Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 11:43:03 GMT -5
There will be no additional "shut downs". That boat has sailed and there are too many folks who now object to those to make the effort effective, IMHO.
It's sad people don't care enough about others to help protect their health. At least the doctors on TV are starting to be more honest about the masses of impending deaths and the fact that many of them are actually preventable if people gave a shit about others.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 11:46:00 GMT -5
There will be no additional "shut downs". That boat has sailed and there are too many folks who now object to those to make the effort effective, IMHO. It's sad people don't care enough about others to help protect their health. At least the doctors on TV are starting to be more honest about the masses of impending deaths and the fact that many of them are actually preventable if people gave a shit about others. If people actually gave a shit about others there would be no cars on the road, nobody would buy food at stores, and every other thing on the planet which causes people to die would be completely avoided. But much like many things in life, the line of "what's acceptable and what's bad" tends to be "wherever I happen to draw the line". Who is a bad driver? Anyone worse than I am.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,312
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on May 5, 2020 11:48:21 GMT -5
This article suggest that mutant coronavirus has emerged:
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on May 5, 2020 11:52:35 GMT -5
A couple observations: If we could actually totally shutdown at the same time worldwide, this thing would would go away completely within a couple months (I would think, depending upon household size) for lack of new hosts. Opening things up without any better prevention than we had before this thing hit us, will bring us right back to the starting point--risking millions extra lives because we can't keep up with medical treatment, such that it is. I mean probably, but how many people would die due to lack of food, water, electricity, medical care, etc? Actually "totally" shutting down would be catastrophic if it happened worldwide. Hence, the "If we could". It's theoretical, but does lead to more understanding how we could have gotten much more control over this if we had a much more complete lockdown to begin with. Then contact tracing every case might have been possible.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 11:53:55 GMT -5
There will be no additional "shut downs". That boat has sailed and there are too many folks who now object to those to make the effort effective, IMHO. It's sad people don't care enough about others to help protect their health. At least the doctors on TV are starting to be more honest about the masses of impending deaths and the fact that many of them are actually preventable if people gave a shit about others. If people actually gave a shit about others there would be no cars on the road, nobody would buy food at stores, and every other thing on the planet which causes people to die would be completely avoided. But much like many things in life, the line of "what's acceptable and what's bad" tends to be "wherever I happen to draw the line". Who is a bad driver? Anyone worse than I am. There are millions of people who draw that line in a different place than you might. Or, that I might. But, opening up with reckless abandon will greatly backfire because of that fucking annoying thing known as SCIENCE. So, let's chat in a couple weeks about how the current plans are working. Even locally, we are now all open against the government's closure and welcoming tourists. The local grocery clerks are now in more danger and not happy. The elderly and higher risk category aren't thrilled because now everywhere we go we are at a higher risk than we need to be. But, screw everyone else say the younger "we won't get sick, screw the government, and my bible/gun protects me" crowd. It's too bad what they CHOOSE to do can kill other people. And, no, it's not the same thing as driving. /SMH
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 5, 2020 12:00:41 GMT -5
Operationally define them for me... You made the statement "ultimately why we will fail" so you must already have a definition. Personally I don't. Ah. So you mean I need to redefine success and failure. Got it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 12:09:04 GMT -5
If people actually gave a shit about others there would be no cars on the road, nobody would buy food at stores, and every other thing on the planet which causes people to die would be completely avoided. But much like many things in life, the line of "what's acceptable and what's bad" tends to be "wherever I happen to draw the line". Who is a bad driver? Anyone worse than I am. There are millions of people who draw that line in a different place than you might. Or, that I might. But, opening up with reckless abandon will greatly backfire because of that fucking annoying thing known as SCIENCE. So, let's chat in a couple weeks about how the current plans are working.Even locally, we are now all open against the government's closure and welcoming tourists. The local grocery clerks are now in more danger and not happy. The elderly and higher risk category aren't thrilled because now everywhere we go we are at a higher risk than we need to be. But, screw everyone else say the younger "we won't get sick, screw the government, and my bible/gun protects me" crowd. It's too bad what they CHOOSE to do can kill other people. And, no, it's not the same thing as driving. /SMH Why? If I think it's fine to let everyone get infected and people live or die based on whatever happens...then wouldn't I always think the current plan is working fine or should be loosened up? The definition of the "risk you need to be" is purely dependent upon your measuring of what you think the "need" is. Almost every choice someone makes "can kill other people". You drive a car right? That can kill people. That's why it's always down to "what do YOU want" and that's where people draw the line. Anyone to one side is being overly cautious, anyone to the other is overly aggressive. You seem to have this notion that the world and other people's decisions should revolve around you and what works best for you.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 12:14:11 GMT -5
I mean probably, but how many people would die due to lack of food, water, electricity, medical care, etc? Actually "totally" shutting down would be catastrophic if it happened worldwide. Hence, the "If we could". It's theoretical, but does lead to more understanding how we could have gotten much more control over this if we had a much more complete lockdown to begin with. Then contact tracing every case might have been possible. So absent the theoretical piece...do you honestly think contact tracing would have been possible for every case given that "complete shut down" in practice seems to be "over 50% of things up and going"? It basically takes one grocery store employee being sick and giving it to anyone who shopped there in the past 10 days before they were symptomatic to just blow things up. Personally, I don't think there's any real chance of contact tracing every case in an environment where a ton of things are still open even during a "shut down" with a virus that can be passed on for nearly 2 weeks without someone even knowing they have it (if they ever know they have it). I think the level of lockdown you would have needed to even come remotely close would have been too extreme for just about anyone.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on May 5, 2020 12:16:07 GMT -5
Hence, the "If we could". It's theoretical, but does lead to more understanding how we could have gotten much more control over this if we had a much more complete lockdown to begin with. Then contact tracing every case might have been possible. So absent the theoretical piece...do you honestly think contact tracing would have been possible for every case given that "complete shut down" in practice seems to be "over 50% of things up and going"? It basically takes one grocery store employee being sick and giving it to anyone who shopped there in the past 10 days before they were symptomatic to just blow things up. Personally, I don't think there's any real chance of contact tracing every case in an environment where a ton of things are still open even during a "shut down" with a virus that can be passed on for nearly 2 weeks without someone even knowing they have it (if they ever know they have it). I think the level of lockdown you would have needed to even come remotely close would have been too extreme for just about anyone. It is too late for that. It might have worked early on. Look at Australia or New Zealand (I can't remember which).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on May 5, 2020 12:23:12 GMT -5
You made the statement "ultimately why we will fail" so you must already have a definition. Personally I don't. Ah. So you mean I need to redefine success and failure. Got it. I was simply playing with your post on "Prioritizing Differently". What you "need" to do is on you.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on May 5, 2020 12:31:14 GMT -5
A couple observations: If we could actually totally shutdown at the same time worldwide, this thing would would go away completely within a couple months (I would think, depending upon household size) for lack of new hosts.Opening things up without any better prevention than we had before this thing hit us, will bring us right back to the starting point--risking millions extra lives because we can't keep up with medical treatment, such that it is. The problem with this idea is that we now know that dogs and cats can also be hosts to the virus. What other animals? Is it in the bat population? Squirrel? We don’t know that. But big cats in the zoo with (very likely) little human interaction can get the virus. If they can get it, they can transmit it. Unlike with smallpox, where humans are the only known reservoir, this virus has multiple reservoirs. Unless you plan on getting rid of every possible reservoir, the virus will not go away.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 12:41:10 GMT -5
The goal is not to overwhelm hospitals...so if you're in an area where they are not overwhelmed, you can afford to have a bit more exposure now. I think that is why there is a lot of unrest in my area. We have the third highest covid death count by county in the state, yet the hospital is empty. Crickets in the hallways empty. Nobody has been admitted for covid related illness there, not one person. All the cases/deaths have been in one nursing home (that was admittedly decimated with 66 cases and 15 deaths), but they were all DNR and were never admitted to the hospital. The last time I checked our state's stats something like 75% of the covid deaths were in nursing homes, so if they are also not being hospitalized... Maybe our efforts should be more focused on making these places safe than shutting down everything else (mind you, I'm talking about my state and what I see happening here). The staff at the nursing home are now nearly all recovered from Covid and presumably can't catch or transmit to the residents. There haven't been any new cases in my county or the surrounding ones in nearly 2 weeks except for post mortem cases. BTW, I find it interesting that anyone dying in the LTC that tests positive post mortem for Covid are being called Covid deaths. That doesn't seem right to me. The 104 year old woman that passed away two weeks after beating Covid was also tallied a Covid death. I mean maybe if she hadn't had the disease she would have been strong enough to overcome whatever it was that did do her in, but she was also 104.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 5, 2020 12:50:46 GMT -5
The goal is not to overwhelm hospitals...so if you're in an area where they are not overwhelmed, you can afford to have a bit more exposure now. I think that is why there is a lot of unrest in my area. We have the third highest covid death count by county in the state, yet the hospital is empty. Crickets in the hallways empty. Nobody has been admitted for covid related illness there, not one person. All the cases/deaths have been in one nursing home (that was admittedly decimated with 66 cases and 15 deaths), but they were all DNR and were never admitted to the hospital. The last time I checked our state's stats something like 75% of the covid deaths were in nursing homes, so if they are also not being hospitalized... Maybe our efforts should be more focused on making these places safe than shutting down everything else (mind you, I'm talking about my state and what I see happening here). The staff at the nursing home are now nearly all recovered from Covid and presumably can't catch or transmit to the residents. There haven't been any new cases in my county or the surrounding ones in nearly 2 weeks except for post mortem cases. BTW, I find it interesting that anyone dying in the LTC that tests positive post mortem for Covid are being called Covid deaths. That doesn't seem right to me. The 104 year old woman that passed away two weeks after beating Covid was also tallied a Covid death. I mean maybe if she hadn't had the disease she would have been strong enough to overcome whatever it was that did do her in, but she was also 104.
May not seem fair, but what about this one. Medicare is keeping track of readmissions after certain causes of hospitalizations, and if someone is readmitted within 30 days, there is a penalty. So, someone could be discharged, and on day 29, fall, break their hip, and be admitted. That counts against you. So, they are consistent in how numbers are counted. Have to have some system, as long as it is consistent. If they would count it as a death from pneumonia or influenza in your case, they should count it as a covid death.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,216
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 5, 2020 12:52:53 GMT -5
Our local hospitals are laying off nurses at a rather alarming rate. Nebraska Medicine furloughed all of their labs except microbiology right now. Nebraska Medicine has accepted some COVID patients but apparently not in the numbers they were thinking.
I can understand too why people are getting frustrated. You keep hearing about how we are all going to get it, the hospitals will be full to bursting and yet CHI just did a round of massive lay offs because there is no business coming in.
Now that can change but human beings are not programmed to be super long term thinkers. We don't know what is going to happen in June, July, August. .. .onward to 2022. Meanwhile people are in immediate danger of losing their homes, not being able to afford food etc. Banks and stuff are not going to forgive payments forever and all our safety nets are bottlenecked to the point where you can't even get on the web sites to apply.
I get why some people are pushing to have us open. I can understand you deciding that it's worth the risk of opening up vs losing everything. I think it's patronizing to tell those people that losing it all was worth it because at least you are still breathing. Those of us saying that come from a place where even if we "lose it all" we'll quite likely be able to claw our way back. There are a lot of people on Earth that do not have the ability to claw their way back if they fall down and it ain't the YM standard answer of "they didn't plan better".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 12:59:57 GMT -5
The goal is not to overwhelm hospitals...so if you're in an area where they are not overwhelmed, you can afford to have a bit more exposure now. I think that is why there is a lot of unrest in my area. We have the third highest covid death count by county in the state, yet the hospital is empty. Crickets in the hallways empty. Nobody has been admitted for covid related illness there, not one person. All the cases/deaths have been in one nursing home (that was admittedly decimated with 66 cases and 15 deaths), but they were all DNR and were never admitted to the hospital. The last time I checked our state's stats something like 75% of the covid deaths were in nursing homes, so if they are also not being hospitalized... Maybe our efforts should be more focused on making these places safe than shutting down everything else (mind you, I'm talking about my state and what I see happening here). The staff at the nursing home are now nearly all recovered from Covid and presumably can't catch or transmit to the residents. There haven't been any new cases in my county or the surrounding ones in nearly 2 weeks except for post mortem cases. BTW, I find it interesting that anyone dying in the LTC that tests positive post mortem for Covid are being called Covid deaths. That doesn't seem right to me. The 104 year old woman that passed away two weeks after beating Covid was also tallied a Covid death. I mean maybe if she hadn't had the disease she would have been strong enough to overcome whatever it was that did do her in, but she was also 104.
While this is really post-facto...I'll be interested to see US deaths in 2020 compared to previous years. You can count current COVID cases as "deaths" however really...but the year-end number of total US deaths should paint a more realistic picture of how many of those deaths from Covid were people who were likely to die in the year anyways. So if we find that there were 100,000 more deaths in the US than would be expected in 2020, but we tallied 250,000 COVID deaths...we can surmise that approximately 150,000 were likely to die anyways (rough numbers obviously, but important given we know the target of COVID tends toward those who are not in the best of health to begin with).
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 5, 2020 13:01:28 GMT -5
Nice try, study showed the average patient dying with COVID died a decade early
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 13:02:26 GMT -5
Nice try, study showed the average patient dying with COVID died a decade early Facts don't matter to those who think they know everything and think they are smarter than everyone else.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on May 5, 2020 13:03:48 GMT -5
A couple observations: If we could actually totally shutdown at the same time worldwide, this thing would would go away completely within a couple months (I would think, depending upon household size) for lack of new hosts.Opening things up without any better prevention than we had before this thing hit us, will bring us right back to the starting point--risking millions extra lives because we can't keep up with medical treatment, such that it is. The problem with this idea is that we now know that dogs and cats can also be hosts to the virus. What other animals? Is it in the bat population? Squirrel? We don’t know that. But big cats in the zoo with (very likely) little human interaction can get the virus. If they can get it, they can transmit it. Unlike with smallpox, where humans are the only known reservoir, this virus has multiple reservoirs. Unless you plan on getting rid of every possible reservoir, the virus will not go away. True, but it strikes me that these that these other animals, other than the first bat/pallogin?, are catching it from humans, not the other way around. If it weren't for human interaction, how much would these other animal species be in contact with watch other, other than to eat each other? All that to say, had humans not forced this close proximity, and continued to spread it amongst themselves, would it even be very widespread? I mean, I try to stay as far away from bats as possible. (Personally they are an omen of bad things to come, which started in my late 20's. They didn't used to bother me before that.)
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 13:09:19 GMT -5
Our local hospitals are laying off nurses at a rather alarming rate. Nebraska Medicine furloughed all of their labs except microbiology right now. Nebraska Medicine has accepted some COVID patients but apparently not in the numbers they were thinking. I can understand too why people are getting frustrated. You keep hearing about how we are all going to get it, the hospitals will be full to bursting and yet CHI just did a round of massive lay offs because there is no business coming in. Now that can change but human beings are not programmed to be super long term thinkers. We don't know what is going to happen in June, July, August. .. .onward to 2022. Meanwhile people are in immediate danger of losing their homes, not being able to afford food etc. Banks and stuff are not going to forgive payments forever and all our safety nets are bottlenecked to the point where you can't even get on the web sites to apply. I get why some people are pushing to have us open. I can understand you deciding that it's worth the risk of opening up vs losing everything. I think it's patronizing to tell those people that losing it all was worth it because at least you are still breathing. Those of us saying that come from a place where even if we "lose it all" we'll quite likely be able to claw our way back. There are a lot of people on Earth that do not have the ability to claw their way back if they fall down and it ain't the YM standard answer of "they didn't plan better". I know we're in the same general area of the country, and I think you're spot on. We're hearing "X amount of time for a vaccine" and "the goal is to flatten the curve" and it's "ok, the curve is pretty flat here, why are we still closed down?" Frankly, I'm seeing positive signs as things open up. The same places I could go while everything was "shut down" are opening up more fully but requiring more PPE and social distancing. It's a bit odd to see things opening up but restrictions tightening...but it's good to see. Same with some of the theoretical requirements of what SHOULD be "clear to relax restrictions". It's hard to see a downturn in cases if the number of cases have been small throughout. There's no reason NYC should be operating on the same restrictions as random midwest farming towns. It's also a lot easier to shut down/open small towns like that...you can do it practically overnight where I have to imagine NYC takes significant structure/planning to pull off.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 13:13:05 GMT -5
Nice try, study showed the average patient dying with COVID died a decade early Define "average" for me. Mean? Median? Mode? If 50% of the people died in the same year they would have, and 50% died 20 years early, the "average" could be said to have died 10 years early. I'm also not sure how anyone determined when someone otherwise would have died. Actuarial tables aren't useful here.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on May 5, 2020 13:16:56 GMT -5
Our local hospitals are laying off nurses at a rather alarming rate. Nebraska Medicine furloughed all of their labs except microbiology right now. Nebraska Medicine has accepted some COVID patients but apparently not in the numbers they were thinking. I can understand too why people are getting frustrated. You keep hearing about how we are all going to get it, the hospitals will be full to bursting and yet CHI just did a round of massive lay offs because there is no business coming in. Now that can change but human beings are not programmed to be super long term thinkers. We don't know what is going to happen in June, July, August. .. .onward to 2022. Meanwhile people are in immediate danger of losing their homes, not being able to afford food etc. Banks and stuff are not going to forgive payments forever and all our safety nets are bottlenecked to the point where you can't even get on the web sites to apply. I get why some people are pushing to have us open. I can understand you deciding that it's worth the risk of opening up vs losing everything. I think it's patronizing to tell those people that losing it all was worth it because at least you are still breathing. Those of us saying that come from a place where even if we "lose it all" we'll quite likely be able to claw our way back. There are a lot of people on Earth that do not have the ability to claw their way back if they fall down and it ain't the YM standard answer of "they didn't plan better". I live in a city of around 2 million. There are currently 71 people in the hospital with COVID. Considering our size, that number is really low. We have several large hospitals. Considering nothing else has been happening they have been sending home a lot of staff. I'm not sure if people aren't understanding the overall goal of not overwhelming the Healthcare system or they are just afraid by loosening restrictions that we will overwhelm it. The bottom line is that we can't sit around for the next 18 months under a shelter at home order because something "might happen." If we used that thought process in every aspects of our lives then no one would ever do anything. If we slowly start to open and the hospitals are not overwhelmed then we are still meeting our goals. If people choose not to go to a hair salon, a restaurant or a tattoo parlor then that is just fine. No one is forcing anyone to go anywhere. I just had groceries delivered. I personally feel like there are just too many people at the grocery store. I would like to delay getting this thing but we all pick and choose our risks. I will probably go get my hair done when they open. He will wear a mask and I will wear a mask. It is a risk I will take. There is ALWAYS going to be a risk. If the idea is to have around 1% of the population be effected at any one time then it doesn't matter if i go this month or in August, the risk is the same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 13:17:17 GMT -5
There is not a lot in my small town that isn't open already as essential. I have a hard time believing that if people continued to work from home that could, schools stayed closed and social distancing and large gathering rules were in place, that opening up a handful more businesses would make much of a difference in the cases.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 5, 2020 13:18:25 GMT -5
Nice try, study showed the average patient dying with COVID died a decade early Define "average" for me. Mean? Median? Mode? If 50% of the people died in the same year they would have, and 50% died 20 years early, the "average" could be said to have died 10 years early. I'm also not sure how anyone determined when someone otherwise would have died. Actuarial tables aren't useful here. They can actually estimate life expectancy based on current health, there are calculators for that. I would also argue, if it is mostly patients in nursing homes dying, that the number of years lost as a result of someone dying prematurely would not be 10. So sure if one patient would die tomorrow, but another would have been expected to die in 20 years, the average is 10. But that refutes your point about it all being the old and sick dying
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 13:21:34 GMT -5
Our local hospitals are laying off nurses at a rather alarming rate. Nebraska Medicine furloughed all of their labs except microbiology right now. Nebraska Medicine has accepted some COVID patients but apparently not in the numbers they were thinking. I can understand too why people are getting frustrated. You keep hearing about how we are all going to get it, the hospitals will be full to bursting and yet CHI just did a round of massive lay offs because there is no business coming in. Now that can change but human beings are not programmed to be super long term thinkers. We don't know what is going to happen in June, July, August. .. .onward to 2022. Meanwhile people are in immediate danger of losing their homes, not being able to afford food etc. Banks and stuff are not going to forgive payments forever and all our safety nets are bottlenecked to the point where you can't even get on the web sites to apply. I get why some people are pushing to have us open. I can understand you deciding that it's worth the risk of opening up vs losing everything. I think it's patronizing to tell those people that losing it all was worth it because at least you are still breathing. Those of us saying that come from a place where even if we "lose it all" we'll quite likely be able to claw our way back. There are a lot of people on Earth that do not have the ability to claw their way back if they fall down and it ain't the YM standard answer of "they didn't plan better". I live on a city of around 2 million. There are currently 71 people in the hospital with COVID. Considering our size, that number is really low. We have several large hospitals. Considering nothing else has been happening they have been sending home a lot of staff. I'm not sure if people aren't understanding the overall goal of not overwhelming the Healthcare system or they are just afraid by loosening restrictions that we will overwhelm it. The bottom line is that we can't sit around for the next 18 months under a shelter at home order because something "might happen." If we used that thought process in every aspects of our lives then no one would ever do anything. If slowly start to open and the hospitals are not overwhelmed then we are still meeting our goals. If people choose not to go to a hair salon, a restaurant or a tattoo parlor then that is just fine. No one is forcing anyone to go anywhere. I just had groceries delivered. I personally feel like there are just too many people at the grocery store. I would like to delay getting this thing but we all pick and choose our risks. I will probably go get my hair done when they open. He will wear a mask and I will wear a mask. It is a risk I will take. There is ALWAYS going to be a risk. If the idea is to have around 1% of the population be effected at any one time then it doesn't matter if i go this month or in August, the risk is the same. Based on what people are saying on this board (which may or may not be representative of the population in general) it seems people think the goal is "avoid anyone and everyone getting the virus". I think there's also a general thought of "well my area is overwhelmed in the healthcare system...so we should all keep restrictions in place". I think in general people tend to over/under estimate how much different some areas of the country are from other areas...in all facets really.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on May 5, 2020 13:24:20 GMT -5
Sadly, there are those on the boards here, just like in real life, who don't care what the numbers show, as long as any tragedy doesn't affect them personally. Fortunately, I still believe most people care about the wellbeing of their fellow man. But, this is the type of virus where "one bad apple", who refuses to hunker down even for a short period of time, can take down a lot of people, along with themselves. It makes me think that those who build bomb shelters, or any type of personal dwelling in a time of crisis, would never survive, as they wouldn't be able to stay put long enough to do themselves any good.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 13:28:45 GMT -5
Define "average" for me. Mean? Median? Mode? If 50% of the people died in the same year they would have, and 50% died 20 years early, the "average" could be said to have died 10 years early. I'm also not sure how anyone determined when someone otherwise would have died. Actuarial tables aren't useful here. They can actually estimate life expectancy based on current health, there are calculators for that. I would also argue, if it is mostly patients in nursing homes dying, that the number of years lost as a result of someone dying prematurely would not be 10. So sure if one patient would die tomorrow, but another would have been expected to die in 20 years, the average is 10. But that refutes your point about it all being the old and sick dying Life expectancy calculations are based on statistics and large populations of people, not on individuals. Without getting into too much actuarial information...even if we estimate someone is 65 and they should live to 75, that's 10 years, but there's also an expected death rate within that year. So if someone dies at 65 when expected to live to 75, but the total death rate of 65 year olds that year was 6% and 6% was the predicted death rate...then nobody actually died early. Point to me where I said it was "ALL" being the old and sick dying. I said it targets the sick and old...which it absolutely does. So I'll be curious to see after-the-fact what the deaths attributed to COVID were compared to the total US deaths that were expected on the year. I think it will be an interesting picture because of how we know this disproportionately targets the sick and the old...and what % of the COVID deaths we can likely attribute to having been folks who were likely to die within the year anyways, whether it's almost nothing or very high.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 5, 2020 13:40:36 GMT -5
Sadly, there are those on the boards here, just like in real life, who don't care what the numbers show, as long as any tragedy doesn't affect them personally. Fortunately, I still believe most people care about the wellbeing of their fellow man. But, this is the type of virus where "one bad apple", who refuses to hunker down even for a short period of time, can take down a lot of people, along with themselves. It makes me think that those who build bomb shelters, or any type of personal dwelling in a time of crisis, would never survive, as they wouldn't be able to stay put long enough to do themselves any good. If it costs them nothing...sure. But everyone has some sliding scale of "I'll sacrifice right up to THIS point...then to hell with it, this is what I care about". And everyone's just got a different point on that sliding scale that they believe in.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,216
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 5, 2020 13:44:01 GMT -5
There is not a lot in my small town that isn't open already as essential. I have a hard time believing that if people continued to work from home that could, schools stayed closed and social distancing and large gathering rules were in place, that opening up a handful more businesses would make much of a difference in the cases. Same here in CB and Omaha. The definition of "essential" is so loose I am not sure why we are going to torch and pitchfork the tattoo artist that would like to save his business. Out of the over 100 people who work here only 20 of them qualified to work at home, the rest of us are all still here on top of each other due to the size of the building. We're not unique in that regard. So I am not going to get mad at the tattoo artist for wondering why he can't be open when we have over 100 people at our plant working right now. You can make a very convincing argument that we have no choice to be open but tattoo artists can. I can make just as strong of a case that we have no business being open right now anymore than they do. Opening up tattoo parlors is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of us still having to show up for work already. The difference is we got ourselves a label that justifies us being open.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 8:08:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 13:48:04 GMT -5
The furniture manufacturing company is open by us. Granted, I'm glad, because Ex 2.0 works there and no check = no child support, plus a LOT of other people are getting a paycheck instead of unemployment, but furniture manufacturing? Really? They got a waiver because they use their semis to haul essential goods back to the midwest after hauling their furniture out.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 5, 2020 13:50:31 GMT -5
They can actually estimate life expectancy based on current health, there are calculators for that. I would also argue, if it is mostly patients in nursing homes dying, that the number of years lost as a result of someone dying prematurely would not be 10. So sure if one patient would die tomorrow, but another would have been expected to die in 20 years, the average is 10. But that refutes your point about it all being the old and sick dying Life expectancy calculations are based on statistics and large populations of people, not on individuals. Without getting into too much actuarial information...even if we estimate someone is 65 and they should live to 75, that's 10 years, but there's also an expected death rate within that year. So if someone dies at 65 when expected to live to 75, but the total death rate of 65 year olds that year was 6% and 6% was the predicted death rate...then nobody actually died early. Point to me where I said it was "ALL" being the old and sick dying. I said it targets the sick and old...which it absolutely does. So I'll be curious to see after-the-fact what the deaths attributed to COVID were compared to the total US deaths that were expected on the year. I think it will be an interesting picture because of how we know this disproportionately targets the sick and the old...and what % of the COVID deaths we can likely attribute to having been folks who were likely to die within the year anyways, whether it's almost nothing or very high. We already know in my state there were over twice as many deaths in April this year compared to last, and if you add the confirmed number of deaths to the number for last year we were about 500 short. In addition, COVID was the leading cause of death nationally for the month of April, surpassing cancer and heart disease. And that was just for confirmed deaths. It is clear there was a significant increase in mortality last month that was entirely attributable to COVID, and it was not just displacing other causes of death. Ir that continues we will have to see. In addition, although many were over 60, there was a significant proportion who were under 60. The sort of analysis done on life-years lost is common in medicine, and while not perfect, gives a significant amount of data for the burden of disease. Life expectancy decreased due to the opioid epidemic. Would you argue that a significant number of life-years were lost, even if the exact number cannot be elucidated.
|
|