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

[timo2]

The CDC has published a decent, not perfect, three phase process to get us back in business. It envisions the most vulnerable demographics taking active steps to protect themselves, including continued isolation. It prescribes a coordinated testing, tracing, and containment program to hold the infection rate to a dull roar while working on treatments. It envisions active testing and surveillance of senior centers to prevent raging outbreaks. In theory, this will work. We are spending trillions to ameliorate the hit to the economy. Why aren’t we devoting a fraction of that to mount a Marshall Plan to implement the national guidelines? Instead we rely on piece meal, uncoordinated efforts.

+1
That would be great. I think it would get a lot of support if introduced as a national plan. But it will be a new economy. There will be no 'going back to normal'.

 

[JustCurious]

Staying home for years is not living.

+1

Neither is staying home for months.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Just, we are in our 7th week and it’s getting really old. Nevada cases are decreasing but the governor wants them to go down for 14 days straight. I think big places like casinos should open last.

 

[Chuckanut]

Yes Brewer if they ever make a reality show. How to survive COVID, you would be the first person cast...you'd be a light in the darkness.

IMHO, It would be far more entertaining than the Tiger King Netflix series. Then again, that isn't saying much.

 

[Midpack]

When there is a vaccine I don’t think it will be a one and done. I think it will be like the flu vaccine. Older people can’t isolate forever. When things open up we do some things like eat in a restaurant. We won’t go to crowded places like movies and concerts. We won’t even consider traveling until next summer. Staying home for years is not living.

There’s no guarantee we’ll have a vaccine for this. The FDA has never approved a coronavirus vaccine, none in the past have been effective enough. Whatever choices we make now have to factor in the possibility there won’t be a vaccine.

 

[Music Lover]

So around 8% of COVID-19 deaths are for people under 55. That doesn't sound ridiculously low to me. But of course we're only looking at COVID-19 deaths.

8% doesn't sound low, but it's actually 0.00001%...2531 out of 230 million.

 

[Markola]

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.

The people I have sympathy for are the front line employees who don’t make enough to have much choice but to work and reluctant small business owners who feel they must reopen just because their competitors are.

I guess we’ll find out if opening up nonessential stores and restaurants makes much sense if not enough reckless customers show up to make being open viable, or if the reckless customers who do show up then become so sick they can’t return. Many places will likely shut down again, regardless of their state’s governor.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I don’t disagree about the vaccine Midpack. Even if they develop one it will be fairly worthless like the flu vaccine.

 

[Aerides]

8% doesn't sound low, but it's actually 0.00001%...2531 out of 230 million.

ridiculous false stat considering there are not 230 infections.

 

[Music Lover]

ridiculous false stat considering there are not 230 infections.

8% is also a false stat.

However, regarding protecting the vulnerable it seems that some people are okay with shutting down the economy indefinitely regardless of how many people are hurt. The evidence is growing that shows healthy people under a certain age have a very low risk of fatality, therefore a reasonable plan should be put in place.

Those who still feel threatened can isolate longer if they want.

 

[SoReady]

From https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/debunking-bakersfield-doctors-covid-spread-conclusions/ :
and:
In essence, the two doctors try to extrapolate from a completely unrepresentative sample to the entire population. They can then estimate a death rate that is ridiculously low and claim that COVID is no big deal so we should all get back to business as usual so their clinics can make lots of money again.

Thanks so much for this. Interesting to read the counterpoint.

 

[PatrickA5]

8% is also a false stat.

However, regarding protecting the vulnerable it seems that some people are okay with shutting down the economy indefinitely regardless of how many people are hurt. The evidence is growing that shows healthy people under a certain age have a very low risk of fatality, therefore a reasonable plan should be put in place.

Those who still feel threatened can isolate longer if they want.

Assuming a "reasonable plan" includes things that will keep the young healthy people from infecting us old people, I'd might be on board.

 

[audreyh1]

I don’t disagree about the vaccine Midpack. Even if they develop one it will be fairly worthless like the flu vaccine.

You don’t know that.

 

[brewer12345]

Well, all the moves to open up locally are looking more dubious to me. Colorado just tacked on a solid 900 or so cases today as testing hit a little shy of 4k people. This is a noticeable acceleration from recent days. I am thinking we are a long way from getting out from under the cloud.

 

[MuirWannabe]

When there is a vaccine I don’t think it will be a one and done. I think it will be like the flu vaccine. Older people can’t isolate forever. When things open up we do some things like eat in a restaurant. We won’t go to crowded places like movies and concerts. We won’t even consider traveling until next summer. Staying home for years is not living.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence. My parents are both still alive at age 88. I don’t know how many months/years they have left. They’ve been pretty darned scared about the virus thus far. Not seeing family nor going anywhere. They live for their family. But what’s the point of avoiding the virus if they can’t do even the basic things they love? Not quite yet. But I plan to encourage them to open up soon in terms of living. It’ll be their decision of course. I’d rather see them pass on from living and then acquiring Covid, than to hunker down isolated for a year or two and then pass away.

 

[harllee]

I think all us Old Geezers should start our own protest movement--"Save the Geezers" and demand more testing, tracing, etc to make us safer. At a minimum we should vote with our pocketbook and only frequent establishments that take our safety seriously. After all-- us old geezers vote more than any other group and have the most money to spend. Our welfare is important too. Long live the Old Geezers!!

 

[besa]

As long as people ramp up wearing their masks properly, maintain social distancing, and self isolate if sick we could open up fully and likely not increase any sick numbers and in turn deaths.

But, people will not do any of that. It is all over the news, social media, and obvious when I venture into local establishments for "somewhat" needed items.

In the last case, I noticed about 1/3 of the people wearing masks (myself included). The rest are working hard to increase the COVID cases.

It appears that most people absolutely will not follow the mask guidelines. I imagine the reasons are typical. My wife, a pharm tech, says her mask is too hot.

I wear my mask from the time I leave my house until I get home. The longest I have worn it was about 6 hours straight. It was uncomfortable, but the piece of mind was worth it for me.

I am not paranoid. Just trying to do my part to not spread this killer disease.

Thanks.

 

[MuirWannabe]

‘Get busy living, or get busy dying.’ Andy Dufraine

 

[statsman]

I don’t disagree about the vaccine Midpack. Even if they develop one it will be fairly worthless like the flu vaccine.

I am trying to wrap my arms around the recent discussions that getting the virus may not give someone future immunity from it. Isn't that what a vaccine is supposed to do? I must be missing some detail here.

 

[Dtail]

Well, all the moves to open up locally are looking more dubious to me. Colorado just tacked on a solid 900 or so cases today as testing hit a little shy of 4k people. This is a noticeable acceleration from recent days. I am thinking we are a long way from getting out from under the cloud.

So from a purely statistical standpoint, how could the states differentiate between opening up the economy vs. increased testing if it shows an increase in cases?

 

[RAE]

As someone else basically said, you could make a case that at least 40-50% of the U.S. population has at least one serious underlying health condition. Those include things like diabetes, obesity, asthma, heart disease, kidney disease.
And I have also read that nearly 80% of the U.S. population has some degree of metabolic disorder, which is basically a pre-diabetic condition. So, trying to define who is most vulnerable to this virus (and needs to be isolated) is going to be very difficult at best. And it wouldn't work anyway, as many of these vulnerable people need to go to work every day to make a living. Putting an arbitrary age (like 65 years or older) won't work either, as there are many folks older than that that are healthier than a lot of young people. I'm 65, and I have no underlying health conditions. I certainly don't want to be told that I have to stay home for the next several months!

Yes, maybe we can set aside some days of the week for people that consider themselves "vulnerable" to do their shopping. But beyond that, I don't see how we are going to isolate a segment of the population against their will.

 

[SoReady]

From https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/debunking-bakersfield-doctors-covid-spread-conclusions/ :
and:
In essence, the two doctors try to extrapolate from a completely unrepresentative sample to the entire population. They can then estimate a death rate that is ridiculously low and claim that COVID is no big deal so we should all get back to business as usual so their clinics can make lots of money again.

Thanks for this. The counterpoint is good to have.

 

[brewer12345]

So from a purely statistical standpoint, how could the states differentiate between opening up the economy vs. increased testing if it shows an increase in cases?

Opening up hasn't really happened yet, so these are cases from before any of the noise about opening up was made. Just demonstrates that all of this noise about opening up is based on minimal testing and little data, so we really are going over the falls in a barrel.

 

[Ian S]

ridiculous false stat considering there are not 230 infections.

+1 but good luck with trying to convey the problem with statistical misinformation. Folks gonna believe what they want to.

The states going forward with opening up while ignoring the recommendations of the White House task force are turning their populations into the COVID-19 equivalent of canaries in a coal mine. Best of luck to them: their approach will either work or fail - the latter being more likely IMHO. Fortunately, we don't live in one of those states and can continue with our own well thought out strategies for avoiding infection indefinitely should our Governor abandon his present more measured approach.

 

[Markola]

I think all us Old Geezers should start our own protest movement--"Save the Geezers" and demand more testing, tracing, etc to make us safer. At a minimum we should vote with our pocketbook and only frequent establishments that take our safety seriously. After all-- us old geezers vote more than any other group and have the most money to spend. Our welfare is important too. Long live the Old Geezers!!

I’m 54 and I support your movement 100%.