Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand the need to protect this woman's privacy, but I would like to know in which city she lives.
NY State officials had no problem with stating that a lawyer who had contracted the virus lived in New Rochelle. They also said that he worked in NYC; and even identified the schools his children attended.
This information helps the community, even if it is just to remind local residents to exercise caution and perform frequent handwashing. Also, people would like to know if they may have had contact with the individual at work, in a gym, or wherever. All of this might help with that little effort called containment.
Here’s how it works with infectious diseases: people who are most vulnerable stay home, and are assisted by other less vulnerable people who circulate freely thus becoming unwitting/ unknowing “carriers” ... who then bring the infectious disease to the people staying home. Get it now?
Since 60% or more of us are likely to contract the disease, wouldn't it make more sense for those at risk to have a hard lockdown period (isolated at home with food deliveries they disinfect and heat to above virus survival temperatures) of a month or two while the rest go about their business as usual so we can let it quickly burn through the healthy community and die out (or at least die down) from naturally developed herd immunity?
I mean, I get the ideal would be we all lockdown and stop the virus cold like China. This half-measure of "social distancing" seems like an untested experiment somebody thought up in a back room and we've all group-think agreed to implement with no evidence it will work at all.
Even if everybody voluntarily complies (and we see that they're not) we don't know if it will work to slow the virus and flatten the hospitalization curve.
We do know how long the unmitigated virus will take to burn through a community with no precautions. Why don't we take what we actually do know and isolate our at-risk population during that period, instead?
Since 60% or more of us are likely to contract the disease, wouldn't it make more sense for those at risk to have a hard lockdown period (isolated at home with food deliveries they disinfect and heat to above virus survival temperatures) of a month or two while the rest go about their business as usual so we can let it quickly burn through the healthy community and die out (or at least die down) from naturally developed herd immunity?
I mean, I get the ideal would be we all lockdown and stop the virus cold like China. This half-measure of "social distancing" seems like an untested experiment somebody thought up in a back room and we've all group-think agreed to implement with no evidence it will work at all.
Even if everybody voluntarily complies (and we see that they're not) we don't know if it will work to slow the virus and flatten the hospitalization curve.
We do know how long the unmitigated virus will take to burn through a community with no precautions. Why don't we take what we actually do know and isolate our at-risk population during that period, instead?
Personally, I dunno. Interesting thought to consider at least. But I’d like to hear considerations on that from epidemiologists, I guess.
The problem is that we can't isolate ourselves enough if this really lets loose into the general population. Think of how many people you interact with in a week or a month.
I saw some guy on TV who was trying to say that social distancing is not needed, because what happens when everything opens up again? Unbelievable. The point is that once you have community spread, social distancing slows down the rate at which the disease spreads. Infections will still continue, since people will need to go the market, etc. but if the rate of infection is 3 people instead of 6 people, the numbers of infected look very different after only a few weeks. Here is actual information I found about doubling times:
If during an outbreak the number of cases is in fact doubling and this doubling time stays constant, then the outbreak is spreading exponentially.
Under exponential growth 500 cases grow to more than 1 million cases after 11 doubling times.6 And after 10 more doubling times it would be 1 billion cases.
With social distancing -
If you start with one person infecting three other people, those three infect three more, etc., within a very short time you have 243 infected. (I chose three because it's a relatively low number, and most of us live with other people.)
Without social distancing -
If one person infects six other people, they infect six more, etc., within the same time frame you have 7,776 people infected. (This could be a conservative estimate, and certain people would be more likely to infect others due to the nature of their jobs, etc.)
If we then take 20% of each group as who are most likely to end up hospitalized and needing oxygen or ventilators, the first group is 49 people. The second group is 1,555 people. Which number would you rather see on oxygen/ventilators?
If business conferences weren't canceled, you'd see higher rates of spread as one person can infect 50 or 100 (like what happened with that attorney in New York). So yes, tell me again that social distancing isn't necessary to get a handle on this!
The problem is that we can't isolate ourselves enough if this really lets loose into the general population. Think of how many people you interact with in a week or a month.
I saw some guy on TV who was trying to say that social distancing is not needed, because what happens when everything opens up again? Unbelievable. The point is that once you have community spread, social distancing slows down the rate at which the disease spreads. Infections will still continue, since people will need to go the market, etc. but if the rate of infection is 3 people instead of 6 people, the numbers of infected look very different after only a few weeks. Here is actual information I found about doubling times:
If during an outbreak the number of cases is in fact doubling and this doubling time stays constant, then the outbreak is spreading exponentially.
Under exponential growth 500 cases grow to more than 1 million cases after 11 doubling times.6 And after 10 more doubling times it would be 1 billion cases.
With social distancing -
If you start with one person infecting three other people, those three infect three more, etc., within a very short time you have 243 infected. (I chose three because it's a relatively low number, and most of us live with other people.)
Without social distancing -
If one person infects six other people, they infect six more, etc., within the same time frame you have 7,776 people infected. (This could be a conservative estimate, and certain people would be more likely to infect others due to the nature of their jobs, etc.)
If we then take 20% of each group as who are most likely to end up hospitalized and needing oxygen or ventilators, the first group is 49 people. The second group is 1,555 people. Which number would you rather see on oxygen/ventilators?
If business conferences weren't canceled, you'd see higher rates of spread as one person can infect 50 or 100 (like what happened with that attorney in New York). So yes, tell me again that social distancing isn't necessary to get a handle on this!
I’ve been a bit flippant on this and I still think it’s overblown. Some statistics I’ve seen said 80% of the people who succumb to this are elderly and have health issues. The panic buying helps no one. I had a coworker fretting because she can’t find TP.
I think the closings may help, and I did have the attitude that I’m going to church on Sunday, damn the torpedos, full steam ahead. I’ve changed my mind and will stay home. I’m not worried about the virus, but to stem it, I’ll do my part.
I’ve always stayed home from work if I felt sick. That’s common courtesy. But the abject panic doesn’t help anyone. Does laying awake at night help stop this? The grocery store parking lot was full this morning at 7:00am when I drove by. I can only imagine the pandemonium inside.
Everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath and relax.
Maybe the majority of us will get the disease but it is important to slow down the rate of infection in order to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. So if you don’t need to interact with other people, then don’t.
Also remember, they are working on a vaccine....so if we can slow the rate of infection, it might buy us time so that eventually we can become inoculated against it.
The problem is that we can't isolate ourselves enough if this really lets loose into the general population. Think of how many people you interact with in a week or a month.
I saw some guy on TV who was trying to say that social distancing is not needed, because what happens when everything opens up again? Unbelievable. The point is that once you have community spread, social distancing slows down the rate at which the disease spreads. Infections will still continue, since people will need to go the market, etc. but if the rate of infection is 3 people instead of 6 people, the numbers of infected look very different after only a few weeks. Here is actual information I found about doubling times:
If during an outbreak the number of cases is in fact doubling and this doubling time stays constant, then the outbreak is spreading exponentially.
Under exponential growth 500 cases grow to more than 1 million cases after 11 doubling times.6 And after 10 more doubling times it would be 1 billion cases.
With social distancing -
If you start with one person infecting three other people, those three infect three more, etc., within a very short time you have 243 infected. (I chose three because it's a relatively low number, and most of us live with other people.)
Without social distancing -
If one person infects six other people, they infect six more, etc., within the same time frame you have 7,776 people infected. (This could be a conservative estimate, and certain people would be more likely to infect others due to the nature of their jobs, etc.)
If we then take 20% of each group as who are most likely to end up hospitalized and needing oxygen or ventilators, the first group is 49 people. The second group is 1,555 people. Which number would you rather see on oxygen/ventilators?
If business conferences weren't canceled, you'd see higher rates of spread as one person can infect 50 or 100 (like what happened with that attorney in New York). So yes, tell me again that social distancing isn't necessary to get a handle on this!
I like your thought process. I still go back to the swine flu. We were living in SD at the time the first case broke out in April 2009. We were away on our kids spring break, but while the news covered this, there was not the media hype. Nothing was shut down or closed, we went about our routine business as usual. This highly impacted kids back then and no schools were closed. It affected 60M Americans and killed 12,000. Part of me, is let’s do exactly what you say or some form of it.
Wish the doctors really gave more details and even compared the two with similarities and differences. From what I can tell, Corona is more easily transmitted and stays on surfaces longer. But, the fact remains, all the deaths with the exception of a few are in the old or have a pre-existing medical issue. I just can’t imagine we’re going to see 12,000 deaths from this (worldwide is only 5,798 right now) in the US yet everything is beginning to be shut down. Our kids’ colleges are all online now for the rest of spring semester. It still seems so overblown to me, but we’ll see who’s right and wrong. I hope these actions curtail it so this isn’t all we’re talking about come June.
Maybe the majority of us will get the disease but it is important to slow down the rate of infection in order to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. So if you don’t need to interact with other people, then don’t.
Also remember, they are working on a vaccine....so if we can slow the rate of infection, it might buy us time so that eventually we can become inoculated against it.
It is unlikely the majority of us will get the disease. as for those, maybe not you to even think those of us who are the most at risk, especially those over 60 should be isolated for up to 2 months is totally nutty. To all of you, for heavens sake, this is not a death sentence. It isn't like a group of terrorists are standing at the bottom of a hill and telling all of us, if you go outside we are going to spray you with a virus that will kill you for sure or cause you to kill others. Yes, many will probably be affected in the next few months. some more seriously than others. But the panic is totally uncalled for. Remember China let is go, for too long, they are a communistic country and do not have the best healthy facilities in the world or the best living conditions.
I like your thought process. I still go back to the swine flu. We were living in SD at the time the first case broke out in April 2009. We were away on our kids spring break, but while the news covered this, there was not the media hype. Nothing was shut down or closed, we went about our routine business as usual. This highly impacted kids back then and no schools were closed. It affected 60M Americans and killed 12,000. Part of me, is let’s do exactly what you say or some form of it.
Wish the doctors really gave more details and even compared the two with similarities and differences. From what I can tell, Corona is more easily transmitted and stays on surfaces longer. But, the fact remains, all the deaths with the exception of a few are in the old or have a pre-existing medical issue. I just can’t imagine we’re going to see 12,000 deaths from this (worldwide is only 5,798 right now) in the US yet everything is beginning to be shut down. Our kids’ colleges are all online now for the rest of spring semester. It still seems so overblown to me, but we’ll see who’s right and wrong. I hope these actions curtail it so this isn’t all we’re talking about come June.
If people would just take a deep breath and relax a bit, this would not be the only thing we will be talking about come June of even come Monday
I have a serious respiratory disease which has almost taken my life many, many times. For those who have never experienced a hospitalization because of severe shortness of breath and almost died, I will say it is time to take this thing seriously. That does not mean panic but does mean stop thinking that you are invincible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
