Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an only child. Her boyfriend is also an only. His family is WFH. We let them see each other a couple of times per week. I still WOH.

Limiting risks is not the same as bringing the risk down to 0. Isolating people who are prone to depression carries risks, too.

This is my view. But many people are absolutists. They need to believe that a person 5 feet away is certain death, and a person 7 feet away is certain safety. That strolling in the park without a mask is suicidal. That letting your kid play tennis with a friend is murder.

I would encourage people to think about how much they've decreased their risk. I used to shake hands with probably a dozen people a day, hug one or two, pass dozens in the hallway, share a metro car with a hundred, touch door handles used by a hundred more, and all of my immediate family members did the same with a different hundred, a different dozen. Now? WFH. Most days I have no interaction outside my immediate family. Maybe I pass within a few feet of someone on the sidewalk while I'm walking the dog, but mostly try to step into the street to distance. Once a week I stock up on groceries while wearing a mask and hand sanitizing. Etc. Same with the rest of the family. So the idea that I must "think the rules don't apply to me" because my kid rides bikes or plays tennis with a single friend once or twice a week just is not at all realistic.

If the virus could be completely defeated by literally locking ourselves in the bathroom for two weeks with nothing but bread and water, I'd do it. But social distancing and hand washing does not "defeat" the virus, it's a way of limiting the spread and lowering risk. It doesn't eliminate it. No one has ever claimed that it does. Like you said, PP, there is no way to bring the risk to zero.

But some people are born with a tendency to judge, scold, and control others. This is their time to shine.

Anonymous wrote:I have an only child. Her boyfriend is also an only. His family is WFH. We let them see each other a couple of times per week. I still WOH.

Limiting risks is not the same as bringing the risk down to 0. Isolating people who are prone to depression carries risks, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal was to flatten the curve. We have done that. Mission accomplished.

It is not going to be just another six weeks of this virus. Probably a year or more. So we will need to relax the social distancing policies to survive, politically, emotionally and emotionally.

People keep saying we've "accomplished" the goal of flattening the curve, so we're "done."

That's literally not how this works.

It's flatter than it would be BECAUSE WE ARE STAYING AT HOME. Once we resume anything even vaguely resembling normal life-- without heavy testing and tracing-- the curve will shoot up again.

Like-- what do you think we have PERMANENTLY accomplished at this point? Not much. It sucks, but I cannot fathom why people think we actually squashed the virus in any meaningful way at this point. We made it so most hospitals aren't overwhelmed-- that's why you flatten the infection curve. We haven't defeated the virus-- there are many more people infected now than there were on March 10 or 15. If we are talking about the risk of illness and death, we are in worse shape to interact with one another than we were in March 15. We are MORE likely to get the disease now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal was to flatten the curve. We have done that. Mission accomplished.

It is not going to be just another six weeks of this virus. Probably a year or more. So we will need to relax the social distancing policies to survive, politically, emotionally and emotionally.

People keep saying we've "accomplished" the goal of flattening the curve, so we're "done."

That's literally not how this works.

It's flatter than it would be BECAUSE WE ARE STAYING AT HOME. Once we resume anything even vaguely resembling normal life-- without heavy testing and tracing-- the curve will shoot up again.

Like-- what do you think we have PERMANENTLY accomplished at this point? Not much. It sucks, but I cannot fathom why people think we actually squashed the virus in any meaningful way at this point. We made it so most hospitals aren't overwhelmed-- that's why you flatten the infection curve. We haven't defeated the virus-- there are many more people infected now than there were on March 10 or 15. If we are talking about the risk of illness and death, we are in worse shape to interact with one another than we were in March 15. We are MORE likely to get the disease now.

We’re fine with the STAY AT HOME part. That was never about elimination of the virus or the risk. It was about protecting our health care systems, many of which are now do empty they’re going broke.

It’s time to move on, risks and all. I’m will to continue some social distancing but will no longer stay cooped up, locked away from friends and family. We’re planning and outdoor BBQ for next week for example, for a small group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'm going to sound like an @$$ but I don't understand why this is so difficult. I have three teenagers. They have not left the house since March 15 (or thereabouts), unless it was to go with me to the store for a brief outing, or to go on walks or whatever - with me. They're played basketball outside - with just their siblings. No hanging out with "just one" friend. I don't give a crap if I'm the only one following the rules and their friend's families are not. I'm an adult. I don't base my decisions regarding my children and their safety based on what their friends parents are doing. My kids can tell me I'm mean, I don't really care.

I don’t let my kids go to stores. One friends seems better than that to me.

+1 You seem to feel like you are following all the rules by not letting your kids meet with a friend, yet you take them to the store with you?? Thanks for the laugh.

NP. they're teens, not toddlers. pretty sure they aren't licking the shopping cart. her teens can likely manage the proper protocols. the risk is low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal was to flatten the curve. We have done that. Mission accomplished.

It is not going to be just another six weeks of this virus. Probably a year or more. So we will need to relax the social distancing policies to survive, politically, emotionally and emotionally.

People keep saying we've "accomplished" the goal of flattening the curve, so we're "done."

That's literally not how this works.

It's flatter than it would be BECAUSE WE ARE STAYING AT HOME. Once we resume anything even vaguely resembling normal life-- without heavy testing and tracing-- the curve will shoot up again.

Like-- what do you think we have PERMANENTLY accomplished at this point? Not much. It sucks, but I cannot fathom why people think we actually squashed the virus in any meaningful way at this point. We made it so most hospitals aren't overwhelmed-- that's why you flatten the infection curve. We haven't defeated the virus-- there are many more people infected now than there were on March 10 or 15. If we are talking about the risk of illness and death, we are in worse shape to interact with one another than we were in March 15. We are MORE likely to get the disease now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The goal was to flatten the curve. We have done that. Mission accomplished.

It is not going to be just another six weeks of this virus. Probably a year or more. So we will need to relax the social distancing policies to survive, politically, emotionally and emotionally.

People keep saying we've "accomplished" the goal of flattening the curve, so we're "done."

That's literally not how this works.

It's flatter than it would be BECAUSE WE ARE STAYING AT HOME. Once we resume anything even vaguely resembling normal life-- without heavy testing and tracing-- the curve will shoot up again.

Like-- what do you think we have PERMANENTLY accomplished at this point? Not much. It sucks, but I cannot fathom why people think we actually squashed the virus in any meaningful way at this point. We made it so most hospitals aren't overwhelmed-- that's why you flatten the infection curve. We haven't defeated the virus-- there are many more people infected now than there were on March 10 or 15. If we are talking about the risk of illness and death, we are in worse shape to interact with one another than we were in March 15. We are MORE likely to get the disease now.

Anonymous wrote:The goal was to flatten the curve. We have done that. Mission accomplished.

It is not going to be just another six weeks of this virus. Probably a year or more. So we will need to relax the social distancing policies to survive, politically, emotionally and emotionally.

Anonymous wrote:The goal was to flatten the curve. We have done that. Mission accomplished.

It is not going to be just another six weeks of this virus. Probably a year or more. So we will need to relax the social distancing policies to survive, politically, emotionally and emotionally.

Anonymous wrote:The order USED to be no groups of more than 10. It is now NO Groups at all-stick to those who live in your home.

We are not loosening things up because we care about EVERYONE not just ourselves. We teach our kids we are not special fragile snowflakes. They keep in touch with friends online. It's tough, but it is manageable. They get plenty of exercise too. We feel it is important to teach them not to be entitled and expect special treatment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'm going to sound like an @$$ but I don't understand why this is so difficult. I have three teenagers. They have not left the house since March 15 (or thereabouts), unless it was to go with me to the store for a brief outing, or to go on walks or whatever - with me. They're played basketball outside - with just their siblings. No hanging out with "just one" friend. I don't give a crap if I'm the only one following the rules and their friend's families are not. I'm an adult. I don't base my decisions regarding my children and their safety based on what their friends parents are doing. My kids can tell me I'm mean, I don't really care.

I don’t let my kids go to stores. One friends seems better than that to me.

+1 You seem to feel like you are following all the rules by not letting your kids meet with a friend, yet you take them to the store with you?? Thanks for the laugh.