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.
This is turning into a full-scale imprisonment. See Michigan Governor order (link).
Thats going on in a handful of states right now too!
Im not surprised at all, Ive been one of those people warning others that 'this is NOT what it appears to be on the surface'...yet so many blow it off and call it "crazy conspiracy theories"..(shrugs)? Its easy to see, if they would just open their eyes, I guess they are just scared and prefer not to think about it or blame it on the virus, who knows?
For myself (and my husband) personally, in the above scenario, I would not think the measures would be worth it because we are in our mid-60's, so I would not think that saving one or both of our lives would be worth so many people becoming unemployed (perhaps for a long time) IF we could simply be painlessly euthanized via morphine if it meant saving myself or my husband versus saving the life of a significantly younger person or a nurse or medical doctor.
However, if we were younger than 60, although I think I might be very tempted to say that Yes, it would have been worth it -- I hope I would not think that saving my life would be worth the suffering of millions. (And to say it again, I am talking about the things like mass unemployment and possible violence due to shortages and NOT things like being forced to forego salon visits! (However, if I was talking about my very young child, I think my answer would definitely be YES.)
Of course, your question is purely hypothetical as is my answer! No one knows how they would react in a "my life or his life" situation until actually confronted with it.
1. being euthanized is not an option. It's illegal.
2. This isn't hypothetical. In fact, the only hypothetical part about my question is that you don't know whether or not you'll be next.
3. Extreme measures are protecting lives right now. They're protecting your life - and they're keeping your sickness off some young person's body, and they're keeping that person's sickness off of their teacher's body, and on and on and on.
The measures being taken presently aren't just to protect you from the virus. They're also to protect everyone else against catching the virus from you.
So yes - extreme measures are absolutely positively worth it, in my opinion. You can get another job, doing something, somewhere. You can find another retirement home if yours goes under due to lack of funding. You can buy a new car, if yours gets repossessed because you're out of work and couldn't make the payments. But you can't do ANY of that if you're dead.
That's a good idea... I wish restaurants would start doing doing that here... or let fewer people in at a time to eat. At least they would make some money..
Most restaurants around here are still open for business. You can't go inside most of the ones that are open; you can call and order for curb-side pickup, drive-thru, or delivery. Others are open but only for take-out, and have lines on the floor to show where you're required to stand until it's your turn at the counter. If you're at the line closest to the door out, it means no one else can come in until you move up in line.
Delivery services are doing a lot of business around here now, and have hired more people. Restaurants have put some of their wait staff on delivery detail (those willing and with a car), to minimize the number of people out of work.
Most restaurants around here are still open for business. You can't go inside most of the ones that are open; you can call and order for curb-side pickup, drive-thru, or delivery. Others are open but only for take-out, and have lines on the floor to show where you're required to stand until it's your turn at the counter. If you're at the line closest to the door out, it means no one else can come in until you move up in line.
Delivery services are doing a lot of business around here now, and have hired more people. Restaurants have put some of their wait staff on delivery detail (those willing and with a car), to minimize the number of people out of work.
Leaving restaurants open was a bad idea in my opinion, the idea is to only essential people out right now, but as you said, these places are hiring more delivery drivers now, thats MORE people, that stop to get gas, that interact with other people, etc.
Plus, its why the decision to let groceries stores remain open, so people can buy food, we do not really need restaurants to be open now, at least not every single one of them anyway, its kind of defeating the purpose.
Another thing too, many people were complaining how they didnt have money to pay bills from being out of work, (but they have money to have food delivered from restaurants?) LOL
1. being euthanized is not an option. It's illegal.
2. This isn't hypothetical. In fact, the only hypothetical part about my question is that you don't know whether or not you'll be next.
3. Extreme measures are protecting lives right now. They're protecting your life - and they're keeping your sickness off some young person's body, and they're keeping that person's sickness off of their teacher's body, and on and on and on.
The measures being taken presently aren't just to protect you from the virus. They're also to protect everyone else against catching the virus from you.
So yes - extreme measures are absolutely positively worth it, in my opinion. You can get another job, doing something, somewhere. You can find another retirement home if yours goes under due to lack of funding. You can buy a new car, if yours gets repossessed because you're out of work and couldn't make the payments. But you can't do ANY of that if you're dead.
I am not going to go back and repost my post, but it WAS hypothetical as the question that was asked -- something about if I knew that the current measures to prevent the spread of the virus would save my life or a loved one. NO ONE could possibly know this, just like no one could possibly know if after a decision was made to stay home during a blizzard, if that decision saved him or her from being involved in a car accident.
Agree on smoking and weight but they'd call pointing those out "blaming the victim."
I agree. I am a nonsmoker, exercise frequently and am very slightly overweight. I went to a diner virtually the last night before they were ordered closed. I attended a movie the last day before they were ordered closed. I went into the NYC office of our firm on its last day before closure. The Managing Partner ordered pizza for lunch for "those brave people who came in, of which there aren't many." Actions speak louder than words.
Infections cause avoidance. As soon as any non-essential business experiences virus problems, anyone aware of it (for which the media probably would do its part) would avoid it (and maybe other businesses in the category). That would include employees quitting in some cases. There is no vaguely communal workspace I know of that can avoid COVID-19 if it's in the general population. All options lead to a bad economic outcome, the laissez-faire option with many more lives lost. Someone tell me how disagreeing is anything more than being contrarian or in denial.
Agree on smoking and weight but they'd call pointing those out "blaming the victim."
I agree. I am a nonsmoker, exercise frequently and am very slightly overweight. I went to a diner virtually the last night before they were ordered closed. I attended a movie the last day before they were ordered closed. I went into the NYC office of our firm on its last day before closure. The Managing Partner ordered pizza for lunch for "those brave people who came in, of which there aren't many." Actions speak louder than words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen
Infections cause avoidance. As soon as any non-essential business experiences virus problems, anyone aware of it (for which the media probably would do its part) would avoid it (and maybe other businesses in the category). That would include employees quitting in some cases. There is no vaguely communal workspace I know of that can avoid COVID-19 if it's in the general population. All options lead to a bad economic outcome, the laissez-faire option with many more lives lost. Someone tell me how disagreeing is anything more than being contrarian or in denial.
My husband and I were remarking that we had just gone to a "restaurant week" with over 400 diners the weekend before a shut down was ordered. Some people would avoid restaurants but to say everyone aware of the infection would avoid it is incorrect. Some people skim headlines and aren't interested in-depth health/disease topics, some people are skeptics, some people are risk takers, some people don't want to give up a guilty pleasure, some people have an anti-medicine belief system. For example, some people don't get flu shots, some people continue to smoke and drink alcohol despite knowing all the health risks, some people continue to sunbath despite health risks, some people continue to eat harmful foods despite diabetes, etc. So it goes some people will knowingly or unknowingly take the risk and go out for entertainment and enjoyment.
Sweden has keep non-essential businesses open people are continuing to patronize restaurants.
There are some major issues with comparing COVID-19 deaths and flu deaths, as they are currently calculated.
One is that flu deaths are estimated based on the number of people who are hospitalized for flu. They are not counted one by one like COVID-19 deaths.
Another is that flu deaths are underreported on death certificates. My dad died of "respiratory failure," which was caused by pneumonia, which was caused by Influenza A. It was not called a flu death, even though the cascade of events that killed him was absolutely caused by the flu. Supposedly the CDC uses a sample of death certificates to estimate the total deaths that have flu as a factor, but no one is going through every single death certificate in the country every year to tot up all of the ones that list flu as a secondary cause of death.
On the other hand, if I understand correctly, anyone who dies "with" COVID-19 (having had a positive test), is counted as having died "of" it. If you are so unlucky as to catch both COVID-19 and the flu and you die, you will be tallied as a COVID death. If you have a positive COVID-19 test and terminal pancreatic cancer, yours will be a COVID death. (Is this incorrect?)
The CDC goes into detail about the estimation of flu deaths at https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden...-estimates.htm . The early prediction for 2019-2020 was 24,000 to 63,000 deaths from flu. A very wide range, and the upper end is not at all far from the predicted deaths from COVID-19.
I think it's fair to say that when all is said and done, we can expect to see a drop in the number of deaths in 2020 due to flu, cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, respiratory failure, et al., because a great number of them will be attributed to COVID-19 instead.
Again, if I'm wrong about any of this I'm happy to be corrected; I'm certainly not an expert. The hyper-focus on counting every single COVID-19 case and death is intriguing to me, as that has never been done for any other disease, even the communicable ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankrj
You worded it better than me. This has been an argument of mine too. A family I know in South America said the doctor labeled cause of death as Covid when they know it was in fact a heart attack. They're upset because they aren't allowed to have a proper funeral since they cannot get their parent's body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
It occurred to me that some might say, "If someone had terminal cancer, but COVID-19 pushed them over the edge, then COVID-19 was the immediate cause of death."
That would be true, but in my dad's case, he had chronic bronchitis (COPD) and heart disease, and the flu definitely pushed him over the edge, but the flu was not listed as the immediate cause of death. Why not?
There is a protocol for listing the cause of death. Here is a sample death certificate:
Any comorbid conditions, such as diabetes or COPD or cancer would be listed in Part II.
If COVID-19 is the process that led to death, it should be coded as on that sample, even if, for example, the patient had a cancer that was expected to kill him within a few months.
A positive COVID-19 test with no symptoms of COVID-19 would not be a legitimate cause of death. Then the fatal event, such as a heart attack, would be the cause and COVID-19 listed as a comorbidity.
If someone had flu and COVID-19 both should be on the death certificate.
A death from influenza should be described just like the sample COVID-19 certificate: respiratory failure due to pneumonia due to influenza.
Saibot, was influenza listed in Part II of the death certificate? What was the stated cause of death? Death certificates are notorious for inaccuracy. It really takes some experience to do them correctly. Also, without an autopsy a lot of causes of death are mis-attributed because they have to be determined based on the clinical picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Put simply, the death among those without underlying conditions is under 2% or almost nil. Was this worth shredding the economy for?
There are too many people for whom underlying conditions are unknown to calculate a percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
As we're now beginning to see in New York, the dead would have to be bulldozed into mass graves.
NY is not doing any bulldozing of the dead. They are just burying unclaimed bodies sooner, not holding them as long. Each body goes into a coffin, though multiple coffins are being placed in trenches simultaneously rather than separate graves. The only bulldozing is to cover the coffins.
Restaurants in my town remained open by spacing tables 6' apart, staff wearing gloves, and taking other measures to maintain as sanitary an environment as possible. After cases in the state reached a critical number, the government required everyone to close, but for awhile, they were allowed to stay open if they created conditions that complied with social distancing requirements. This, apparently is what Sweden is doing now.
Right, but most of our restaurants aren't set up for that. They don't have PPE on site to do business in a mass pandemic.
Something like this could be the norm once they're reopened, but nobody on the street level was prepared to deal with this virus.
The people in government weren't, either.
Also worth noting that Sweden has a higher fatality rate than it probably should.
Right, but most of our restaurants aren't set up for that. They don't have PPE on site to do business in a mass pandemic.
Something like this could be the norm once they're reopened, but nobody on the street level was prepared to deal with this virus.
The people in government weren't, either.
Also worth noting that Sweden has a higher fatality rate than it probably should.
Too early to draw conclusions about the death rate for Sweden and other countries. Too many variables.
But, Sweden does prove that people will go out and dine despite knowledge about the virus.
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.
