How long are you willing to be on Lockdown?

[Goonie]

 

[RDKirk]

From what I understand this is a temporary problem that is about to be solved. We do have tests that take 15 minutes, we do have tests that can be performed at home (at least the swabs) which might then be sent to a lab. Also if you do the testing initially it is not necessary to test everyone.

It is necessary to test everyone, and to test everyone repeatedly. The US is 'way past the point of only testing people as their airplane lands.

Just because you didn't have the infection yesterday doesn't mean you aren't carrying it today.

 

[RDKirk]

While I'm for the distancing, I do have one fear about it, which is that we could end up like the spanish flu where sociail distancing creates a disaster if a later more serious infection comes about

That didn't happen with Spanish flu. What are you talking about?

 

[Sparagmos]

March 16 NYC closed the public schools. During that week NY state and NYC began to implement many restrictions and take the situation serious.

Now we have seen a doubling in the deaths every 3 days (25% daily increase in deaths) consistently since the very beginning in the US. That said the last two days have shown a very slight decrease in that rate. It is the thing that could indicate a slowing in the increase due to the measures taken, it is also the kind of thing that could collapse as hospitals become overwhelmed or people decide that it isn't worth it to stay home anymore.

Also if you look at what happens across the globe people are becoming homeless because of this, something that will only cause the spread to get worse. People are also becoming unemployed, a stress that has its own health effects and should be factored in. Others are going bankrupt. I think these are some of the reasons these pandemics hit in waves with the second wave often being worse than the first.

Look at this thread "how long will you be willing to be on lockdown". That was a week ago. The current best case scenario is that this first wave peaks by the end of April. Will people be wiling to wait that long? You hear from Governors, Presidents, and pundits an eagerness to put this behind us, and get back to work even if that means people die.

So is it realistic that people will take the best course of action? I doubt it.

The recently unemployed workers I know DO NOT want to go back to work anytime soon, they are scared. I represent about 1200 unemployed workers in the hospitality and food service industry. I don’t see people itching to get back out at all, I see people afraid to leave their homes.

 

[ZNP]

It is necessary to test everyone, and to test everyone repeatedly. The US is 'way past the point of only testing people as their airplane lands.

Just because you didn't have the infection yesterday doesn't mean you aren't carrying it today.

True, but this will be a recurring problem, and we need to learn from this time how to better respond next time.

 

[ZNP]

The recently unemployed workers I know DO NOT want to go back to work anytime soon, they are scared. I represent about 1200 unemployed workers in the hospitality and food service industry. I don’t see people itching to get back out at all, I see people afraid to leave their homes.

that will wear off when they get hungry

 

[loveofourlord]

That didn't happen with Spanish flu. What are you talking about?

well no, the second wave became deadly because it mutated, what I'm saying is, what helped people survive the second wave was catching the first wave, so by social distancing we may end up if there is a deadlier second wave with a bigger problem.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why would the "government" want to keep everything closed indefinitely? How does it benefit them, if the economy suffers? Often I'm not a big fan of some governmental policies, but in this case I think everyone wants the same thing. Healthy people and a viable economy.

The people running it are on guaranteed salaries that are paid out regardless of whether the economy is opened back up or not...

Governors, legislators, etc... using the talking point of "even if we save even one life, the measures are worth it" is idiotic to be quite frank.

Not only does it contrast their attitudes on a multitude of other issues, it's not realistic...and doesn't necessarily hit home as much for them.

There are "benefit/risk" trade-offs on a multitude of aspects of society, yet nobody has ever suggested that it be taboo to say "Automobiles provide a tremendous good to the overall state of society, so even though we know having them means 38k lives will be lost each year as a result of them being used.

However, if you even dare to mention that the economic damage caused by mandatory business shutdowns and "shelter in place" orders, may do more harm than what's done by some people dying, certain segments of the media paint you as a monster.

Anyone who's in the house or the senate gets $179k/year, that's regardless of whether or not the economy is shut down...their perspective on the economic impacts are limited because their paychecks still come through every week...it's not like they get a raise if the economy opens back up sooner.


To provide some background...I'm not saying this as some "bitter" person who's lost a job as a result of this...quite the opposite, I'm a work-from-home software guy who's working for a company that has literally more work than we can cover right now due to the fact that we service clients that are deemed "essential"... I'm saying this as a person who recognizes the reality that when enough people lose their jobs, can't cover their bill, and can't buy food, and all they're getting in return is a $1200 check, that's not going to appease people and many are eventually going to revolt against the idea.

Unless the models are suggesting a body count that's astronomically high (and they're not at the moment, epidemiologists can't even agree on which models the most accurate and nobody has an answer when you ask about secondary spikes in September, etc...), we're basically operating on "Here's what epidemiologists are predicting may happen over a period of the next two months"...with no substantive answers beyond that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It’s until we can reasonably separate the covid positive patients from the non infected population.

I don't know that's a feasible prescription given that we don't have the capacity to test everyone, and that (by some estimations), 25-50% of people who get it are asymptomatic.

You or I could've already had it and not known.

Unless there's a plan to make both an infection detection test, as well as an antibody detection test,available to literally everyone...in short order...the "waiting game" is just delaying the inevitable.

 

[NeverL0ved]

Jist wonder how long do you accept to sacrifice liberty for public health? And do you trust the government to allow churches, resturants , nightclubs, bars , cruiselines to open up again , and back to normal? Or make he " new normal" permanent.

The Apostles would be rolling in their graves if they heard you talk like that.
What's 18 month's of imprisonment in your comfortable homes?

 

[jacks]

The people running it are on guaranteed salaries that are paid out regardless of whether the economy is opened back up or not...

Governors, legislators, etc... using the talking point of "even if we save even one life, the measures are worth it" is idiotic to be quite frank.

Not only does it contrast their attitudes on a multitude of other issues, it's not realistic...and doesn't necessarily hit home as much for them.

There are "benefit/risk" trade-offs on a multitude of aspects of society, yet nobody has ever suggested that it be taboo to say "Automobiles provide a tremendous good to the overall state of society, so even though we know having them means 38k lives will be lost each year as a result of them being used.

However, if you even dare to mention that the economic damage caused by mandatory business shutdowns and "shelter in place" orders, may do more harm than what's done by some people dying, certain segments of the media paint you as a monster.

Anyone who's in the house or the senate gets $179k/year, that's regardless of whether or not the economy is shut down...their perspective on the economic impacts are limited because their paychecks still come through every week...it's not like they get a raise if the economy opens back up sooner.


To provide some background...I'm not saying this as some "bitter" person who's lost a job as a result of this...quite the opposite, I'm a work-from-home software guy who's working for a company that has literally more work than we can cover right now due to the fact that we service clients that are deemed "essential"... I'm saying this as a person who recognizes the reality that when enough people lose their jobs, can't cover their bill, and can't buy food, and all they're getting in return is a $1200 check, that's not going to appease people and many are eventually going to revolt against the idea.

Unless the models are suggesting a body count that's astronomically high (and they're not at the moment, epidemiologists can't even agree on which models the most accurate and nobody has an answer when you ask about secondary spikes in September, etc...), we're basically operating on "Here's what epidemiologists are predicting may happen over a period of the next two months"...with no substantive answers beyond that.

O.K. You make some interesting points, but I'm not sure why you quoted my post? Your post doesn't address any of the questions I brought up.

 

[Anthony2019]

Until I run out of toilet tissue.....

 

[46AND2]

If this shutdown period was used efficiently to drive up the capacity of the healthcare industry, going back to some sort of normalcy would not be a problem. That means building an infrastructure that can deal with the top of "the curve." It means manufacturing the heck out of N95 masks and other PPE, ventilators, establishing quarantine locations, hospital beds, tracking procedures, massive amounts of testing and more.

Relying solely on the lockdowns to keep us under the curve is what is going to make it really bad.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

O.K. You make some interesting points, but I'm not sure why you quoted my post? Your post doesn't address any of the questions I brought up.

I should've broken it out into two posts, really only the first snippet was in response to your post of "Why would they want to keep the economy shut down?"

My reply to that was...
The people running it are on guaranteed salaries that are paid out regardless of whether the economy is opened back up or not...


Basically saying, if they can score brownie points by keeping things shut down in the name of public health, it's no skin off their back since they're on guaranteed money.


The rest of my post was just about how politicians in general are handling this...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Relying solely on the lockdowns to keep us under the curve is what is going to make it really bad.

...not to mention, if that comes at the cost of 1/5 people losing their jobs, and several others ending up with various mental health issues as a result of the state forcibly keeping them from seeing their friends and family, those things aren't without consequences.

I haven't always seen eye to eye with Ben Shapiro on many things, but his commentary and assessment of this situation hits the nail on the head in my opinion.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well, according to the tracker I follow over 1,200 people have died in the last 24 hour period, BUT 5,060 have recovered and the recovery rate is currently higher than either the new case or the death rate. United States Coronavirus (COVID-19) Tracker

 

[dogs4thewin]

that will wear off when they get hungry

but really if the government stays with the lock-down and the big cats who can let us face it afford to lose a lot more money than the workers can do not open back up it will not matter.

 

[timothyu]

They've already said that twice the number of men than women will die, but they don'r know why. But I am waiting to hear real figures, like the comparison between pre-existing conditions and none, what those conditions were and the percentages involved, how many have had flu shots in the past compared to those who didn't, likewise with blood transfusions, ages , economic status and so on. All I've found so far is google is using our phones to track our activies and how far we wander from home. No surprise there. Everybody is testing the equipment/system for future use without giving out any real information.

 

[46AND2]

They've already said that twice the number of men than women will die, but they don'r know why. But I am waiting to hear real figures, like the comparison between pre-existing conditions and none, what those conditions were and the percentages involved, how many have had flu shots in the past compared to those who didn't, likewise with blood transfusions, ages , economic status and so on. All I've found so far is google is using our phones to track our activies and how far we wander from home. No surprise there. Everybody is testing the equipment/system for future use without giving out any real information.

You can find some of those statistics online already. Men have a higher percentage of high blood pressure, smoking, and a few other underlying conditions. It seems that contributes to the disparity.

 

[RDKirk]

well no, the second wave became deadly because it mutated, what I'm saying is, what helped people survive the second wave was catching the first wave, so by social distancing we may end up if there is a deadlier second wave with a bigger problem.

Remember that nobody even knew what a virus was in 1918. They were quarantining, which they knew worked with other microbial diseases, but they knew nothing about viruses. They couldn't detect them to know whether any medicines were directly working, and they didn't know about virus mutations or how to deal with virus mutations. It would be another thirty years before they could even directly detect viruses. So they were largely in the blind and working by feel, so to speak.

The second wave of the Spanish flu wasn't a matter of mutation, it was a matter of weather and timing and other factors. And your conclusion doesn't even make sense--if the second wave has mutated, then being immune to the first wave would be useless.