Opening Up America Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 17706
  • Start date Start date
You didn't make the original claim that they overall were lying. If even source for one state was posted I would be surprised.

I know, and I don't want to call anyone a liar without knowing what they are saying. I just want to know what they actually mean when they say "there aren't enough tests." Are they saying they aren't able to procure the necessary reagents? The various kind of swabs? The personnel/facilities?

It has been shown time and again throughout history that people working for any administration are prone to pushing the narrative of said administration. In this specific case the administration repeatedly says "there is enough equipment for everyone!". Meanwhile frontline workers, physicians, doctors and nurses are all saying the exact opposite. Right across the country.

Next thing you know Dr. Birx, who is the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the Trump Administration's White House Coronavirus Task Force, steps up and apparently says "there is enough equipment for everyone!" and you dont expect me to side eye a claim like that? With an overwhelming amount of people nation wide saying the opposite? What other conclusion can I draw from that other than "bias"?

What are you talking about? PPE or testing capability? Do the timelines match up from when the claims of lack of equipment were made vs. statements about availability being made? Is this all just hypothesizing on your part?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This represents the problem within the thread, though: conflating the overall national outlook versus the county by county approach. The US is obviously not treating the re-opening the same way country-wide. Many of the arguments I see within are getting tangled up on this point.

Even governors are getting caught up on this. Cuomo yesterday or Friday (days are blurring into each other) got caught off guard when a reporter asked if a northern region of the state with some big companies (Intel, etc) that wasn't hit hard by the virus could re-open - he had no answer because he seemed completely unaware of the numbers there. He should and so should every governor, this is not going to be a country or even state-wide re-opening, they're going to have to view the distinct areas of their state piece by piece.

Absolutely. The guidelines were developed to be applied on a county-by-county level, and yet so many people are not even reading them or listening to the explanation about them and acting as if this is just an order to open up the entire country at once.
 
Is there a source for this? Or is this just part of your anti left schtick? Cause if that is true, wew lad. There is gonna be some shit when that bit of knowledge leaves this forum and enters the wilds.

Go to the worldometers site. They list total tests and test per 1Million.

If you click on USA they then even break it down by each state. New York does 3 times as many test per capita than SK and more total tests then SK (58 million people) more than half the states have done more test per capita than SK.

Test are the new ventilators. The media and Dems like Cuomo will play it up for a few weeks and then move on. In 2 or 3 weeks Cuomo will come out bragging how he is giving tests to New Jersey and Washington etc.... and he will start complaining about something else Trump needs to give him that he can then turn around and give away to make himself look like a hero.

If SK can survive with about 11K per million tests, New York should be thriving with 30K per million.
 
I know, and I don't want to call anyone a liar without knowing what they are saying. I just want to know what they actually mean when they say "there aren't enough tests." Are they saying they aren't able to procure the necessary reagents? The various kind of swabs? The personnel/facilities?
of those three scenarios has there been a confirmed case of a state lying about needing any aspect of tests?
 
of those three scenarios has there been a confirmed case of a state lying about needing any aspect of tests?

Again, I do not know what claims are being made, but if someone is claiming they can't test without getting the reagents and equipment for themselves and are refusing to send out test swabs to labs for verification (point of care testing vs laboratory testing), then that would be a problem. Not technically a lie, but demonstrating a refusal to explore other options to ramp up capacity.

Again, I don't know if that's actually the case in any of these instances. Simply saying that "there are not enough tests" tells nobody anything without further details.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, I do not know what claims are being made, but if someone is claiming they can't test without getting the reagents and equipment for themselves and are refusing to send out test swabs to labs for verification (point of care testing vs laboratory testing), then that would be a problem. Not technically a lie, but demonstrating a refusal to explore other options to ramp up capacity.

Again, I don't know if that's actually the case in any of these instances. Simply saying that "there are not enough tests" tells nobody anything without further details.
So in your opinion, saying they're aren't enough tests, and in turn, saying that states are lying about tests are both un-sourced claims and needs more details.

In my opinion though, if even government employed doctors and governers can use the 'laymen' term of just 'more testing' or 'needing testing', people can use it on this forum effeciently enough.
 
Absolutely. The guidelines were developed to be applied on a county-by-county level, and yet so many people are not even reading them or listening to the explanation about them and acting as if this is just an order to open up the entire country at once.

Yeah, I think political bias might be clouding the issue. I was going to say everyone wants to get back to life as we knew it as soon as possible and realized my own bias was shining through - some people do hope this changes our lives one way or another. Hard to forget Bill Maher's long-held wish for a recession, for example.

The US plan is as sensible as it gets and, provided states abide by it, any hiccups along the way will hopefully be minor. Testing capacity continues to improve and many people are still two+ weeks away from returning to work anyway. As Cryptoadam mentioned above, complaining about the insufficient testing today isn't all that different from Cuomo raising a stink about the projected number of ventilators he said he needed 3-4 weeks down the line. Relevant concern, just blown way out of proportion.

It's a large country, to shut it down or re-open it all at the same time would be oversimplifying it to the detriment of a lot of people in both health and economic terms. This is going to be a careful balancing act that requires everyone at all levels of government working towards the same goal... with an election about six months away and smear ads already in full swing. :messenger_grimmacing_
 
So in your opinion, saying they're aren't enough tests, and in turn, saying that states are lying about tests are both un-sourced claims and needs more details.

In my opinion though, if even government employed doctors and governers can use the 'laymen' term of just 'more testing' or 'needing testing', people can use it on this forum effeciently enough.

If Cuomo is doing 3 times as many test per capita than SK and Germany, and more tests in absolute numbers then SK maybe its possible he is crying wolf once again just like he did with the ventilators?

If your standard is to test 100 million people a day every day till a vaccine comes out then you will never have enough testing. Or at least not until the testing tech is advanced faster than its ever been done in the history of humankind. Remember the US does 2-4 million HIV tests a year. You want to ramp up to 10's of millions, even 100's of millions a test a a month or a week or a day?

Why are SK and Germany the gold standard for testing, but New York which is doing more testing then both of those countries in horrible shape and can't get by? Is Cuomo that bad that even with triple the ability than SK he can't get by?

Or maybe just like how he cried about ventilators he is pulling the same trick with tests? Will Cuomo in 2 weeks be giving away tests to other states so he can play the hero like he is doing with ventilators? I thought New York needed 40K ventilators but now he can start giving away the ventilators TRUMP gave him. The balls on this fucker. And you fell for his ventilator trick and now you are falling for his test trick. I hope that when he starts complaining about the lack of ass eating protective kits that you won't fall for it again and believe the hysteria of the lack of ass eating going on in the US of A.

Think about how ass eating has been effected and how many people can't eat ass that used to. When will Trump address the nations issue with ass eating? How can Cuomo allow New Yorkers to safely eat ass if they don't have the PPE needed to do so? When will the Feds invest in making it safe for Americans to eat ass once again?
 
So in your opinion, saying they're aren't enough tests, and in turn, saying that states are lying about tests are both un-sourced claims and needs more details.

Precisely. I don't see how you can call someone a liar without pointing out what they actually said just like I don't think it's fair to say, "there aren't enough tests" without divulging details of what you mean by that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you read the guidelines at all? This gradual reopening will only begin in areas that meet specific criteria and do not have outbreaks out of control. New York, for example, will not be participating re-opening for a while yet...
They didn't read the report and they don't watch the press briefings. It's a complete waste of time trying to reach some people.

They don't care about the economy. As long as they have food, Netflix and videogames they don't care.
 
Those areas are doing better because they locked down and prevented the spread of the disease. If you open them up while the virus is still being transmitted, you open them up to becoming another New York. That's why entire continents are in lock down - the virus spreads when people congregate. It doesn't discriminate: the more people, the more potential for transmission, the more deaths you have. Until we have a vaccine and can actively prevent the spread, either you lock down your population, or you accept the inevitable fatalities. This idea that "There's only a little bit of the virus here, so we're ok to open the doors" is along the lines of "The Doctors told me to take my medicine or I'd get sick. So, I took my medicine and I didn't get sick, so clearly I was never sick and the Doctors lied".
You people act as if a vaccine is a month away. The earliest testing for a vaccine, just TESTING is 18 months. Implementation to a critical mass of people could take 3-5 years.

So you are proposing half a decade of lockdown, with close to zero economic growth? How many people will die from that.
 
Last edited:
You people act as if a vaccine is a month away. The earliest testing for a vaccine, just TESTING is 18 months. Implementation to a critical mass of people could take 3-5 years.

So you are proposing half a decade of lockdown, with close to zero economic growth? How many people will die from that.
Human trials began five days ago. Estimates for the functional vaccine are approximately six months.

How many people will die from lack of economic growth? Zero. And hell - lets pretend that's how economies work, and I'm sure that it would be less than than the 40,000 corona virus deaths American currently has.

Todays fun fact: six thousand Americans have died since my first post in this thread until this one.
 


I don't know if any of these are talking about pre or post human trials, but there is some news about vaccines. I still think we are a ways away and want to see results that they work. Make many of the theraputics that pop up final results will say a lot more then promising inital phases.
 
Human trials began five days ago. Estimates for the functional vaccine are approximately six months.

How many people will die from lack of economic growth? Zero. And hell - lets pretend that's how economies work, and I'm sure that it would be less than than the 40,000 corona virus deaths American currently has.

Todays fun fact: six thousand Americans have died since my first post in this thread until this one.

Did you know that, in 2017, an average of 7,708 deaths occurred each day.


Apparently, that number was 7,969 in 2019, if this is true:

It will be interesting to see what the daily average all-cause mortality numbers end up being for 2020.
 
Did you know that, in 2017, an average of 7,708 deaths occurred each day.


Apparently, that number was 7,969 in 2019, if this is true:

It will be interesting to see what the daily average all-cause mortality numbers end up being for 2020.
Great post, but those stats make me rather sad 😔
 
fr3hsQg.jpg

Heart diseases and Cancer kill more than COVID combined and a little bit less seperatly. And thats with COVID deaths peaking now. Probably see these numbers for another week or so then a slow decline but thats because deaths lag behind cases. Mitigation helps though. As would mitigation for heart diseases and cancer.

Anyways not trying to be its just the flu. COVID deaths are bad and the more this runs rampant the more deaths especially old people. Senior homes are wrecking countries. Not to discount the younger people who die. Just to put it into perspective that people die every day in the USA.

This all means that we have to accept a level of death with CV. Clearly 2K people a day is not acceptable. So we gotta learn to take steps that allow us to live with CV but balances out the deaths. If we accept 40 deaths per million for heart disease whats the number for CV? Personally I don't know I don't want to see people die either.
 
fr3hsQg.jpg

Heart diseases and Cancer kill more than COVID combined and a little bit less seperatly. And thats with COVID deaths peaking now. Probably see these numbers for another week or so then a slow decline but thats because deaths lag behind cases. Mitigation helps though. As would mitigation for heart diseases and cancer.

Anyways not trying to be its just the flu. COVID deaths are bad and the more this runs rampant the more deaths especially old people. Senior homes are wrecking countries. Not to discount the younger people who die. Just to put it into perspective that people die every day in the USA.

This all means that we have to accept a level of death with CV. Clearly 2K people a day is not acceptable. So we gotta learn to take steps that allow us to live with CV but balances out the deaths. If we accept 40 deaths per million for heart disease whats the number for CV? Personally I don't know I don't want to see people die either.

Great points. I think you have to come to some middle ground: prioritize the Economy but by doing so you are exposing citizens to the Virus (which spreads at an alarming rate) or prioritize testing and stricter (quarantine) measures but by doing so you are putting jobs and businesses at risk (more than they are right now).
 
Last edited:
My brother is a MD in New York and also have 2 friends who are also Doctors there. They say otherwise.

I have 4 close friends, 1 in Chicago, 1 in NYC, 1 in Seattle, and another in FL.

They all said they have the tests, and the turnaround time is 6 hours, but sometimes 24 due to the labs being backed up.

They all say they have PPE as well. What they actually tell me, is that they are not allowed access to the PPE unless in COVID ICUs (they are held in lock and key), and they will not administer tests to just anyone, unless you have the 3 to 4 symptoms. The tests are also last to go to HCPs.

It is not a "shortage" issue. It's some serious bad protocols going on in these hospitals and healthcare centers.
 
Last edited:
I have 4 close friends, 1 in Chicago, 1 in NYC, 1 in Seattle, and another in FL.

They all said they have the tests, and the turnaround time is 6 hours, but sometimes 24 due to the labs being backed up.

They all say they have PPE as well. What they actually tell me, is that they are not allowed access to the PPE unless in COVID ICUs (they are held in lock and key), and they will not administer tests to just anyone, unless you have the 3 to 4 symptoms. The tests are also last to go to HCPs.

It is not a "shortage" issue. It's some serious bad protocols going on in these hospitals and healthcare centers.

Interesting. Add to that the exhaustion of healthcare workers.
 
I have 4 close friends, 1 in Chicago, 1 in NYC, 1 in Seattle, and another in FL.

They all said they have the tests, and the turnaround time is 6 hours, but sometimes 24 due to the labs being backed up.

They all say they have PPE as well. What they actually tell me, is that they are not allowed access to the PPE unless in COVID ICUs (they are held in lock and key), and they will not administer tests to just anyone, unless you have the 3 to 4 symptoms. The tests are also last to go to HCPs.

It is not a "shortage" issue. It's some serious bad protocols going on in these hospitals and healthcare centers.

It really depends on the hospital. I have a doctor friend in the hospital that treated the first patients of COVID-19 here in Washington. It also happens to be a very large and well-funded hospital. They never had issues with PPE. They never encountered a panic situation. It seems there is huge variance in supplies and readiness depending on the hospital.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. Add to that the exhaustion of healthcare workers.

It is BS, and very frustrating. They are exposed to it with anyone walking in, and if someone has symptoms and since they are not protected, it is more dangerous. They then will test the person with symptoms, but they never let the HCP know the results of that person's test that was administered to them. So you are left in anxiety and limbo.
 
It is BS, and very frustrating. They are exposed to it with anyone walking in, and if someone has symptoms and since they are not protected, it is more dangerous. They then will test the person with symptoms, but they never let the HCP know the results of that person's test that was administered to them. So you are left in anxiety and limbo.

My bro rarely gets emotional and when I spoke to him last week he was extremely frustrated by everything.
 
How many people will die from lack of economic growth? Zero.

Sorry, no. There is evidence for a cause-effect relationship between job losses and increased mortality. (Further: "the death rate for an unemployed person is 63% higher than for someone with a job, according to findings in Social Science & Medicine.") And it should make intuitive sense as well.

Consider also that almost half the country depends on an employer for health insurance. Lose your job and you lose access to affordable health care, unless you can pay for the prohibitively-expensive COBRA coverage.
 
Last edited:
This represents the problem within the thread, though: conflating the overall national outlook versus the county by county approach. The US is obviously not treating the re-opening the same way country-wide. Many of the arguments I see within are getting tangled up on this point.

Even governors are getting caught up on this. Cuomo yesterday or Friday (days are blurring into each other) got caught off guard when a reporter asked if a northern region of the state with some big companies (Intel, etc) that wasn't hit hard by the virus could re-open - he had no answer because he seemed completely unaware of the numbers there. He should and so should every governor, this is not going to be a country or even state-wide re-opening, they're going to have to view the distinct areas of their state piece by piece.

Hey, if you are cool with putting checkpoints between regions and preventing non-essential travel between areas, I'd be cool opening up at the end of the month. At least prevent people from leaving hot spots.

Containment is the key now.
 
The virus is not under control, it's premature to let everyone out again. Couch warriors who think the nation's being lazy should lose a grandparent or two.
Agreed that's too premature to open up, but also have to recognize that there are folks without the economic tolerance to survive long term, government has to really step up for these people, while also doing a massive testing campaign to open up asap, essential people need to be properly equipped.
 
The virus is not under control, it's premature to let everyone out again. Couch warriors who think the nation's being lazy should lose a grandparent or two.
Many countries are definitely opening up too fast. I can see two possible outcomes of this - the governments are going to lie to the public about the spikes in the death count (people can die from so many different diseases...) or close down again in a few weeks.
 
Last edited:
Put simply, there's going to have to be a lot of hard decisions made about how many preventable deaths are tolerable to open things up to what degree by what timeframe. The only way to truly minimize loss of life is to maintain extreme distancing until a vaccine has been approved and deployed. But of course that's just not feasible economically. So it's a matter of figuring out how to slowly reopen things with as much distancing as possible to find a balance of keeping the economy afloat without losing too many lives.

Some people, like the protesters say people should have the freedom to decide whether to expose themselves by going back to work or to sporting events etc. It just doesn't work that way as doing that is taking away the freedom of others. Those people who choose to go expose themselves then spread it to others who are trying to minimize contact but still have to go get groceries and come into contact with those people. The people choosing to go back to work take the choice away from their high risk co-worker (or co-workers who live with high-risk people) as we have no workers rights here and when things re-open they have to either go back to work or get fired for not showing up--and thus be ineligible for unemployment benefits.

It's also heavily class biased as well off people like my wife and I are much more likely to have jobs where we're still working from home and can do so indefinitely for full income, while the poor, working class and lower middle class are more likely to be faced with that decision of return to work and risk exposure (even if they're high-risk or live with family members who are) or get fired.

That's what makes all this so complicated. The economy can't stay shut down this much for ever, but the more it's opened back up the more that will get infected and die. Probably even more so this fall when it's likely to rebound with a vengeance when it gets cold again like the Spanish Flu did. So there's going to be a lot of very difficult decisions about how many lives lost are acceptable for opening up what portion of the economy again. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions and that they're moot for my wife and I since we can work from home indefinitely (her job has gone permanently work from home--aside from occasional meetings when this is over--as that was already planned before all of this). I feel very bad for the less fortunate and those who will lose their lives or those of loved ones due to having no choice but to return to work at some point before we're in the clear.
 
Sorry, no. There is evidence for a cause-effect relationship between job losses and increased mortality. (Further: "the death rate for an unemployed person is 63% higher than for someone with a job, according to findings in Social Science & Medicine.") And it should make intuitive sense as well.

Consider also that almost half the country depends on an employer for health insurance. Lose your job and you lose access to affordable health care, unless you can pay for the prohibitively-expensive COBRA coverage.
And that's why you need to comparable response in terms of social safety net. I'm not a Mnuchin fan, but the extra unemployment boost in the CARES Act is decent.

The issue is how long will we need it.

Also, this discussion is way too binary.

It's not so much about opening or not opening. It's how we will move through the phases or reopening. New York is not South Dakota for example.

Germany will be a good test. They are doing a phased re-opening. Small biz first. Japan and Singapore have had resurgences, so it's not so simple.

Right now it seems the discussion is too polarized and not enough nuanced. It's also a very fluid situation. We just don't have enough data (testing!)

We will need to open up. But how, when, and so on. How do we adjust if there are setbacks like Singapore?

Most economists say that starts and stops are way worse than a targeted shutdown.
 
Last edited:
Stupid decision.

1) There isn't enough PPE to protect front-line workers as it is now. If a second wave comes, we definitely won't have enough PPE

2) We don't know what % of the population has had covid-19, it could be 25%. Could the already strained services survive double that in one hit?

3) What's the rush? Oh that's right, mega-corps with a shit load in the bank may lose a few quid. Suck it up pussies. You have enough reserves to keep you afloat. Or, good luck running a business when your employees are dead

4) Spanish flu only got bad when people dropped their guard and there was a second wave.

5) Most importantly, we don't know how accurate the numbers are. We do know that they're down-played. For example, in the UK, only recently were care-home deaths counted. We still only count those who have died in hospital from covid, not those who were pushed over the edge because of it. We could be looking at a few hundred deaths a day of people dying at home who aren't counted.

This shit is nasty, it's coming for all of us and opening up in one fell swoop is...insanity.

I hope the UK rides it out and observes to see what happens.

Stay safe America.
 
Put simply, there's going to have to be a lot of hard decisions made about how many preventable deaths are tolerable to open things up to what degree by what timeframe. The only way to truly minimize loss of life is to maintain extreme distancing until a vaccine has been approved and deployed. But of course that's just not feasible economically. So it's a matter of figuring out how to slowly reopen things with as much distancing as possible to find a balance of keeping the economy afloat without losing too many lives.

Some people, like the protesters say people should have the freedom to decide whether to expose themselves by going back to work or to sporting events etc. It just doesn't work that way as doing that is taking away the freedom of others. Those people who choose to go expose themselves then spread it to others who are trying to minimize contact but still have to go get groceries and come into contact with those people. The people choosing to go back to work take the choice away from their high risk co-worker (or co-workers who live with high-risk people) as we have no workers rights here and when things re-open they have to either go back to work or get fired for not showing up--and thus be ineligible for unemployment benefits.

It's also heavily class biased as well off people like my wife and I are much more likely to have jobs where we're still working from home and can do so indefinitely for full income, while the poor, working class and lower middle class are more likely to be faced with that decision of return to work and risk exposure (even if they're high-risk or live with family members who are) or get fired.

That's what makes all this so complicated. The economy can't stay shut down this much for ever, but the more it's opened back up the more that will get infected and die. Probably even more so this fall when it's likely to rebound with a vengeance when it gets cold again like the Spanish Flu did. So there's going to be a lot of very difficult decisions about how many lives lost are acceptable for opening up what portion of the economy again. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions and that they're moot for my wife and I since we can work from home indefinitely (her job has gone permanently work from home--aside from occasional meetings when this is over--as that was already planned before all of this). I feel very bad for the less fortunate and those who will lose their lives or those of loved ones due to having no choice but to return to work at some point before we're in the clear.

It's not that hard of a decision actually. It is a decision we make every day. It's the reason why we still allow cars, and alcohol, and why we don't shut down every flu season. We take calculated risks every single day. I still am not seeing how this COVID thing, with its 99%+ recovery rate, marks some massive break from the way human beings have lived as long as there have been human beings.

I think you get to the heart of it, we are ruled by blue checkmarks who can live at home forever, collecting their salaries, and simply have no perspective on how other people live. They simply do not care or are actively hostile towards working class people.
 
Last edited:
Stupid decision.

This shit is nasty, it's coming for all of us and opening up in one fell swoop is...insanity.

You should read what and understand what you are commenting on.

There is no ONE FELL SWOOP, and this plan is based on opening up in phases differently across states and even within states.
 
It's not that hard of a decision actually. It is a decision we make every day. It's the reason why we still allow cars, and alcohol, and why we don't shut down every flu season. We take calculated risks every single day. I still am not seeing how this COVID thing, with its 99%+ recovery rate, marks some massive break from the way human beings have lived as long as there have been human beings.

It's the contagious nature of viruses, especially one's that spread rapidly, that is different. Someone choosing to drink, use drugs, drive etc. doesn't lead to people in nursing homes dying etc. People can mostly protect themselves from those things by not using/abusing alcohol or drugs, being a defensive driver and avoiding dangerous roads and dangerous times to some extent etc. At risk people for this disease can only limit the risk effectively by staying home. If there job re-opens they'll be forced to expose themselves as they either go back to work or get fired (and thus can't get unemployment benefits in the US) and without effective PPE due to the shortage of N95 masks etc.

That said, life will bet more back to usual once the virus dies down and/or their is a vaccine and/or effective treatment. Quarantines are just the traditional way of limiting death during the peaks of pandemics. This is just the first major one that's gone global during our lifetimes. The others like SARs, H1N1, Ebola etc. didn't get that severe in the US or western Europe so we heard less about shut downs etc.

All that said, like I said above, a continued shut down is economically viable so there's going to be hard decisions about what to open when and how and it's going to lead to increased deaths that will be concentrated among lower/working class people on the front lines in retail etc. and their elderly family members they bring the virus home to. The decisions will have to focus on how to keep those deaths to an "acceptable" level.
 
You should read what and understand what you are commenting on.

There is no ONE FELL SWOOP, and this plan is based on opening up in phases differently across states and even within states.

I ain't got time to read

Opening up in phases is the only way to go but not yet. Not until the cases drop off a cliff and the hospitals return to normal. We need breathing space to replenish, restock and re-evaluate where we are. Until that happens, talk of even a phased opening is crackers.
 
I ain't got time to read

Opening up in phases is the only way to go but not yet. Not until the cases drop off a cliff and the hospitals return to normal. We need breathing space to replenish, restock and re-evaluate where we are. Until that happens, talk of even a phased opening is crackers.

So basically states like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, Vermont, West Verginia should be find to start reopening then?

Or do you think the entire country is New York? If you are being sarcastic about the reading part ok, but if you are being serious then don't comment on what you think the solution is when you haven't even read this plan that has mulitiple phases and level of gatekeeping to ensure that cases drop off a cliff and hospitals return to normal and are stocked and ready for any surges. So ya if you read it you would know thats built into the plan.

In reality this plan is doing exactly what you want it to do so not sure why you are opposed to it outside of ORANGE DRUMPF BAD.
 
It's the contagious nature of viruses, especially one's that spread rapidly, that is different. Someone choosing to drink, use drugs, drive etc. doesn't lead to people in nursing homes dying etc. People can mostly protect themselves from those things by not using/abusing alcohol or drugs, being a defensive driver and avoiding dangerous roads and dangerous times to some extent etc. At risk people for this disease can only limit the risk effectively by staying home. If there job re-opens they'll be forced to expose themselves as they either go back to work or get fired (and thus can't get unemployment benefits in the US) and without effective PPE due to the shortage of N95 masks etc.

You say this like human beings haven't been dealing with virii for hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn't that long ago that human societies had to deal with smallpox, you know. And smallpox is a disease that kills the young, disfigures people in their homes, wipes out entire families - this is the reality of the human experience. You can do the liberal "chain" for virtually anything if your goal is to shut down peoples' abilities to live their lives. Like, people do get hit by cars walking down the street - we don't use that a justification to ban cars. I'm sorry I don't buy it.

Old people in nursing homes die. Ask anyone who works in a nursing home. They often die because they contract a contagious disease that finishes them off, because their immune systems are very weak. It is understood that this can happen, and while reasonable precautions can be taken and are taken, it's not foolproof. If you're telling me we need to shut down our economies, take away the ability of healthy people to feed their families, and enter a great depression because 80 year olds with COPD need to be protected, I have to ask why we don't do this all the time, because the truth is, these people are very vulnerable to contagious diseases going around 365 days a year.

As I said before, if the standard is "no new cases, ever", then the government needs to board up all of our houses and let us starve to death in our homes, where we cease to be a dreaded COVID-19 transmitter.
 
Last edited:
I ain't got time to read

Opening up in phases is the only way to go but not yet. Not until the cases drop off a cliff and the hospitals return to normal. We need breathing space to replenish, restock and re-evaluate where we are. Until that happens, talk of even a phased opening is crackers.

I think what we're likely to see is a phased reopening that's started in different places at different times. Some states haven't been hit very hard, and even in states with hot spots there's rural counties with few or no confirmed cases. The safest way to test out re-opening things is to do the phase 1 (i.e. masks/face coverings required, no crowds over 10, social distancing measures in stores) in those rural counties where the hospitals haven't been taxed and see if they get an uptick. Then do phase 1 in the more moderately populated areas if that goes ok and move to phase 2 in the rural counties. If those both go fine, then do phase 1 in more populous areas (if they're at a case/death level where they are ready to), fully reopen the rural areas, move to phase 2 in the moderately populated areas. And so on.

That, along with carefully watching what happens in parts of Europe that have started reopening sooner than the US is probably the best bet to get things going while minimizing loss of life.
 
As I said before, if the standard is "no new cases, ever", then the government needs to board up all of our houses and let us starve to death in our homes, where we cease to be a dreaded COVID-19 transmitter.

I'm certainly not arguing for that. My posts have all said said that it's not feasible to shut down things to this extent for ever, or even much longer. It's all about finding away to reopen things in phases while minimizing loss of life and also being able to see if it's going to cause a huge surge in deaths if populous areas are fully reopened too soon and overwhelm hospitals etc.

People are just not going to agree on what the acceptable number of preventable deaths are. Some people can just shrug off old people dying in droves if it means getting their income back, others can't. It's not worth arguing over as people aren't going to budge on these kind of views and there's no right or wrong answer here really. It's picking between two shit sandwiches with either taking more economic harm to save more lives or getting the economy going at the expense of more deaths. There's not perfect solution, whatever is done is going to be some balancing of deaths vs. economic harm and no solution is going to make everyone happy.
 
Many countries are definitely opening up too fast. I can see two possible outcomes of this - the governments are going to lie to the public about the spikes in the death count (people can die from so many different diseases...) or close down again in a few weeks.
It's not just that - it also increases the risk to 'essential' professions. I'm not even talking about deaths, simply people getting sick. You don't want to have half the people making ventilators, running tests, managing power plants etc etc to get sick and have to miss work just so people can get a haircut and sit down in a restaurant again.
 
It's not just that - it also increases the risk to 'essential' professions. I'm not even talking about deaths, simply people getting sick. You don't want to have half the people making ventilators, running tests, managing power plants etc etc to get sick and have to miss work just so people can get a haircut and sit down in a restaurant again.

Yep, there's a lot of moving parts here for sure. Even outside of essential professions, it's not going to do a business much good if they open back up too soon and have a majority of their workers get sick and be out of work and have productivity tank while workers are getting sick pay vs. being laid off currently. Or for restaurants and other businesses to reopen and be paying staff if customers are still staying away for fear of exposure. I know we don't plan to go back to eating out, going to the theater etc. as soon as things re-open. We'll be in wait and see mode and not make guinea pigs out of ourselves since we can work from home indefinitely.

Again, things need to get moving again and this level of shutdown can't continue much longer--especially in places that haven't had major outbreaks. But it's also not going to be as simple as things just going in phases and quickly getting back to normal. There will probably be an increase in cases that hurts productivity and anything dependent on customers will be slow to get back to normal levels of business as many wary people will stay away until there's a cure and/or vaccine.
 
Many countries are definitely opening up too fast. I can see two possible outcomes of this - the governments are going to lie to the public about the spikes in the death count (people can die from so many different diseases...) or close down again in a few weeks.

If you're going to claim that something is "too fast," then you need to have a clear picture of what "just right" is that you can communicate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You say this like human beings haven't been dealing with virii for hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn't that long ago that human societies had to deal with smallpox, you know. And smallpox is a disease that kills the young, disfigures people in their homes, wipes out entire families - this is the reality of the human experience. You can do the liberal "chain" for virtually anything if your goal is to shut down peoples' abilities to live their lives. Like, people do get hit by cars walking down the street - we don't use that a justification to ban cars. I'm sorry I don't buy it.

Old people in nursing homes die. Ask anyone who works in a nursing home. They often die because they contract a contagious disease that finishes them off, because their immune systems are very weak. It is understood that this can happen, and while reasonable precautions can be taken and are taken, it's not foolproof. If you're telling me we need to shut down our economies, take away the ability of healthy people to feed their families, and enter a great depression because 80 year olds with COPD need to be protected, I have to ask why we don't do this all the time, because the truth is, these people are very vulnerable to contagious diseases going around 365 days a year.

As I said before, if the standard is "no new cases, ever", then the government needs to board up all of our houses and let us starve to death in our homes, where we cease to be a dreaded COVID-19 transmitter.
COVID-19 response was never about lethality only, but slowing the spread and preventing health care system overload.

The latter is very important because an overloaded health care system is very dangerous, especially if health care workers start dropping like flies. These are highly skilled jobs. It's not like we have a pipeline of nurses and doctors to replace them easily. In some places, health care workers have been "imported".

Health care workers are also in a very dangerous situation since early data shows viral load is important. One of the Wuhan whistleblowers died rather young. He didn't have any pre-existing conditions. But many believe it was due to the viral load.
 
Last edited:
COVID-19 response was never about lethality only, but slowing the spread and preventing health care system overload.

I think there's little reason to expect we will have health care system overload. Consider this:

- The first wave came with no one social distancing, no one wearing masks, no one thinking this would become a big deal at all -- people went to sporting events, parades, big gatherings, etc. etc. as if nothing had changed. All signs point to this virus having been with us since December or January and definitely by way of Europe by February, well before lockdowns began here. The virus had ample time to spread through the population and infect people.

- Most hospitals were poorly prepared. PPE was in short supply. Manufacturing capacity was not there. Testing capabilities were nonexistent.

- Even with horrible preparations and poor public understanding, the first wave did *not* cripple our health care system. Only New York became close to being overwhelmed, but it still admirably met the challenge.

Any second wave as a result from cautious and gradual reopening will be much smaller, and we will be much better prepared. There's no reason to think our health care system would be overloaded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom