Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[mission27]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

its actually very easy to contract trace if there are outbreaks on planes.

Btw I think this is very very important

If you have someone test positive who went to a movie, how are you going to contact everyone who was in the movie theater, sat near them, whatever?  Its hard.

If someone goes through an airport or gets on a plane with COVID-19 you know exactly who they are likely to have had contact with and have contact information and location for all of those people.  This is pretty common.  I've personally been contacted by CDC to say I was on a plane with someone who had measles, etc.  Its very easy.

[naptownskinsfan]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I’m not saying it can’t be done, anything can be done I suppose, but gyms have always been a Petri dish.  

yeah the concern would be what they do after the lights are turned down, but removing seats could do a lot there.

Im curious as to what kind of demand there is for going to a movie theater right now?  I can’t imagine it’s a strong desire for many people.

I don't know about demand to go out and see a movie, but just to get out of the house and have your kids occupied with something?  Yeah, I can absolutely see that being a draw for people right now.  

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

I mean its a slippery slope.  People have family, friends, etc. they haven't been able to see for a month and a half and may not be able to see without getting on a plane.  Which btw, is not prohibited right now in any state, everyone is free to do so if they wish.  Who is to judge what is 'needed'?  I dont think its reasonable to tell people their travel is restricted until there is a vaccine.  Many people have no need to get on an airplane to live their lives and that's great but there are critical parts of our economy and people's lives that rely on airplane travel and where there is no real alternative.  Lets say you live in New York and your fiance lives in San Francisco.  Should you not be able to see each other for 18 months?  And if we're going to allow stuff like that you can't really tell people they can't or shouldn't go on vacation.  If you're allowing non-essential travel you're allowing non-essential travel.  Many people may choose its not worth the risk and that's ok.

100%, in Phase 1, we should discourage all non-essential travel both for business and pleasure.  But I think its entirely appropriate to lift this guidance in Phase 2 and Phase 3 given the cost-benefit.  Our economy and lives can't go back to 80% normal without airplane travel, its too essential to too many things, there are common sense precautions you can take, and its actually very easy to contract trace if there are outbreaks on planes.

I’m not saying limit it at all, there’s no way to do so for the reasons you outlined, but I do think doing exactly what you said, formally discouraging nonessential travel should happen.
 

Will people still do so?  Of course.  But many likely won’t.  It allows for a slower roll out than not imo.

[mission27]

Just now, vikesfan89 said:

Then don't go to a theater

The issue is if a bunch of people go to a movie theater and cause a large cluster in your town or city and then you have have incidental contact with these people at work, at a restaurant, at the grocery store, on the subway ,whatever 

Or worse, the cluster explodes and you get another round of healthcare system failure and lockdowns that make all our lives hell again

There need to be some common sense regulations to avoid major outbreaks and healthcare system failure until we are past this threat, but I completely agree we should try as best we can to find ways to let people live their full lives if possible through distancing and cleaning and common sense stuff 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, vikesfan89 said:

Then don't go to a theater

Is there a point to this comment?

If it’s to say it’s an individual choice and has no potential implications on anyone else in their community, I think you’re too far being to catch up at this point.

If you’re simply trying to help me decide, I’m pretty sure the “hard pass” in the post you quoted indicated I’d already made my decision.

[Xenos]

@vikesfan89 and anyone else interesting in Sweden's half measure approach. Read the entire article in the link below.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective

I took the liberty of highlighting things that I thought stood out:

Quote

Sweden has left its schools, gyms, cafes, bars and restaurants open throughout the spread of the pandemic. Instead, the government has urged citizens to act responsibly and follow social distancing guidelines.

Quote

It’s unclear which strategy will ultimately prove most effective, and even experts in Sweden warn it’s too early to draw conclusions. But given the huge economic damage caused by strict lockdowns, the Swedish approach has drawn considerable interest around the world.

Part of that approach relies on having access to one of the world’s best-functioning health-care systems. At no stage did Sweden see a real shortage of medical equipment or hospital capacity, and tents set up as emergency care facilities around the country have mostly remained empty.

Quote

Pomeroy pointed to some Swedish characteristics that may be helping the country deal with the current crisis. More than half of Swedish households are single-person, making social distancing easier to carry out. More people work from home than anywhere else in Europe, and everyone has access to fast Internet, which helps large chunks of the workforce stay productive away from the office.

And while many other countries have introduced strict laws, including hefty fines if people are caught breaching newly minted social-distancing laws, Swedes appear to be following such guidelines without the need for legislation. Trips from Stockholm to Gotland -- a popular vacation destination -- dropped by 96% over the Easter weekend, according to data from the country’s largest mobile operator, Telia Company. And online service Citymapper’s statistics indicate an almost 75% drop in mobility in the capital.

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Xenos

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If it’s to say it’s an individual choice and has no potential implications on anyone else in their community, I think you’re too far being to catch up at this point.

 

2 minutes ago, mission27 said:

The issue is if a bunch of people go to a movie theater and cause a large cluster in your town or city and then you have have incidental contact with these people at work, at a restaurant, at the grocery store, on the subway ,whatever 

Or worse, the cluster explodes and you get another round of healthcare system failure and lockdowns that make all our lives hell again

There need to be some common sense regulations to avoid major outbreaks and healthcare system failure until we are past this threat, but I completely agree we should try as best we can to find ways to let people live their full lives if possible through distancing and cleaning and common sense stuff 

^^^^

[naptownskinsfan]

3 minutes ago, mission27 said:

The issue is if a bunch of people go to a movie theater and cause a large cluster in your town or city and then you have have incidental contact with these people at work, at a restaurant, at the grocery store, on the subway ,whatever 

Or worse, the cluster explodes and you get another round of healthcare system failure and lockdowns that make all our lives hell again

There need to be some common sense regulations to avoid major outbreaks and healthcare system failure until we are past this threat, but I completely agree we should try as best we can to find ways to let people live their full lives if possible through distancing and cleaning and common sense stuff 

Exactly this.  

[vikesfan89]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Is there a point to this comment?

If it’s to say it’s an individual choice and has no potential implications on anyone else in their community, I think you’re too far being to catch up at this point.

If you’re simply trying to help me decide, I’m pretty sure the “hard pass” in the post you quoted indicated I’d already made my decision.

You were talking about yourself not wanting to go to a theater. I'm surprised it's in phase one also but you being scared to do anything until there is a vaccine is beside the point

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, vikesfan89 said:

You were talking about yourself not wanting to go to a theater. I'm surprised it's in phase one also but you being scared to do anything until there is a vaccine is beside the point

What kind of strawman nonsense is this?  

[vikesfan89]

6 minutes ago, mission27 said:

The issue is if a bunch of people go to a movie theater and cause a large cluster in your town or city and then you have have incidental contact with these people at work, at a restaurant, at the grocery store, on the subway ,whatever 

Or worse, the cluster explodes and you get another round of healthcare system failure and lockdowns that make all our lives hell again

There need to be some common sense regulations to avoid major outbreaks and healthcare system failure until we are past this threat, but I completely agree we should try as best we can to find ways to let people live their full lives if possible through distancing and cleaning and common sense stuff 

I get that. I do think there is things they can do to minimize the risk though. 

[mission27]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I’m not saying limit it at all, there’s no way to do so for the reasons you outlined, but I do think doing exactly what you said, formally discouraging nonessential travel should happen.
 

Will people still do so?  Of course.  But many likely won’t.  It allows for a slower roll out than not imo.

There has to be a balance though, airplane travel is a critical part of many people's work and lives and formally discouraging 'non-essential' travel indefinitely puts these people in a very bad spot.  Hotels and airlines are not going to operate critical infrastructure if everyone is being encouraged to stay home and people are going to feel stuck between a rock and a hard place of wanting to live their lives vs. not being ostracized for ignoring guidelines.  The economic impact of no travel or tourism for 18 months alone would be massive.  Grounding non-essential travel alone wipes out a huge % of GDP and puts a lot of people out of work.

Personally, I think encouraging or requiring people to wear face masks in the airport and on planes, other distancing and cleaning measures airlines have put in place, not letting sick people fly, telling older and vulnerable people to reconsider travel and aggressive testing and tracing are probably the right way to go.  Some people will choose not to fly but many people will decide to take the risk because they have places to be in order to live their lives.

At the end of the day almost all travel is non-essential to one degree or another.  You could hold that meeting over the phone, skip that wedding or funeral, go another month without seeing a fiance or girlfriend, not meet up with your friend or not take that vacation.  At some point people need to be allowed to live their lives.

[vikesfan89]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

What kind of strawman nonsense is this?  

At some point there has to be some individual responsibility

[Xenos]

Herd immunity and how it relates to Covid 19:

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html?fbclid=IwAR3IAIUz_-aoiNYN8ZrRaTXD-xIODQsuTLzmr7NOp8jOJ0JsQmVgKVS5LPI

Quote

What will it take to achieve herd immunity with SARS-CoV-2?

As with any other infection, there are two ways to achieve herd immunity: A large proportion of the population either gets infected or gets a protective vaccine. Based on early estimates of this virus’s infectiousness, we will likely need at least 70% of the population to be immune to have herd protection.

 

Quote

Why is getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 to “get it over with” not a good idea?

With some other diseases, such as chickenpox before the varicella vaccine was developed, people sometimes exposed themselves intentionally as a way of achieving immunity. For less severe diseases, this approach might be reasonable. But the situation for SARS-CoV-2 is very different: COVID-19 carries a much higher risk of severe disease and even death.

The death rate for COVID-19 is unknown, but current data suggest it is 10 times higher than for the flu. It’s higher still among vulnerable groups like the elderly and people with weakened immune systems. Even if the same number of people ultimately get infected with SARS-CoV-2, it’s best to space those infections over time to avoid overwhelming our doctors and hospitals. Quicker is not always better, as we have seen in previous epidemics with high mortality rates, such as the 1918 Flu pandemic.

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, vikesfan89 said:

At some point there has to be some individual responsibility

Individual responsibility is all well and good, but these decisions impact more than the individual, hence the discussion.

If people acted responsibly we wouldn’t have needed stay at home orders and closing of businesses, but I would have thought my now it would be clear that many don’t act responsibly, even if you or I would.