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.

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.

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.

To say nothing of the fact that our leaders saw lock-down as a one-size-fits-all solution and rested on their laurels. As a result they wasted weeks and were caught completely flat-footed when it became clear that 40-60% of the cases were concentrated in nursing homes. They wasted their time shutting down most of society instead of focusing resources on the people and communities that were most vulnerable and most susceptible.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, places that have reopened show that's false.

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?