Coronavirus Thread

[GTRX7]

I think many people are lost in a false choice. We can both live our lives and protect the elderly and vulnerable. Nurses and doctors go to work everyday, safe from picking up diseases their patients have. There's no reason why we can't also do that in places like nursing homes.

Yes and no. What exactly would you be proposing we do? Most hospitals and medical facilities have imposed strict mandatory measures like locking down those facilities to visitors, mandatory masks, and the like. I think that would certainly help, but I also believe that most nursing homes have already adopted similar measures and yet we still have high mortality in seniors. So, I am honestly not sure what additional measures you are proposing. Are you proposing mandatory indefinite quarantine of all seniors and any worker that interacts with seniors, as well as mandatory 14 day quarantine for any family member that interacts with seniors? If so, that seems to raise some of the same "freedom" concerns (but I digress). Hospitals and medical facilities are literally designed to be sterile and prevent as much spread of disease as possible, with trained professionals and medical grade PPE. Yet, the CDC estimates that at least 62,000 healthcare workers in the US have been sickened by COVID-19, with hundreds having died. LINK. Take those numbers and apply the senior mortality rate, and that is still a very large number. We can certainly take measures to help seniors but, absent a complete and draconian quarantine like suggested above, any success will still be limited unless the rest of society behaves responsibly (wearing masks in public, social distancing, etc.)

So, it is not a false choice. It just isn't a black and white choice. It is a sliding scale of the severity and breadth of mediation measures vs. the number of deaths. I do not claim to be a smart enough man to know what point on that sliding scale is "the best."

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yes and no. What exactly would you be proposing we do? Most hospitals and medical facilities have imposed strict mandatory measures like locking down those facilities to visitors, mandatory masks, and the like. I think that would certainly help, but I also believe that most nursing homes have already adopted similar measures and yet we still have high mortality in seniors. So, I am honestly not sure what additional measures you are proposing. Are you proposing mandatory indefinite quarantine of all seniors and any worker that interacts with seniors, as well as mandatory 14 day quarantine for any family member that interacts with seniors? If so, that seems to raise some of the same "freedom" concerns (but I digress). Hospitals and medical facilities are literally designed to be sterile and prevent as much spread of disease as possible, with trained professionals and medical grade PPE. Yet, the CDC estimates that at least 62,000 healthcare workers in the US have been sickened by COVID-19, with hundreds having died. LINK. Take those numbers and apply the senior mortality rate, and that is still a very large number. We can certainly take measures to help seniors but, absent a complete and draconian quarantine like suggested above, any success will still be limited unless the rest of society behaves responsibly (wearing masks in public, social distancing, etc.)

So, it is not a false choice. It just isn't a black and white choice. It is a sliding scale of the severity and breadth of mediation measures vs. the number of deaths. I do not claim to be a smart enough man to know what point on that sliding scale is "the best."

If we are willing to shut down the entire country, put 40 million people out of work, and spend trillions of printed money to fight the problem, surely we can focus an adequate percentage of those efforts on the worst part of the problem. A tiny fraction of Americans live in nursing homes and senior care type facilities, yet in most states they count for over half the deaths. If it means restricting visitors, full time full on PPE, and everything else, then why can't we do that? 4% of the population lives in those facilities and comprise 50% of the deaths. Shouldn't be that difficult of a problem to make a significant improvement in the death rate when its confined to such a small group.

 

[armeck]

Churches have more constitutional protections than businesses do, not less. If you don't want any unsafe gatherings banned, just churches, then that's going to be an unpopular opinion. I keep thinking you're not saying that, but then you don't completely clear the air about it. I don't intend to go back into church anytime soon - its all online (and was available before that way anyway). But if they choose to allow people back in, safely distance people, and so on, then there is no justifiable reason to ban them whatsoever.

I literally said concerts and movies before churches. Please stop trying to bait me into a fight.

Large, but essential gatherings (i.e., grocery store (kroger), house repair (lowes), etc) I'm ok with as long as folks stay masked up. There is no essential need for movies, concerts, churches, etc.

 

[armeck]

I'm not trying to bait you into a fight. I'm not like the BHB around here that does that. There is an essential need for churches. I'm sorry you feel that way, but you'll lose that argument in a court of law 10 out of 10 times. IIWII.

There is no essential need for church SERVICES. Which, I feel I've been pretty clear about. As you said, you can get your worship on online, all that is missing is the social aspect - which is not essential. I am not suggesting banning churches...

 

[WreckinGT]

From my perspective, there's two types of folks.

1) The folks with nothing to lose. These include teachers, government workers, and big corporation workers. Most of them can work from home til the cows come in and won't lose a dime. In fact, for many of them, they do less work now. Teachers I know are working maybe 2 hours a day.

These folks tend to be on Team Eternal Lockdown and while I think some of them are operating in good faith, some of them have developed a holier-than-thou attitude about anyone who isn't in the Fuhrer bunker with them.

A lot of younger folks making more on unemployment than they did at their gig economy jobs are in a makeshift alliance with them.

2) The folks with stuff to lose. From doctors to travelling salesmen, many of these folks didn't have a lot in common other than having to hustle from dusk to dawn to make things happen.

My thoughts are, how is this growing and increasingly exploited divide going to heal?

I mean, you are outwardly dismissive and antagonistic to one side of the divide and then you ask how can we heal?

 

[GTJackets]

There is no essential need for church SERVICES. Which, I feel I've been pretty clear about. As you said, you can get your worship on online, all that is missing is the social aspect - which is not essential. I am not suggesting banning churches...

I'm sorry that you actually feel this way.

Now I will gracefully exit this conversation.

 

[ramblinjacket]

There is no essential need for church SERVICES. Which, I feel I've been pretty clear about. As you said, you can get your worship on online, all that is missing is the social aspect - which is not essential. I am not suggesting banning churches...

This is the essence of the conflict we generally have. Some people turn to authority to tell someone else what is best for them. The only person who should make that decision for a functioning adult is that adult.

 

[armeck]

This is the essence of the conflict we generally have. Some people turn to authority to tell someone else what is best for them. The only person who should make that decision for a functioning adult is that adult.

In a perfect world, I'd agree. The problem is when people think most other people are functioning adults.

 

[FredJacket]

In a perfect world, I'd agree. The problem is when people think most other people are functioning adults.

In a perfect world, there is freedom. The "problem" you're describing is a cost related to the freedom. Other's inability to act exactly like I'd like them to act is a cost I'm willing to bear.

 

[ramblinjacket]

In a perfect world, I'd agree. The problem is when people think most other people are functioning adults.

That's the kind of reasoning that has oppressed minorities for millennia. It's too easy to classify someone one does not understand as not functioning and to use it as a tool to control them.

 

[Jim Prather]

If we are willing to shut down the entire country, put 40 million people out of work, and spend trillions of printed money to fight the problem, surely we can focus an adequate percentage of those efforts on the worst part of the problem. A tiny fraction of Americans live in nursing homes and senior care type facilities, yet in most states they count for over half the deaths. If it means restricting visitors, full time full on PPE, and everything else, then why can't we do that? 4% of the population lives in those facilities and comprise 50% of the deaths. Shouldn't be that difficult of a problem to make a significant improvement in the death rate when its confined to such a small group.

Finally a sane thought in this whole thread. If we as a country spent a TINY percentage of what we have been spending in stimulus money to quarantine the truly at risk, we could reduce our death rate dramatically. We have been using a shotgun when a laser scalpel would have worked better.

 

[TampaBuzz]

From my perspective, there's two types of folks.

1) The folks with nothing to lose. These include teachers, government workers, and big corporation workers. Most of them can work from home til the cows come in and won't lose a dime. In fact, for many of them, they do less work now. Teachers I know are working maybe 2 hours a day.

These folks tend to be on Team Eternal Lockdown and while I think some of them are operating in good faith, some of them have developed a holier-than-thou attitude about anyone who isn't in the Fuhrer bunker with them.

A lot of younger folks making more on unemployment than they did at their gig economy jobs are in a makeshift alliance with them.

2) The folks with stuff to lose. From doctors to travelling salesmen, many of these folks didn't have a lot in common other than having to hustle from dusk to dawn to make things happen.

My thoughts are, how is this growing and increasingly exploited divide going to heal?

The "Fuhrer" bunker? Really? I am working from home and actually find that I am working more, not less. We have my wife's 85 year old mother living with us; who has a history of respiratory problems. Guess what? We are super cautious about going out and tend to stay away from folks in the grocery store or other places that don't wear masks. We don't want to risk her health by being cavalier in this day in time. We certainly don't want an eternal lockdown - we need to get our kid out of the house and doing stuff, but we also don't want to rush it. I recognize that people want to get back to work and I am ok with that. But let's also recognize that we are not through with this and need to continue to be cautious.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There is no essential need for church SERVICES. Which, I feel I've been pretty clear about. As you said, you can get your worship on online, all that is missing is the social aspect - which is not essential. I am not suggesting banning churches...

Okay, I totally get what you're saying. There is absolutely no need (in my opinion) to go to the movies right now, because you can now stream even new movies from home. You'd be in a crowded confined space, so what's the point? However, if the movie theaters skipped rows and seats, required masks, and so on, they could actually make them safe. Would people go? Probably some. I wouldn't yet. The same thing is true for churches - if they greatly limited capacity, and all those other things, they can hold services safely. Would people go? Probably some. I wouldn't yet. But there is no scientific or evidence-based reason to ban church services or movies or anything else if they are done safely. Doing these things safely means dramatically reducing capacity (probably to less than 25% of normal) and using good safety practices.

 

[armeck]

Okay, I totally get what you're saying. There is absolutely no need (in my opinion) to go to the movies right now, because you can now stream even new movies from home. You'd be in a crowded confined space, so what's the point? However, if the movie theaters skipped rows and seats, required masks, and so on, they could actually make them safe. Would people go? Probably some. I wouldn't yet. The same thing is true for churches - if they greatly limited capacity, and all those other things, they can hold services safely. Would people go? Probably some. I wouldn't yet. But there is no scientific or evidence-based reason to ban church services or movies or anything else if they are done safely. Doing these things safely means dramatically reducing capacity (probably to less than 25% of normal) and using good safety practices.

When I see the churches last month or so practicing zero social distancing - I am not optimistic. Also, I feel that like the young, party animals who've been dying to get out and get down - there are also a large group of people who are really jones'ing for their pew time. I feel it would get overloaded early and often.

Here's a timely article on the subject. According to this article they were planning on holding Mass this weekend - until one of the priests tested positive.
https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradl...priest-tests-positive/5T4aTzdzqOvOu0r6nYMmyJ/

 

[Deleted member 2897]

When I see the churches last month or so practicing zero social distancing - I am not optimistic. Also, I feel that like the young, party animals who've been dying to get out and get down - there are also a large group of people who are really jones'ing for their pew time. I feel it would get overloaded early and often.

Here's a timely article on the subject. According to this article they were planning on holding Mass this weekend - until one of the priests tested positive.
https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradl...priest-tests-positive/5T4aTzdzqOvOu0r6nYMmyJ/

Just remember that the media’s job is to clickbait us and get us upset. For every church that held services and didn’t socially distance, there are probably 1,000 that did.

 

[GoldZ]

I started to post this article/video, yesterday; but frankly, was not totally comfortable with it. It makes me squirm a little. But here you go... related to what you just posted. They use a metric "Years of Lost Life"
https://www.justfacts.com/news_covi...nnOh6_-uZ3ijB2dRTxVgVLTIO9LwNAvwCISHq7mGch9rc

Ok, somebody just stream up Soylent Green so we can all watch it. Geezers just aren't worth much...right? Said geezers won't be around to see it, but many millions of let er rippers will be geezerish so fast it will blow their minds....and they might feel just a tad different at that point than they do now.
Simply watch the local news each day, and you will see how utterly foolish it is to compare the 40-60 years of life the thugs featured on the news have left, to the 5-7 years of life that those who gave the rippers their life to begin with. The link touches upon the slippery slope of all slippery slopes.

 

[armeck]

Just remember that the media’s job is to clickbait us and get us upset. For every church that held services and didn’t socially distance, there are probably 1,000 that did.

Of course. I am looking at this purely from an infectious vector standpoint. Church services are like concerts, several times in the day, every week. We are talking hundreds and thousands every week bringing in their exposures and spreading to others who may have otherwise been well isolated if not for attending. I can think of one church here, very big First Baptist type. They can easily house 1000 each service, 3 times every Sunday. Ignoring what you feel personally about attending church and it's importance to people - from a virus control stand point that amount of exposure is very, very bad.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Of course. I am looking at this purely from an infectious vector standpoint. Church services are like concerts, several times in the day, every week. We are talking hundreds and thousands every week bringing in their exposures and spreading to others who may have otherwise been well isolated if not for attending. I can think of one church here, very big First Baptist type. They can easily house 1000 each service, 3 times every Sunday. Ignoring what you feel personally about attending church and it's importance to people - from a virus control stand point that amount of exposure is very, very bad.

Right, but I don't know anybody who thinks operating a church right now without any changes is a good idea. Just because we can find some that do doesn't mean they amount to a material percentage of churches overall. We can't science by anecdote. We can't shut down all restaurants, for example, because there are some out there who aren't behaving safely.

 

[takethepoints]

This is interesting and I don't usually say that about Twitter:



The main thing here is the stats on Brazil. I had assumed that Rio would be the big hotbed because it is so tightly packed and doesn't have much in the way of a public health system. But no, it's Sao Paulo. Sao is a city bigger then NYC and a modern one too boot. That it appears to be close to having its public health system fail is disconcerting. I would also note that since Brazil is right on the equator, hoping for a remission down here when the weather heats up seems more unlikely.

Btw, I know some of you may take umbrage at Slavitt. Feel free: I put the thread up here because it has more specific information on what's going on in Brazil.

 

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

I mean, you are outwardly dismissive and antagonistic to one side of the divide and then you ask how can we heal?

I literally know people who think we should stay locked down for the ~2 years it takes to get a vaccine. From my standpoint, that’s the product of an incredibly sheltered lifestyle. I can’t even begin to imagine how that would be possible without a famine. We are already having food supply issues. I don’t mean to be antagonistic, but that’s just hard to understand. An enormous amount of labor goes into our abundant lifestyles.

It’s not just economics, it’s livelihoods.