Elrich plan for MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

Do you even understand the economic and societal implications of waiting for the number of positive tests to go down with massively ramped up testing capacity? Do you know how this works?

Did you hear him say "oh yeah, sucks that some people don't have jobs. I mean I want to go to a restaurant too..."

The economy won’t reopen no matter what. Even if restaurants were open, no one would go. Ditto flights, hotel, conferences, weddings, metro, etc. Fear of the virus has cratered the economy.

Then we should just reopen and let the few who are not risk adverse go on with normal life.

That might work if it didn’t put everyone else at risk because there’s no way for the not-risk adverse to guarantee they won’t catch it and spread it. It’s like saying that you feel safe spraying an AK-47 into the air at midnight on NYE and anyone who is worried should just stay home and not worry about stray bullets.

That is a ridiculous analogy because an AK-47 is much more lethal than Covid. I REALLY wished they taught stats in school. We have a entire segment of society that believes whatever is on the front page of their news app is the most risky thing.

I agree. The paltry state of math and science education in this country is on full display during this pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't he say that 1500 people are currently in the hospital and that 4 out of 6 county hospitals are near capacity?

? No that's impossible. MD has 1600 people in the hospital total. Is he seriously saying all but 100 of those people are in MoCo? That seems impossible. Moreover, the hospital alert system suggests only 2 hospitals in MoCo are full right now.

DP.. I don't know about that statement, but three area hospitals have code red alert. The hospitals are all around the Silver Spring area, but the problem is that the county is large. I don't think you can just lock down Silver Spring.

https://www.miemssalert.com/chats/Default.aspx?hdRegion=5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

We’ve already stayed home for a few months and flattened the curve. What is happening now is shifting the goal posts, mostly for political reasons. Nearly all of the rest of the world is reopening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

Oh my...I’m sure you think this dissertation makes perfect sense, but, no, it just make you look crazy and dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't he say that 1500 people are currently in the hospital and that 4 out of 6 county hospitals are near capacity?

? No that's impossible. MD has 1600 people in the hospital total. Is he seriously saying all but 100 of those people are in MoCo? That seems impossible. Moreover, the hospital alert system suggests only 2 hospitals in MoCo are full right now.

DP.. I don't know about that statement, but three area hospitals have code red alert. The hospitals are all around the Silver Spring area, but the problem is that the county is large. I don't think you can just lock down Silver Spring.

https://www.miemssalert.com/chats/Default.aspx?hdRegion=5

Yeah. Unfortunately, I didn't hear anything from Elrich or Gayles about surging resources to these Silver Spring hospitals. There are clear problem areas in MoCo (SS hospitals and nursing homes), and yet they seem to be treating the entire county the same.

[Anonymous]

I’m going to be as thrilled to vote against Elrich as I am Trump. I hate incompetence regardless of the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't he say that 1500 people are currently in the hospital and that 4 out of 6 county hospitals are near capacity?

? No that's impossible. MD has 1600 people in the hospital total. Is he seriously saying all but 100 of those people are in MoCo? That seems impossible. Moreover, the hospital alert system suggests only 2 hospitals in MoCo are full right now.

DP.. I don't know about that statement, but three area hospitals have code red alert. The hospitals are all around the Silver Spring area, but the problem is that the county is large. I don't think you can just lock down Silver Spring.

https://www.miemssalert.com/chats/Default.aspx?hdRegion=5

Sibley is in the District, so it's the two SS hospitals that have had problems throughout the pandemic: Holy Cross and White Oak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to be as thrilled to vote against Elrich as I am Trump. I hate incompetence regardless of the party.

I 100% agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

Oh my...I’m sure you think this dissertation makes perfect sense, but, no, it just make you look crazy and dumb.

Aspersions aside - which part of the analogy do you think is crazy and/or dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

We’ve already stayed home for a few months and flattened the curve. What is happening now is shifting the goal posts, mostly for political reasons. Nearly all of the rest of the world is reopening.

+1. We were never told back in mid-March, that the plan was to wait until a vaccine. Or eradication. Or anything except to spread the infections out, so medical resources could keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

Oh my...I’m sure you think this dissertation makes perfect sense, but, no, it just make you look crazy and dumb.

Aspersions aside - which part of the analogy do you think is crazy and/or dumb?

I found this op-ed piece to be quite enlightening - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/13/were-retreating-new-strategy-covid-19-lets-call-it-what-it-is/

[Anonymous]

The Jersey Shore will reopen, with limitations, by Memorial Day. They're clearly a hotspot.

And yet MoCo has a stay at home order w/o any end date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to be as thrilled to vote against Elrich as I am Trump. I hate incompetence regardless of the party.

I 100% agree.

Me too. What a joke today was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's using the right metrics. I'm glad to hear that he is.

You realize cases will go up as testing does, right?

So MoCo is looking at a VERY long time under a stay at home order.

I realize that cases go down when cases go down. You realize that too.

Uh, what?

I think what PP is trying to say is that just because we don't have the information (i.e. we aren't testing) doesn't mean that cases are going down - what we want is more testing and then actual knowledge (as opposed to blissful ignorance) that cases are going down. That's how testing works - in the short term, yes, there will be spikes upward as we get information, but in the longterm with tracing, targeted quarantines, etc. we will see a decrease in number of cases.

That said, I think because our country's leaders have shown that they have no stomach for the economic fallout that will occur from waiting 2-3 months for this to play out, so we are being shifted to a harm reduction strategy despite the fact that 70% of the population support stay at home measures. As yet, MoCo has not succumbed to harm reduction strategy, but it will likely come as the outspoken few get their way and people see the economic costs but death stays away from their doorway. So, now you have to think of this like you did HIV but with much broader implications. So, with HIV, the only 100% way to prevent HIV would be to abstain entirely or only have sex with those you know does not have HIV. The equivalent for Covid is staying at home with no contact with others except immediately family who you know have had no contact with others (quarantine). If you still want to engage in some sexual behavior, then abstain from penetration, but do other things that might put you at greater risk, but not as much as penetration. The covid equivalent being - order takeout, walk outside, etc. Less risky behaviors but could lead to more risky behaviors, and could also expose you to virus.
With HIV, If you want to engage in sex, then the next harm reduction technique would be to use protection. The analagous behavior here would be if you want to interact with others that you do not know whether they are infectious or not, i.e. go outside, go to the stores, go to the beach, you must properly wear a mask (at all times - no holes - never take it off, ever - only interact with others who also have masks).
Now, with HIV, it was always possible that you could meaningfully reduce harm if you followed these strategies. With covid, however, there will be some people for which there are few ways to meaningfully reduce the harm - factory workers, frontline workers, etc. Thus, we need keep throwing alot of energy and money at measures to alleviate symptoms (like the antivirals we developed for HIV). Finally, one day, we may have a vaccine, and people will either get the vaccine or they won't because god forbid we make that mandatory. So people who are at more risk but cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, will still have to abstain, etc. to protect themselves from the disease.

All because our leaders cannot weather the economic storm of a few months staying at home with distance learning and philosophically loath to support our most vulnerable (the elderly and the poor) during an economic downturn.

We’ve already stayed home for a few months and flattened the curve. What is happening now is shifting the goal posts, mostly for political reasons. Nearly all of the rest of the world is reopening.

+1. We were never told back in mid-March, that the plan was to wait until a vaccine. Or eradication. Or anything except to spread the infections out, so medical resources could keep up.

You're right. But we still haven't done that in MoCo - the infection rate is still going up - not spreading out, not going down. Four out of six of our hospitals are at capacity for ICU beds. What happens when you have heart attack or stroke and four of the nearest hospitals can't take you? We still don't have a handle on it. And that's WITH social distancing and stay at home orders. Now is not the time to let up.