Case count != actual risk of death or permanent injury. You have to be in a high risk group.
I wish we'd evaluate actual risk rather than perceived.
I wish we'd evaluate actual risk rather than perceived.
Seven people died. This isn't some hypothetical where people are acting like there's risk where there isn't; it's a story of seven real, living, breathing humans passing away.
I'm becoming more and more callus about the whole thing and beginning to think we just need to adjust our expectations and accept that people die.
I was told recently that my town is in terrible shape and the hospitals are nearly overwhelmed. Listening further, I learned that "nearly overwhelmed" meant we had capacity for two or three people to be really sick with Coronavirus.
If we need to decimate our economy because only two or three people can be really sick at once, then that is the wrong trade-off in my opinion.
Would you believe it if I told you that not fighting the virus has an even bigger toll on the economy? Imagine if we'd aggressively addressed this problem back in March, how much less economic impact would have resulted. But then, as now, we wanted to "protect the economy" and avoid restrictions as long as possible. But this time the strategy will work? I have trouble believing that.
Europe had about the strictest lockdown you can imagine and their economy isn't exactly peaches and cream right now.
And they have spiking case counts just like the US right now.
Um, no. No, we didn't. The lockdown in Europe (which was different in every single different country in Europe) was sloppy in the extreme. You shouldn't be looking at Europe as an example of a good way to deal with the virus and protect the economy, you should instead look at South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia.
Lockdowns should be early and hard, until there are no unknown cases left in the population (that is, all cases have been tracked down and isolated, and there are no new surprise infections popping up). The earlier and harder the lockdown, the lower the number of deaths, the sooner the virus is eradicated, and the quicker the economy can go back to making money.
I think the best comparison to draw is China and New Zealand. They have the strictest lockdowns you can imagine and the virus has been completely contained in those countries. Whole cities are locked down after just a few cases. China has been limiting and disinfecting frozen food imports as it is one of the few remaining vectors the virus has been reentering the country. As far as I understand, their economies and daily life have been saved, but it comes at a huge cost to individual freedom, a cost that North America or Europe would never accept. There is no point in imagining Chinese disease control measures in America. It's beyond the realm of possibility. We need other solutions.
The spring lockdown made sense, in that we didn't really have much information. At this point, we have a bunch of other tools that we aren't using, because people have decided that doing anything is somehow the equivalent of a strict lockdown.
The hypothetical was "Imagine if we had addressed the problem in March?"
We did in fact lock the country down for several months. People seem quick to forget it for political reasons.
No we didn't. What state or city could you not travel to? Where were you confined to your house and forbidden from going outdoors?
We closed schools, some businesses & public attractions like beaches in some places (not that there weren't still huge crowds on beaches in many places), but we did not "lock the country down." Everyone was basically free to go outside, socialize, and travel wherever they pleased.
I agree we know much more about the virus now and should be tailoring our mitigation efforts accordingly.
I would say that in general we are failing on that front however.
The 'lockdown' such as it was, was a significant measure, but it apparently was also in many minds all we needed to do.
What lead to this recent spike, in your opinion?
"peaches and cream" it's a global pandemic, I don't think "peaches and cream" is on the table right now. What we need is to survive to have peaches and cream another day, and that takes discipline and PERSONAL SACRIFICE not everyone whining and moaning about how they can't just pretend nothing is going on and do everything as normal, as some people seem so desperate to do. I weep for how spoiled and entitled our society is, living in the lap of luxury but still complaining.
Yes, I pay extra for grocery delivery or pickup, only order at places that do curbside or occasionally delivery, ordered a lot more than normal on Amazon and avoided public transit because yes, I can afford it. Would you rather I increase the population on the bus, in the grocery store and in restaurants even though I don't need to? Would you rather I keep the delivery fee I'd otherwise pay to my grocer & have them not employ extra people right now?
Yes, anyone who can afford to should be ordering pickup, delivery, etc. because it is less circulation of people and therefor reduces spread of the virus. This is the responsible thing to do. Less people circulating means less virus, and this is good for everyone, rich and poor alike. Not to mention all my extra spending on delivery directly from my butcher, grocer, etc. is injecting more money into my local economy and creating more opportunities for employment in the service sector which is currently being savaged by the pandemic.
I am sympathetic to your frustration, but I don't understand your lashing out at me over it. Do you want to share what frustrates you about this? Or hell, go ahead and give me advice if you want: What do you think I should be doing differently, in your opinion?
Great news! As a collective we will survive this just fine no matter what happens.
Individually some people won't be so lucky.
Coronavirus is a tragedy, but it is far from an existential threat.
Your lack of empathy for your fellow humans is staggering. A day may come when tragedy strikes your family, I hope you are shown more empathy than you are choosing to extend to others here.
To be pedantic, I would disagree that "everyone has made sacrifices" this year. To make a sacrifice implies giving up something one wants voluntarily. If I rob you that's not a sacrifice, you had no choice.
There are clearly a ton of people who are unwilling to "voluntarily give up" anything, and they've given things up only when forced to, i.e. by restaurant or school closures. There are many more who make vague gestures towards responsible behavior but refuse to do anything that would incur any actual inconvenience.
I wish it were true that everyone has made sacrifices, but I'm afraid we haven't achieved that level of civic responsibility, not by a mile.
What lead to this recent spike, in your opinion?
The virus is seasonal just like the flu would be my guess.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/world/coronavirus-covid-1...
over & out
Heck, even the UK isn't a single country with a single policy; we've had on-and-off lockdowns and nightlife restrictions all over the place.
Absolutely not.
Instead of me, why not listen instead to Dr. Michael Osterholm, PhD MPH, "an American epidemiologist, regents professor, and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota."
His podcast is here: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-osterholm-update-c... give it a listen and let me know what you think!
Also, the word for "cruel disregard" is callous.
The economy goes up and down. It's a fact of life. Why worry about it?
If they cared about "diseases of despair" they wouldn't continue to support paltry minimum wages, lack of social safety net, no universal medicine, constant tax breaks at the expense of the budget, etc.
They didn't care about "diseases of despair" in 2008 either. It's simply a bad faith argument.
In the grand scheme of "the economy", my portfolio is up something like 8% for the year last time I checked. My job is stable.
In the locality of "the economy", I have heard multiple businesses in my area say that they are barely hanging on by a thread and will be forced to close permanently if the state forces them to shut down again.
People might not be dying from the shutdowns, but it sure is an uneven load we're asking people to carry. Particularly from this high pulpit of HN, where we nearly all have cushy tech jobs where we don't have to interact with anyone to get paid.
Seems like a perfect opportunity for the government to continue supporting people. Perhaps some taxes on your high pulpit would do some good.
But heaven forbid we do that - because the real answer isn't "oh people die in a bad economy." It's "I'm unwilling to support my fellow americans in a proper way, I'd rather them risk their lives instead of providing some support during difficult times."
e.g. "my taxes!". It's a bad faith argument. The economy has been bad before and we never cared about the poor then.
The science is clear that the risk of COVID morbidity and mortality is not evenly distributed. There could be more than one good way to manage this risk and keep our healthcare system functioning. As we start distributing the vaccine, we are going to have a great opportunity to mitigate a large portion of the risk for some people, while accepting a lower risk for others as the price to pay for getting back to normal as soon as possible. We make these kinds of population risk decisions all the time and no one bats an eye. Simply getting in your car every day and trusting your life to its imperfect safety systems is one example.
Soon we will need to draw that line of what risk we, as a society will accept, and then get on with it.
You have to be in a high risk group for what? To die? As far as I know, while some health conditions or age raise risk of covid death or morbidity, there is no group that is without risk of death, i.e. anyone might die from Covid19. Is that your understanding as well, or do you know of some demographic group that has experienced 0 deaths?
I am happy to grant that the risk is much smaller, but just like the "kids can't get or spread covid" MYTH that people have been grasping to for dear life in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this "only old people die of it" myth needs to be squashed.
For young healthy people, it's true in the same sense that you don't have to worry about getting struck by lightning or attacked by a shark. These things happen, but they're so rare that it's silly to go through your life in constant fear.
besides being incredibly selfish
It is not selfish to consider whether it's possible to protect vulnerable people without demanding that everyone give up their social lives, children's education, and jobs for a year.
just like the "kids can't get or spread covid" MYTH that people have been grasping to for dear life in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary
What evidence? Schools haven't been significant drivers of infection or deaths anywhere in the world. Yes, the risk is not literally zero, but if that's your criterion then you'd never leave your bedroom.
this "only old people die of it" myth needs to be squashed
If everyone had the risk factor of a healthy 30 year old (say, 1 in 10,000 chance of death and 1 in 2500 chance of serious complications), would you still support shutting everything down?