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 don't know all the details. But people who work in essential businesses have to go to work. That is anywhere in the country. So not sure a stay at home order would have mattered.
Technically, this isn't really accurate.
I work for a hospital IT department. We are "essential" and got our paperwork from the head of HR and corporate incident commander, who is basically the head of all COVID coordination for the hospital system.
We've been working from home, according to my senior director, for four weeks now. I think I was home most of the week prior to that, so almost five weeks for me. I think we were told to go home St. Patrick's Day. We'll be home until at least the stay at home order is rescinded, and maybe some time beyond that with half office occupancy, etc.
There are a lot of people who may be technically essential, but can telecommute.
I don't know all the details. But people who work in essential businesses have to go to work. That is anywhere in the country. So not sure a stay at home order would have mattered. If this person was going to work with the virus before they knew they were sick and infecting others. Well I am not sure how you prevent this. If they went to work when they knew they were sick, that is not good. How patent zero got it is the question. It could have been management visiting from headquarters elsewhere or any number of ways.
We can close down all food plants so that then we will have major food shortages. That is not an option. My guess is Smithfield probably did not do the best job at social distancing their employees. The state had guidelines that people were suppose to follow. With the amount of cases I can't imagine that was being followed.
It is safe to say Smithfield dropped the ball by not checking temperatures. Amazon got flack for their facilities having far stricter policies and people coming up positive as they came to work. A number of Amazon plants closed for a day or two due to the virus and the clean-up and disnfection process. Smithfield now is closed not for a day or two but indefinitely.
As for me saying that the stay-at-home wouldn't have worked or would have worked is all heresay. We don't know how Patient O (Patient Origin, not Patient 0) got it. It could have been from a bar not closed, it could have been church, it could have been traveling. We don't know. I tend to think a stay-at-home order, might have prevented it. Smithfield definitely didn't.
So we have about 28,000 deaths as of 4/16. About half being in NY and NJ. Predictions just a few weeks ago warned of up to 200,000 deaths with a lock down and millions without. Many red state governors resisted doing a lock down including the states I spend most of my time in AZ and OK. In fact there are still more than half a dozen red states who have either a partial or no lock down. And these states have fared well compared other states took much more draconian measures.
In fact if you look at job losses per 1,000 people these red states overall have suffered fewer job losses than states with the harsh lock downs:
Technically, this isn't really accurate.
There are a lot of people who may be technically essential, but can telecommute.
Come on. You are splitting hairs.
If someone works processing meat a stay at home order would not have prevented them from working. That has nothing to do with some staff who might work in an office and can essentially work from anywhere.
If someone works processing meat a stay at home order would not have prevented them from working. That has nothing to do with some staff who might work in an office and can essentially work from anywhere.
One of the points being made though is that if there was a stay at home order in place the first person who spread the virus within the meat processing place might not have ever contracted it. No one knows where it’s stated but a stay at home order certainly could have prevented this scenario, might not have but certainly could have
One of the points being made though is that if there was a stay at home order in place the first person who spread the virus within the meat processing place might not have ever contracted it. No one knows where it’s stated but a stay at home order certainly could have prevented this scenario, might not have but certainly could have
That is true. A stay at home order could have helped, so could have proper social distancing in the meat plant. But without details of how it got into the plant its all just guessing.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,073 posts, read 7,511,991 times
Reputation: 9798
Have you ever worked in a cold environment?
A food plant?
If you breath, you will exhale water vapor that lingers in the air. In a cold environment, that vapor is very visible.
If you are doing manual work, you are dressed to ward off the cold but at the same time you have to rid yourself of the heat produced in your labor. So you use your lungs, mouth and nose to act as the heat regulator.
Worker O (WO), get contaminated. Works for 5-10 days, before first symptoms appears. However, WO, has a family, has a high deductible health insurance, 10 day PTO (includes sick days), and works 1 more day to see if he can shake this headache off.
As others have stated, it is far too early to say that governors who didn't issue stay-at-home orders made the right call because this crisis is not over. It will not be over until the spread is drastically mitigated, a vaccine is found, or we learn to live with the virus. It is apparent to me that higher density areas with transient visitors will have a greater propensity for virus spread, compared to lower density areas that are more self-contained or isolated. That doesn't mean the virus can't spread to the latter, but the likelihood of a sizable outbreak is much less (there are reports that the virus has even reached an indigenous person in the remote areas of the Amazon).
In my opinion, we should have a national reduced activity order and states can designate low impact regions to operate the essential supply-chains that our nation needs (food production, consumer staples, infrastructure, emergency services, reduced but essential public transportation, etc), but we need to get routine testing and ample PPE to all those workers yesterday.
The 7 days ending on 4/9 had 826 new cases for those 7 days. The 7 days ending yesterday on 4/16 had 766 new cases. Even if you look at the chart and daily cases last week was higher than this week. You don't add two weeks together and then compare them one week, the week of 4/9. That is ridiculous.
I don't understand your last sentence, but the rest of what you are saying here is what *I* am saying but doesn't reflect what you said in your previous post. You claim there was a 4% decrease in cases, not the 60% increase or whatever it was that CNN said. You are wrong, because the people who got positive test results two weeks ago (week ending 4/9) are STILL SICK two weeks later. So they were part of the 826 *new* cases 2 weeks ago, and even though last weeks new cases are fewer at 766, ALL of them, plus some from previous weeks, are still sick today. They are tracking the numbers in hospital admissions. The CNN numbers (up 60%) are total cases sick, not the rate of weekly new cases. They clearly are showing spikes. I looked at the graphic you linked, and it's there, plain as day. If there were decreases in cases, the line graph would be level or going down slightly, not up at a 45 degree angle.
I don't understand your last sentence, but the rest of what you are saying here is what *I* am saying but doesn't reflect what you said in your previous post. You claim there was a 4% decrease in cases, not the 60% increase or whatever it was that CNN said. You are wrong, because the people who got positive test results two weeks ago (week ending 4/9) are STILL SICK two weeks later.
I get what you are saying but that is just a way to create fear and mislead people. What really tells you what is going on is how many new cases. The way CNN is doing just means it takes a while to recover. If cancer was calculated that way you could have a big drop in new cancer cases but because treatment takes years in some cases the overall case could would be still rising. Which has little to do with successfully fighting cancer. The length of time a illness takes to recover skews the numbers.
But i get it if you are CNN you want to look at this from the angle that looks the worst. Especially if you are trying to make the point that red states that did not do stay at home orders were wrong. Not the fact that things are getting better in states like Oklahoma if you go by new cases.
I look at the leading indicator on this which is new cases. Total people hospitalized and deaths will lag that indicator. And when you look at flattening the curve its flatting new cases.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 04-18-2020 at 08:41 PM..
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.
