Coronavirus

[Del06]

I think the first point in Filghy's post is the most important. There's a kind of macho American individualism here, which says I should be able to do whatever I want, and f**k the rest of you. It's based on the false picture that society is just an aggregate of individuals. rather than seeing an individual as part of a community. It's me, me, me, never us -- or if us, just a small us (my family and friends perhaps). Nobody has a constitutional right to infect other people.

[filghy2]

The Australian government has announced that current restrictions will remain in place for at least another 4 weeks. Decisions on easing them will depend on progress with testing, contact-tracing and increasing hospital capacity to deal with outbreaks.

Australia appears to be at least 2 weeks ahead of the US in flattening the infection curve, so that benchmark would suggest you should not be looking to reopen until at least early June.

[broncofan]

It would also be nice if people who say they have a constitutional right to do something would explain what the right is, what their basis is for claiming the right, and whether it can be overridden by the state's interest in saving lives. A state law can infringe on constitutionally protected rights if the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Saving lives in a pandemic is a compelling government interest and there is no other way to achieve it until we have the capability to perform contact tracing. Mandated social distancing is only unnecessary when there is a treatment, really ubiquitous testing, or a vaccine. And yes, people's right to earn a living, to operate a business, or to engage in many other public activities are important, but they're not absolute.

When I looked at each state curve I thought June looked like the perfect time too. Something about seeing people wearing camo with guns in the middle of the street makes me feel like we're going to need a compromise. But while June may be a good time in terms of where we are on each state's curve, I'm not sure how we're going to get the testing capacity we need. We've hit a bottleneck in the last week at around 150,000 tests a day.

[blackchubby38]

It would also be nice if people who say they have a constitutional right to do something would explain what the right is, what their basis is for claiming the right, and whether it can be overridden by the state's interest in saving lives. A state law can infringe on constitutionally protected rights if the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Saving lives in a pandemic is a compelling government interest and there is no other way to achieve it until we have the capability to perform contact tracing. Mandated social distancing is only unnecessary when there is a treatment, really ubiquitous testing, or a vaccine. And yes, people's right to earn a living, to operate a business, or to engage in many other public activities are important, but they're not absolute.

When I looked at each state curve I thought June looked like the perfect time too. Something about seeing people wearing camo with guns in the middle of the street makes me feel like we're going to need a compromise. But while June may be a good time in terms of where we are on each state's curve, I'm not sure how we're going to get the testing capacity we need. We've hit a bottleneck in the last week at around 150,000 tests a day.

We need to come to some sort of compromise because there is no way we can keep doing this until June. Its not good for the economy. Whether on the local, state, or federal level. Its also not good for people's physical, mental, and emotional well being.


I'm not going to lie, I wasn't happy today when I heard that Governor Cuomo extended the stay at home orders until May 15th. I think it should have been done on a two week basis.

[filghy2]

We need to come to some sort of compromise because there is no way we can keep doing this until June. Its not good for the economy. Whether on the local, state, or federal level. Its also not good for people's physical, mental, and emotional well being.

I don't think there's a simple trade-off between health and the economy. If you open up too early you are likely to get a rebound in infections that forces you to reimpose restrictions. So it's likely that you end up with a longer period of economic and other pain just for the sake of a getting a temporary respite from it.

[blackchubby38]

I don't think there's a simple trade-off between health and the economy. If you open up too early you are likely to get a rebound in infections that forces you to reimpose restrictions. So it's likely that you end up with a longer period of economic and other pain just for the sake of a getting a temporary respite from it.

You don't have to do it all at once. You can stagger it out over the course of a few weeks. Especially if the number of people being admitted into the hospitals for Coronavirus continues to decrease.

[broncofan]

I'm not going to lie, I wasn't happy today when I heard that Governor Cuomo extended the stay at home orders until May 15th. I think it should have been done on a two week basis.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't see how it could work out if we open the economy. Doctors now think 40% of transmission may occur before people have symptoms. People seem to be shedding the most virus on the first day they experience symptoms, which are often mild at the beginning.

I saw a video with Angela Merkel today where she was discussing basic reproduction number. She said she estimated Germany's was at about 1, which means that every infected person transmits to one other person. She talked about slowly opening things up and said they had calculated that if this value goes to 1.1 their hospitals would not be overwhelmed until September. If it's at 1.2 then July or something. But there is so little margin and the value without any distancing is at least 2.5. We don't even know what the sensitivity of this value is to half measures. We do know with no distancing it spreads like wildfire because that's what it did.

So I'm just curious what people think would happen if we open up? First what would open? Would people in offices with 100 people be tested? What testing capacity would we need to even be somewhat cautious? Nobody can get a test right now without symptoms no matter how many they stand to infect because capacity isn't there.

[blackchubby38]

I understand where you're coming from but I don't see how it could work out if we open the economy. Doctors now think 40% of transmission may occur before people have symptoms. People seem to be shedding the most virus on the first day they experience symptoms, which are often mild at the beginning.

I saw a video with Angela Merkel today where she was discussing basic reproduction number. She said she estimated Germany's was at about 1, which means that every infected person transmits to one other person. She talked about slowly opening things up and said they had calculated that if this value goes to 1.1 their hospitals would not be overwhelmed until September. If it's at 1.2 then July or something. But there is so little margin and the value without any distancing is at least 2.5. We don't even know what the sensitivity of this value is to half measures. We do know with no distancing it spreads like wildfire because that's what it did.

So I'm just curious what people think would happen if we open up? First what would open? Would people in offices with 100 people be tested? What testing capacity would we need to even be somewhat cautious? Nobody can get a test right now without symptoms no matter how many they stand to infect because capacity isn't there.

What I meant was that he could have extended the stay at home order until April 30th and then if need to be, extend it another 2 weeks.

Once tests become available, private businesses will be responsible for testing their own employees. Those who work for the government will be tested by public health departments. Those who work in the healthcare industry, will be tested by their respective employers.

We have to start asking ourselves some hard questions as to what the endgame is until a vaccine becomes available. Which is not happening for another 12-18 months. Are we looking to reduce the number of infections to an acceptable amount or are looking to make sure no one gets infected. We should be striving for the former because the latter isn't happening.

Are we looking to make sure that the hospitals aren't being overrun with Covid-19 cases or are we trying to make sure no one is admitted to the hospital with the virus. Because I'm quite sure that second scenario isn't a viable option at this time.

If this is truly a war, then we may need to accept the fact that there is going to be some collateral damage. We already have from an economic standpoint. The same goes for our physical, mental. and emotional well being. If someone committed suicide due to being out of work and the self isolation, was that an acceptable loss because of the greater good of society. If there is rise in domestic violence due to people being cooped up together, is that acceptable.

Until there is a vaccine or a form of treatment readily available that alleviates the symptoms of the Corona virus, there are still going to be deaths because if it. We may have to ask ourselves is there an acceptable number of daily deaths we can live with in order to get things back to normal.

As of last count, over 500 Covid-19 patients were safely discharged from the hospital that I work at. Lets say that's happening across a city and the number of admissions to the ICU go down as well. Lets say the daily number of deaths continue to decline. Shouldn't that be a goal that we should strive for?

[fred41]

Never mind.
got rid of a semi long post on American Individualism but....
While I’m here - I agree with Blackchubbies post above.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=blackchubby38;1925268

Until there is a vaccine or a form of treatment readily available that alleviates the symptoms of the Corona virus, there are still going to be deaths because if it. We may have to ask ourselves is there an acceptable number of daily deaths we can live with in order to get things back to normal.
[/QUOTE]

What will normal be, and when? If, for the sake of argument, the State of New York phases out the lockdown can we assume that retail outlets will open, be they department stores or diners or fast-food outlets? Because physical distancing is not easy in such places. Will clubs re-open, venues like the Met or Carnegie Hall or MOMA and such places, again, becasue if physical distancing is a key means of avoiding infection, such places must carry a risk. And then a General Hospital -surely the one place that has remained open and functioning where physical distancing is not only impossble, but at the closest proximity to the virus. I think as the number of new cases declines, the pressure to relax will mount, so I think that the risk element is going to be factored in, and the people responsible just hope and pray there is not a 'second wave'.

Finally, just as last night I leaned out of the window at 8pm to clap my admiration and gratitude for those in the NHS working round the clock to treat the sick and dying, be aware I was clapping for you too, and all your colleagues in health care across the USA.