"Opening up" means risking your life

[Anonymous]

I agree that a lot of this talk is premature.

But we cant stay closed long term. We do need to discuss how to open back up with the understanding that a vaccine will likely not be available at that time. This includes testing capacity increases, better treatment plans, contact tracing inferstructure, and a gradual reopening plan.

We need to recognize that the economic impact of the shutdown is important. I could care less right now about the stock market, but I do care about the millions of unemployed people at risk, and the small businesses effected. The most at risk are smaller businesses, particularly in the restaurant/retail sector, I know of a lot who have already closed perminantly and many more that are struggling to continue at all. Behind these are often local individuals who depend on those businesses. And from personal experience a lot of these businesses are struggling to get the support offered as it is.

Unless we can stop rent payments (not just pause evictions) whenever we reopen our eviction courts will be packed. And furthermore, by just pushing it down the road, people (often the most vulnerable) will end up at the end of this owing too much for them to realistically just bounce back. As much as I would hope landlords would cut people a break, knowing humans and knowing that many landlords are, again, just normal people with their own costs I doubt that can be depended on.

This isnt arguing to reopen prematurely, but I fear that the economic consequences of staying in this state of shutdown until a vaccine or cure is found in a year or two is simply not really realistic. We need to be working to balance our many needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that has been largely overlooked here—please forgive me if I just missed it—is schools. I worry about the inequality and lasting consequences impacting kids whose parents can’t provide the gold plated “homeschooling”/remote learning experience rich parents have been able to provide for their kids. But I guess the rich always win.

I think you are living in lala land about kids getting gold plated homeschooling.
My wealthy district with 4% FARMS is pathetic beyond belief in their online learning program.

Rich parents supplement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that a lot of this talk is premature.

But we cant stay closed long term. We do need to discuss how to open back up with the understanding that a vaccine will likely not be available at that time. This includes testing capacity increases, better treatment plans, contact tracing inferstructure, and a gradual reopening plan.

We need to recognize that the economic impact of the shutdown is important. I could care less right now about the stock market, but I do care about the millions of unemployed people at risk, and the small businesses effected. The most at risk are smaller businesses, particularly in the restaurant/retail sector, I know of a lot who have already closed perminantly and many more that are struggling to continue at all. Behind these are often local individuals who depend on those businesses. And from personal experience a lot of these businesses are struggling to get the support offered as it is.

Unless we can stop rent payments (not just pause evictions) whenever we reopen our eviction courts will be packed. And furthermore, by just pushing it down the road, people (often the most vulnerable) will end up at the end of this owing too much for them to realistically just bounce back. As much as I would hope landlords would cut people a break, knowing humans and knowing that many landlords are, again, just normal people with their own costs I doubt that can be depended on.

This isnt arguing to reopen prematurely, but I fear that the economic consequences of staying in this state of shutdown until a vaccine or cure is found in a year or two is simply not really realistic. We need to be working to balance our many needs.

Guaranteed income through end of pandemic, student loan forgiveness up to 30k, and Medicare for All would help.

[Anonymous]

Here is what doesn't make sense......

Grocery stores are open, as they should be. Most grocery stores have narrow aisles. Keeping 6 feet from everyone is tough to do. But, we make it work by wearing masks and being careful not to touch our faces.

Yet, stories like Hobby Lobby must remain shut because they are deemed "non essential." The Hobby Lobby in my area is huge. The aisles are large. It doesn't get nearly as crowded as hardware stores or grocery stores in the area.

In many businesses, it is much easier to maintain social distancing than in businesses that are allowed to remain open.

This is just lunacy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what doesn't make sense......

Grocery stores are open, as they should be. Most grocery stores have narrow aisles. Keeping 6 feet from everyone is tough to do. But, we make it work by wearing masks and being careful not to touch our faces.

Yet, stories like Hobby Lobby must remain shut because they are deemed "non essential." The Hobby Lobby in my area is huge. The aisles are large. It doesn't get nearly as crowded as hardware stores or grocery stores in the area.

In many businesses, it is much easier to maintain social distancing than in businesses that are allowed to remain open.

This is just lunacy.

It is simple math. Coronavirus will spread to a certain number of people during grocery store visits -- masks and social distancing only goe so far and are not a perfect defense. So, grocery shopping will result in X number of illnesses, but because we have to eat, we take that risk. If shopping at Hobby Lobby also resulted in X illnesses, we would have 2X instead of X illnesses. Multiply the by however more businesses think they should reopen.

Also, I don't think the Hobby Lobby case is helped by the founder initially choosing to stay open because God had talked to his wife and told them they would be protected. Then the company defied orders to close in several states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ain't China. Not yet, anyways.

If it were, we’d be testing.

Really?

Yes. It may be horrible in other ways but China efficiently limited the spread. Partially because of extensive testing.

It's not simply the testing that limited the spread. China was able to tap into cell phone data to find out where those who tested positive had been, they were then sending out text messages to every single cell phone owner who had been in the vicinity of the infected person, and they were able to forcibly quarantine those who were positive. These are not things the US can do. Testing in and of itself would do very little to stop the spread of this virus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ain't China. Not yet, anyways.

If it were, we’d be testing.

Really?

Yes. It may be horrible in other ways but China efficiently limited the spread. Partially because of extensive testing.

It's not simply the testing that limited the spread. China was able to tap into cell phone data to find out where those who tested positive had been, they were then sending out text messages to every single cell phone owner who had been in the vicinity of the infected person, and they were able to forcibly quarantine those who were positive. These are not things the US can do. Testing in and of itself would do very little to stop the spread of this virus.

LOL at anyone who believes China's numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ain't China. Not yet, anyways.

If it were, we’d be testing.

Really?

Yes. It may be horrible in other ways but China efficiently limited the spread. Partially because of extensive testing.

It's not simply the testing that limited the spread. China was able to tap into cell phone data to find out where those who tested positive had been, they were then sending out text messages to every single cell phone owner who had been in the vicinity of the infected person, and they were able to forcibly quarantine those who were positive. These are not things the US can do. Testing in and of itself would do very little to stop the spread of this virus.

LOL at anyone who believes China's numbers.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that there must be someone in the Trump administration who believes that summer weather will mitigate the contagiousness of the virus. The science on that is mixed, at best, with more scientists seeming to think it will not make a material difference. In any event, absent a vaccine (and there won't be one for 12-18 months), the virus would come roaring back in or around September. But I honestly don't know what to do about a collapsing economy that seems to have little more going for it now than sales of food, toilet paper, and curbside delivery. The elites ("ruling" class) will always do whatever it takes to remain on top of the socioeconomic pyramid as they see it.

You are making a HUGE assumption that a vaccine will be developed that will be effective at protecting people from infection with covid19.

That's an enormous assumption because some diseases can't be prevented by vaccination. In 40 years, no effective vaccine against HIV has been developed. Yes, there are treatments that keep HIV infection at bay, but there's no vaccine and no cure.

There may never be an effective vaccine against covid19, so you can't count on a vaccine to end this pandemic. And you definitely can't count on a vaccine in the next year or so. Contact tracing, isolation and social distancing are all we have right now to fight this pandemic. Oh, and testing, testing, testing.

It’s not an enormous assumption given the general confidence of actual scientists, as opposed to the worry from posters who don’t actually know anything except the fear that is consuming them or their political agenda. Testing, testing, testing is not a plan—it’s a cliched slogan at this point. Widespread testing is key, but it must be combined with quarantining and contact tracing.

Exactly. Testing in and of itself is useless.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t need a forcible quarantine. I would appreciate a text message that I’ve been exposed, with a link to an attachment for an order for testing.
That truly means we have to have tests far and wide.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here are a few things that I think are readily apparent:

1) Without a vaccine, near universal testing, or sweeping use of PPE, "opening up" will spread the coronavirus. We don't have to guess about this. Just look at the Smithfield Foods meat processing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Nearly 600 employees have tested positive for COVID-19. In addition, 135 others have caught it from those employees. The plant has now been forced to close.

2) Many of the loudest voices calling for "opening up" will not be putting themselves at risk. Higher income folks will continue to telework and socially distance themselves. Trump and Pence dispute the need for widespread testing, but require anyone coming into contact with them be tested beforehand. This sort of hypocrisy will extend throughout the ruling class. "Opening up" means telling working folks to risk their lives for the stock portfolios of those who will remain safely protected.

3) It is true that job losses and economic suffering are being caused by the shutdown. The impact of this can be reduced through government assistance. There is no cure for death.

4) Trump, by offering public support for those protesting shutdown polices, is willing to sacrifice even his own supporters. Similarly, with deaths heavily weighted toward the elderly, Trump willingly endangers the most dependable source of Republican votes.

5) The "original sin" of the US response to COVID-19 was the failure to introduce widespread testing. This, combined with a lost six weeks while Trump attempted to deny the reality of the epidemic, has caused a deep setback for the US response and led to countless unnecessary deaths. Trump is simultaneously pushing testing responsibility to governors and supporting protests against those same governors. He may well have calculated that renewed disease outbreaks in Democratic-led states would help him politically. He is desperate to place blame on everyone from mayors, governors, and members of Congress, to the WHO, or to the media, but will accept no responsibility himself. He is driven by political expediency and willing to sacrifice lives in the process.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to "open up", tell them to go first. Don't put yourself at risk for someone else's stock portfolio or Trump's political goals.

I haven’t read through these responses, so this has probably already been said numerous times, but there have only been six deaths in the state of South Dakota. Six deaths out of a population of 900,000.

So far. Over 700 people were infected due to a single outbreak. Do you really think the rest of the state will continue to be so fortunate?

Well so what? Very few have died. That's the point. The mortality rate of this virus is quite low.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

There are solutions to those economic problems that don't involve a rush to open in unsafe conditions. But, if you believe that your personal economic situation justifies risking your own health and the health of your family members, please go first. As I have repeatedly said, don't expect others to take risks that you won't take.

Jeff, generally you seem to be an educated and well informed person. I can't believe you are minimizing the economic damage this is causing to thinking that people who are concerned are only worried about their own economic situations. I would have to assume that you have enough understanding of economics to realize how intertwined sectors are that a shutdown of this magnitude (not just in the U.S. but globally) is going to have devastating effects on everyone. And what solutions can possibly come close to solving the vast global economic damage that would be caused? This is completely unprecedented. Never before has anything on this scale ever happened. I find it amazing of how dismissive people are of the damage this shut down is going to cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open up, and just keep social distancing and wearing a mask. Done.

It is unrealistic to shut down everything for 18 months. That vaccine Billy Boy is funding might be worse than the virus itself because it won’t have time to be tested.

But people have to get back to work. The backlash of shutting down the country will lead to deaths due to food supplies and shortages, transportation, people who have health issues will die and people with mental issues will end up killing themselves.

You can’t lock someone in their house with a business that they are using that to survive away from them. This will lead to devastating economic impacts and lead to more deaths. But this is a virus, not a death sentence. Anytime you step out your house, it’s a risk. We can’t live our lives in fear.

If you open up without proper testing, you are guaranteed to have a resurgence of disease. If you are comfortable getting infected, don't let me stop you. Feel free infect yourself and your family. Just don't expect others to take that risk on your behalf.

The risk is minuscule. The fatality rate is less than 2%! And judging by recent reports that are many more asymptomatic cases than previously thought, the fatality rate would be even lower.

What is 1.5% of 350,000,000?[/quote]


It's not the number of deaths - it's the percentage of deaths that matters. Yes if a virus kills 1% of people, there will be more deaths in a population of 300.000.000 than in a population of 3,000,000.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

There are solutions to those economic problems that don't involve a rush to open in unsafe conditions. But, if you believe that your personal economic situation justifies risking your own health and the health of your family members, please go first. As I have repeatedly said, don't expect others to take risks that you won't take.

Jeff, generally you seem to be an educated and well informed person. I can't believe you are minimizing the economic damage this is causing to thinking that people who are concerned are only worried about their own economic situations. I would have to assume that you have enough understanding of economics to realize how intertwined sectors are that a shutdown of this magnitude (not just in the U.S. but globally) is going to have devastating effects on everyone. And what solutions can possibly come close to solving the vast global economic damage that would be caused? This is completely unprecedented. Never before has anything on this scale ever happened. I find it amazing of how dismissive people are of the damage this shut down is going to cause.

I am not dismissive. The virus is here regardless of how much you wish it wasn't. We can have economic damage while minimizing death and illness or we can have economic damage with increased death and illness after reopening prematurely. Either way, we are not going to escape economic damage. Opening up because of the economic damage is not going to make the virus go away. I have repeatedly described what I believe needs to be in place before we can safely open. Those things are not even close to being in place now.

Are you prepared to risk your health and the health of your family members in present conditions? If so, I am happy to have you as a guinea pig to test just how safe opening is now. Otherwise, don't expect others to take the risks that you won't.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open up, and just keep social distancing and wearing a mask. Done.

It is unrealistic to shut down everything for 18 months. That vaccine Billy Boy is funding might be worse than the virus itself because it won’t have time to be tested.

But people have to get back to work. The backlash of shutting down the country will lead to deaths due to food supplies and shortages, transportation, people who have health issues will die and people with mental issues will end up killing themselves.

You can’t lock someone in their house with a business that they are using that to survive away from them. This will lead to devastating economic impacts and lead to more deaths. But this is a virus, not a death sentence. Anytime you step out your house, it’s a risk. We can’t live our lives in fear.

If you open up without proper testing, you are guaranteed to have a resurgence of disease. If you are comfortable getting infected, don't let me stop you. Feel free infect yourself and your family. Just don't expect others to take that risk on your behalf.

The risk is minuscule. The fatality rate is less than 2%! And judging by recent reports that are many more asymptomatic cases than previously thought, the fatality rate would be even lower.

Great. Feel free to end social distancing for yourself and your family. Lead the way.

Well, that's exactly what many people are trying to do.