-19 concerns. What this has done is disrupt recruiting in a big way.
Most students are not going to social distance outside of the classroom. They are institutionalized in fairly high density housing with things like shared bathrooms and shared large dining facilities. Most are also going to party like they always do, given the combination of perceived low risk, alcohol, and extreme peer pressure.
Pretty much all the colleges and universities, driven by economic concerns, are bringing students back on campus this Fall. Some are forcing faculty to teach in person, which is a huge concern since many of the faculty are older and in high death-risk groups. Fortunately, many faculty are also tenured and are giving this administrative plan a big old FU!
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/04/plans-fall-assume-professors-will-be-willing-teach-will-they (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/04/plans-fall-assume-professors-will-be-willing-teach-will-they)
-
UW greek row outbreak in Seattle already at nearly 120 positive cases, with more sure to follow:
https://news.yahoo.com/105-fraternity-residents-university-washington-185728098.html
-
^Yeah, not a surprise at this point.
The college administrator magical thinking is totally embodied in this quote from the article:
“If everyone does their part to keep each other safe, we can continue to engage with one another and with our studies in the University environment by wearing face coverings and remaining physically distant,” he said.
Having two teenagers, I think this type of stubborn stance by administrators is just dangerous crazy talk. Teenagers, including college students, literally don't have a completely developed risk-management portion of their brain . . . which means they just don't even perceive of the risks that more mature adults can see as obvious. Plus, college students are going to be just as responsible as the public in general. In the US, a track record for a responsible general public has been pretty non-existent.
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'. There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems. These are not being tracked in daily stats though.
Younger people die less often. How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.
This. 100% this.
-
Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.
I think we're going to get a whole lot of surprised Pikachu face (https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/027/475/Screen_Shot_2018-10-25_at_11.02.15_AM.jpg) when people a) don't recover fully in just a few weeks (https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-symptoms-patients-sick-for-months-2020-7) and b) discover that they have long-term damage from this (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2020/looking-forward-understanding-long-term-effects-covid-19). (Quote from that second article, which is from the NIH, describes COVID as "one of the deadliest" viruses in history, BTW. That is likely talking about the overall number of people killed, however it's also illustrative of the fact that the CFR should not be brushed off (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/22/860981956/scientists-say-new-lower-cdc-estimates-for-severity-of-covid-19-are-optimistic).)
And this is also ignoring the possibility, since it affects the brain (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/how-does-coronavirus-affect-the-brain), that it could either come back later after a latency period or that it could have some secondary effect, like chicken pox --> shingles.
I've even read accounts of people who lost their sense of taste and smell and now, months later, it still hasn't returned (https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200604/covid19-loss-of-smell-taste-might-be-long-term#1). That's such a small thing in comparison to many who get incredibly ill, but that would seriously deplete one's quality of life. I don't know about you guys, but I like food. I enjoy smelling the flowers in my garden. It would seriously suck to lose all of that, possibly forever.
Don't mess around with novel viruses because we don't know what all they can do, and death is not the only undesirable outcome. How is that a hard concept for some people?
@HBFIRE - Would you mind citing some of your sources occasionally?
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'. There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems. These are not being tracked in daily stats though.
Younger people die less often. How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.
Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.
I believe @HBFIRE was using fatalities as a marker, not a sole indicator of negative outcomes. Fatalities are not being suggested as the only possible outcome but they are the clearest data point we have right now. We can assume that most other negative outcomes will trend downward as age decreases.
Other negative outcomes undoubtedly exist but their frequency and severity would have to be tracked and counted to do a proper risk assessment, which will be difficult to know during the course of this pandemic.
"Younger and less serious" is still a reliable statement, for the most part, from what I have read.
In my opinion, the economy has far less resilience than this virus, mostly due to runaway debt/Keynesian economics/monetary policy. Direct damage from the virus and economic damage will and have cost human lives and well-being.
-
UW greek row outbreak in Seattle already at nearly 120 positive cases, with more sure to follow:
https://news.yahoo.com/105-fraternity-residents-university-washington-185728098.html
^Yeah, not a surprise at this point.
The college administrator magical thinking is totally embodied in this quote from the article:
“If everyone does their part to keep each other safe, we can continue to engage with one another and with our studies in the University environment by wearing face coverings and remaining physically distant,” he said.
Having two teenagers, I think this type of stubborn stance by administrators is just dangerous crazy talk. Teenagers, including college students, literally don't have a completely developed risk-management portion of their brain . . . which means they just don't even perceive of the risks that more mature adults can see as obvious. Plus, college students are going to be just as responsible as the public in general. In the US, a track record for a responsible general public has been pretty non-existent.
Having kids in sports in college who have reported and are getting tested the numbers coming in that are positive are staggering. One of my biggest concerns is when Gen Pop returns between Covid and Protesting things are going to really get out of control. Time will tell I just hope my worries are for not.
Yes, alas, student athletes are once again the guinea pigs, and they have no say about it. All like to play their sport and many are reliant on their scholarships to fund their educations, so I don't expect we'll see many, if any, athletes quitting over COVID-19 concerns. What this has done is disrupt recruiting in a big way.
Most students are not going to social distance outside of the classroom. They are institutionalized in fairly high density housing with things like shared bathrooms and shared large dining facilities. Most are also going to party like they always do, given the combination of perceived low risk, alcohol, and extreme peer pressure.
Pretty much all the colleges and universities, driven by economic concerns, are bringing students back on campus this Fall. Some are forcing faculty to teach in person, which is a huge concern since many of the faculty are older and in high death-risk groups. Fortunately, many faculty are also tenured and are giving this administrative plan a big old FU!
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/04/plans-fall-assume-professors-will-be-willing-teach-will-they (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/04/plans-fall-assume-professors-will-be-willing-teach-will-they)
Exactly, well said. My DD did tell me today that "Supposedly" The international players were told not to come back because she feels there is not going to be a fall season with the flare-ups.
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'. There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems. These are not being tracked in daily stats though.
Younger people die less often. How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.
But young people also have lifelong complications from the flu.
We really need a good comparative dataset and that's hard to obtain.
For example this widely cited article about strokes in young people post-covid
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/strokes-in-young-asymptomatic-covid-19-patients-on
Is based on a sample size of 5 people aged 33-49 (so not exactly young).
And we don't have any comparative data on, for example:
- Stroke is 2x more common than baseline in covid patients aged 20-39
- Stroke is 6x more common than baseline in covid patients aged 40-59
or whatever. So till we have that data, we are basically reasoning off anecdotal evidence.
Here in Australia, the authorities' messaging is that the main risk to young people is infecting older people, and I've not seen any media reports about young people being left with debilitating illness.
-
Have a look at the ABC in Australia if you want to see some Australian stories of young people suffering. They exist.
-
Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.
So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?
Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.
Yes good point. Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers). Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves. It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of. Many theories but nothing substantiated.
You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/virus-fatality-picture-is-obscured-by-ultimate-lagging-indicator) while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.html)
The article you quoted from Bloomberg says that the delay between diagnosis and death has grown to 14-15 days in heavily hit AZ. And then a death has to be verified by the State which tends to add another week. So data for "deaths" seems to lag data for "new positive cases" by about 3 weeks in AZ.
States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcMPCjBU4AAH5_2?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
*Sorry about the enormous picture size. Is there a good way to resize?
-
Dont' forget the delay between infection and diagnosis, which can add several weeks to the two weeks between diagnosis and death.
-
I've even read accounts of people who lost their sense of taste and smell and now, months later, it still hasn't returned (https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200604/covid19-loss-of-smell-taste-might-be-long-term#1). That's such a small thing in comparison to many who get incredibly ill, but that would seriously deplete one's quality of life. I don't know about you guys, but I like food. I enjoy smelling the flowers in my garden. It would seriously suck to lose all of that, possibly forever.
Don't mess around with novel viruses because we don't know what all they can do, and death is not the only undesirable outcome. How is that a hard concept for some people?
I spoke with a good friend of mine last week... turns out she and her entire family had Covid about 6 weeks ago and although they are largely recovered, she and her son still have not regained their senses of smell.
Pastor of our church has been in and out of the hospital since March. We keep thinking he is going to recover and then something else happens. Very worrying, and discouraging.
At this point between 1 in 6 or 7 people in my locale have had it. I know of at least 60 people by name who have died of it... though luckily nobody in my immediate circle, my friends and neighbors have lost parents, siblings, cousins, and nephews. The youngest person to die was in his early 30s.
-
You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.
Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age. No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease. However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk. In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19. I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently. This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then. It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward. The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.
You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'. There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems. These are not being tracked in daily stats though.
Younger people die less often. How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.
Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.
I believe @HBFIRE was using fatalities as a marker, not a sole indicator of negative outcomes. Fatalities are not being suggested as the only possible outcome but they are the clearest data point we have right now. We can assume that most other negative outcomes will trend downward as age decreases.
Other negative outcomes undoubtedly exist but their frequency and severity would have to be tracked and counted to do a proper risk assessment, which will be difficult to know during the course of this pandemic.
"Younger and less serious" is still a reliable statement, for the most part, from what I have read.
Can you provide me a link to the research you're using that draws those conclusions? Specifically, that long term damage from covid-19 will trend downward as age decrease.
I'd be interested to see this data because from everything that I've read so far, we don't know if this is going to be the case right now. We know that fewer young people die from covid. While I would certainly prefer that your argument is correct, we don't know the long term implications of surviving it right now. It seems a little dangerous to start making arguments for policy based on hope.
-
1. Younger and less serious is no longer entirely true.
Even if it is not officially tracked, we know there are thousands of people in facebook groups all over the world supporting each other as they experience the long term effects of this virus for weeks and months on end - not knowing when it will finally end - 14-20 weeks in and no relief from exhaustion, spikes in fever, weird pains that come and go.
Regardless of how young and healthy they were or whether they only had a light, flu-like case and have "officially" tested virus-free.
Their struggle with the virus continues.
Here are two interesting posts by Paul Garner, professor of infectious diseases at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
He discusses his experience of having covid-19
The first at 7 weeks in:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/05/paul-garner-people-who-have-a-more-protracted-illness-need-help-to-understand-and-cope-with-the-constantly-shifting-bizarre-symptoms/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
The second post at 14 weeks in
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/06/23/paul-garner-covid-19-at-14-weeks-phantom-speed-cameras-unknown-limits-and-harsh-penalties/
What struck me the most is the flood of long comments on both posts and sadly how the tone in his second post has changed.
2. As far as death counts - let's just be honest and accept that in places like Florida the official count is nothing but a big fat lie.
Basically, the deaths are reported as either pneumonia, heart attack ... whatever.
COVID is simply listed as one of the contributing causes not the true cause of death.
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Just look at the enormous increases of deaths reported within the first six months of this year compared to all of 2019.
3. So on the Fourth of July we had 10,500+ new cases - in one single day in Florida.
-
Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.
So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?
Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.
Yes good point. Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers). Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves. It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of. Many theories but nothing substantiated.
You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/virus-fatality-picture-is-obscured-by-ultimate-lagging-indicator) while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.html)
The article you quoted from Bloomberg says that the delay between diagnosis and death has grown to 14-15 days in heavily hit AZ. And then a death has to be verified by the State which tends to add another week. So data for "deaths" seems to lag data for "new positive cases" by about 3 weeks in AZ.
States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.
No, The date when states began to reopen is not where we should be looking.
There was also a considerable delay between when restrictions were relaxed and when confirmed cases resumed growth. We should be looking at the date when the new cases growth curve turned upward which was around 6/13. Growth rate really took off after 6/20. 3 weeks later would be 7/4 - 7/11. If you're using google's Covid tracker, the peaks for death rates are typically on Tuesdays, reported on Wednesdays. I'd be surprised if we didn't see an increase on Wednesday 7/8, and we will almost certainly see an increase on 7/15. By the end of July, it's not going to be pretty. I generally try to stay away from making absolute statements like that but it looks painfully obvious from the data I'm seeing.
-
States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.
No, The date when states began to reopen is not where we should be looking. There was also a considerable delay between when restrictions were relaxed and when confirmed cases resumed growth.
I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?
We should be looking at the date when the new cases growth curve turned upward which was around 6/13. Growth rate really took off after 6/20. 3 weeks later would be 7/4 - 7/11. If you're using google's Covid tracker, the peaks for death rates are typically on Tuesdays, reported on Wednesdays. I'd be surprised if we didn't see an increase on Wednesday 7/8, and we will almost certainly see an increase on 7/15. By the end of July, it's not going to be pretty. I generally try to stay away from making absolute statements like that but it looks painfully obvious from the data I'm seeing.
This is definitely one of those "time will tell" scenarios. I agree that the slope of some indicators recently has become worrisome. We should also note that AZ is a bit of the exception when it comes to the delay in reporting due to their current struggles. Many states are still reporting with much less lag (less than a 3 week timeline). So since we're currently at the 3 week point from the time cases began their ascent, you'd think that we'd currently be seeing some increase or at least flattening of the death curve right now, but the 7 day moving average continues to decline. Are deaths in the rest of the US just slowing rapidly enough to offset a possible rise in the hot spots?
-
This is definitely one of those "time will tell" scenarios. I agree that the slope of some indicators recently has become worrisome. We should also note that AZ is a bit of the exception when it comes to the delay in reporting due to their current struggles. Many states are still reporting with much less lag (less than a 3 week timeline). So since we're currently at the 3 week point from the time cases began their ascent, you'd think that we'd currently be seeing some increase or at least flattening of the death curve right now, but the 7 day moving average continues to decline. Are deaths in the rest of the US just slowing rapidly enough to offset a possible rise in the hot spots?
It is really hard to find numbers in a way that is easy to look at comparing the states- but I think NY and NJ were really so bad that that the dropping deaths are almost entirely a reflection of the initial hot spots getting under control.
The 21 day running average for my state (OH) shows that deaths still appear flat, but daily cases have doubled in three weeks and the last week shows increased hospitalizations and increased ICU usage. Those numbers are still tiny compared to earlier hotspots, but we've all seen how quickly it can get out hand.
Could be instructive to find the historic 21 day running totals for NYC in March/April?
-
Can you provide me a link to the research you're using that draws those conclusions? Specifically, that long term damage from covid-19 will trend downward as age decrease.
There's a pretty good meta-analysis here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3012
I wasn't suggesting that long term damage trends downward, I was suggesting that absolute damage trends downward as age decreases in a given sample population. We can't know long term damage at this time. Mortality increases generally as age increases.
I'd be interested to see this data because from everything that I've read so far, we don't know if this is going to be the case right now. We know that fewer young people die from covid.
From the link I posted above, asymptomatic cases range from 40-80%, with some indications(Diamond Princess) that half of those indicated lung damage. Whether that corresponds with long-term damage or an accurate sample of the human population is not well known.
we don't know the long term implications of surviving it right now. It seems a little dangerous to start making arguments for policy based on hope.
I'm not suggesting a policy based on hope. I'm suggesting a policy based on science, triage and statistics. Single anecdotes are troubling and sad but they should not direct policy. Assuming that maintaining a dramatic lockdown is necessary is equally as foolish as assuming that everything should reopen.
It would appear the the US is running the experiment on everyone else's behalf, whether this was desired by the political body or not.
-
At this point between 1 in 6 or 7 people in my locale have had it. I know of at least 60 people by name who have died of it... though luckily nobody in my immediate circle, my friends and neighbors have lost parents, siblings, cousins, and nephews. The youngest person to die was in his early 30s.
This is so bizarre to me. Friends/family of people I know have had it, but I still don't know anyone directly who has tested positive.
Per latest numbers, 0.76% of my state's population has tested positive at some point. That's about 1 in every 131 people. For my county, it's 1 in every ~150 people, and that's with only a fraction of the people I see wearing masks at the grocery store.
-
I think we got some extra head start when lots of schools and businesses were closed after the storms. Kind of a pre-lockdown.
-
Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.
So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?
Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.
Yes good point. Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers). Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves. It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of. Many theories but nothing substantiated.
You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/virus-fatality-picture-is-obscured-by-ultimate-lagging-indicator) while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.html)
The article you quoted from Bloomberg says that the delay between diagnosis and death has grown to 14-15 days in heavily hit AZ. And then a death has to be verified by the State which tends to add another week. So data for "deaths" seems to lag data for "new positive cases" by about 3 weeks in AZ.
States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcMPCjBU4AAH5_2?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
*Sorry about the enormous picture size. Is there a good way to resize?
The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.
That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.
It takes time for people to get infected and infect others who then go on to infect more, it is not like people all get infected on the same day. Look back at the beginning of this how long did it take from infection to hospitalization to death it took a while.
Treatment is also better now, many of the at risk have adjusted or sheltered in place so we also have a much younger infected base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.
That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.
If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising. So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables. I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april. I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day). We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks. I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.
-
I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?
Some ideas that could explain why we haven't seen a big increase in deaths yet:
- younger and healthier people are the ones who take the most risks, so it takes about 2 weeks for them to get sick, then they infect people at home, then about two weeks for those to start getting noticeably sick, and then about two weeks to get sick enough to die (though sometimes it happens quicker... my friend's aunt, a lady in her 60s, seemed well but 6 days later she was dead)
- hospitals take some time to reach capacity
- we've gotten better at identifying covid and watching out for Covid symptoms that lead to fatalities, such as blood clots. This is positive, though will this advance knowledge help us heal the covid patients for good?
-
There's a rather amazing Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/mbeckett/status/1278750652160634880) out there with someone talking about Simpson's Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#:~:text=Simpson's%20paradox%2C%20which%20goes%20by,when%20these%20groups%20are%20combined.) and how it applies to this situation. The Tl;dr is that if you want to see what the actual death rate is you need to look at things on a county level.. If you look just at Arizona and Texas their death rate is climbing exactly as you expect not long after the infection rate starts climbing. But because NY and NJ are now under control, if you take the aggregate data from the US as a whole then it looks like we're doing fine, we've got this under control. We do not. It's an intellectually dishonest form of statistical manipulation to compare apples to oranges and make things seem better than they are. Hospitals in Houston are just beginning to fill up. How long after things got serious in NY did that happen? And that's when the death rate really jumped. We haven't seen that yet in AZ and TX but we're about to.
I would love to be wrong. I don't think I am. I don't think the doctors, nurses, epidemiologists, and other healthcare workers and scientists who have been sounding the alarm are wrong about this.
I envy the people who don't know anyone who's gotten sick. My friend's daughter was just diagnosed. She's 4 and has a seizure disorder. And yes, one of the things that COVID can cause is seizures. I double-checked. No idea what will happen to a kid who already gets grand mal seizures.
-
A similar trend is happening in Israel.
Rising cases
(https://i.imgur.com/AfGFqM8.png)
Deaths flat
(https://i.imgur.com/5xVXjsX.png)
Good data to view trends by region: https://public.tableau.com/profile/peter.james.walker#!/vizhome/Coronavirus-ChangeovertimeintheUSA/Regions-T_P
IFR data and stratification by age taken from Spain serological data. If avg age of confirmed cases has dropped to ~ mid 30's (in FL) from ~ 60 in April, and we are capturing a higher % of total infections, we should see the CFR drop significantly. According to this chart, the IFR for under 40 peaks at ~ 0.02%. Even if we are only capturing 10% of infections, we should see the CFR drop by a very significant margin.
(https://i.imgur.com/XvyWpI1.jpg)
-
The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.
That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.
If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising. So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables. I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april. I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day). We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks. I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.
For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.
-
For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.
I'll try to remember not to quote so as not to disturb your peace.
-
For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.
I'll try to remember not to quote so as not to disturb your peace.
I honestly wonder how some people get through their day without walking into walls or trying to poke a sandwich in their eye.
-
The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.
That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.
If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising. So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables. I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april. I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day). We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks. I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.
For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.
Yes. Broadway star Nick Cordero, who died this week of COVID-19 complications at age 41 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nick-cordero-death-broadway-actor-age-41-coronavirus/), was sick for more than 3 months and underwent a leg amputation and medically induced coma before the disease finally killed him.
The person I knew who died of it was in the hospital for weeks, and on a ventilator for much of that time.
But sure, all the experts are wrong.
-
The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.
That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.
If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising. So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables. I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april. I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day). We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks. I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.
For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.
Yes. Broadway star Nick Cordero, who died this week of COVID-19 complications at age 41 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nick-cordero-death-broadway-actor-age-41-coronavirus/), was sick for more than 3 months and underwent a leg amputation and medically induced coma before the disease finally killed him.
The person I knew who died of it was in the hospital for weeks, and on a ventilator for much of that time.
But sure, all the experts are wrong.
41. That's like . . . sooooo geriatric. His lack of history of medical problems must have been what put him in a high risk group. It's a good thing this disease isn't a problem for younger people in decent condition.
-
The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.
That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.
If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising. So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables. I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april. I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day). We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks. I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.
For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.
Yes. Broadway star Nick Cordero, who died this week of COVID-19 complications at age 41 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nick-cordero-death-broadway-actor-age-41-coronavirus/), was sick for more than 3 months and underwent a leg amputation and medically induced coma before the disease finally killed him.
The person I knew who died of it was in the hospital for weeks, and on a ventilator for much of that time.
But sure, all the experts are wrong.
41. That's like . . . sooooo geriatric. His lack of history of medical problems must have been what put him in a high risk group. It's a good thing this disease isn't a problem for younger people in decent condition.
From his pictures he was also clearly overweight (https://www.google.com/search?q=nick+cordero&sxsrf=ALeKk03TIIL2xT_xJEC9m6FrH-aCRiMxYQ:1594146027126&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcwKrd4LvqAhUvHzQIHRAzAyoQ_AUoAnoECBcQBA&biw=1280&bih=610&dpr=1.5) and everyone knows that singers have terrible lung function. I'm sure he was just susceptible to it. Clearly his fault for having a bad lifestyle. Didn't eat enough salads, or do deadlifts, or something.
-
The Hill: Fauci warns against 'false complacency' on COVID-19 (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/506206-fauci-warns-against-false-complacency-on-covid-19-death-rates)
Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, warned Tuesday the U.S. should not fall into "false complacency" because COVID-19 death rates have dropped, noting the virus can cause other severe health outcomes.
"It's a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death," Fauci said Tuesday during a livestreamed press conference hosted by Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.)
-
I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?
https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility - put in "United States"
It looks like people people only gradually started going back out again in May, so it must have taken a while to hit the tipping point. A pandemic is a system with an exponential function. If your coefficient is close to 1, a small change can mean the difference between exponential decay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay) and unstable exponential growth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth).
That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing.
This is the number to watch:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/
-
I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?
https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility - put in "United States"
It looks like people people only gradually started going back out again in May, so it must have taken a while to hit the tipping point. A pandemic is a system with an exponential function. If your coefficient is close to 1, a small change can mean the difference between exponential decay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay) and unstable exponential growth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth).
That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing.
This is the number to watch:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/
That Apple site is cool, thanks! I think what it shows is that by early May when the lockdowns started to be lifted, we had already seen an increase in both driving and walking around 20-25% from the depths of the lockdown in early April. So the "baseline" movement of people during lockdowns was already increasing weeks before the lockdowns officially began to be lifted. People were just "over it". That means the delay between the time when traffic increased and cases spiked in late June was more like 8-9 weeks than 5 or 6 which only makes me more curious about why it took so long for "cases" to see an increase.
It would be really interesting to see the COVID Tracking Project offer an overlay of their charts over time with data from NY/NJ removed to see how much the worst hit areas were impacting the national level data 2 months ago. That might make it easier to parse out if reductions in "cases" in those places were enough to offset increasing cases in places that had begun to open. I'm not really seeing that in the data for my individual state, but it could be the case nationally.
As for the Statista R0 by state chart, I prefer this site as I think it's easier to interpret and offers some level of back-dating so you can monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot:
https://rt.live/
-
That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing.
This is the number to watch:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/
This is interesting. However, is this calculation being done based on confirmed infections? Just curious how the spread rate is being calculated here, as actual infections are likely 10x+ more than confirmed.
-
As for the Statista R0 by state chart, I prefer this site as I think it's easier to interpret and offers some level of back-dating so you can monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot:
https://rt.live/
Wow, that's really cool.
This is interesting. However, is this calculation being done based on confirmed infections? Just curious how the spread rate is being calculated here, as actual infections are likely 10x+ more than confirmed.
A deeper dive into the methodology might be interesting. I'm not an epidemiologist or sociologist. I only have a passing idea of what goes into the specifics of an epidemiological/sociological system. (Once you get there, though, math is math. The exponential curves look surprisingly familiar to me.)
-
That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing.
This is the number to watch:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/
This is interesting. However, is this calculation being done based on confirmed infections? Just curious how the spread rate is being calculated here, as actual infections are likely 10x+ more than confirmed.
Where are you getting that number from?
-
Where are you getting that number from?
It was the CDC estimate (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cdc-estimates-10-times-as-many-us-coronavirus-cases-than-have-been-reported-2020-06-25)
However, many serological studies indicate the multiple could be much higher (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/edit?fbclid=IwAR23hDbmyNd2k4wIsZ3AUl4LQxb6ZmDrknz3ZInWMBx7YovtiYeH8p4On38#gid=0).
-
As for the Statista R0 by state chart, I prefer this site as I think it's easier to interpret and offers some level of back-dating so you can monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot:
https://rt.live/
@Paper Chaser - great link:).
-
Where are you getting that number from?
It was the CDC estimate (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cdc-estimates-10-times-as-many-us-coronavirus-cases-than-have-been-reported-2020-06-25)
However, many serological studies indicate the multiple could be much higher (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/edit?fbclid=IwAR23hDbmyNd2k4wIsZ3AUl4LQxb6ZmDrknz3ZInWMBx7YovtiYeH8p4On38#gid=0).
Thank you for finally citing a source. According to your article it's not that there are currently 10x more infections ongoing, but that so many weren't caught in the beginning. "The new estimate is based on CDC studies of blood samples collected nationwide — some by the CDC and others from blood donations and other sources. Many infections were not caught in early testing, when supplies were limited and federal officials prioritized testing for those with symptoms." Also, when the tests were faulty/faultier.
Once again, they're not saying that there are 10x more (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/25/coronavirus-cases-10-times-larger/) people walking around with COVID and it's no big deal, because it's less deadly than we thought. This is that they missed so many cases that the official total is way lower than what it should be. Which matches up with the fact that the official death toll (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronavirus-death-toll-total.html) is way lower (https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/08/houston-coronavirus-deaths-number/) than what it should be (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01288-7) as well.
-
Once again, they're not saying that there are 10x more people walking around with COVID and it's no big deal, because it's less deadly than we thought. This is that they missed so many cases that the official total is way lower than what it should be.
Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We are only capturing ~ 10% (or less) of total infections per the CDC's estimate, hence my post above that our case data is a massive under representation of total infections -- you asked for a source and I provided it. The context of the discussion was not about infection fatality rate or severeness of the disease. The discussion was about spread rates and how they are being calculated -- I had asked if it was based on confirmed case data. The reason for my question was obvious -- spread rates could be much worse than the estimates indicated.
Serological studies indicate the total infection multiplier may even be much (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/edit?fbclid=IwAR23hDbmyNd2k4wIsZ3AUl4LQxb6ZmDrknz3ZInWMBx7YovtiYeH8p4On38#gid=0) higher than the CDC estimate. Infection fatality rate is another discussion.
-
The discussion was about spread rates and how they are being calculated -- I had asked if it was based on confirmed case data. The reason for my question was obvious -- spread rates could be much worse than the estimates indicated.
So, for the link that I posted, it seems like they're heavily factoring the daily reported new cases which they glean from The Covid Tracking Project. Their FAQ is here: https://rt.live/faq
From their FAQ:
"How does the new model work?
In the simplest terms, it searches for the most likely curve of Rt that produced the new cases per day that we observe. It does this through some neat (and powerful!) math that is beyond the scope of this FAQ. In more complex terms: we assume a seed number of people and a curve of Rt over the history of the pandemic, we then distribute those cases into the future using a known delay distribution between infection and positive report. We then scale and add noise based on known testing volumes via a negative binomial with an exposure parameter for a given day to recover an observed series. We plan on publishing our code soon, so if you’re so inclined you’ll be able to run it, too."
Analyzing their code is way out of my wheelhouse, but it's available here if anybody is so inclined:
https://github.com/rtcovidlive/covid-model
-
Once again, they're not saying that there are 10x more people walking around with COVID and it's no big deal, because it's less deadly than we thought. This is that they missed so many cases that the official total is way lower than what it should be.
Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We are only capturing ~ 10% (or less) of total infections per the CDC's estimate, hence my post above that our case data is a massive under representation of total infections -- you asked for a source and I provided it. The context of the discussion was not about infection fatality rate or severeness of the disease. The discussion was about spread rates and how they are being calculated -- I had asked if it was based on confirmed case data. The reason for my question was obvious -- spread rates could be much worse than the estimates indicated.
Serological studies indicate the total infection multiplier may even be much (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/edit?fbclid=IwAR23hDbmyNd2k4wIsZ3AUl4LQxb6ZmDrknz3ZInWMBx7YovtiYeH8p4On38#gid=0) higher than the CDC estimate. Infection fatality rate is another discussion.
I was clarifying what the article (and the CDC) said, and what they didn't say. Since people keep bringing up this idea that the infection rate is somehow magically way higher than we know, which would make the death rate much lower, as a backdoor to "iT's OvErBlOwN! wE'rE sAfE! ThE cUrE iS wOrSe ThAn ThE aIlMeNt!". And that's not actually what the numbers say, or what the CDC is saying.
Hey, lookee here! Death rate is starting to tick upwards (https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-09/coronavirus-deaths-increasing-in-states-with-resurgences) in states that are seeing surging COVID cases (https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2020/07/09/harvard-global-health-institute-warns-coronavirus-still-dangerous). Right on time (https://www.salon.com/2020/07/08/56-florida-hospitals-hit-100-icu-capacity-as-desantis-defends-refusal-to-release-coronavirus-data/). :( What was all that earlier in the thread about never shutting down again (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/states-with-severe-coronavirus-outbreaks-should-seriously-look-at-shutting-down-dr-fauci-says.html), because we did such a fantastic job of it the first time?
-
The deaths are also not happening in an unpredictable amount of time after the new outbreaks emerged. Simply look at the curves yourself. Cases began to rise on June 16; a week later, hospitalizations began to rise. Two weeks after that—21 days after cases rose—states began to report more deaths. That’s the exact number of days that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated from the onset of symptoms to the reporting of a death.
By the absolute or per capita numbers, the U.S. stands out as nearly the only country besides Iran that had a large spring outbreak, began to suppress the virus, and then simply let the virus come back.
This is so depressing. I guess unless you lived it like we have in some parts of NY, NJ, or CT, it seems unreal. People need to learn from the experiences of others. Damn it, if you don't have many cases, then you need to wear masks, distance yourselves, test as needed, and answer the questions of the covid tracers honestly... otherwise you'll get deaths and quarantines. It's that simple.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/second-coronavirus-death-surge/614122/
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
That's a good thing. When things are changing as quickly as they have been, concrete plans are pretty worthless.
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy. One is near retirement age and considered high risk. Another has two very young children. They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid. They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too. So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy. One is near retirement age and considered high risk. Another has two very young children. They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid. They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too. So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).
Our school system is planning on opening too, though without lockdown or fire drills. I'm guessing that school is not going to last much into October. As soon as it starts getting cold and the windows have to close, the virus is going to start to spike again.
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
Was your area hard hit in the first wave? If so what was it like?
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy. One is near retirement age and considered high risk. Another has two very young children. They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid. They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too. So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).
It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy. One is near retirement age and considered high risk. Another has two very young children. They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid. They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too. So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).
It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?
But oh my gawd, think of all the poor teachers who'd have to discuss this issue with the kids of asshats who've told them it's "their right" not to wear a mask, and then the hubbub when the kid gets in trouble for being a douche....
I am friends with or family to quite a number of teachers and every single one is terrified of what this fall is going to bring, and massively stressed out. My aunt and uncle (one a primary teacher, one a uni prof) finally retired about a year ago and are singing Halleluja that they did so before all of this. Both are high risk anyway, but even aside from that just the nightmare of what teachers are being asked to do is making them thankful they're out of it all.
After initially thinking that we'd send our kid back for the two day a week thing, we've now decided that we won't. Frankly, if you have the means I think it's rather immoral to send your kid back. There are just so many reasons why, but if looking at things from a teacher's point of view won't sway you, then at least keeping your kids home for their own safety. I don't want to take the bet that my (perfectly healthy) child will emerge unscathed (https://cbs12.com/news/local/doctors-concerned-that-covid-19-may-be-harming-lungs-of-children). I would also really rather not have her 1st grade year marked by how many students and teachers at her school were hospitalized or died.
And at least if we're doing online school anyway, when things get shut down again due to an inevitable (at this point) outbreak in the school, or due to more stay-at-home orders, it won't change things for us at all.
Fun new research of the week: COVID might cause male infertility. (https://www.ktsm.com/coronavirus-2/covid-19-can-cause-male-infertility-be-transmitted-sexually/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR3AgjVRRwSWypG9UBBSp56TWgChVtdzkxZTuDCzUyrmud_UxLA1Teiwkag) I've seen some small rumblings about this for a few months but someone actually rounded up a bunch of research papers that have been published about this possibility (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7171435/), and the evidence of its possibility. (No one can say for certain yet, of course.) The article I linked to gives a good overview of some of it. So if you men want to have kids in the future, or parents of boys want the possibility of grandchildren...don't get COVID.
-
I quit my tenured faculty job four years ago, and I can’t tell you how many time I have thought or said out loud, “Oh my GOD I’m so glad I left teaching before this.”
-
Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September. By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete. SMH.
My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy. One is near retirement age and considered high risk. Another has two very young children. They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid. They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too. So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).
It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?
But oh my gawd, think of all the poor teachers who'd have to discuss this issue with the kids of asshats who've told them it's "their right" not to wear a mask, and then the hubbub when the kid gets in trouble for being a douche....
I am friends with or family to quite a number of teachers and every single one is terrified of what this fall is going to bring, and massively stressed out. My aunt and uncle (one a primary teacher, one a uni prof) finally retired about a year ago and are singing Halleluja that they did so before all of this. Both are high risk anyway, but even aside from that just the nightmare of what teachers are being asked to do is making them thankful they're out of it all.
After initially thinking that we'd send our kid back for the two day a week thing, we've now decided that we won't. Frankly, if you have the means I think it's rather immoral to send your kid back. There are just so many reasons why, but if looking at things from a teacher's point of view won't sway you, then at least keeping your kids home for their own safety. I don't want to take the bet that my (perfectly healthy) child will emerge unscathed (https://cbs12.com/news/local/doctors-concerned-that-covid-19-may-be-harming-lungs-of-children). I would also really rather not have her 1st grade year marked by how many students and teachers at her school were hospitalized or died.
And at least if we're doing online school anyway, when things get shut down again due to an inevitable (at this point) outbreak in the school, or due to more stay-at-home orders, it won't change things for us at all.
Fun new research of the week: COVID might cause male infertility. (https://www.ktsm.com/coronavirus-2/covid-19-can-cause-male-infertility-be-transmitted-sexually/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR3AgjVRRwSWypG9UBBSp56TWgChVtdzkxZTuDCzUyrmud_UxLA1Teiwkag) I've seen some small rumblings about this for a few months but someone actually rounded up a bunch of research papers that have been published about this possibility (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7171435/), and the evidence of its possibility. (No one can say for certain yet, of course.) The article I linked to gives a good overview of some of it. So if you men want to have kids in the future, or parents of boys want the possibility of grandchildren...don't get COVID.
I could have saved some HSA money on my vasectomy if I just waited for COVID!
-
I quit my tenured faculty job four years ago, and I can’t tell you how many time I have thought or said out loud, “Oh my GOD I’m so glad I left teaching before this.”
My retired colleague friend and I are right there with you. How to do online teaching for a hands-on science? Not our problem.
-
My parents continue in their tenured faculty positions in central Texas today (two different institutions). Both expect to be providing plenty of virtual instruction in the coming year.
-
I quit my tenured faculty job four years ago, and I can’t tell you how many time I have thought or said out loud, “Oh my GOD I’m so glad I left teaching before this.”
My retired colleague friend and I are right there with you. How to do online teaching for a hands-on science? Not our problem.
We are expecting to learn if we are going back in person or online within the week.
If it's online, well, I'll have my incoming high schooler go on line and drop Construction tech (shop class) for computer programming.
-
Things seem to be under control for the short-term here in CT, so I'm trying to find strategies to help us cope that will work long term (at least the next 12 months) so I don't feel like the world is crashing like I did in March. I'm home full time with two young kids which means we haven't faced as many obstacles as other families but still, the feelings of isolation were/are very strong. Baby #3 is due around the holidays, so I'm preparing for basically a hibernation stage around that time. My oldest is scheduled to return to our neighborhood preschool a few days a week in September, but who knows how long that will last. After the baby comes, we're making plans to stay with my MIL for a few weeks so we can still have some support during our 'hibernation' phase this winter. My spouse has generous parental leave and will be taking at least three months off.
For now, I've purchased a membership to the local aquarium, which has both an indoor and outdoor area, so even if things regress, hopefully the outdoor area remains open. We're going to stay at a local hotel with an outdoor pool for a weekend to mix up our routine a bit. (My 4 year old is most excited about riding the elevator.) We've been spending a LOT of time at the beach, and will probably keep that up all the way through September. It's more crowded than I'd like, but I find it very restorative, and it's one of the highlights of living where we do. Also we don't have any A/C at home and man is it getting hot! I've been able to join up with some local friends for hikes and beach outings and it's so great to reconnect. Talking to someone on a screen is no substitute.
We have a fixer upper of a house (and a zillion things to do before the baby gets here) so that's where a lot of our time and mental energy are going. It's been kind of nice to have a big project to work on and take our minds off all of the what-ifs that surround our lives right now.
-
It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?
Just in general there's a disconnect when folks are all for the government mandating covering certain parts of the anatomy with cloth, but when it comes to covering your mouth and nose it's tyranny!
-
It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?
Just in general there's a disconnect when folks are all for the government mandating covering certain parts of the anatomy with cloth, but when it comes to covering your mouth and nose it's tyranny!
I mentioned this in a separate thread, but my local school district's board members acknowledged in a meeting yesterday that it would be difficult to defend requiring dress codes & uniforms in court if parents were willing to take it that far.
They were willing to mandate masks, but claim that they don't have the legal footing to do so. The state governor gave local mayors the authority to require masks, and the school board stated that if the local mayor were to mandate masks, then they could use that to do the same in schools (for kids 12 & up).
-
It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?
Just in general there's a disconnect when folks are all for the government mandating covering certain parts of the anatomy with cloth, but when it comes to covering your mouth and nose it's tyranny!
I mentioned this in a separate thread, but my local school district's board members acknowledged in a meeting yesterday that it would be difficult to defend requiring dress codes & uniforms in court if parents were willing to take it that far.
They were willing to mandate masks, but claim that they don't have the legal footing to do so. The state governor gave local mayors the authority to require masks, and the school board stated that if the local mayor were to mandate masks, then they could use that to do the same in schools (for kids 12 & up).
This is exactly why we need mask mandates. Not for the police to go and hand out fines, but to give individual institutions support for enforcing them.
-
Things seem to be under control for the short-term here in CT, so I'm trying to find strategies to help us cope that will work long term (at least the next 12 months) so I don't feel like the world is crashing like I did in March. I'm home full time with two young kids which means we haven't faced as many obstacles as other families but still, the feelings of isolation were/are very strong. Baby #3 is due around the holidays, so I'm preparing for basically a hibernation stage around that time. My oldest is scheduled to return to our neighborhood preschool a few days a week in September, but who knows how long that will last. After the baby comes, we're making plans to stay with my MIL for a few weeks so we can still have some support during our 'hibernation' phase this winter. My spouse has generous parental leave and will be taking at least three months off.
For now, I've purchased a membership to the local aquarium, which has both an indoor and outdoor area, so even if things regress, hopefully the outdoor area remains open. We're going to stay at a local hotel with an outdoor pool for a weekend to mix up our routine a bit. (My 4 year old is most excited about riding the elevator.) We've been spending a LOT of time at the beach, and will probably keep that up all the way through September. It's more crowded than I'd like, but I find it very restorative, and it's one of the highlights of living where we do. Also we don't have any A/C at home and man is it getting hot! I've been able to join up with some local friends for hikes and beach outings and it's so great to reconnect. Talking to someone on a screen is no substitute.
We have a fixer upper of a house (and a zillion things to do before the baby gets here) so that's where a lot of our time and mental energy are going. It's been kind of nice to have a big project to work on and take our minds off all of the what-ifs that surround our lives right now.
CT here as well...Glad to hear you are getting out of the house a bit. Connecticut does appear to be doing better than March/April but I suspect it's a tinder box waiting to ignite once the kids go back to school...
I have been blessed with an autoimmune disease (Addison's Disease) so my family and I are staying pretty close to home... wife goes to the grocery store once every 10 days, and otherwise we stay on our 3 acres. I have a sales job that I get to WFH and my wife had to quit her job to stay home with the kids in March and she's been very active with home schooling the two kiddos since...even buying supplemental materials out of pocket because the school failed so miserably with "distance learning". They will be staying home again this fall, doing their school-provided distance learning and supplemental home school work. We are blessed to be able to keep our kids home... should I get canned eventually then we have savings that will hopefully get us through this madness.
Like I said, we don't get out much, on purpose. For exercise I dug out my old mountain bike and I've got a pretty good 11 mile loop that takes me about 45 minutes. I forgot how much I enjoy riding my bike!
Otherwise, we drove down to the beach last week after it closed to let the kids play in the water, sand, look for seaglass, etc... and even though there weren't too many people there, there were still a significant amount of "ass hats" that 1) brought their new puppy to the beach who just haaaad to go visit with every other socially distancing person on the beach and the kids had to chase it down, getting uncomfortably close, while meat-head/ass-hat-dad yucked it up with strangers 2)this clueless looking couple insisted upon walking straight at my kids along the water, forcing me to tell the kids, in a voice loud enough so the idiots could hear, they need to move away from where those people are walking because we don't know them and they might have the corona virus, 3) ainsi de suite...
Did you get a membership to the Mystic Aquarium? I love that place, though there's no way in hell I'm going there this summer even though they have an outside part. That place is swarming with people in normal times...not sure what it's like now under COVID but under normal circumstances its a swarming magnitude of dirty kids and rude tourists. The thought of going there now makes me want to wash my hands!
Interestingly, the real estate market seems to be on fire. I do not work in real estate but I enjoy tracking the local market and select markets in places I like to vacation, etc... It seems that as soon as a new house hits the market it gets snatched up within a day or two... usually it's "contingent" which means someone needs to 1)sell their house or 2)find a new house before the transaction can go through.
Anyway, that was slightly rambling. TLDR, CT is doing pretty good at this point but it's gonna be real ugly in couple months.
-
Did you get a membership to the Mystic Aquarium? I love that place, though there's no way in hell I'm going there this summer even though they have an outside part. That place is swarming with people in normal times...not sure what it's like now under COVID but under normal circumstances its a swarming magnitude of dirty kids and rude tourists. The thought of going there now makes me want to wash my hands!
Interestingly, the real estate market seems to be on fire. I do not work in real estate but I enjoy tracking the local market and select markets in places I like to vacation, etc... It seems that as soon as a new house hits the market it gets snatched up within a day or two... usually it's "contingent" which means someone needs to 1)sell their house or 2)find a new house before the transaction can go through.
Anyway, that was slightly rambling. TLDR, CT is doing pretty good at this point but it's gonna be real ugly in couple months.
Yup, Mystic. They are limiting the number of people and you have to select a timed entry beforehand. And masks are required. I have heard good things from other friends that now have memberships. Plus we can go weekdays instead of weekends. And my kids wake up at the crack of dawn so it's easy to go right when they open.
We have quite a few people moving here from NY. We normally get a lot of NYC transplants anyways, but it seems to have picked up. I had a few friends that were worried about selling their houses this past spring but everything got snapped up right away.
I'm happy I don't have school aged children yet - I have some friends struggling with what to do with their kids, and some of them are teachers themselves. No good choices, really. I'm content to have my 4 year old go to the neighborhood preschool a few days a week for as long as they are choosing to stay open, and then when the inevitable shutdown happens, c'est la vie.