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.
Better to be virtuous with other peoples' money than their lives. Although it doesn't help that people are going to food banks just a few weeks into this crisis, driving luxury vehicles they clearly couldn't afford. But then again, there is a lot that hasn't made sense in this country for a long time.
I do understand the issues of economic collapse and have studied it across several historical empires. So, I know some of what to expect. But, I'm not going to trivialize people's lives nor am I going to look at statistics as the end-all be-all. What you have been proposing has serious holes/flaws. And you're just posting about it on City-Data, so there's no real usefulness. We're both just someone on the internet with an opinion, being taken along for the ride in the real world.
Just curious, do you work at a hospital?
Just to be clear, it is not "my" proposal and it has been published elsewhere. To each its own on what is useful on City-Data. Hopefully my contribution has posters consider alternatives to group think; go beyond the gross numbers and look at what a deeper dive into the numbers reveals. I wonder how many posters had actually looked at the Pennsylvania Department of Health web site and analyzed the number breakdowns rather than forming opinions on just the headline news. Many state they "feel bad for those out of work" but are retired or work from home so "no worries." I am not an advocate for public policy. In terms of usefulness, it would behoove posters to petition Governor Wolf to get testing/contract testing going.
You didn't answer the question about taxes and sharing in the economic consequences but nice diversionary tactic.
What about protecting those at risk?
Another strategy is called "enhanced shielding".
Instead of trying to suppress the coronavirus across every section of society you could instead aim to stop it completely for those most at risk.
Age and other medical conditions greatly increase the risk of Covid-19 becoming fatal.
The lockdown is preventing intensive care units being overwhelmed, but guaranteeing vulnerable groups don't get infected could achieve the same aim even if cases were spreading more widely in the young and the healthy.
Prof Mark Woolhouse, from the University of Edinburgh, said: "Very crudely, for 80% of us who are not vulnerable this is a nasty virus, it's certainly a significant health problem, but it wouldn't overwhelm the healthcare system and it wouldn't lock down society.
"If we really bolster that shielding, make a very strong shield indeed, then it buys you a lot more room and it may mean you can relax some measures permanently."
Just to be clear, it is not "my" proposal and it has been published elsewhere. To each its own on what is useful on City-Data. Hopefully my contribution has posters consider alternatives to group think; go beyond the gross numbers and look at what a deeper dive into the numbers reveals. I wonder how many posters had actually looked at the Pennsylvania Department of Health web site and analyzed the number breakdowns rather than forming opinions on just the headline news. Many state they "feel bad for those out of work" but are retired or work from home so "no worries." I am not an advocate for public policy. In terms of usefulness, it would behoove posters to petition Governor Wolf to get testing/contract testing going.
You didn't answer the question about taxes and sharing in the economic consequences but nice diversionary tactic.
What about protecting those at risk?
Another strategy is called "enhanced shielding".
Instead of trying to suppress the coronavirus across every section of society you could instead aim to stop it completely for those most at risk.
Age and other medical conditions greatly increase the risk of Covid-19 becoming fatal.
The lockdown is preventing intensive care units being overwhelmed, but guaranteeing vulnerable groups don't get infected could achieve the same aim even if cases were spreading more widely in the young and the healthy.
Prof Mark Woolhouse, from the University of Edinburgh, said: "Very crudely, for 80% of us who are not vulnerable this is a nasty virus, it's certainly a significant health problem, but it wouldn't overwhelm the healthcare system and it wouldn't lock down society.
"If we really bolster that shielding, make a very strong shield indeed, then it buys you a lot more room and it may mean you can relax some measures permanently."
Honestly, I'm more on Maddie's side than not. To his/her point, this is not going away anytime soon, and protecting the most vulnerable from any ailment is never the correct approach. For the record, I'm not a doctor, but have degrees in health care and am seeing this firsthand. We cannot cripple society for the benefit of the elderly and feeble - it simply is not in the best interest of mankind.
However, it is looking less and less likely that herd immunity is a long-term solution. More and more repeat cases are coming to light, and from what I'm hearing, they are being massively under-reported, as the severity of the symptoms is lessened and people are simply self-treating. I'm actually morbidly curious to hear about the first three or four-time case.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but my approach would be open slowly and deliberately. Employ those who are out of work as cleaners all over the country - similar to the New Deal program. Disinfecting is key with this virus. Masks and gloves mandatory everywhere. Teach kids in kindergarten to avoid touching their faces, much like they are taught to avoid strangers ("stranger danger"; "face no touch"). I'll say it again, disinfecting is key with this virus. No sporting events, concerts, other mass gatherings of people and see what happens. If spikes occur fast and in numbers, lock down again. We just don't know much about this disease yet and we can't wait for a vaccine. The closest I believe is J&J and they are at least six months out (just for bare bones efficacy data, not even solid safety data) and that's with a very expedited NDA review by the FDA. Effective and readily-available 15-minute tests would really help, but those might take longer to get through the supply chain than a vaccine. Also, we are seeing this virus morph quickly, so a vaccine might be considerably less effective than the flu shot. Not trying to be a downer, but IMO, the solution is to trust humans to the right thing. Or at least, let them see what happens when they don't, and then they will do the right thing out of fear.
Just to be clear, it is not "my" proposal and it has been published elsewhere. To each its own on what is useful on City-Data. Hopefully my contribution has posters consider alternatives to group think; go beyond the gross numbers and look at what a deeper dive into the numbers reveals. I wonder how many posters had actually looked at the Pennsylvania Department of Health web site and analyzed the number breakdowns rather than forming opinions on just the headline news. Many state they "feel bad for those out of work" but are retired or work from home so "no worries." I am not an advocate for public policy. In terms of usefulness, it would behoove posters to petition Governor Wolf to get testing/contract testing going.
You didn't answer the question about taxes and sharing in the economic consequences but nice diversionary tactic.
What about protecting those at risk?
Another strategy is called "enhanced shielding".
Instead of trying to suppress the coronavirus across every section of society you could instead aim to stop it completely for those most at risk.
Age and other medical conditions greatly increase the risk of Covid-19 becoming fatal.
The lockdown is preventing intensive care units being overwhelmed, but guaranteeing vulnerable groups don't get infected could achieve the same aim even if cases were spreading more widely in the young and the healthy.
Prof Mark Woolhouse, from the University of Edinburgh, said: "Very crudely, for 80% of us who are not vulnerable this is a nasty virus, it's certainly a significant health problem, but it wouldn't overwhelm the healthcare system and it wouldn't lock down society.
"If we really bolster that shielding, make a very strong shield indeed, then it buys you a lot more room and it may mean you can relax some measures permanently."
As I mentioned many times in this thread, I fear the economic issues as much as anyone. And I'm not saying the right thing to do is lock everything down indefinitely. But I am disappointed in the callous nature of some people (many people outside of CD have made casual comments about the elderly/ill being expendable). That is not directed at you.
The problem with proposing a highly coordinated strategy in the USA is that we have terrible leadership on both sides of the aisle and there are too many layers of government. Bordering states have a huge impact on individual states themselves. The bigger question is how can we get government to work together to tackle this together? I don't think there's much of an answer to that one.
I’d like to think I’m not callous but I’m still trying to be pragmatic. I have elderly parents including one that was recently sent home from the hospital a few weeks ago (not virus related). I’m personally rehabbing them because I didn’t feel comfortable sending them to a rehab facility in these times.
All that being said, the death rate in March 2020 is 15% less than March 2019 mostly do to people driving less due to the shutdowns. That isn’t meant to diminish the death of auto accident victims or victims of the virus. But if we decide it’s the governments job is to protect against death at any cost, well, you could see where that leads. Should we outlaw cars regardless of the economic impact and then accuse those who would resist of being “callous”? I hope not.
I’d like to think I’m not callous but I’m still trying to be pragmatic. I have elderly parents including one that was recently sent home from the hospital a few weeks ago (not virus related). I’m personally rehabbing them because I didn’t feel comfortable sending them to a rehab facility in these times.
All that being said, the death rate in March 2020 is 15% less than March 2019 mostly do to people driving less due to the shutdowns. That isn’t meant to diminish the death of auto accident victims or victims of the virus. But if we decide it’s the governments job is to protect against death at any cost, well, you could see where that leads. Should we outlaw cars regardless of the economic impact and then accuse those who would resist of being “callous”? I hope not.
That's not a callous thought pattern at all. And the auto accident problem has been a long-standing issue that goes largely ignored year after year, but I digress.
The truth is that we may get to a point where we are forced to take casualties, especially if a vaccine or herd immunity are not possibilities. I don't know what that looks like. But, I do think that if we decide to take those casualties, and I say that with sadness/weight, it needs to be a good/coordinated plan. The bomb that is about to blow in Georgia is a concern because if it is done poorly and the death rate shoots up, people are going to be less apt to open things back up, even in a coordinated way. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems at least logical.
On the other side, it seems to me that the only thing this government is good at is arguing and blaming one another; the media seems to be the right hand of that truth. If you were to factor that into any future strategy, it could be best to recommend that certain at-risk groups stay at home and open back up and just let the pieces fall where they may. That strategy takes about the least amount of government coordination. But again, getting all of the worthless senators, congresspeople and president to work together even on that will be a miracle.
I cant believe the school district superintendent said when the kids return to school they may have to wear mask??
Why can't you believe that? If it keeps people safe, why on earth would you care? People wear hats and coats to avoid freezing to death (staying safe). Actually, I can't believe I'm replying to this comment, but I'm still going to hit post.
Is all non-essential construction in PA still scheduled to start on 5/1/20? The reports are all blurry.
I received an email on it yesterday and it says "Construction Industry" for all businesses and employees.
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.
