|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 24, 2020 18:42:37 GMT -5
The latest advice is that it is transmissable by being in close proximity, and just talking to someone. I suppose it could just require fewer air droplets than the regular flu, but if it was really just close proximity, it seems like it would be so much more widespread. It would have raced through schools and colleges very quickly. Even with kids more likely to be asymptomatic, wouldn't you be getting a lot of reports of infections from schools and colleges? I have thought since very early on that it has a CFR of between 4 and 6% and I have seen noting to dissuade me from this belief, despite what gets reported. The mortality rate is why we're in shut down for this but not the regular flu. I just can't see how it is wise or prudent to relax social distancing and shutdowns before a vaccine or heard immunity is reached. Or widespread and quick testing. Not having that is the worst thing to come out of tRump's refusal to take it seriously. Imagine if we could just test everyone in the next few days. We could end this soon. That's what one of those first cities in Italy did--they identified the asymptomatic carriers and BOOM. |
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Mar 24, 2020 18:53:40 GMT -5
Absolutely. Testing is the key. Test, test and retest
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Mar 24, 2020 19:34:44 GMT -5
I think my city was the first in the country to go into lockdown and today marks one week. Considering symptoms take one week on average, and testing takes a day or two, and most people wait a bit before going to the hospital, it’s going to be at least 3 days but possibly as much as 10 before we will know how well it worked. I think we need to give the lockdown a chance before throwing in the towel.
I can say though that it looks good so far. The Bay Area used to be a giant circle on the infected map, but at this point I think Detroit has more cases than us. Michigan is one state that dragged their feet in responding.
I think we can contain it but we can’t half ass it by giving up immediately
|
|
|
|
Post by pam on Mar 24, 2020 20:04:05 GMT -5
This is one of the view times where I am generally in agreement with both sides of the argument. @wonk is right that it’s not prudent to relax social distancing and shutdowns but matisse is also right that there is a limit to the time that it’s possible to continue following that advice. Unless we lock down every person in every country until the virus has run its course which sensibly just isn’t possible, then we all need to take personal responsibility for hygiene and public interactions. People have died and will continue to die, probably in unacceptable numbers, and whilst we can do our best to limit the figures in reality life has to continue at some point. I don’t think there is a right or wrong and there is definitely no simple fix. I think the same as you, there us no easy fix. Besides going to work (which is closed to the public), I'm basically staying in the house. My husband washes his hands more than he ever did. My daughter is, however,working part time at a feed store, so it is possible she could bring it home. Luckily, there are still only 2 or 3 cases in my area. We are hoping the medicines are shown to work. I'm also pretty sure a vaccine will be available within a year. But before that, people are going to be scared to go out, well some people. We dont know what will happen when the quarantine ends. |
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Mar 25, 2020 1:13:39 GMT -5
I wanted to share a site, updated daily, that shows some great comparisons and long term trends. This particular page is not behind a paywall www.ft.com/coronavirus-latestYou can see things are slowing down a bit, in Italy, for example. However, it takes a long time. And note that the scale is logarithmic so we’re still talking big numbers. The death count in France is identical to that of Italy...just 11 days behind Deaths in New York have been nearly doubling every day |
|
loreley
Full Member
Posts: 204
Gender: Female
Dev Status: Devotee
Relationship Status: In a relationship
|
Post by loreley on Mar 25, 2020 7:49:34 GMT -5
I watched a discussion on German television last night and the experts said that there was no alternative to a long stop with only little go-phases inbetween, just so much that new infections will not overwhelm our health system. This should be kept up till a vaccine is found, probably next spring.
Medications are all just now being tested and noone can say for sure if what works in a petri dish will work in a critically ill patient with multi-organ failure. The malaria medication that was quickly praised as the new remedy has actually killed several people who self-medicated as a precaution.
One should also keep in mind that people who become so critically ill that they have to go in intensive care and on ventilators are usually ventilator-dependent at least a week, some 4 or 5 weeks. This creates new problems, as the risk for dementia after ventilation in older people increases dramatically. People will keep scarred lung tissue and be chronically ill afterwards, so this is an extra load on the health system.
|
|
|
|
Post by missparkle on Mar 25, 2020 11:45:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2020 16:12:03 GMT -5
I watched a discussion on German television last night and the experts said that there was no alternative to a long stop with only little go-phases inbetween, just so much that new infections will not overwhelm our health system. This should be kept up till a vaccine is found, probably next spring. Keep stores/restaurants/etc closed until Spring?!!?!?!!? That's crazy talk. |
|
|
|
Post by SouthernCalGal on Mar 25, 2020 16:37:41 GMT -5
What the hell is this talk in the U.S. about older people sacrificing their lives for the economy? The Lieutenant Governor of Texas started saying it and now more idiots are saying it. And now, some in the media are saying it. ABSOLUTELY F*%&ing Crazy!!! That kind of talk is absolutely scary!!
|
|
|
|
Post by someonerandom on Mar 25, 2020 17:06:29 GMT -5
What the hell is this talk in the U.S. about older people sacrificing their lives for the economy? The Lieutenant Governor of Texas started saying it and now more idiots are saying it. And now, some in the media are saying it. ABSOLUTELY F*%&ing Crazy!!! That kind of talk is absolutely scary!! Yeah like Glen Beck, who I didn’t realize was still a thing. It is highly upsetting because it’s not just the elderly who would be primarily affected, but it’s also saying that PWDs are simply not as important as money. Obviously lives will be ruined and people will die if the economy gets bad enough (I think it already has), but let’s be real, a small percentage of billionaire money could pay to keep non-essential workers at home until the curve is flattened. But nah, it’s better for us to just sacrifice the weakest among us by allowing a medical crisis to unfold... |
|
el_steveo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Gender: Male
Dev Status: Disabled Male
Relationship Status: Single
|
Post by el_steveo on Mar 25, 2020 17:40:24 GMT -5
What the hell is this talk in the U.S. about older people sacrificing their lives for the economy? The Lieutenant Governor of Texas started saying it and now more idiots are saying it. And now, some in the media are saying it. ABSOLUTELY F*%&ing Crazy!!! That kind of talk is absolutely scary!! it's a catch 22. is it ok for thousands of people to lose their jobs, go homeless and hungry. because a couple thousand people in their 80's might die? these people are from the greatest generation. they were willing to sacrifice their lives for us before. I don't think it's that crazy that some of them are willing to do it again. |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2020 17:54:56 GMT -5
What the hell is this talk in the U.S. about older people sacrificing their lives for the economy? The Lieutenant Governor of Texas started saying it and now more idiots are saying it. And now, some in the media are saying it. ABSOLUTELY F*%&ing Crazy!!! That kind of talk is absolutely scary!! Yeah like Glen Beck, who I didn’t realize was still a thing. It is highly upsetting because it’s not just the elderly who would be primarily affected, but it’s also saying that PWDs are simply not as important as money. Obviously lives will be ruined and people will die if the economy gets bad enough (I think it already has), but let’s be real, a small percentage of billionaire money could pay to keep non-essential workers at home until the curve is flattened. But nah, it’s better for us to just sacrifice the weakest among us by allowing a medical crisis to unfold... tRump wants to get the economy revving again before the election so he can brag about being our financial savior. He doesn't care if some people die along the way.
However, the "sacrifice" line of thinking comes from the reality that we already make that judgment and practicing it. With the regular flu, lots of people die, even when they have taken the yearly vaccine. Yet we don't shut down for the regular flu. CV19 is different in mortality and its much greater ability to transmit through asymptomatic or minor-symptomatic people. But it's still a matter of line drawing. To me intent matters here--why you want to draw the line where you want it.
As an aside, it appears that I would be getting the stimulus checks because my private insurance disability payments are not part of my AGI. What it also means is that if you have a person who owns millions in stock or real estate but sold none in 2019, and didn't get dividends and regular interest exceeding $75,000, they get the checks too. There's something wrong with that but I don't know if it's worth the time for them to carve it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Mar 25, 2020 18:17:36 GMT -5
What the hell is this talk in the U.S. about older people sacrificing their lives for the economy? The Lieutenant Governor of Texas started saying it and now more idiots are saying it. And now, some in the media are saying it. ABSOLUTELY F*%&ing Crazy!!! That kind of talk is absolutely scary!! it's a catch 22. is it ok for thousands of people to lose their jobs, go homeless and hungry. because a couple thousand people in their 80's might die? these people are from the greatest generation. they were willing to sacrifice their lives for us before. I don't think it's that crazy that some of them are willing to do it again. So you are also willing to sacrifice your life for the good of the economy? I mean if we are really serious about this then disabled people also shouldn't be putting a strain on the health system while they are trying to save productive people. Maybe the government can just come around and give you "The green dream" injection? |
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Mar 25, 2020 18:20:57 GMT -5
Yeah like Glen Beck, who I didn’t realize was still a thing. It is highly upsetting because it’s not just the elderly who would be primarily affected, but it’s also saying that PWDs are simply not as important as money. Obviously lives will be ruined and people will die if the economy gets bad enough (I think it already has), but let’s be real, a small percentage of billionaire money could pay to keep non-essential workers at home until the curve is flattened. But nah, it’s better for us to just sacrifice the weakest among us by allowing a medical crisis to unfold... tRump wants to get the economy revving again before the election so he can brag about being our financial savior. He doesn't care if some people die along the way.
However, the "sacrifice" line of thinking comes from the reality that we already make that judgment and practicing it. With the regular flu, lots of people die, even when they have taken the yearly vaccine. Yet we don't shut down for the regular flu. CV19 is different in mortality and its much greater ability to transmit through asymptomatic or minor-symptomatic people. But it's still a matter of line drawing. To me intent matters here--why you want to draw the line where you want it.
So where do you draw the line? Is there an acceptable number of people who can die? 2 million perhaps Or should rich people be spared? I mean we are talking about the USA Is productivity important? How about smart people Or do we just save all the people with blue eyes and blonde hair |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2020 18:28:23 GMT -5
tRump wants to get the economy revving again before the election so he can brag about being our financial savior. He doesn't care if some people die along the way.
However, the "sacrifice" line of thinking comes from the reality that we already make that judgment and practicing it. With the regular flu, lots of people die, even when they have taken the yearly vaccine. Yet we don't shut down for the regular flu. CV19 is different in mortality and its much greater ability to transmit through asymptomatic or minor-symptomatic people. But it's still a matter of line drawing. To me intent matters here--why you want to draw the line where you want it.
So where do you draw the line? Is there an acceptable number of people who can die? 2 million perhaps Or should rich people be spared? I mean we are talking about the USA Is productivity important? How about smart people Or do we just save all the people with blue eyes and blonde hair I don't know. I'm just pointing out that we do draw these lines on life and death matters. I would also say that rich people here are pretty much spared everything. On this issue they're spared the financial hardship and they also have the best chance of survival. As tRump said with regard to the privileged being able to get testing without showing symptoms, it shouldn't be so, "But perhaps that's been the story of life" (which I interpret as him being fine with it). |
|
