Elrich plan for MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I beg to differ. It is so obvious that the benefits of the stay at home order at this point are so far outweighed by the incredible costs of the extension, for example:
- poor children and families - witness the food pantry shortages and lines and the fact that it will take YEARS for kids to catch up academically (if ever) to their peers
- children and vulnerable people in dysfunctional homes - witness the lack of child abuse referrals from schools (where often this abuse is identified)
- people with other health needs while not emergencies, will suffer without treatment - imagine all the missed mammograms, screenings, biopsies, trips to ER avoided
- people with substance abuse and mental health issues who are not receiving support
- all the hardworking small business owners, many of whom will see their life's work and dreams gone

If the hospitals/healthcare system is not overrun, we need to open back up so that those of us who are willing to take some reasonable risks - to get a haircut or go to a restaurant or send our children to daycare - can do so.

Your risk analysis is breathtaking.

So glad you're not in charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop referencing the 1918 pandemic. It's a HORRIBLE comparison.

The first wave did mostly hit older, immunocompromised people.

The second wave was bad because:

1. It mutated to become more deadly.
2. There was a world war happening, and soldiers were catching it and spreading it in trenches.

The 3rd wave was MUCH less deadly.

Do you think that the economic recovery data is also HORRIBLE?

Yes, I'm sure it was.

Look it up. Seriously.

This is all important stuff. It's worth your attention.

I think 1918 is an useful resource but there are inherent risks in using it to guide our response to the epidemic. Your talk about the economic situation shows how limited 1918-1919 is as a comparison. 1/3 of Americans in 1918 lived on farms. They were self-employed farmers. that means their ability to handle any kind of economic shutdown is quite different from today's service economy where virtually everyone works for an employer. By the measures of the Spanish Flu, COVID-19 is far less fatal as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop referencing the 1918 pandemic. It's a HORRIBLE comparison.

The first wave did mostly hit older, immunocompromised people.

The second wave was bad because:

1. It mutated to become more deadly.
2. There was a world war happening, and soldiers were catching it and spreading it in trenches.

The 3rd wave was MUCH less deadly.

Do you think that the economic recovery data is also HORRIBLE?

Yes, I'm sure it was.

Look it up. Seriously.

This is all important stuff. It's worth your attention.

Not sure what you're trying to communicate? The 1918 epidemic is not at all similar to what's happening now. It's a terrible comparison.

The economic recovery data is, or may be, similar to what will happen in the next years.

After the brief recession, there was a huge economic boom. There were a variety of factors that led to the boom, some of which we may see again, some we won't.

Umm ... it was a post-WWI boom. It had nothing to do with the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

NP: the "economic storm for a few months" has resulted in 36 million people made unemployed. With millions more to come in the next few months or even the rest of the year. Millions and millions of those jobs will not be coming back. Thousands of businesses large and small will go bankrupt. Millions will eventually go into foreclosure. Millions will be plunged into poverty. You understand that? It's not a question of closing down for a few months and then everything reopens as usual. We are going to be suffering economically for years, if not a full decade. And the people least affected by the virus, the young, will suffer the most. That is the problem.

Trying to have everyone avoid getting the virus is an enormous mistake because it is not deathly to the vast majority of us. A minority will get sick. A minority of that minority will get sick enough to require hospital care. An unfortunate fraction (under 1% for sure) will die. Who will, as all data show, are predominately, extensively, elderly people with substantial health problems. People with very shortened life spans one way or another. In short, we have crippled the future to buy a bit more time for dying people.

Shrugs.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I don't think I will convince you about the severity of this disease, and therefore, I will not try.

Try to convince me that it's not severe to most people who get it? Because that's the cold hard truth. It is NOT severe to most people who get it.

We can look at the cold hard data. We know the hospitalizations. We know the ICU numbers. We know the deaths. We know the average age of death. We know the typical health conditions of those who died.

IT's horrible for people to die earlier than necessary due to an unexpected pandemic. But pretending that this is a severe "disease" for most people is called denial. Because it's not.

But the media says it is severe.

[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?

The fact that you spent this much time comparing covid to HIV (OMG they are both viruses) and jotting down this useless drivel.

I look forward to your follow up piece comparing grizzly bears to cocker spaniels (OMG they are both mammals).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I beg to differ. It is so obvious that the benefits of the stay at home order at this point are so far outweighed by the incredible costs of the extension, for example:
- poor children and families - witness the food pantry shortages and lines and the fact that it will take YEARS for kids to catch up academically (if ever) to their peers
- children and vulnerable people in dysfunctional homes - witness the lack of child abuse referrals from schools (where often this abuse is identified)
- people with other health needs while not emergencies, will suffer without treatment - imagine all the missed mammograms, screenings, biopsies, trips to ER avoided
- people with substance abuse and mental health issues who are not receiving support
- all the hardworking small business owners, many of whom will see their life's work and dreams gone

If the hospitals/healthcare system is not overrun, we need to open back up so that those of us who are willing to take some reasonable risks - to get a haircut or go to a restaurant or send our children to daycare - can do so.

Your risk analysis is breathtaking.

So glad you're not in charge.

I wish you were in charge, pp. I am a lifelong democrat, and am definitely voting for Biden. I can see the basis for PG extending the stay at home for two weeks. But most of the other local dem leaders not handling this well. It is past time for a limited reopening with universal masking. I may not vote dem on the local level for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

NP: the "economic storm for a few months" has resulted in 36 million people made unemployed. With millions more to come in the next few months or even the rest of the year. Millions and millions of those jobs will not be coming back. Thousands of businesses large and small will go bankrupt. Millions will eventually go into foreclosure. Millions will be plunged into poverty. You understand that? It's not a question of closing down for a few months and then everything reopens as usual. We are going to be suffering economically for years, if not a full decade. And the people least affected by the virus, the young, will suffer the most. That is the problem.

Trying to have everyone avoid getting the virus is an enormous mistake because it is not deathly to the vast majority of us. A minority will get sick. A minority of that minority will get sick enough to require hospital care. An unfortunate fraction (under 1% for sure) will die. Who will, as all data show, are predominately, extensively, elderly people with substantial health problems. People with very shortened life spans one way or another. In short, we have crippled the future to buy a bit more time for dying people.

Shrugs.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I don't think I will convince you about the severity of this disease, and therefore, I will not try.

Try to convince me that it's not severe to most people who get it? Because that's the cold hard truth. It is NOT severe to most people who get it.

We can look at the cold hard data. We know the hospitalizations. We know the ICU numbers. We know the deaths. We know the average age of death. We know the typical health conditions of those who died.

IT's horrible for people to die earlier than necessary due to an unexpected pandemic. But pretending that this is a severe "disease" for most people is called denial. Because it's not.

+1. Facts have become a useless thing. Now we have a county leader who wants to move forward (or not move forward) based on testing data, when there is no clear plan on how we are going to implement (and maintain) this widespread testing.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. In what universe are we going to get to the point where we can reliably and regularly test 5% of MoCo's population (50,000 people)?!

So basically, Elrich and Gayles have put forth unattainable criteria for reopening, meaning we won't reopen for the foreseeable future.

Excellent.

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree. And I'm a Takoma Park Democrat--i.e. his base. It's not even the result--i.e. extended closure--that I think is unreasonable. But the incredible vague plan, inane standards, and disregard for economic hardship. He's playing at being President, as if he has a CDC and PPE manufacturing and rigorous data at his disposal, instead of recognizing he is county executive with none of the above, and questionable authority to boot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I beg to differ. It is so obvious that the benefits of the stay at home order at this point are so far outweighed by the incredible costs of the extension, for example:
- poor children and families - witness the food pantry shortages and lines and the fact that it will take YEARS for kids to catch up academically (if ever) to their peers
- children and vulnerable people in dysfunctional homes - witness the lack of child abuse referrals from schools (where often this abuse is identified)
- people with other health needs while not emergencies, will suffer without treatment - imagine all the missed mammograms, screenings, biopsies, trips to ER avoided
- people with substance abuse and mental health issues who are not receiving support
- all the hardworking small business owners, many of whom will see their life's work and dreams gone

If the hospitals/healthcare system is not overrun, we need to open back up so that those of us who are willing to take some reasonable risks - to get a haircut or go to a restaurant or send our children to daycare - can do so.

Your risk analysis is breathtaking.

So glad you're not in charge.

I wish you were in charge, pp. I am a lifelong democrat, and am definitely voting for Biden. I can see the basis for PG extending the stay at home for two weeks. But most of the other local dem leaders not handling this well. It is past time for a limited reopening with universal masking. I may not vote dem on the local level for years.

+1. Elrich needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did he say how long the county’s stay at home will be in effect?

One of the measures they are looking at is the percentage of positive tests. Right now it's in the low to mid 20%s, and Gayles wants it down to 15%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he say how long the county’s stay at home will be in effect?

One of the measures they are looking at is the percentage of positive tests. Right now it's in the low to mid 20%s, and Gayles wants it down to 15%.

But where are we going to be getting all the tests necessary to reach that benchmark?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I beg to differ. It is so obvious that the benefits of the stay at home order at this point are so far outweighed by the incredible costs of the extension, for example:
- poor children and families - witness the food pantry shortages and lines and the fact that it will take YEARS for kids to catch up academically (if ever) to their peers
- children and vulnerable people in dysfunctional homes - witness the lack of child abuse referrals from schools (where often this abuse is identified)
- people with other health needs while not emergencies, will suffer without treatment - imagine all the missed mammograms, screenings, biopsies, trips to ER avoided
- people with substance abuse and mental health issues who are not receiving support
- all the hardworking small business owners, many of whom will see their life's work and dreams gone

If the hospitals/healthcare system is not overrun, we need to open back up so that those of us who are willing to take some reasonable risks - to get a haircut or go to a restaurant or send our children to daycare - can do so.

The two concerns I bolded are the two that don't make sense to me.

Healthcare has not been forced to close by the shutdown. The reason fewer people are seeking ER treatment is not due to the shutdown, it's because people don't feel safe going. If opening up increases the amount of virus, even more people will feel unsafe and not go. The reason why doctors are canceling in person procedures is because they don't feel that they can do them safely. They worry about patients becoming infected with covid, and they worry about other things due to lack of PPE. Increasing the number of infections in the community will increase those problems. This is a problem that will definitely become worse, not better, if we reopen in a matter that isn't safe.

As for small businesses, we know that small businesses in places that aren't shut down are hurting too. We know that in places like Sweden, people are avoiding places, and businesses are still in jeopardy. Allowing these businesses to open, when the actual business won't be there to bring in money, is just a ploy to get out of paying unemployment to people, and without unemployment people will be hurting worse.

[Anonymous]

Source for all time series data: https://data.imap.maryland.gov/search?q=COVID-19

On May 6, the total number of deaths in MoCo was 304 and nursing homes were 215. Maryland updates the Nursing homes stats on Wednesdays. On May 13, the total number of deaths was 386 in the county. The nursing home report was 289.

The increase in deaths over that week was 82 in total in MoCo. In the nursing homes, it was 74 or 90% of the increase in deaths.

Case increases are difficult to do, because unclear if nursing homes are being tested regular. Hogan has said yes, but a recent statement by Dr. Gayles shed doubt.
We do not have data on hospitalizations or ICUs and Dr. Gayles has noted neither does he. Source: Bethesda Beat - recent articles.

Clearly, the focus needs to be on nursing homes. Hogan is using death, hospitalization, and ICU. He said he is focused on nursing homes. All of this is backed by a team of Hopkins doctors.

How is achieving 5% aligned with any of this. What is MoCo they doing given up to 90% of this situation is likely in nursing homes?

On Tuesday this week, Erlich recommended a 3.5% raise for county employees with additional other benefits - saying the economy would rebound. More than 77,200 residents have filed for unemployment since March.

I cannot follow the logic. The suffering amongst the many of the at risk groups in our county is growing daily.

[Anonymous]

Baltimore county allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen but not salons or Indoor worship service. Anne Arundel allowing all but indoor worship services. Baltimore city extending stay at home apparently because of mayoral primary in June but Young will lose anyway.