Anthony Fauci says staying closed too long could cause irreparable damage
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
It seems rather obvious that we can certainly "reopen" wide swaths of the economy very quickly if "significant precautions" are taken. The question is, what qualifies as "significant precautions", and how willing are people to implement and deal with those precautions?
I ask because I see simple things like mask wearing to be something that a lot of people seem to have a big problem with, whereas it seems to be something that confers clear benefits while having very little downside aside from some minor discomfort for some people.
If we can't do the little stuff, how are we supposed to do the "significant stuff"?
The approach a lot of places seem to be taking is to forgo "significant precautions" and simply approach reopening as something where, as long as you do it slow enough in a phased approach, maybe things will just turn out fine. As if the virus can be tricked if we're sneaky enough about returning to normal.
I'm someone who was strongly anti-mask (and I still am), but I've softened that stance a bit. People should wear a mask if they want; they should learn how to do it properly; we probably don't have enough evidence yet to compel people to wear mask, but it's not a burdensome requirement so I guess it doesn't matter if it's law; please do remember deaf people often need to see your mouth to communicate.
It's weird how masks in the US are super polarising, and have become signs of political alliance.
But there's genuinely not much evidence that masks worn by members of the public when they're walking about do much to protect them from getting or transmitting the virus. There's a plausible mechanism of action (they trap droplets), but there are also plausible mechanisms of harm (they don't trap that many droplets; they embolden ill people to go outside; the could cause people to reduce their social distancing). In the UK I see a few people wearing masks and every single one of them has done weird things - taken the mask off to cough; taken the mask off to spit(!!!), taken the mask off smoke; left the mask on while speaking on a mobile phone (etc etc).
> The approach a lot of places seem to be taking is to forgo "significant precautions" and simply approach reopening as something where, as long as you do it slow enough in a phased approach, maybe things will just turn out fine. As if the virus can be tricked if we're sneaky enough about returning to normal.
I completely agree. We need a plan to come out of lockdown. That plan needs to include stuff like protecting the very vulnerable, test track and trace programmes to monitor the virus, clear guidance about social distancing in services and workplaces (how are cinemas ever going to re-open?), and it needs to be informed by science of virology and epidemiology. But at the moment (at least in the UK) we've got a less coherent mishmash of unclear advice that no-one can follow.
Is there a faster way?
I’ve also seen signs that some dry cleaning places are carrying them.
Sports online stores (Fans Edge) also selling sports ones.
That said I was able to order 10 from https://radianjeans.com/collections/reusable-mask and they arrived in just under a week.
Etsy can also be quite fast.
Sadly this whole things has turned politically too so now SF is going to stay closed as long as possible and really screw over any small business. I'm really not looking forward to the number of bar and restaurant closures in the next 6 months.
Disagree with me, and I'll get to call you all sorts of bad things.
How can I lose?
Hoover did a ton to stave off the Great Depression, yet it still wasn't enough. Hoovervilles stuck to him even to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville
https://www.cornellcollege.edu/history/courses/stewart/his26...
I beg to differ:
http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&vi...
"We can't stay locked down for such a considerable time that we have irreparable damage and create unintended consequences, including consequences for health" - Fauci
80,000 Missed Cancer Diagnoses in 3 Months:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/930066
The UN's World Food Program says that 130 MILLION more people worldwide could be on the brink of starvation by the end of 2020 due to coronavirus lockdown. They predict that 300,000 could die every day over a 3 month period if people are not able to get the help they need:
https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-chief-warns-hunger-pandemic-cov...
Another source if needed: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-n-warns-hunger-pandemic...
> California doctors say they've seen more deaths from suicide than coronavirus since lockdowns
> "We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/california-doctors-s...
Another source: https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-duri...
The best explanation of lockdown vs no lockdown was this one - If the coronavirus lockdown leads to a fall in GDP of more than 6.4 per cent more years of life will be lost due to recession than will be gained through beating the virus:
Elective surgeries haven't happened since March despite empty beds. People with crucial surgeries like hip replacement, fractures etc are all suffering because they can't get surgeries. And delaying surgeries often means the condition gets worse.
fewer than last year I mean. There is nothing wrong in the town.
On the other hand, if we re-open and then see a return to doubling the number of cases every 3-4 days... what then? Will people go back on lockdown?
It depends. People with the means to do so will weigh the consequences and decide for themselves. Like, I’ll be limiting my physical contact with my parents and aunts/uncles for quite a few more months whichever way this goes, I expect. I’ll probably not be eating at restaurants, though I may partake in dinner parties with very close friends instead. Voluntary social distancing but not as strictly as the lockdown.
Generally, if we can put the right structures in place to give everyone the ability to reduce their exposure at their choice, a lockdown isn’t necessary. Seriously: if you and anyone you care about could live decently without human contact, then we wouldn’t need to force a lockdown on anybody else.
We’ll never get there fully — humans are social animals and many will weigh the value seeing a select group of family/friends regularly greater than the risk of disease. But there’s so much room for decreasing R without lockdown (I.e. in a non-compulsory way) that we haven’t explored yet. Obvious ones include some form of UBI so that people aren’t forced into high-risk jobs. Or subsidies to organizations based on how much they decrease transmission associated with their practices (e.g. curbside pickup for retail, sanitizing warehouse/store surfaces and testing employees regularly, subsidizing safer local transit (biking, scooters — just not busses), etc).
I think one of our larger mistakes in handling this is embracing mandatory lockdown as the be-all end-all solution. It’s not a long-term solution. It risks building serious animosity among the classes of people who feel deprived from opportunity as a result of it, and generally there’s no telling what compliance will look like after 4 months, 6 months, or a reopening followed by another lockdown. We have to find ways of reducing the lockdown while replacing its benefits with other tools that have fewer negative impacts on society.
Doesn't this ignore the idea of viral spread? I mean, the nurses of the elderly come home to their "voluntary" lockdown, and the young mailmail delivers mail to boomer parents. Many people carry and spread the disease without knowing they have it.