Agree we need to reopen without vulnerable/elderly at first?

[Midpack]

With 78% of US Covid-19 deaths aged 65 or older and 92% aged 55 or older (based on CDC mortality data), does anyone think we can practically avoid reopening without much stricter conditions on the most vulnerable (specific underlying health conditions) which may include older Americans? Though there will be more cases of infections as the less vulnerable re enter, most will not require hospitalization or ICU care?

The economic damage is mounting fast, and if we decide to wait until everyone is safe, it seems the damage to everyone will be considerably greater.

I’ve noticed several states and the latest White House reopening plans make general statements regarding the most vulnerable - but the specific directions from states that have begun or announced reopening don’t provide any additional guidance/precautions addressed to the vulnerable population that I’ve seen.

Of course others young and old may elect to stay in place (much) longer. Those with known underlying comorbidities would be foolish to NOT stay in place longer?

 

[CardsFan]

Gov. Parsons of MO just announced a slow re-opening in early May. Localities have the option to be more stringent, and some will (St. Louis County and St. Louis City have already stated they will).

During his statement he made a comment to the effect that the consumer will decide if we are moving too fast. Basically, each individual needs to decide how they will react. Some will still stay in, many will go out.

Let's see what happens. We need to remind ourselves that "flattening the curve" had nothing to do with killing the virus, just to not overwhelm the medical community.

On a side note, one local hospital system (SSM) just laid off 2,000 employees due to LOW use of medical facilities.

 

[38Chevy454]

To me it is obvious, if you're concerned just stay home. All the protesters in states opening up some? Nothing says the people protesting have to go to dentist, hairdresser, gym, restaurant, or whatever. If you don't want to start getting back to life out in public, just stay home. Why is this so hard to understand?

Vulnerable populations need to make their own judgment calls. Life has risk, always has. Do things to reduce risk. Gee, sounds kind of like financial advice. Just applied to different scenarios.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I think no one should go back to work unless they have had a valid negative test result. Period! Anything else is asking for trouble and resurgence.

 

[Aerides]

I don't think the reopening will place "conditions" on the population, but on the businesses. But that doesn't mean that a restaurant isn't going to be forbidden from serving older folks. Just to have distancing and limits on numbers, that sort of thing. The "stay home if you're a/b/c" - that's guidance for those folks who presumably know their risk to make a decision.

The rest of us can also measure our risk and appetite, and whether or not some caution make sense.

Most states will have phased plans opening starting next week (May) and into June. Then we'll see what happens from there.

 

[Sunset]

Without a vaccine for over a year or two, of course we need to re-open.
I do think the restriction will have to be placed on the NOT vulnerable such as only allow Vulnerable to grocery shop on Tues & Thursdays.
Until herd immunity is reached in a few years.

 

[RobbieB]

Yeah, at least I'll be able to get takeout from more places.

 

[ivinsfan]

I think no one should go back to work unless they have had a valid negative test result. Period! Anything else is asking for trouble and resurgence.

How often did you want to test people, daily, weekly, monthly? You do realize that we are expecting all the people we count on for medical care, food all that necessary stuff to go out every single day?

Individuals will of course be free to stay in their homes as long as they care to, but your solution isn't even possible.

I just read an article about Neiman Markus fulfillment workers not being happy they have to go work because people are snapping up luxury items at sale prices.

If we truly are all in this together something has to be worked out that values everyone equally.

 

[cathy63]

It's not as easy as "just stay home if you're at risk". We here in this group are very privileged overall and many of us can stay home as long as we need to; but there are millions of vulnerable people who need to work, cannot do so from home, and will be unable to collect unemployment once their employers reopen. They do not feel like they have a choice in this matter.

 

[USGrant1962]

I think no one should go back to work unless they have had a valid negative test result. Period! Anything else is asking for trouble and resurgence.

Papers please, comrade? And a yellow star too? And a new test every day?

 

[harllee]

Most of the deaths in my state are at group homes like nursing homes, assisted living. These homes have been on lock down for a while with no visitors so most likely the virus was brought in my people who work in the group homes. How can we make sure that the people working in these places are virus free? The best thing to do would be to test those people frequently but there aren't enough tests.

 

[CardsFan]

People keep saying test everyone, like it could be done easily. There are 330 million people in the US (I did not look it up, could be a little different, but close).

So, let's test everyone once a month, except healthcare workers, first responder's and other critical workers should be done more often (weekly? daily?).

We very quickly get to half a billion, or more, tests required every month.

Does anyone really think this is in any way possible or practical?

 

[Midpack]

Basically, each individual needs to decide how they will react. Some will still stay in, many will go out.

We need to remind ourselves that "flattening the curve" had nothing to do with killing the virus, just to not overwhelm the medical community.

To me it is obvious, if you're concerned just stay home. Vulnerable populations need to make their own judgment calls.

As CardsFan reminds us, the overriding goal of stay in place is to avoid overwhelming our health care resources - that would increase deaths.

If we let the vulnerable people decide for themselves, they’re arguably 9 times as likely to end up in hospital, ICU or dead. So we can’t just let them choose or we risk overwhelming hospitals. With a two week lag between exposure, infection and symptoms - seeing how it goes with significant numbers of the vulnerable at large won’t work - restarting stay in place won’t correct the case and death overrun.

It's not as easy as "just stay home if you're at risk". We here in this group are very privileged overall and many of us can stay home as long as we need to; but there are millions of vulnerable people who need to work, cannot do so from home, and will be unable to collect unemployment once their employers reopen. They do not feel like they have a choice in this matter.

I get that many here are FI, but should we force everyone to stay in place or should we let the low risk non-essentials return to work and have the more vulnerable stay in place until testing, therapies and/or vaccines enable them to get back in circulation?

These are tough questions we’re probably going to have to confront.

I’m thinking we need to restart the economy in stages, like many states seem to have planned, allowing lower risk non essential people to rejoin all the essentials who’ve worked throughput BUT we’re going to have to significantly limit and/or delay the vulnerable from reentering. Leaving the vulnerable to decide for themselves will overwhelm health care - otherwise why have we all been staying home for weeks? Everyone benefits from bringing economic activity back, including the vulnerable. Forcing us to stay in place longer to accommodate the vulnerable hurts us all...

 

[Aerides]

It's not as easy as "just stay home if you're at risk". We here in this group are very privileged overall and many of us can stay home as long as we need to; but there are millions of vulnerable people who need to work, cannot do so from home, and will be unable to collect unemployment once their employers reopen. They do not feel like they have a choice in this matter.

I wonder if there might not be some sort of expanded SSI for this population that can be considered at least in the near term. You're right - If I'm an otherwise healthy working person who has asthma, for example, I would be unable to safely return to pre-vaccine everything.

 

[Midpack]

I wonder if there might not be some sort of expanded SSI for this population that can be considered at least in the near term. You're right - If I'm an otherwise healthy working person who has asthma, for example, I would be unable to safely return to pre-vaccine everything.

I was going to add that. It’s a sticky wicket but paying unemployment for the displaced vulnerable only is way less costly than paying unemployment for all displaced non essential workers. And it lightens the financial stress on businesses who’ve reopened.

 

[SoReady]

I watched this explanation from a couple of Dr's in California and it has made me look at things differently.

It is long, but very interesting (about 1 hour)

Bottomline, is they conclude the time is right for targeted reopening with testing based on the data they have analyzed.

 

[RobbieB]

Great! Let's crank it up!

 

[cathy63]

As CardsFan reminds us, the overriding goal of stay in place is to avoid overwhelming our health care resources - that would increase deaths.

If we let the vulnerable people decide for themselves, they’re arguably 9 times as likely to end up in hospital, ICU or dead. So we can’t just let them choose or we risk overwhelming hospitals. With a two week lag between exposure, infection and symptoms - seeing how it goes with significant numbers of the vulnerable at large won’t work - restarting stay in place won’t correct the case and death overrun.

I get that many here are FI, but should we force everyone to stay in place or should we let the low risk non-essentials return to work and have the more vulnerable stay in place until testing, therapies and/or vaccines enable them to get back in circulation?

These are tough questions we’re probably going to have to confront.

I’m thinking we need to restart the economy in stages, like many states seem to have planned, allowing lower risk non essential people to rejoin all the essentials who’ve worked throughput BUT we’re going to have to significantly limit and/or delay the vulnerable from reentering. Leaving the vulnerable to decide for themselves will overwhelm health care - otherwise why have we all been staying home for weeks? Everyone benefits from bringing economic activity back, including the vulnerable. Forcing us to stay in place longer to accommodate the vulnerable hurts us all...

I wonder if there might not be some sort of expanded SSI for this population that can be considered at least in the near term. You're right - If I'm an otherwise healthy working person who has asthma, for example, I would be unable to safely return to pre-vaccine everything.

I don't disagree with either of you, and I would love to find a way to free all the people who don't really need to stay home. However, aside from the financial and legal implications of forcing a subset of people out of society even though they haven't committed any crime, I don't know how we even identify them. We could say anyone over 65 is not allowed to work outside their own home. That one is relatively easy. But what about the other risk factors like obesity, smoking, history of heart, lung or kidney disease? Is having a BMI over some standard ratio now a disability? What if you quit smoking 7 months ago?

Then what happens if there's someone who is a borderline case that doesn't qualify for whatever financial help is setup, so that person goes out to work, gets sick, and dies? What if it's a child who had to go back to school because his parents had to go out to work? Are states or employers liable for wrongful deaths?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but there are just so many complications that I don't see how we get past them. I also don't hear any governors proposing these types of plans, and I don't believe we're the only ones to have had this idea.

 

[timo2]

Most politicians endorse 'vulnerable' people staying at home. Reopening businesses without these customers will clearly change the economics of a business. It is possible that the people who can afford to still shelter-in-place may have the disposable income that supported many businesses. Businesses will have to keep the curb-side and carry-out parts of their business for the 'vulnerable' to keep the economic damage to their business down. It is also possible without the dollars from the 'vulnerable' people out in the restaurants, many of the restaurants will not reopen or quickly close down.

 

[harllee]

Most politicians endorse 'vulnerable' people staying at home. Reopening businesses without these customers will clearly change the economics of a business. It is possible that the people who can afford to still shelter-in-place may have the disposable income that supported many businesses. Businesses will have to keep the curb-side and carry-out parts of their business for the 'vulnerable' to keep the economic damage to their business down. It is also possible without the dollars from the 'vulnerable' people out in the restaurants, many of the restaurants will not reopen or quickly close down.

I agree. Most of the higher end restaurants I frequented before the virus had many customers age 50-60 and up. So when those restaurants open and none of us over age 60 go to those restaurants I bet those restaurants will only have 50% of the pre-Covid-19 business. How is that going to work out for those restaurants? I am sure that many other businesses also rely on customers age 60 plus. If all of us over 60 are forced to stay home many businesses won't make it. We need to find solution to this problem that allows everyone to go to restaurants, etc. Not sure what the solution is at this point, but there has to be one.

 

[Aerides]

...We could say anyone over 65 is not allowed to work outside their own home...I'm playing devil's advocate here, but there are just so many complications that I don't see how we get past them...

Much snipping to the above (and I do enjoy a rational devil's advocate discussion). I think two things are going to be the key:

No one is going to be "forbidden" from going out. Not age, not condition. That's on them - especially if we address the income for those not on SS/retired. Anything else, any mandatory health/age related perma stay-at-home or you're in trouble kinda thing would not last in court. Not in the US. Just like you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet in a lot of places.

And businesses are already hotly lobbying the liability side. If someone - high risk or not - gets Covid from interacting in a business, their rights to sue will be very limited if not completely shut down.

 

[brewer12345]

Gentleman, start your lawyers. Let the discrimination lawsuits begin!

 

[RobbieB]

The lawyers are probably hurting for lack of dough and are ready to rock!

 

[Clone]

I think that the lock down has done several things. First, it did put a damper on the rate of transmission. Second, it gave enough time for some seriously bad stuff to happen so that most people take it seriously. Third, it has changed some behaviors that will help us as we emerge from a lock-down. Some of those behaviors- minimize social interactions, especially if you feel that you may be at a higher level of risk. I think now that people will view it OK if you maintain your distance and ask them to give you space. Wearing a mask in public is no longer an oddity, and may become much more commonplace. Retail space sanitation is taken more seriously. Workspace sanitation and space is at least being considered. Work from home has been implemented in many places, and may allow that practice to continue as we move forward.

Some of this may be kabuki theater, or it may actually help. I know that we will maintain distance to a greater degree than what we would have done 6 weeks ago. Church is on the short list of activities that will not resume in the immediate future. Too many vulnerable people, and I would guess there will be a likely amount of social distance breaches. So give it time.

We are changing our travel plans. And we will be much more isolated for some time. Our children are actually checking in on us and reinforcing the idea of staying isolated. We will not be interacting with them for some time. And that is a bit challenging, seeing as how there is a grandchild on the schedule in the future. But, it is in our best interests to remain apart from them for now. Once things resume a bit of normal activity, I think we will reach out to some of the more vulnerable in our church community to see if we can help them out while still maintaining space. I am sure that some of them need more social interaction and assistance, but we are not going to put ourselves in a bad position.

 

[brewer12345]

Personally, I am just happy that yelling "Get the **** away from me!" is now a public service announcement instead of being rude.