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.
They haven't told us where to get the masks, though. There are no masks in the stores.
My wife showed me how to adapt a thin scarf. I have placed it in my car and will use it where the overwhelming majority of people are already. While I have derided their use, it actually makes a degree of sense for someone like myself. I am quite healthy, was likely exposed early on and probably have antibodies. That may make me a prime "conveyor belt" of the virus. However, I believe that the whole population is now exposed, which is why I consider these actions to be theatrical rather than real.
According to a recent article on the outbreak in the NY Times, New Yorkers (the hardest-hit location in the US) don't follow the CDC, FEMA, or any other government entity for information and advice. New Yorkers have found that Johns Hopkins is the go-to place for accurate and timely information. Word has it, that JH researchers and doctors are on the ball, and are a more reliable source of Covid-related info. I Googled around just now, and found this site.
Good read Ruth4Truth. Most relevant publication --
The Unequal Cost of Social Distancing
Stefanie DeLuca, James Coleman Professor of Sociology & Social Policy
Nick Papageorge, Broadus Mitchell Associate Professor of Economics
Emma Kalish, PhD student in Economics
No finite answers but an even handed acknowledgement of the hugh cost of social distancing on human life beyond just the metric of slowing the virus curve.[/QUOTE
Apparently, things are getting lost in translation in this posting chain.
. Oh, haha, I didn't recognize it without the big NYT headline, spread out over the newspaper page. Yes, I still read newspapers; the paper kind. Especially on Sundays, and Tuesdays (Science news & medical news) You're right; I kind of skimmed over part of it. I thought it was obvious, that service sector people and others who can't work from home, so they got fired or furloughed, are hurting more than others, but what can be done, other than give them unemployment benefits and perhaps food bank access? I'm hoping a lot of them will get their old jobs back. Their employers will need them, in order to jump-start their businesses again, once this mess is over.
Suppression has been worth it to date, IMO, but simply cannot be maintained. Eventually a transition to mitigation will be necessary. Social distancing can continue to some degree. The most vulnerable populations will need to take extra precautions indefinitely.
It really sucks, because that means that most of us will end up getting infected.
Well, I'm as ready as I'll ever be.
Exactly. Oregon Health Authority says the early adoption of distancing measures has slowed virus transmission by 70%. We'll all still catch it, just slower. This is going to circulate like the common cold. How many people do you know who have never caught a cold?
And policy that doesn't work is castigated, even though it didn't work because people didn't adhere to it.
All the physical distancing is only to slow things down. There will still be over a million deaths in the US, it will just take a little longer.
I really doubt a million people will die in a year. We'll have a vaccine by than. I expect a huge rush to get it when the vaccine becomes available.
Fewer people will die if we delay the progression of the disease for the simple reason that when medical facilities are not overwhelmed, doctors and nurses can do their best work. Even if only supportive care can be provided it makes all the difference if patients can receive careful, individual attention. Obviously, more people die when they are stuck on gurneys in hospital hallways than when they are in rooms getting top notch care.
This is not directed at you, but I do not understand people who have the attitude that "we ought to just suck this up and move on with our lives". They don't seem to understand that the economy wouldn't just snap back because when the public saw people getting sick and dying in the tens of thousands the reaction would be to stop patronizing all businesses and hide out. This--not social distancing--would destroy the economy.
I really doubt a million people will die in a year. We'll have a vaccine by than. I expect a huge rush to get it when the vaccine becomes available.
Fewer people will die if we delay the progression of the disease for the simple reason that when medical facilities are not overwhelmed, doctors and nurses can do their best work. Even if only supportive care can be provided it makes all the difference if patients can receive careful, individual attention. Obviously, more people die when they are stuck on gurneys in hospital hallways than when they are in rooms getting top notch care.
This is not directed at you, but I do not understand people who have the attitude that "we ought to just suck this up and move on with our lives". They don't seem to understand that the economy wouldn't just snap back because when the public saw people getting sick and dying in the tens of thousands the reaction would be to stop patronizing all businesses and hide out. This--not social distancing--would destroy the economy.
There are effective treatments in testing that bring the death rate way down. I suspect that most covid19 cases will be successfully treated by June or so.
I really doubt a million people will die in a year. We'll have a vaccine by than. I expect a huge rush to get it when the vaccine becomes available.
Fewer people will die if we delay the progression of the disease for the simple reason that when medical facilities are not overwhelmed, doctors and nurses can do their best work. Even if only supportive care can be provided it makes all the difference if patients can receive careful, individual attention. Obviously, more people die when they are stuck on gurneys in hospital hallways than when they are in rooms getting top notch care.
This is not directed at you, but I do not understand people who have the attitude that "we ought to just suck this up and move on with our lives". They don't seem to understand that the economy wouldn't just snap back because when the public saw people getting sick and dying in the tens of thousands the reaction would be to stop patronizing all businesses and hide out. This--not social distancing--would destroy the economy.
This is baseless speculation. It is scientific projection that the vast majority will contract the virus with little or no symptoms. Right now, it is the surge that is causing the panic. The problem is that we are not doing widespread testing including antigen testing to give visibility to this fact that many people have been infected and will be infected with no or mild symptoms. So we have no way of quantifying how many people are "saved" from illness or death. Eventually, with widespread testing there will be less media attention to those getting sick and dying much the same way as there is little media attention to those getting sick and dying of the flu.
Second, many people have a "survivor" mentality, i.e., it won't happen to me or, they are willing to risk it knowing the odds are in their favor. Even people at high risk of serious illness and death from the flu go not get vaccinated.
Last edited by Maddie104; 04-05-2020 at 08:10 AM..
I read the article. This is stuff the "liberals" should have thought of before rather than after hitting the "full panic" button and closed everything.
Problem is they didn't close everything.
Leaving such unhealthy stores as liquor and tobacco open sent a mixed message.
There is no right answer......do nothing and NYC would be all dead. Shut down is going to be known as the Great Depression 2020. Millions of people are going to suffer financially/emotionally for years to come. There will be deaths due to the shut down, suicides/overdoses.
My only issue is the media ranting about the death tolls when a majority of the "victims" were on deaths door anyway. 87 years old and bedridden in a nursing home.........a sneeze could have killed them.
Yes younger people have since died, so the illness is very capable of killing anyone but looking at the statistics, many of the early deaths were pretty close to the end of their journey anyway.
Problem is they didn't close everything.
Leaving such unhealthy stores as liquor and tobacco open sent a mixed message.
Those places "calm" the population. Can you cite a single case of virus exposure at a liquor store?
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.
Yes, I still read newspapers; the paper kind. Especially on Sundays, and Tuesdays (Science news & medical news) You're right; I kind of skimmed over part of it. I thought it was obvious, that service sector people and others who can't work from home, so they got fired or furloughed, are hurting more than others, but what can be done, other than give them unemployment benefits and perhaps food bank access? I'm hoping a lot of them will get their old jobs back. Their employers will need them, in order to jump-start their businesses again, once this mess is over.
