Wave 2 and 3

[Toocold]

I truly think that all population of Earth is gonna get that virus, it's only question of "when".

That's how I read the original flatten the curve message. We are going to try to flatten the curve, so that we can prepare for it to have the capacity over a longer period. Somewhere in the narrative, it went from that to, oh we didn't spike so we are going to open everything up or continue to keep everybody home, and shut all these temporary facilities.

 

[MrLoco]

I fall in the vulnerable population. I have no problem staying home. However, I
I think the non-vulnerable have a responsibility to help protect the vulnerable. I’m not talking about staying home or not going to work or play. I’m talking about precautions around where the vulnerable realistically have to go, i.e. doctors office, grocery stores, etc. I’m talking about doing common sense things like washing hands and yes social distancing. I’ll stay out of bars, restaurants, clubs, movie theaters. I ask you to be equally considerate and wear appropriate PPE when the situation dictates.

Disagree. As someone else has said.....don't go to the grocery stores or the pharmacy. You don't NEED to go. You may WANT to go. Have these items delivered. Can't afford to have them delivered? Figure it out. If you are one of the "vulnerable," it is up to YOU to make it work; not the rest of us. It is not about being "considerate,"; it is about being "realistic."

I do not mind wearing PPE for another month, but after that I'm done unless it is mandated.

And you DO not need to go to the doctor's office. My wife had her physical ala Tele-MEd. Her MD faxed lab work to a local lab; she went early; wore a mask; had it done and had a Tele MEd physical.....not as good as a person to person physical, but it is what it is. You do not NEED to go to a doctor's office for a routine visit. If you are that ill; then head to the ER.
My annual optometrist appointment was just cancelled. Rescheduling TBD.
My dentist has postponed all semi annual cleanings.
Ok. I am fine with that.

My point is the "vulnerable" population needs to be considerate and do more of the "adjusting" and let the rest of us get back to some sense of normalcy.
Our economy demands it. You have people really struggling financially now who never in their lives thought they would visit a food bank.

When mothers and fathers can no longer provide the needs of their children;
things could get really ugly really fast.

I think the medical community is starting to do a dis-service in some respect.
YEs....believe the science, but when you have Dr. Birx on TV saying that the protesters in Michigan could go home and affect Grandma......really?
What about when people find themselves homeless, hungry, and desparate Dr. Birx?

If 100,000 die from Covid 19.....this would represent a fatality rate of .03%....about 1 out of every 3,300 people in the US. Sad and tragic but in 2019 approximately 38,800 died in car accidents. Did we all stop driving?

 

[audreyh1]

That's how I read the original flatten the curve message. We are going to try to flatten the curve, so that we can prepare for it to have the capacity over a longer period. Somewhere in the narrative, it went from that to, oh we didn't spike so we are going to open everything up or continue to keep everybody home, and shut all these temporary facilities.

Yes - that’s an amazing and unfortunate change in perspective. I think a lot of people are going to expect to go right back to the way things were, act accordingly, and that we were not seriously in danger in the first place. When we take drastic steps and we avoid an initial disaster (such as Italy) it always looks like it wouldn’t have happened anyway.

The temporary facilities - those might be needed in a different place anyhow, at different times. I expect rolling waves.

 

[eytonxav]

Italy's economic situation not looking good due to shut downs:
https://londonlovesbusiness.com/ita...xsOUBa4d0VqjT2wCLamhTOsj8XrHqPOvVZJNF103I4cIA

 

[Chuckanut]

That's how I read the original flatten the curve message. We are going to try to flatten the curve, so that we can prepare for it to have the capacity over a longer period. Somewhere in the narrative, it went from that to, oh we didn't spike so we are going to open everything up or continue to keep everybody home, and shut all these temporary facilities.

+1

We were led to believe the sacrifice would be a few weeks or months at most, then back to a new normal where we would have to manage the virus until a vaccine or easy cure was found. Then the goalposts were moved with little or no public discussion. Not so good.

As an at risk person, I am happy to stay at home longer so we can get our economy going again. It's Win/Win for all of us. I am also happy to express my frustration with being mislead when I vote in November.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's something that may help you get a feel for if and when a 2nd or 3rd wave may hit your state:

rt.live

These are up-to-date values for Rt, a key measure of how fast the virus is growing. It’s the average number of people who become infected by an infectious person. If Rt is above 1.0, the virus will spread quickly. When Rt is below 1.0, the virus will stop spreading. Learn More.
4/26 model update: new Rt graphs reflect corrections for the amount of testing done over time in any given state. An increase or decrease in testing should not affect accuracy of Rt values in the future. This correction has significantly improved Rt values in most states.

Interestingly as of today, most states are now below 1 which means most states should see a decline in infections, assuming people don't get careless.

 

[Koolau]

Only because Sweeden is killing off all of their weak in the first wave.

Opinions about "the best football team" or "best rock band" or "most dangerous super-hero" without facts is pretty harmless. Stating that a particular governmental unit (or country, or party, or leader, or elected official, or even politician, etc.) is "killing" anyone should require statically treated data. We might have that data in 2 years - or 3. The "final report" will let us all know who guessed right and who guessed wrong on "what to do about Covid-19." My guess: No one, Sweden included, will have gotten EVERYTHING right and even the most cynical politician will not have gotten EVERYTHING wrong. YMMV

 

[audreyh1]

Here's something that may help you get a feel for if and when a 2nd or 3rd wave may hit your state:

rt.live



Interestingly as of today, most states are now below 1 which means most states should see a decline in infections, assuming people don't get careless.

Most states would be below R0 due to the past few weeks mandates which are now being reversed. So states would eventually see a decline as long as R0 stayed below 1. But with plenty of infections still I expect it to go back up. I don’t see how it’s possible to keep many services safe no matter how careful people are, and there are plenty of people unwilling to take basic precautions.

 

[P.S.]

Disagree. As someone else has said.....don't go to the grocery stores or the pharmacy. You don't NEED to go. You may WANT to go. Have these items delivered. Can't afford to have them delivered? Figure it out. If you are one of the "vulnerable," it is up to YOU to make it work; not the rest of us. It is not about being "considerate,"; it is about being "realistic."

I do not mind wearing PPE for another month, but after that I'm done unless it is mandated....

My point is the "vulnerable" population needs to be considerate and do more of the "adjusting" and let the rest of us get back to some sense of normalcy.
Our economy demands it. You have people really struggling financially now who never in their lives thought they would visit a food bank.

When mothers and fathers can no longer provide the needs of their children;
things could get really ugly really fast.

I do not intend to start an argument but did want to note a vehement dissent.
I also recognize that this may venture into the realm of political opinion.

The economy may make demands, but we as a people choose the society that we are, and are becoming. The more privileged a society becomes, as it becomes richer, then I think the society aspect should be more and more developed. The economy, esp. one as rich as ours, is there to serve the society, including the vulnerable. NOT the people are there to serve the economy.

We can talk about personal responsibility, and certainly the more ability/gift/etc one has, then more responsibility should be effected. Similarly, as a more rich/ more smarter individual should function appropriately, so a society, as it grows richer, should similarly develop. And I am not arguing for more socialism. But should we still be at the level of each man for himself, which made sense in earlier generations?

‘When mothers and fathers can no longer provide the needs” would not be an issue if the society were functioning properly. The US is an incredibly rich country. Maybe the next closest would be Germany, which has also been in lock down. Do we hear of Germans spending hours in a food bank line, only to be turned away empty handed?

There is another COVID thread on the new normal. Indeed, this crisis might be a good time, as our world is rapidly changing, to question: what kind of world do we want for ourselves? For our children?

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

What kind of world do we want? One where if we want to say home, we can. If we want to venture outside we can. A world where we choose how we want to do things.

Maybe we want to go to the beach. Maybe we choose not to.

 

[Rustic23]

MrLoco, I’m going to estimating that at least 30% of the population is vulnerable. Especially since obesity is considered a vulnerability. In fact maybe more. So these people should just shut up and stay home? A solution that works for everyone needs to be worked out. If the vulnerable is that large, then carving out a day for the vulnerable makes both moral, and economic sense.

Added: I do not have a source, but I heard that “retired” spending represents 22% of GDP. If this is so I further begs an equitable solution.

 

[MrLoco]

MrLoco, I’m going to estimating that at least 30% of the population is vulnerable. Especially since obesity is considered a vulnerability. In fact maybe more. So these people should just shut up and stay home? A solution that works for everyone needs to be worked out. If the vulnerable is that large, then carving out a day for the vulnerable makes both moral, and economic sense.

Added: I do not have a source, but I heard that “retired” spending represents 22% of GDP. If this is so I further begs an equitable solution.

Actually, that makes sense. Make one day a week when everyone needs to wear PPE and that is the day the "vulnerable" can also venture out. The other 6 days of the week....the vulnerable need to stay home and everyone else can be out and about sans masks, social distancing, etc.

Of course this will never happen since the "vulnerable" will complain that this is "not fair" and discriminates against them due to their "vulnerability."

The GOvernor of my neighboring state REQUIRES everyone to now wear a mask.....OUTSIDE!!!! With the threat of a $300 fine. So, if you want to take a walk outside to get some fresh air.....you must wear a mask! Does that sound reasonable
Not to me!!!

 

[Chuckanut]

The GOvernor of my neighboring state REQUIRES everyone to now wear a mask.....OUTSIDE!!!! With the threat of a $300 fine. So, if you want to take a walk outside to get some fresh air.....you must wear a mask! Does that sound reasonable
Not to me!!!

What state?
Even if they are maintaining social distancing?

 

[gwraigty]

Actually, that makes sense. Make one day a week when everyone needs to wear PPE and that is the day the "vulnerable" can also venture out. The other 6 days of the week....the vulnerable need to stay home and everyone else can be out and about sans masks, social distancing, etc.

Of course this will never happen since the "vulnerable" will complain that this is "not fair" and discriminates against them due to their "vulnerability."

The GOvernor of my neighboring state REQUIRES everyone to now wear a mask.....OUTSIDE!!!! With the threat of a $300 fine. So, if you want to take a walk outside to get some fresh air.....you must wear a mask! Does that sound reasonable
Not to me!!!

No, the mask mandate doesn't sound reasonable. Masks aren't required in Ohio for walking outside. Today. Yet. Our fines for disobeying any element of our state health order are fines of up to $750 and or 90 days in jail.

As far as discrimination, it's been written into all of our state health orders that the elderly (identified as 65+) and vulnerable "are urged to stay in their residence to the extent possible except as necessary to seek medical care." Added to the most recent order are specific health conditions, such as lung diseases, heart conditions, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, and a few others. That reads almost like all of those 65+ and those with the named health conditions are to stay in lockdown and not even go out for groceries. I haven't heard of any fines being levied against seniors (as it's the one condition you can't hide very well) or seen any of them being hauled off to jail.

If businesses were to expand senior & vulnerable shopping from hours to entire days, then I'd want the other days reserved for the under 65 crowd and the less-vulnerable. Fair is fair, after all. Special shopping hours for the vulnerable are mandated in our health order. Just don't make it 24 of them, please.

 

[Rustic23]

It really does not have to be mandated by government. We have four grocery and two major pharmacies. The one that does stands to get 20% or so of the shopping population. My guess is businesses will figure it out. There is a reason senior discounts evolved.