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

[Midpack]

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

Maybe add Please get the...

 

[Ian S]

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.

Before you get too excited about this dynamic duo, check out the one of the doctors' Facebook page (Artin Massihi) where, in a posted dated April 24, he writes glowingly about a linked youtube video:

This is a world renown Epidemiologist. His advice for containing a Pandemic is herd immunity, meaning, let the virus do it's thing.

There's lots more of interest there that will give a clear idea of, shall we say, a disturbing bias that may be informing the good doctor's judgement. But beyond any political concerns, there is also the fact that these guys have a business that's hurting due to Cali's lockdown as well other esperts who have studied the good docs' analysis and found it wanting.

 

[rk911]

these goofball governors need to stop using the "one size fits all" approach. take illinois (no,really...please take it). many..maybe most..of the 102 counties have a minimal CV19 problem and can easily re-open. no need to treat them the same way as Cook or St. Clair counties. OSFA is bad policy.

 

[Midpack]

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.

^^ Some important points I hadn’t thought about.

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.

Even though the practical solution is limiting the vulnerable, the OP was a straw man, I don’t think any politician would dare risk the political fallout of segregating us in that way. I suspect there will be all sorts of warnings, PSA’s, and disclaimers regarding the vulnerable along with reopening, but they’ll be left to decide for themselves. I hope I don’t see clearly unhealthy people out and about, but I’m sure I will. Again, if too many vulnerable people decide to re enter, cases will grow exponentially again - but we won’t actually know until 2-3 weeks later. And a lockdown then leaves a weeks long backlog of hospitalizations, ICU and death - maybe overwhelming health care.

And otherwise healthy households with vulnerable residents will have bigger challenges, but they’re already grappling with that so maybe somewhat prepared already? However, reopening will increase the chances of bringing Covid-19 into the household from others no longer staying in place.

No easy answers.

 

[brewer12345]

these goofball governors need to stop using the "one size fits all" approach. take illinois (no,really...please take it). many..maybe most..of the 102 counties have a minimal CV19 problem and can easily re-open. no need to treat them the same way as Cook or St. Clair counties. OSFA is bad policy.

Because nobody in one of the hot zones would dream of driving to one of the 102 counties to go shopping...

 

[RetiredAt55.5]

Before you get too excited about this dynamic duo, check out the one of the doctors' Facebook page (Artin Massihi) where, in a posted dated April 24, he writes glowingly about a linked youtube video:
There's lots more of interest there that will give a clear idea of, shall we say, a disturbing bias that may be informing the good doctor's judgement. But beyond any political concerns, there is also the fact that these guys have a business that's hurting due to Cali's lockdown as well other esperts who have studied the good docs' analysis and found it wanting.

Yes, this video has been making the rounds on Facebook. If you watch just the last 60 seconds of the video (when reporters are asking questions), the one doctor goes off the rails on his conspiracy theory.

Yea, I guess all the countries mandating a lockdown are "in" on the lockdown conspiracy.

 

[audreyh1]

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.

Agreed - the big spenders on high end restaurants and travel - those are the older vulnerable folks who also have the resources to shelter in place.

 

[Shredder]

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.

+1

I have to agree. Some locations might be different, but where I live, it seems the average age is higher than most. It's noticeable in sit down restaurants, casinos, weekday golf, bowling, or even the barber shop.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

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

"Jawohl"

It can be done sensibly, with temperature testing an antibody testing. Some folks just cannot think anything but the extremes.

 

[MRG]

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

+1

I normally yell that at one tourist over 4th of July while grocery shopping. Maybe I won't be the only one this year.

 

[Aerides]

It can be done sensibly, with temperature testing an antibody testing. Some folks just cannot think anything but the extremes.

A temperature test is meaningless theatre. Sure it might get a chunk of sick folks but not just those with covid, and far from all of those with it.

Antibody testing is many months away from being real time and probably even further away from being a cost effective way to perform daily testing on everyone who wishes to go to work or go into a group setting.

 

[Rianne]

We know how to protect ourselves. If not, you're living in a cave on top of a mountain. It's time to be responsible for ourselves. Personally, I won't be going to crowded places and will continue to wear my protective mask in stores. If those who want to gather, go for it. I am vulnerable and know how to take care of myself following the guidelines.



I think my DB is either immune or asymptomatic. He's older than me, 71, does not wear a mask, goes all over town to any store that's open, talks to people, takes no precautions (maybe hand sanitizer, but did that before anyway). He rarely got the flu. Maybe is one of the lucky ones. But I won't go near him for a very long time. His wife is very sick, had 3 lung infections in the last 6 weeks (she tested negative but could have been a false negative). She's in bed most of the time and has not been out of the house in 3 weeks.



I"m not going to force or preach to anyone about how to take care of themselves. How much more can one say? Much of our society refuses to listen regarding exercise and eating right. Type 2 diabetes is a major killer in our society. We know what we should do to stay healthy. I'm at the point of saying, reopen. Go for it. You know the risks. Take precautions in business, I'm FIRE, I can decide whether or not to go to your business.



We blame China for the open markets that slaughter animals in an unsanitary way. What about our slaughterhouses? We're not allowed to go in these meat factories and see what really goes on. What about when we have tainted meat or bacteria ridden Romaine lettuce? How about the way we pump our animals with antibiotics. We're already in danger of super bugs that are resistant to antibiotics. Who do we blame then? I'll continue to read the discussion and form my opinions. This is a good forum with intelligent posters.

 

[gwraigty]

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.

I've seen that opinion expressed many times. Staff at those facilities can be one vector, I agree. Residents are another. In nursing homes, residents can be sent to the hospital for medical emergencies. After treatment, they're sent back to the nursing home. First time medically urgent admissions to nursing homes probably haven't stopped either. I've read that's how the outbreak in Kirkland may have happened. So then you have to add the paramedics, various hospital staff, and potential hospital roommates of the returning/newly admitted resident to the mix. Then there are the outside vendors who deliver all the necessary medical supplies and food to the facilities, presuming they're still allowed inside, unless they've gone to contactless deliveries.

The most extreme measures would have been to say that no one is allowed in or out, not staff, not residents, but that would have terrible unintended consequences.

 

[Music Lover]

Yes, this video has been making the rounds on Facebook. If you watch just the last 60 seconds of the video (when reporters are asking questions), the one doctor goes off the rails on his conspiracy theory.

Yea, I guess all the countries mandating a lockdown are "in" on the lockdown conspiracy.

So...just watch the last 60 seconds and ignore the rest? Would you tell everyone to do that if it was a 50 minute video you agreed with and it had a couple of dumb comments at the end? Or would you tell them to watch the whole thing and then make up their own mind?

 

[gwraigty]

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.

During yesterday's state press conference, it was suggested that employers call back their vulnerable staff last, since it's unrealistic to expect that business will be at pre-COVID-19 levels anyway. It would be nice if employers take that into account. Even so, unemployment hasn't been extended indefinitely, so it's not a long-term solution.

 

[audreyh1]

A temperature test is meaningless theatre. Sure it might get a chunk of sick folks but not just those with covid, and far from all of those with it.

Antibody testing is many months away from being real time and probably even further away from being a cost effective way to perform daily testing on everyone who wishes to go to work or go into a group setting.

I don’t think it’s meaningless. Just because it doesn’t catch 100% doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done in the workplace. It will make people more aware of the situation and pay more attention to symptoms. And it will catch some folks who shouldn’t be there for whatever reason and IMO every little bit helps.

 

[SoReady]

... as well other esperts who have studied the good docs' analysis and found it wanting.

I agree that some parts of this presentation seemed smirky and sometimes I thought they may be coming at it from a political standpoint, but I tried to focus on the numbers and the logic to their conclusion. And I also concede that I am no expert and would like to understand what some experts may have to say about this, especially since this video is gaining traction e.g Facebook, etc.

So I'm asking you if you can help me read some other esperts who find the conclusions and suggestions "wanting". This would help me. I've posted this in another group and someone said the same thing, but so far no link to the other experts yet.

Thanks.

 

[audreyh1]

What is their basic premise? Because honestly I don’t want to sit through a 50min video especially if there is a lot of spin. Are they saying CA hospitals are currently underutilized?

 

[PatrickA5]

I don't think there's any way to open things up with just the less vulnerable. Just won't work. No way to enforce it. No way to know who's vulnerable (other than age). Besides, a large segment of people DO have a co-morbidity and just don't know it (heart disease, HBP, diabetes, etc).

There's a lot of pressure to re-open. I think we're just going to have to see how this all works out. It could be a disaster. It might not.


Some people will stay home and do what's necessary to avoid the virus as best they can. A LOT of people don't think it's a big deal. I don't see that changing.

Even though my city has a "mandatory" use of face masks, my trip for groceries showed maybe 25% with masks on and half of those were protecting their necks instead of their faces.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Even though my city has a "mandatory" use of face masks, my trip for groceries showed maybe 25% with masks on and half of those were protecting their necks instead of their faces.

Perhaps they were VERY heavy smokers.

 

[Music Lover]

I don't think there's any way to open things up with just the less vulnerable. Just won't work. No way to enforce it. No way to know who's vulnerable (other than age). Besides, a large segment of people DO have a co-morbidity and just don't know it (heart disease, HBP, diabetes, etc).

At a certain point you have to stop punishing everyone because of a few idiots. If you're healthy and under 50 the fatality rate is almost 0.00%. The vulnerable people will always be vulnerable...even a year from now, so knowing that how long should the 10's of millions of healthy people stay locked up?

 

[Rianne]

At a certain point you have to stop punishing everyone because of a few idiots. If you're healthy and under 50 the fatality rate is almost 0.00%. The vulnerable people will always be vulnerable...even a year from now, so knowing that how long should the 10's of millions of healthy people stay locked up?

I believe your data is incorrect.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Several Edits: read the article.

 

[SoReady]

What is their basic premise? Because honestly I don’t want to sit through a 50min video especially if there is a lot of spin. Are they saying CA hospitals are currently underutilized?

It is long because they present a lot of numbers related to their area, California, U.S., Sweden, Norway, etc. Plus the press interjects with questions which makes it long. It is worth listening to and I'm sure I won't give it justice. Considering am stay at home orders I had plenty of time to watch it. I watched in 2 sitting though.

It has been a few days since I watched it but I think their bottom line is if you take out 65+ with underlying conditions and nursing homes (maybe some others) that the number infected/deceased is not statistically significant to the seasonal flu. They do concede that during the initial outbreak or understanding of this virus, the lock down of the economy was the right thing to do. Now that time has passed and more data is available to analyze (which they do a lot of extrapolation on) then keeping a lock down for everyone isn't the best approach going forward. If I recall, they said testing was key and that targeting the food supply would be an area to first open up. All employees tested and if negative they can go to work. If not they go home. Basically not different if you have a flu - you should stay home.

There is so much more related to allowing schools to return, etc. I don't think I can remember all the salient points but I felt that it gave me a different perspective to looking at the numbers. For example, reading the Sunday Chicago Tribune I noticed during an article on the Illinois numbers that 1/3 of all deaths in the state are attributed nursing homes. Normally I might not have picked up on that. But if that is someplace that is easily quarantine - able and then look at the numbers for the other 2/3 are of the general population, what does that do to your thinking? For me it indicates less of an impact to the rest of the population which less scary that the headline number that I might usually just stop at.

But also, as I said, I'm very interested to hear experts opinions on the Dr's video. I would really love to have Fauci's take on this. I'm just trying to figure out if what these guys are saying is something that holds water or not. For now I agree with some of the things they are suggesting.

 

[rk911]

Because nobody in one of the hot zones would dream of driving to one of the 102 counties to go shopping...

counties with minimal CV19 problems aren’t hotspots but in any case citizens aren’t under house arrest...yet. martial law has not been imposed...yet. citizens are free to travel still so a person in a hot zone can today, this very minute, get in a car, get on a train, fly to wherever they choose. and none of that has anything to do wirh eliminating the “stay at home [-]order[/-], suggestion for counties with minimal CV19 problems. businesses could re-open and people could re-start their lives. “one size fits all” is very bad policy.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

If all of us over 60 are forced to stay home many businesses won't make it.

If no one is allowed to go to the business, then they don't even have a chance. I agree with harllee, everyone should be allowed. Let the customer have the freedom of choice. Let them decide if the risk is worth the reward.