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.
Very Simple, do what they should have done the first time.
- Masks for everyone, at work, at school, etc.
- Mandate the eldery, at risk people, pre-existing condition folks all stay home
- If you are , say under 65 and healthy you can still go to work
- Social distancing on public transport and other public places
- No need to close any businesses as long as social distancing, hand sanitizer, masks, are all being used and provided
- Regular cleaning of all surfaces...etc
But the "Second wave" will not be bad. We will have "tracers" in place and many medicines in place by the fall which will help curb infections. Also, hopefully, vaccine soon after.
I'm not worried.
Fun Fact, did you know that the CDC and the Federal Gov't never mandated "Stay at home" orders? That was only local Governors and Mayors. The feds only mandated "Social Distancing and Masks". Even Fauci never mentioned forcing people to stay home and close businesses, it was mostly politicians who just all started following each others lead. It all got out of hand really fast.
There is no science to making healthy and low risk people stay home to prevent the spreading of a virus, none. It was all guessing.
In the past only SICK people were quarantined. This is the first time in HISTORY that healthy people were told to stay home. And as data shows, it looks like it didn't work. In fact, may have made things worse.
I would say so, the lockdowns have proved quite ineffective. More particularly for the healthy.
Hi,
It is a delicate subject to say what to do, even governors themselves, as composed as they look, play it by ear and on a day to day basis.
However, I am not a firm believer in a second wave, and if second wave there should be, it will not be as dramatic as the first one.
If you live in a Covid hotbed it will hit you one way or another, and numbers proved it.
10 days ago Cuomo said he was "suprised" to see that 68% of new cases occured in people who were sheltered-in-place. The peak happened in the middle of the strictest lockdwon, in every country, and every hotbed.
Lockdwon or not, if you are at-risk and live with people who do go out and are not extremely meticulous they will contaminate you.
Since the early days of the pandemic, people were wearing masks but with the nose out, or just on their chin, they wore gloves but talked on the phone with the gloves on, scratched their eyes, defeating the purpose of protection. they may have not contaminated non-relatives, but at some point contaminated themselves and people in their households.
As an example, yesterday I was on the line to enter a store, this mother with two kids, taking the masks off and back on, kid rolling on the ground, handling objects gloveless, the little girl even dropped the mask on the ground....then picks it up...and puts it right back on her face with the non-disapproval of her mom.... So, imagine this type of behavior, multiplied by at least 4/5th of the number of people inhabiting a city like NYC, they are bringing home the virus one way or another.
All this to say that the bulk of contaminations has already happened, with all these carefree people, so, fingers crossed, were almost done with it.
BX - it's YOU that should have been worried - not them. That mom and kids have the virus- they're wearing the mask for your benefit. They weren't taking the virus to a new home. You are.
The lockdowns that happened AFTER the horse was out of the barn, of course, had limited effect (Thanks, NYC).
If you think that staying at home did not slow the spread - at - all - you're just intentionally being contrary. How could it NOT slow the spread, if even ONE person was less "out and about" than before? By simply observation, the "stay at home" slowed it down, like a big speed bump. Not stopped it, not eliminated it, not prevented it entirely - no - but there is just no logic that can say a person at home 90% of the time spreads it THE SAME as if they are shopping 90% of the time.
Cuomo's 68% included simply jobless individuals who were not actually "staying at home." So the first part of it is a bit misleading. His 68% did not give "real" numbers - so it only means a change in the proportion - not a change in actual numbers of "at home" people who were actually at home. In other words, fewer "outside" people are now in the hospital, since they pretty much all got it and are over it by now - so all that's left are the stragglers, the "at home" - who may - or may not - have been infected at the same rate all along, but we'll never know. His statement was more indicative of his interpretation of the data than about the data itself.
While it is - normally - only "right" to quarantine the sick - the problem here is, we can't tell who's sick and who's not. So it's all run free, or all stay home. What other option is there?
I read somewhere that it is spread faster indoors as opposed to outdoors, but then, everyday they change.
Hopefully there wont be a second wave of it. but we wont know.
The Spanish flu came back worse than the first time, can that happen to us? maybe? will it never come back again? thats a possibility also.
The masks are PITA for sure. None of us wear them properly, constantly sliding down, we pull them up, touch then, etc.
if everyone can get tested that would solve the crisis, that way, who ever is sick, stays home, who ever isnt goes to work.
Im an essential worker so im still working, but also still have not received my stimulus check either.
BX - it's YOU that should have been worried - not them. That mom and kids have the virus- they're wearing the mask for your benefit. They weren't taking the virus to a new home. You are.
The lockdowns that happened AFTER the horse was out of the barn, of course, had limited effect (Thanks, NYC).
If you think that staying at home did not slow the spread - at - all - you're just intentionally being contrary. How could it NOT slow the spread, if even ONE person was less "out and about" than before? By simply observation, the "stay at home" slowed it down, like a big speed bump. Not stopped it, not eliminated it, not prevented it entirely - no - but there is just no logic that can say a person at home 90% of the time spreads it THE SAME as if they are shopping 90% of the time.
Cuomo's 68% included simply jobless individuals who were not actually "staying at home." So the first part of it is a bit misleading. His 68% did not give "real" numbers - so it only means a change in the proportion - not a change in actual numbers of "at home" people who were actually at home. In other words, fewer "outside" people are now in the hospital, since they pretty much all got it and are over it by now - so all that's left are the stragglers, the "at home" - who may - or may not - have been infected at the same rate all along, but we'll never know. His statement was more indicative of his interpretation of the data than about the data itself.
While it is - normally - only "right" to quarantine the sick - the problem here is, we can't tell who's sick and who's not. So it's all run free, or all stay home. What other option is there?
Well... I take all the precautions, I'm very meticulous... but if this kid drops her mask on the ground and it "picks up" the virus, putting it back on her face puts it straight into her system, and consequently, into her household... not mine... I stay away from this type of people and people in general these days as much as I can. And I didn't say sheltering in place didn't limit the spread, it did for obvious reasons. My point was, it defeats a lot of the purpose if, the few instances you go out you are reckless. And I believe when Cuomo mentioned the 68% he really meant people really being strict, but maybe their family members were not and were bringing it home. Who knows.
The elderly are the ones indoors who are more likely to develop hospital level cases that are recorder and more of them are indoors.
It is nearly impossible for them to get it being totally alone.
In poorer neighborhoods t is also denser with more contact between the young and old.
It is not only the poor but people with large families who have more contact with their grandparents
Obviously young people who are asymptomatic carriers or who only develop mild symptoms bring it home to the elderly who get sicker at much higher rate.
But many people don't want to know the reason and when Cuomo first announced it he acted dumbfounded and did not even have any theories
so people heard the part they wanted to hear, their interpretation was
being inside is a higher risk than being outside
and it had been verified by the Governor
this is great news open up my damn local bar, favorite restaurant and beaches !! they said
We have now cut off or controlled most international air travel, so a second resurgence of the disease likely wouldn't hit us in the same way the first round did which was to overwhelm the healthcare system. We would have the opportunity to more precisely control it.
I would make sure the nursing homes were still locked down with all residents and staff isolated (with extra compensation for the workers for the trouble).
I'd make sure that anyone else who wanted to isolate at home would have complete freedom to do so *without* being fired or experiencing a pay reduction for the duration of the event.
I would keep in place social distancing/mask recommendations, require separation at restaurants and bars but otherwise let people live their lives at this point and tolerate a low infection rate.
If somehow we had a massive uncontrolled rise, then we'd have no choice but to lock everything down again. We don't want people dying who *could* have lived if they had gotten medical care.
Very Simple, do what they should have done the first time.
- Masks for everyone, at work, at school, etc.
- Mandate the eldery, at risk people, pre-existing condition folks all stay home
- If you are , say under 65 and healthy you can still go to work
- Social distancing on public transport and other public places
- No need to close any businesses as long as social distancing, hand sanitizer, masks, are all being used and provided
- Regular cleaning of all surfaces...etc
But the "Second wave" will not be bad. We will have "tracers" in place and many medicines in place by the fall which will help curb infections. Also, hopefully, vaccine soon after.
I'm not worried.
Fun Fact, did you know that the CDC and the Federal Gov't never mandated "Stay at home" orders? That was only local Governors and Mayors. The feds only mandated "Social Distancing and Masks". Even Fauci never mentioned forcing people to stay home and close businesses, it was mostly politicians who just all started following each others lead. It all got out of hand really fast.
There is no science to making healthy and low risk people stay home to prevent the spreading of a virus, none. It was all guessing.
In the past only SICK people were quarantined. This is the first time in HISTORY that healthy people were told to stay home. And as data shows, it looks like it didn't work. In fact, may have made things worse.
Even that wasn't a mandate. They were all part of federal guidelines, which states and people were free to implement (or not).
If this thing does reappear (if it ever goes away to reappear) this Fall as most seem to expect, even if things aren't shut down, I see folks still being allowed to work from home for the most part and there effectively being a shut down as people will be cautious about doing things like dining out, etc.
Apologies, BX, I misunderstood - all good points there. They did clarify after that they didn't mean real "stuck at home" people - just that they were people who were not essential workers. It was just the response on the hospital questionnaire - a "yes or no" kind of thing - not a detailed explanation testifying that they never went outside or something.
After I read that, I wasn't surprised if their rate actually did go up - because as time goes by, more and more of those folks are venturing out, taking chances. But they are - technically - still "at home." It was misleading on his part to say the least. Maybe he himself was misled. Hard to say.
Nightcrawler- it certainly spreads more inside than out - enclosed spaces as opposed to wide open fields. That's just physics - outside there's a chance the breeze is taking it away. No chance inside.
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.
