Coronavirus Thread

[bobongo]

You should read what South Korea is doing. If you test positive, they publish your name in newspapers and on the web (that would break laws here). The police visit you frequently to make sure you're in quarantine. They track you via GPS, credit card transactions, and video surveillance to ensure compliance. I'm not kidding - just google it. Yes that is an Orweillian police state.

It might be a little over the top, but consider the circumstances - and the results. They are the model of how this should be handled. A lot of people are alive because of their actions. They're simply enforcing the quarantine.

 

[684Bee]

Are you taking about back before a pandemic virus was spreading? Yes I don't think people were to worried about massages, going to the movies or bowling allies back then.
Please just look at the facts. This is a very tough situation. On the one hand, we have an economy that is getting hammered. The fix for that means putting many people in harms way. It's a balancing act for sure. I just think at this time, it's way too early to be opening things back up. All of Kemp's tax cuts are suddenly looking like a pretty bad move, but then again who could predict a pandemic happening (other then bill gates).

I am looking at the facts, and they seem to be pointing to this virus having a mortality rate pretty much in line with a bad flu (I know that will get some people's dander up using that word), and that's with having a flu vaccine. Again, this is fluid, so that could change. IF that stays the case, though, then why is the decision to get a haircut or a massage viewed as that much riskier?

 

[bobongo]

That doesn't change the question - why would you be REQUIRED to go back and work somewhere if you think its unsafe?

And 'round and 'round we go. They're not technically "required" to do anything, as long as they don't mind losing their unemployment and not feeding their families.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It might be a little over the top, but consider the circumstances - and the results. They are the model of how this should be handled. A lot of people are alive because of their actions. They're simply enforcing the quarantine.

I wasn't questioning their results. I was stating it was an Orweillian police state. We would have to make major sweeping changes to our laws and Constitution to allow for that stuff. I just can't imagine us undoing that amount of stuff to be able to get there.

 

[RonJohn]

I thought one of the things we were getting with “shelter in place” was a chance for the medical infrastructure to build up and prepare. We definitely haven’t done what China did (building emergency hospital capacity at large scale). We have allocated space in the Georgia World Congress Center for extra “lite” ventilator/recovery space. I’m sure the hospitals put some plans in place.

In Georgia I have seen some hospitals that put up field tents for extra rooms. One had a small area, probably 1,500 square feet, outside the entrance that I assume is for triage space.

The current predictions for Georgia show about double the predicted capacity for ICU rooms and 5-6 times the predicted capacity for normal hospital rooms. The IHME website doesn't break that further down into county/region. There are probably some areas in Georgia that don't have enough and some that have too much. According to the predictions, "shelter in place" was taken to a level that dropped need below even the pre-existing infrastructure. What I have been trying to say is with that in mind, we should be able to loosen the cap a little in measured steps. Don't take the cap off completely, and try to ensure that the things loosened are well explained and followed.

Nationwide, I didn't look at every state. New York and New Jersey show a shortage of hospital beds and ICU beds. Illinois does not. The governments state and federal are building more capacity in those states. I'm fairly confident that even though Illinois doesn't show a shortage, the Chicago area probably will have one while there will be excess capacity in other areas of the state. Except for the NYC area, it appears that the majority of the country has far more than enough medical capacity for the current measures.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And 'round and 'round we go. They're not technically "required" to do anything, as long as they don't mind losing their unemployment and not feeding their families.

That's not true. Unemployment doesn't dictate which job you have to take. You have to fill out the forms each week asserting that you looked for a job. If you find one that you deem is unsafe or that pays you minimum wage or any number of things like that, you're never required to take it.

 

[bobongo]

I am looking at the facts, and they seem to be pointing to this virus having a mortality rate pretty much in line with a bad flu (I know that will get some people's dander up using that word), and that's with having a flu vaccine. Again, this is fluid, so that could change. IF that stays the case, though, then why is the decision to get a haircut or a massage viewed as that much riskier?

Sigh. It's not just the death rate, it's the danger we're putting our health care workers in and the damage we're doing to our overall health care system. And you are quite wrong about the death rate, anyway. Comparing it to the flu? Maybe the flu of 1918.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Can you please explain more? So you're not working, sitting at home taking unemployment. Now certain stores start opening back up, the type you used to work at. Can you explain again why you'd have to take a job at one that you deem unsafe?

Happy to explain more. Most people on Unemployment right now are furloughed, not laid off. The difference is, when you are furloughed versus laid off, you technically still have a job, you just can’t get paid for whatever reason(in this case due to the closure of the virus). In almost all cases, furloughed is a better situation than being laid off because, while you aren’t 100% guaranteed a job when the business opens back up, the chances of getting your job back are much higher. The business doesn’t even have to do rehire paperwork to bring you back. Also, depending on the insurance, many company insurances still cover furloughed employees. The problem persists if/when the company decides to bring you back. Because you are offered an opportunity to come back to your job, if you decline, you are no longer eligible for unemployment. In most cases this isn’t an issue, but with the virus, if companies decide to open and bring furloughed employees back and the employee wants to decline for health reasons, they are disqualifying themselves for unemployment.

This is also why I don’t think the economy is a doomsday scenario like people are claiming. I personally know twenty five people( between co-workers, employees and church friends) who are currently on unemployment and all but one is furloughed, so most likely they all will have their jobs back when this ends.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

In Georgia I have seen some hospitals that put up field tents for extra rooms. One had a small area, probably 1,500 square feet, outside the entrance that I assume is for triage space.

The current predictions for Georgia show about double the predicted capacity for ICU rooms and 5-6 times the predicted capacity for normal hospital rooms. The IHME website doesn't break that further down into county/region. There are probably some areas in Georgia that don't have enough and some that have too much. According to the predictions, "shelter in place" was taken to a level that dropped need below even the pre-existing infrastructure. What I have been trying to say is with that in mind, we should be able to loosen the cap a little in measured steps. Don't take the cap off completely, and try to ensure that the things loosened are well explained and followed.

Nationwide, I didn't look at every state. New York and New Jersey show a shortage of hospital beds and ICU beds. Illinois does not. The governments state and federal are building more capacity in those states. I'm fairly confident that even though Illinois doesn't show a shortage, the Chicago area probably will have one while there will be excess capacity in other areas of the state. Except for the NYC area, it appears that the majority of the country has far more than enough medical capacity for the current measures.

I live in the largest metro area in the state. In our County, we have averaged less than 10 new cases per day for nearly 2 weeks. Saturday we had 0 new cases. We've only had 3 deaths ever. Our hospitals are operating at less than 25% of capacity. Its actually so bad they're hemorrhaging money and laying off nurses and doctors left and right. One of our flagship teaching hospitals here (MUSC) has had multiple rounds of layoffs - one of the more recent ones was 900. They also cut pay. We're tremendously far below any hospital system capacity limit.

 

[bobongo]

I wasn't questioning their results. I was stating it was an Orweillian police state. We would have to make major sweeping changes to our laws and Constitution to allow for that stuff. I just can't imagine us undoing that amount of stuff to be able to get there.

We would have to make sweeping changes, and I'm not in favor of that, but to call South Korea an Orwellian police state is waaayyyy over the top.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Happy to explain more. Most people on Unemployment right now are furloughed, not laid off. The difference is, when you are furloughed versus laid off, you technically still have a job, you just can’t get paid for whatever reason(in this case due to the closure of the virus). In almost all cases, furloughed is a better situation than being laid off because, while you aren’t 100% guaranteed a job when the business opens back up, the chances of getting your job back are much higher. The business doesn’t even have to do rehire paperwork to bring you back. Also, depending on the insurance, many company insurances still cover furloughed employees. The problem persists if/when the company decides to bring you back. Because you are offered an opportunity to come back to your job, if you decline, you are no longer eligible for unemployment. In most cases this isn’t an issue, but with the virus, if companies decide to open and bring furloughed employees back and the employee wants to decline for health reasons, they are disqualifying themselves for unemployment.

This is also why I don’t think the economy is a doomsday scenario like people are claiming. I personally know twenty five people( between co-workers, employees and church friends) who are currently on unemployment and all but one is furloughed, so most likely they all will have their jobs back when this ends.

What are the jobs that they deem so unsafe they wouldn't go back to the same employer in that example?

Well the doomsay scenario is actually here. Our unemployment is right at where it was during the Great Depression. Our deficit is forecasted to be $4 Trillion this year. A lot of people and businesses are creaking and cracking under that financial pressure. You may not know any of those people, but they are a large and growing section of our population.

 

[gthxxxx]

*sigh* and if everyone would’ve just followed regulations and recommendations, the economy would be able to start reopening next week with very little push back, a la South Korea. It’s almost like, high testing numbers and quarantines work or something. Strange I know.

I don't know how anyone can predict when the economy would be able to "reopen", but if the economy was the only concern, I'd wager having zero additional regulation would have "reopened" the economy the fastest. High testing and quarantines don't work given the realities of U.S. structure, the virus capacity to spread, and the accuracy/speed of detection.
[Edit: Can anybody actually say with confidence when specifically the end of the Covid will be? It "probably" won't go away by itself. A vaccine will "probably" not get here until next year. The virus "might" not mutate into a strain that escapes the vaccine's scope.]

 

[dtm1997]

One reason it is regional there is that if Connecticut, etc open up then they could face a flood of New Yorkers looking for those things they can’t get. So it makes for them to work cooperatively

I agree, apologies for not clarifying.

States here in the Northeast plan to work together on a regional basis, but Cuomo was outlining the regional reopening within NY State, as the local economies & population densities are diverse within the state.

It may make sense to reopen Buffalo or Rochester pretty broadly, while NYC stays shut down for 6 more weeks.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

We would have to make sweeping changes, and I'm not in favor of that, but to call South Korea an Orwellian police state is waaayyyy over the top.

Giving people a public scarlet letter and having a police state surveil and track their moves seems to fit the bill to me.

 

[bobongo]

Giving people a public scarlet letter and having a police state surveil and track their moves seems to fit the bill to me.

To enforce a quarantine in the middle of a pandemic. You left that part out.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

South Korea is an Orwellian police state? You've outdone yourself, bwelbo. That's North Korea.

Yea, hopefully he got those confused. No way South Korea is Orwellian

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

I live in the largest metro area in the state. In our County, we have averaged less than 10 new cases per day for nearly 2 weeks. Saturday we had 0 new cases. We've only had 3 deaths ever. Our hospitals are operating at less than 25% of capacity. Its actually so bad they're hemorrhaging money and laying off nurses and doctors left and right. One of our flagship teaching hospitals here (MUSC) has had multiple rounds of layoffs - one of the more recent ones was 900. They also cut pay. We're tremendously far below any hospital system capacity limit.

I understand that which is why I think the real issue is Kemp‘s ruling that won’t let individual counties or cities make stricter rulings for their areas than the state’s overall ruling. There are plenty of counties that have been virtually not hit and, with strict guidelines, I think it’s reasonable to slowly open some places up. However, if the counties with the highest numbers want to stay on lock down, they should. His ruling yesterday does not allow that. That is the real issue. This wouldn’t be as criticized if he didn’t do that. He could have easily lifted the state of emergency for the whole state and explained that a lot of the state has barely been hit so he’s putting the ball in local officials court to decide what’s best for their county/city.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

To enforce a quarantine in the middle of a pandemic. You left that part out.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was the Coronavirus thread.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

What are the jobs that they deem so unsafe they wouldn't go back to the same employer in that example?

Well the doomsay scenario is actually here. Our unemployment is right at where it was during the Great Depression. Our deficit is forecasted to be $4 Trillion this year. A lot of people and businesses are creaking and cracking under that financial pressure. You may not know any of those people, but they are a large and growing section of our population.

If they are older and/or have pre-existing conditions, any job that deals with the public is unsafe. The two people I am specifically thinking of are over 60 with pre-existing conditions.

And regarding the doomsday scenario, we know the problem with economy. It’s the virus. If this ends up being too early of an opening, we are basically wiping out everything we already did, which would be even worse for the economy because it lead to an even longer quarantine.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If they are older and/or have pre-existing conditions, any job that deals with the public is unsafe. The two people I am specifically thinking of are over 60 with pre-existing conditions.

What are the jobs?