Coronavirus

Noahfecks

El Destructo!
Our stay at home order says that you can go out for essential functions like going to the store or walking your dog. I shit you not, literally says walking your dog. Ask me how I know this isn't that serious.
 

Hickey

Rusty Girdle
Supporting Member
Since the first shelter orders came down last week, I've driven all over the western states. I can tell you that the traffic has certainly decreased, but not nearly as much as I would have expected. I would guess that less than 50% of the population is in fact staying home. This seems to be true in every area I have driven through.
 

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Supporting Member
Location
Salt Lake City

Kiel

Formerly WJ ZUK
I have a friend in Madrid who just finished up a 2 week shelter in place, and it just got extended another 2 weeks yesterday. She said the worst thing is just dealing with yourself for that long.
 

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
@Noahfecks
First, do you really think death of 500,000 or so Americans, with the associated hospitalization of those who die and the millions of others hospitalized won't impact the economy? Dead people make bad employees and customers.

And that is besides the very simply fact that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of half a million or so people just to keep your personal standard of living up is pathetic at best.
 

bryson

RME Resident Ninja
Supporting Member
Location
West Jordan
@Noahfecks
First, do you really think death of 500,000 or so Americans, with the associated hospitalization of those who die and the millions of others hospitalized won't impact the economy? Dead people make bad employees and customers.

And that is besides the very simply fact that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of half a million or so people just to keep your personal standard of living up is pathetic at best.
I don't recall anyone saying that the death of half of a million Americans is a good thing - it's a horrible thing, but it's a reality that we accept year in and year out. The only thing changing here is the cause of death. Dead people do make bad employees and customers, but bad economies also make dead people. Don't think for a second that there aren't casualties and widespread misery on both sides of the line...
 

DAA

Premium Member
Supporting Member
I don't think I understand the situation very well.

But it sounds to me, like flattening the curve, will reduce the number of deaths, by an unknown amount. But that a lot of those deaths, perhaps most, even, are going to occur just the same. Just not all at once.

Destroying the economy by flattening the curve is going to cause lower quality of life, increased stress, health, mental issues, bankruptcies, failed businesses, job loss, divorce/broken families, dreams of retirement gone, and so on and so on for tens of millions of people with effects that will be felt for decades. I don't understand criticizing anyone for wishing to preserve a standard of living. But the effects are going to be way beyond just driving older cars and living in smaller houses for an awful lot of people. Permanent damage is already done and mounting. There are real people, really being hurt, badly, by the economic fallout. Right now. It's going to get way, way worse, the longer this goes on.

People have died and will die because of the virus, people are hurting and will hurt more for a very, very long time because of the reactions to the virus.

At some point, public sentiment will result in moving the balance point from where it is now at one extreme end of the scale back towards the other. It's inevitable. And I doubt science or good policy decisions will have much to do with it. Those things have very little to do with anything in our society.

- DAA
 

Kevin B.

OLAF
Supporting Member
Location
Stinkwater
I don't think I understand the situation very well.
I don't think anybody does.

The initial calls to "flatten the curve" anticipated releasing the calls for isolation to let the economy breath and following that with more flattenings and releases, kinda like ABS brakes pulsing to prevent locking up. That wouldn't do anything to stop the eventual number of infections, just spread out the load on the hospitals. Under that model the same number of people would be eventually infected, but less overload on the hospitals meant theoretically more lives saved. They've had more time to think it through now, and they're anticipating a "rapid" test that gives results in minutes/hours instead of days/weeks (China says they've got one right now, and multiple western labs are near to having their own version). The new idea is that we maintain a hard isolation until the number of infections drops to a manageable level, and then with an adequate supply of reliable and near-instant tests and a lesser number of overall infections, we can go back to chasing individual infection chains which is how they normally deal with a viral episode like this. And if that works, the load on the hospitals drops dramatically and maybe we can all get back to business-as-almost-usual while we wait for the vaccine.

The big wrench in the works in this whole thing has been that COVID-19 can be transmissible before the person is symptomatic. That's prevented any real management of the spread, and what's led to these mass lockdowns. The rapid test is key to getting around that roadblock. Once we've got it, we won't have to rely on symptoms to track and isolate affected individuals, and we can hopefully go back to a more relaxed model of behavior that doesn't require everyone to isolate.

Because we clearly can't stay locked down forever. That's never been in dispute. Hopefully the federal rescue money will come in time for the folks that need it right now (and won't cause too much inflation), and hopefully the new tests come online quick, and hopefully the surge to get PPE and medical devices to the hospitals is effective, and hopefully there's no stalls in development of the vaccine. If any of those things don't come through we'll probably have huge pressure to relax the isolation and if we have to do that before we've got at least partial control over the spread, it's going to get really ugly.

Right now, there's an end-game. There's an exit strategy here, and though it requires sacrifice and hardship for everyone, some more than others for sure, it doesn't require the complete destruction of lives and economy that would come with a long term lockdown OR a complete relaxation of social distancing and isolation protocols - both of those things lead to ruin. If that plan goes to hell, if the exit strategy fails, then it'll be time to ask the really hard questions, questions like how many lives are worth the rest of us going hungry? How many lives should we sacrifice to keep everybody else from living in tent cities for the rest of our lives? Tough questions that I don't have the answers to. And maybe we should be thinking about them. I just don't think it's time to ask those questions yet, and definitely not time to answer them.
 
Last edited:
Top