queen_annes_revenge wrote: Because things like this not only bring out the regular cretins, but also often brings out the idiot in people who are usually quite rational. The media doesn't help with their sensationalist fear mongering. It makes people crazy. That's why you get idiots shouting out of car windows at people who are out and about.
Must be an Anglo phenomenom , or once again we are isolated but neither our printpress nor our Television News were what you'd call fearmongering.
Infact even our Boulevard papers were calm for it more or less.
Right now I think there's an element of not wanting minor changes in infection rates or reduction in the virus's potential to get taken too far resulting in a reduction in peoples isolation and social distancing.
Much like how early "young people are not as much at risk" translated too "young are immune go forth and party" that many took to be the interpretation.
That said its also so new that its hard to really pin patterns of behaviour and infection rates on it. They can only go by proxy of previous diseases and make theories on what might be the case. Also reductions are all well and good, but vulnerable groups will still be highly at risk from infection. So its not as if it makes it safe to return to normal.
Voss wrote: But I really dislike seeing nurses & etc in scrubs on public transportation. I at least want the illusion that the scrubs are clean, and they're not going to be after a bus/metro ride. I saw it a lot in Boston (and a lot of smoking nurses on the sidewalks outside hospitals, which just... ) Do the hospitals not provide staff lockers anymore?
They do, but they don't provide the time to change into them. Some nurses sued a while back under the FLSA due to the time it takes to change into and out of their scrubs every shift (15 minutes, twice a day) - complicated by inadequate facilities in the case, if I recall.
I don't know that case has been decided, but I know Amazon contractors sued over having to pass through security on the way out (30-45 minute waits for the employees), and lost, under the theory that they weren't hired to wait in security lines, so aren't entitled to pay for doing it (despite the fact the employer mandated the security check, controlled how long they took via staffing, and would fire anyone who chose not to pass through them).
So, if my choice is my employer stealing 130 hours of work from me per year, or riding the subway in scrubs...
" I am one of the few executives experienced in ALL aspects of drug development from molecule creation and hypothesis generation,” Shkreli wrote"
just need that guy who used to post about the size of asian genitals to return and it really be the end times indeed.
All we need now is a Zimmerman angle on this COVID-19 business.
He's got to be freaking out right about now. So many suspicious-looking people running around wearing masks and he can't shoot them...
Everyone does look like they are either about to go elbows deep into a surgery or they are on their way to rob a bank. The different flavors of masks are all over the place. I received a tutorial to my work email on how to wrap a shirt around my head if I don’t have a mask.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Because things like this not only bring out the regular cretins, but also often brings out the idiot in people who are usually quite rational. The media doesn't help with their sensationalist fear mongering. It makes people crazy. That's why you get idiots shouting out of car windows at people who are out and about.
Assuming your flag is correct I have no idea what media you're talking about other than the usual suspects who, quite frankly, cater to a demographic that could best be described as regular cretins. I think the media has struggled to accurately report on a lot of the Covid-19 crisis because they generally suck at any kind of scientific reporting but none of the mainstream media I've seen has been anywhere near fear mongering or sensationalist.
true, I may have been overly critical there and also tarring many with one brush. I think it is more to do with not explaining things properly. the whole deaths with vs deaths from never gets explained, and makes the numbers seem a lot scarier than the actual reality.
Just in case your faith in humanity had a few sparks dancing around during all this.
Old news in uk where ambulances were vandalized and nhs workers were told to hide id badges as they were targeted to get free food certain companies offered for nhs workers. Pathetic. Get paid pittances(health service workers rarely get decent pay compared to what they do), risk health and even life and are in enchanced danger of robbery. And getting abused by daily mail readers in uk for added fun.
Yeah but at least we're clapping... That balances everything out.
I'm sure it's appreciated... but better pay and conditions, reinvestment in the GP surgeries and getting rid of the competitive market would be a better token of thanks.
But relax. This will all be forgotten at the next general election when the electorate will be more concerned about how much tax they might pay.
MarkNorfolk wrote: I
But relax. This will all be forgotten at the next general election when the electorate will be more concerned about how much tax they might pay.
What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
MarkNorfolk wrote: I
But relax. This will all be forgotten at the next general election when the electorate will be more concerned about how much tax they might pay.
Spoiler:
all in it together though yeah ?
Tell me, 10'000 £ for a laptop and headset?
Like, things they mostlikely allready own?
That seems a bit daft now doesn't it?
Wait, they allready get 26'000 / year for just office related things?
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
I believe he wants to get rid of the laws and quotas that are there to simulate "market reality " for the NHS.
Just a minor note but the money is for "MPs and their departments for office supplies" not just the MP themseles. Of course this will vary; some departments might be tiny one or two person setups; others might be far more extensive.
So without numbers on how many people there are, on average in an MP department its hard to judge how wild the numbers are.
Of course the main thrust is that surely doctors deserve better pay and standards before we concern ourselves with the department of parks and recreations ability to monitor water sprinklers at home.
how many people who earn a minimum of £80k a year and regularly use email/similar do not have a computer of some sort already ?
Or hadn't already purchased one from their existing £26k pe annum of expenses.
10k extra is farcical.
from the article :
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), the expenses regulator, also relaxed rules on the evidence MPs must provide and suspended the 90-day window for claims.
The credit limit on MPs’ payment cards has been increased to £10,000, and they can now spend up to £5,000 in a single transaction.
One MP said he expected that the money would mostly be used to assist staff, as the majority of MPs would already have home offices.
However, there is nothing in the rules to prevent MPs claiming it for themselves.
The news follows the announcement last month of a £20 million increase in MPs’ staffing budgets. MPs received an extra £25,000 for their staff after a parliamentary review suggested that they were underpaid compared with workers in other sectors. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, said at the time that his staff were “struggling to cope”.
Ipsa was created in response to the parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009, after which several rules were introduced to limit MPs’ claims. These included a ban on the purchase of second homes and on claims for home refurbishments. Last year, however, a Sunday Times investigation revealed that MPs claimed 22 per cent more in expenses than they did in 2009. In 2017-18, the total claimed by MPs rose to a record £116 million.
what could possibly be suspicious here then eh ?
I'm sure it'll all be well observed and scrutinsed
my 92 year old grandad has been taken to live with my parents for the moment, they checked his answer phone back at his home and he'd had 6 or 7 calls regarding either donations to the NHS or how he'd be seen outside at the wrong time and needed to pay a fine.
Home front. Been home most the week sick. Not allergies since I have a high tolerance. I don't show 4 of 6 symptoms to get tested for the C-19. Fever hasn't gone over a 100 but in 99 range. Tylonal X 4 total of 12 during waking hrs so that might keeping it in check. Cough yes, fever, yes, body freaking ache like I've the flu,
Doing the two week admin self quarantine. I cannot take out a Movement Control team at work.....now to plan a Nurgle Space Marines.....and Night Lords...
Correction...CDC shows three symptoms. Got them all except the main indicator of the feeling of drowning by laying on my back
The last time I changed my car, I enquired after an ad that looked a little too good, but given the vehicle had high mileage wasn't beyond the realms of plausibility.
The now classic "I'm out of the country, but for a deposit I'll get someone to deliver it to you on 7 days approval" type scam then ensued, which, if you're unfamiliar, results in no car and the total loss of whatever deposit they persuade you to part with. I reported the ad to Auto Trader, Action Fraud and even managed to find the legitimate dealer (the car was genuinely for sale, just not by the guy advertising it) to give him a heads up.
Much to my surprise, I got a letter from the Met Police about 6 months later telling me that my evidence had been part of the prosecution that had got a guy successfully convicted.
So, while I'm sure it's a minority of cases, it's worth reporting because you never know how important your information can turn out to be.
On occasion. But even when they don’t, the fact people fall victim is literally my bread and butter.
I know I keep mentioning my career, but not being specific, but if you can make an educated guess as to why (and the where) hopefully you can appreciate why!
The rules and laws are mostly in the consumer’s favour.
I think the main problem for a lot of the scams is that they are very cheap to setup. A round-robin email to millions of emails the only thing you need is a single database of emails - after that the rest of the infrastructure you need is a computer, email address and a telephone.
A lot of the other scams are the same, they are cheap; whilst the potential rewards from even one person who falls into the net, are big.
Simple, cheap and I'd wager pretty quick to setup. It makes them an idea kind of scam to run.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs.
They reinstated the CPT from the Roosevelt.
They did? Haven't seen any reports on this, makes me wonder what the "real story" here is considering SECNAVs resignation.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs..
Quicker service, choice of medical care, better quality care etc.
Get well soon Jihadin. Don't delay to seek medical aid.
Sooo...
Greece: Week 3 of lockdown. The government has decreed a stipend of 800E for employees who work in businesses that have been affected by the quarantine measures. The Businesses themselves can make other claims.
As of today churches will perform rites with closed doors and only the priests inside. The rite will be broadcasted by state TV.
Still up to today 1995 total sick, 86 total dead and 73 new cases today. Lockdown seems to work as the rate of cases has decreased from a median of 100 the week before.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs..
Quicker service, choice of medical care, better quality care etc.
Private health insurance gives you none of those things.
Besides the wait times being the same or longer, you also have the time you need to check with your insurance before hand. If you get gut shot, and your intestines spill out on the floor, you better check with your insurance that the emergency room is in your network before you get in that very expensive ambulance.
You think you get a better choice with private care? Not if you want to stay financially solvent. You’ll see the (overworked and under compensated) in network doctor(‘s PA) or no one.
Prepare to distrust everything your doctor says because quality of care will take a backseat to what your doctor can and cannot bill you your insurance. You can’t have the test you really need, but you can have four very expensive treatments you don’t need. You’re welcome.
So among all the doom and gloom, I’m sure we all have reasons to be thankful. I’d like to rattle off a few.
Please note, none of these are bragging, just positives out of a great many negatives. Little things I’m now thankful for.
1. This time last year, Mum’s cancer turned terminal. Had this happened then, I wouldn’t have been able to go see her in her last few months.
2. Having lived on my own, hundreds of miles from my family for 15, maybe 16 years, the isolation factor isn’t overly affecting me,
3. No daily commute. Working from home is an absolute boon for me. Yes I miss my colleagues and the camaraderie, but I’ve hours to myself I’ve not had for 8.5 years.
4. Lucky enough that my season ticket ran out 31 March. As we’re looking at another three months minimum (just my workplace) of the current arrangement, that’s nearly £1,000 back in my pocket, which is far from unwelcome.
Now granted, my examples are kind of selfish. But importantly, they don’t have a negative impact on anyone else, just benefits I can enjoy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So among all the doom and gloom, I’m sure we all have reasons to be thankful. I’d like to rattle off a few.
Please note, none of these are bragging, just positives out of a great many negatives. Little things I’m now thankful for.
1. This time last year, Mum’s cancer turned terminal. Had this happened then, I wouldn’t have been able to go see her in her last few months.
2. Having lived on my own, hundreds of miles from my family for 15, maybe 16 years, the isolation factor isn’t overly affecting me,
3. No daily commute. Working from home is an absolute boon for me. Yes I miss my colleagues and the camaraderie, but I’ve hours to myself I’ve not had for 8.5 years.
4. Lucky enough that my season ticket ran out 31 March. As we’re looking at another three months minimum (just my workplace) of the current arrangement, that’s nearly £1,000 back in my pocket, which is far from unwelcome.
Now granted, my examples are kind of selfish. But importantly, they don’t have a negative impact on anyone else, just benefits I can enjoy.
Anyone else got Little Grafefuls?
I can add to this. My job involves a lot of travel near the NYC area, and travel time can suck. My wife was concerned I might end up doing something local and miss the birth of my child due to travel. Covid-19 killed rush hour so I was home with no concerns when we had to go in. On top of that, I have paid paternity leave that equals what I would have made while furloughed (roughly 3/5 my normal salary), so I’m getting equal pay for ten weeks to stay home with my new son. I got my tax info in early and already got the federal stuff back in time to completely pay off a credit card before this hit AND got a new one right before hand as well. So financially “safe” and home spending time with my family.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
You are aware that nations with various forms of socialized health care generally pay less in taxes than Americans pay in combined taxes AND health care costs - in some cases, a LOT less - right?
I do have private health care, through work. And it’s pretty effing great. Like, top shelf (not like that, dirty boy) cover.
Yet I’m perfectly happy to continue funding the NHS.
Why?
I owe my safe birth, my education, the stitching of my arm after going through a window, my appendix operation and who knows what else? To. The. State. I didn’t pay for them then. Others did. What sort of cretin would I be if I now turned round and said ‘thanks for the stitches, witches, But I’m Alright, Jack’.
Indeed, I’d go so far as to say everyone that can afford a private health plan of any measure should do so. Relieve the NHS of as much burden as you can. Take yourself out the queue, get the treatment, and let people with No Option move up that queue.
It couldn't really have come at a better time for me. I'm working from home anyway as teaching had finished (only had to miss two seminars whilst we got online teaching up and running, and I was still paid for them) and my girlfriend is on maternity leave. Neither of our earnings has been impacted at all. Our son is still young enough that the lack of social interaction with other people isn't the end of the world.
It's still rubbish and I'm still worried for people, obviously. I expect us both to miss our excavating seasons in the summer (we're both archaeologists and both work in the Near East), we lost a holiday, and it'll probably be a long time until we can visit her parents in Turkey, but all in it's probably landed as well as it could.
Possible extra grateful for you? And indeed my God Sprog (who I love dearly)
This is challenging the social norms we grew up with. End of the day, does it really matter if you see folk over video or in the flesh, now it’s readily possible? Or does it simply matter you see and interact with folk?
Well, thanks to lock-down and the nice weather I have been able to reclaim my garden, waging war on brambles ivy and overgrown trees. Wouldn't have been able to do so much without this time off.
Well, MDG, I would have to say the positives so far (at least a couple of them):
1. Normally for my job I commute to a ferry via car, ferry across the Puget Sound, then walk to my building for a combined total of a 3.5 hour commute per day. Working from home I don't have to do any of that and have no commute and a ton more free time.
2. We got my son (15) a force feedback wheel for his Xbox back at the beginning of March and, having wanted one myself for so long, got me one a couple of weeks ago. We now get to race each other in Project Cars 2 and that has been a blast. I mean, I absolutely destroy him but hes not bad for someone who has never driven before, just needs to get his pedal finesse down.
3. Get to spend a lot more time with the wife since she is working from home as well. I know a lot of people we talk to seem to be unable to spend a lot of time around their spouse without getting into a lot of arguments and such, but we both are home bodies and haven't had any of those issues.
4. It has been absolutely fantastic to see how people are changing and adapting to the new temporary norm across all ages. Seeing family members using various meeting apps and churches going to live broadcasting and NASCAR going to the iRacing sim races (and it being broadcast on national TV!) is really cool. Had this happened even 15 years ago I am sure it would feel much more lonely.
My key thing through all of this is to stay positive and to spread as much positivity as I can. Even to the folks that are constantly negative and being Debbie Downers all the time I try to spread a little cheer
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I forgot to add, this year I have started a few pepper plants and plan to make hot sauce over the summer. Its the first time I have tried to make hot sauce so it could be awesome or a complete disaster.. Fortunately I already had all the gardening stuff so if its a disaster I am not too deep financially (24$ for seeds)
Mainly things seem to be going ok in Canada - Knock on wood. The curve is actually bending down in BC but there's some concerns about Ontario and you can actually see some fear in Doug Ford's eyes. Main concern now is all the snowbirds flying north of the boarder from the US. They're old and I find old people aren't taking this thing seriously.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs..
Quicker service, choice of medical care, better quality care etc.
How? Insurance doesn't determine the speed or quality of care, thats determined purely by the medical staff/healthcare provider and has nothing to do with your insurance carrier. Nobody has ever once in my life said "oh you have Cigna/Kaiser Permanente/Metlife/etc? Here, cut to the front of the line, would you like a single malt and a cigar while we take your blood pressure?" In fact, its repeatedly slowed down my speed of service, particularly in the last year. I ended up having to push back a surgery to correct a deviated septum not once but on 3 separate occasions, from Feb 2019 to September 2019, precisely because my insurance carrier would not approve the surgery even though I got 3 separate ENTs and a cardiologist to all say that I was more or less at extreme risk of dropping dead in my sleep due to a blocked nasal passageway which was somehow triggering a cardiac arrhythmia. Oh, and when that surgery was finally cleared, I was given the excellent "choice" of not getting it at all or paying $3k out of pocket because my insurer didn't consider it medically necessary. While probably a more egregious example of things, I can't tell you how many times I've had to go without prescription meds for several days (in a few cases several weeks) because insurance carriers needed doctors to prove medical necessity or decided that the prescription was too expensive and that it would be more cost effective for them to proscribe an alternative set of meds instead - in some cases to the obvious detriment of my quality of care as instead of taking a single medication as originally proscribed, I was taking 2 or 3 different ones to achieve similar results.
As for choice - I don't know how the NHS works (i.e. are you restricted to using only certain providers or going to certain hospitals, etc?), but as far as the American healthcare system, I have very little choice - my choice is dictated entirely by my insurance carrier, which is in turn dictated by my employer. For the current year my employer decided to switch carriers for cost savings, in turn I can no longer see the family doctor I've been seeing for the past 10+ years, nor can I continue seeing the ENT specialist I've been working with for the past 2 years to get my sleep apnea issue under control unless I want to pay ~$700 out of pocket per visit. How is that "choice"?
As someone who has private health insurance, you seem to not really understand what it is you're asking for.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson "has been moved this evening from intensive care back to the ward, where he will receive close monitoring during the early phase of his recovery," Downing Street said in a statement Thursday.
“He is in extremely good spirits,” the statement added.
Some background: The 55-year-old was taken to London's St. Thomas' Hospital on Sunday because he was displaying "persistent" symptoms 10 days after testing positive for the virus.
Johnson's condition worsened on Monday, and he was taken to the ICU. On Tuesday, Downing Street said he was in a stable condition.
He did not require mechanical or invasive ventilation and did not have pneumonia, according to Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who is deputizing for the Prime Minister.
...which will only potentially pan out IF, and only IF, this 'good news' and a general flattening of the curve doesn't lead to Social Distancing being lessened and people trying to 'return to normal' too soon!
Alpharius wrote: ...which will only potentially pan out IF, and only IF, this 'good news' and a general flattening of the curve doesn't lead to Social Distancing being lessened and people trying to 'return to normal' too soon!
That does not sound like a particularly American thing to do at all...
As of today churches will perform rites with closed doors and only the priests inside. The rite will be broadcasted by state TV.
Here one priest took initiave and did that one on his own rather than just keep locked down. Poor guy being less tech savvy managed to toggle in twitch filter that automatically put in glasses and beard over his face Sermon turned quite hilarious turn thanks to that ;-)
Actually wasn't that bad look though. He should make that his personal trademark and stand out with that
In other news from Finland pace of infections is dropping and evening between regions so the exceptional reasons for blockade of Uusimaa by police and army looks to be lifted on initially planned date 19.4. Freedom to move inside Finland is protected by constitution(wasn't messed with even during world war 2) that needs exceptionally good justification and as need is going away law requires it to be lifted.
Rest of restrictions were extended to 13.5 for now but as that's also around estimated peak not expecting them to be lifted then either. Current view is gradual loosening up more toward end of may after peak has gone.
There is some talk about mandatory face masks to be worn but just one tiny little practical issue...you can't find those on stores. How you can mandate to wear something you can't get your hands on?
Benefit of putting in restrictions in early. Though Finland was still bit of a slow(those winter sport centers should have been ordered closed down sooner...).
German and Austria are also looking to start lifting restrictions gradually soonish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: st positives out of a great many negatives. Little things I’m now thankful for.
1. This time last year, Mum’s cancer turned terminal. Had this happened then, I wouldn’t have been able to go see her in her last few months.
2. Having lived on my own, hundreds of miles from my family for 15, maybe 16 years, the isolation factor isn’t overly affecting me,
3. No daily commute. Working from home is an absolute boon for me. Yes I miss my colleagues and the camaraderie, but I’ve hours to myself I’ve not had for 8.5 years.
4. Lucky enough that my season ticket ran out 31 March. As we’re looking at another three months minimum (just my workplace) of the current arrangement, that’s nearly £1,000 back in my pocket, which is far from unwelcome.
Luckily 1 hasn't affected me. Sorry to hear on that.
I live on my own in town with nearly zero friends(my social circle is bit odd. I have basically none where I live, plenty where I work and plenty on where I was born where I was born that I regularly visit...I spend so little time in my home town no time to meet people ) so the isolation is affecting me bit by not being able to meet my relatives. Particularly my nieces I miss dearly(the 2 year old is bugging me already when do I come. Never been this long away from her).
3 is same for me. I get to sleep longer and less time wasted getting home. Yey!
4...I bought ticket for 2.3-9.4 and lost most of it due to that. Good thing I didn't get much higher as even if restrictions are starting to get lifted here late may/early june as is current talks that would still be annoyingly lot to be spent. I rarely buy longer than 2 months because you can't get refund on any condition. Bloody monopoly companies. Only thing is if you have 6+ month pass you can put it for pause once for a month but of course if I use that pause for corona no summer holiday pause...
Grumble grumble. Bloody monopoly companies. No need to be customer friendly.
Boss is also considering that we take summer holiday on may which makes sense. Normally it would be july but likely Finland is busy recovering from Corona so bad time to take holidays so makes sense and likely very few companies do holidays normally this year. Postponing toward fall seems to be popular idea but our boss is thinking may. And as I don't have money to go to Japan this year(plus corona lockdowns) it's actually fine for me. No particular plans for holiday so when it's held is 100% irrelevant for me. I could start it right now and wouldn't bother me.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs..
Quicker service, choice of medical care, better quality care etc.
How? Insurance doesn't determine the speed or quality of care, thats determined purely by the medical staff/healthcare provider and has nothing to do with your insurance carrier. Nobody has ever once in my life said "oh you have Cigna/Kaiser Permanente/Metlife/etc? Here, cut to the front of the line, would you like a single malt and a cigar while we take your blood pressure?" In fact, its repeatedly slowed down my speed of service, particularly in the last year. I ended up having to push back a surgery to correct a deviated septum not once but on 3 separate occasions, from Feb 2019 to September 2019, precisely because my insurance carrier would not approve the surgery even though I got 3 separate ENTs and a cardiologist to all say that I was more or less at extreme risk of dropping dead in my sleep due to a blocked nasal passageway which was somehow triggering a cardiac arrhythmia. Oh, and when that surgery was finally cleared, I was given the excellent "choice" of not getting it at all or paying $3k out of pocket because my insurer didn't consider it medically necessary. While probably a more egregious example of things, I can't tell you how many times I've had to go without prescription meds for several days (in a few cases several weeks) because insurance carriers needed doctors to prove medical necessity or decided that the prescription was too expensive and that it would be more cost effective for them to proscribe an alternative set of meds instead - in some cases to the obvious detriment of my quality of care as instead of taking a single medication as originally proscribed, I was taking 2 or 3 different ones to achieve similar results.
As for choice - I don't know how the NHS works (i.e. are you restricted to using only certain providers or going to certain hospitals, etc?), but as far as the American healthcare system, I have very little choice - my choice is dictated entirely by my insurance carrier, which is in turn dictated by my employer. For the current year my employer decided to switch carriers for cost savings, in turn I can no longer see the family doctor I've been seeing for the past 10+ years, nor can I continue seeing the ENT specialist I've been working with for the past 2 years to get my sleep apnea issue under control unless I want to pay ~$700 out of pocket per visit. How is that "choice"?
As someone who has private health insurance, you seem to not really understand what it is you're asking for.
I think the UK system is different to that in the US, because it is optional rather than required if you want to be able to access treatment. I don't have much experience with it, but those I know who have it say its much better than potentially having long waits with the NHS
queen_annes_revenge wrote: What do you mean competitive market? do you mean private healthcare? I think there should be an opt out option for those willing and able to buy private health insurance. I'd happily buy private for my family if it meant a slightly lower tax rate for myself.
What would be the advantage of buying private health insurance in exchange for a lower tax rate? You might get lower taxes, sure, but you'd almost assuredly pay more for your premiums than you would save from reducing your tax rate, let alone your additional out-of-pocket costs..
Quicker service, choice of medical care, better quality care etc.
How? Insurance doesn't determine the speed or quality of care, thats determined purely by the medical staff/healthcare provider and has nothing to do with your insurance carrier. Nobody has ever once in my life said "oh you have Cigna/Kaiser Permanente/Metlife/etc? Here, cut to the front of the line, would you like a single malt and a cigar while we take your blood pressure?" In fact, its repeatedly slowed down my speed of service, particularly in the last year. I ended up having to push back a surgery to correct a deviated septum not once but on 3 separate occasions, from Feb 2019 to September 2019, precisely because my insurance carrier would not approve the surgery even though I got 3 separate ENTs and a cardiologist to all say that I was more or less at extreme risk of dropping dead in my sleep due to a blocked nasal passageway which was somehow triggering a cardiac arrhythmia. Oh, and when that surgery was finally cleared, I was given the excellent "choice" of not getting it at all or paying $3k out of pocket because my insurer didn't consider it medically necessary. While probably a more egregious example of things, I can't tell you how many times I've had to go without prescription meds for several days (in a few cases several weeks) because insurance carriers needed doctors to prove medical necessity or decided that the prescription was too expensive and that it would be more cost effective for them to proscribe an alternative set of meds instead - in some cases to the obvious detriment of my quality of care as instead of taking a single medication as originally proscribed, I was taking 2 or 3 different ones to achieve similar results.
As for choice - I don't know how the NHS works (i.e. are you restricted to using only certain providers or going to certain hospitals, etc?), but as far as the American healthcare system, I have very little choice - my choice is dictated entirely by my insurance carrier, which is in turn dictated by my employer. For the current year my employer decided to switch carriers for cost savings, in turn I can no longer see the family doctor I've been seeing for the past 10+ years, nor can I continue seeing the ENT specialist I've been working with for the past 2 years to get my sleep apnea issue under control unless I want to pay ~$700 out of pocket per visit. How is that "choice"?
As someone who has private health insurance, you seem to not really understand what it is you're asking for.
I think the UK system is different to that in the US, because it is optional rather than required if you want to be able to access treatment. I don't have much experience with it, but those I know who have it say its much better than potentially having long waits with the NHS
Worth being sure the people you're talking about are getting healthcare provided by insurers and not just paying privately for specific treatments. The latter is certainly great in the UK but very expensive, the former does suffer most of the problems of US healthcare (and you'd still being going to NHS institutions for emergency care in most circumstances).
I think the trick to making private health insurance work and actually be good is to have an NHS-like service to set the minimum standard. For people to then actually want private insurance it has to actually provide signifcantly better care than the free option.
Or to have the law mandate what an insurer must compensate and what are optional premiums (ie, the Dutch system). But then, our health insurance companies are a strange hybrid of private-but-not-really-for-profit-but-kinda-for-profit-anyway. Yes, it's confusing.
In any case, little sunshines in this:
-I'm still working, and currently in an as-yet relatively corona-free country. And the longer I stay away, the more money I make.
Downside is that I'm away from my wife and the wee 'uns for much longer than I'd like.
And as someone who routinely is away from home for weeks on end, no, seeing people on a screen is no substitue for actual interaction - at least when it comes to kids and the missus. There's a reason long-distance relationships very rarely work.
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
Still quite iffy imo, still it's opt in. So long there is no force behind it, why not?
It's data might also help, of course if propperly anonymisised general science?
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
Still quite iffy imo, still it's opt in. So long there is no force behind it, why not?
It's data might also help, of course if propperly anonymisised general science?
Similar systems have been a major part of why control has been so good in South Korea so it seems remiss not to develop one. That said, it's explicitly a coronavirus infected person tracing app. No one is gonna be downloading not knowing that it's going to track their whereabouts. I'm very uncomfortable with apps doing this surreptitiously, but when it's the entire purpose and you can't not know? Who cares?
Gitzbitah wrote: And Sunetra Gupta has no evidence for this optimistic theory.
That would be why the article's title is "A New Study Suggests...".
As of yet they've done no testing. This is a serious issue, and choosing to ignore evidence from reputable bodies, like the WHO, which I believe you've classed as a 'terrorist organization' earlier in this thread while championing theories that 'it's not so bad' which have done no testing is just irresponsible.
Technically, I said IF there are less than 50,000 deaths worldwide, the WHO should be considered a terrorist organization on behalf of the significant amount of economic and social damage to multiple countries done on behalf of them presenting this disease as a pandemic that will kill millions. Obviously, if they are right and the damage does turn out to be that bad, the fact that we'll see a recession with unemployment higher than the Great Depression might be a little more justified.
When deaths blitz past 50k in the next week or two, what's your plan to move these goalposts?
It took 6 days.
Has Sqorgar ever come back in this thread? By tonight it'll have done another 50k in 7 days. WHO still the real villains?
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
For now.
Did you read it? the app will 'let you know' when you've been outside too long...I mean, for one, I'm a functioning human. I don't need an electronic device to tell me things like that.'
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
For now.
Did you read it? the app will 'let you know' when you've been outside too long...I mean, for one, I'm a functioning human. I don't need an electronic device to tell me things like that.'
Literally any state that prides itself in democratic and liberal values can NOT enforce it without getting massive public backlash just due to how they derive legitimacy in government.
So no, never. except of course you are speaking about iliberal democracies like Hungary.
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
For now.
Did you read it? the app will 'let you know' when you've been outside too long...I mean, for one, I'm a functioning human. I don't need an electronic device to tell me things like that.'
Literally any state that prides itself in democratic and liberal values can NOT enforce it without getting massive public backlash just due to how they derive legitimacy in government.
So no, never. except of course you are speaking about iliberal democracies like Hungary.
Yes, in theory, but thats how they do it, gradually, bit by bit. get people used to something, then increase, rinse and repeat.
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
For now.
Did you read it? the app will 'let you know' when you've been outside too long...I mean, for one, I'm a functioning human. I don't need an electronic device to tell me things like that.'
Just like dozens of other apps that tell you that you haven't walked enough, have been looking at the screen too much, or whatever. Apps you have to elect to use.
What's your problem here? People shouldn't be allowed to choose to use a thing? That's pretty out of recent character!
People can choose to use that app if they want, absolutely. It's when it starts to be taken advantage of by the authorities, which granted is not there yet, but it's possible.. Its a government backed app used by government agencies.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: People can choose to use that app if they want, absolutely. It's when it starts to be taken advantage of by the authorities, which granted is not there yet, but it's possible.. Its a government backed app used by government agencies.
So what, the only thing this shows is that you have too low influence over your government.
It shows nothing about the integrity of the government in question.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I mean, for one, I'm a functioning human. I don't need an electronic device to tell me things like that.'
Many functioning humans, quite literally, Pay to have their electronic devices do this for them.
The one being advertised at the moment that makes me laugh / weep for humanity is the app that tells you how much your pet has walked today. In the ad the dog goes to the owner with its lead wanting a walk, she looks at the app and says "no dog, you've walked enough today."
queen_annes_revenge wrote: People can choose to use that app if they want, absolutely. It's when it starts to be taken advantage of by the authorities, which granted is not there yet, but it's possible.. Its a government backed app used by government agencies.
Being taken advantage of by the authorities is one of its explicit purposes. If using it was mandated, I'm with you, but it isn't (and couldn't be). I wouldn't download it. Problem solved!
Insofar as collecting spatial data from smartphones, I'm far more concerned about private developers selling it on with their ability to do so shrouded in metres-long conditions documents. Which they do relentlessly.
One positive thing this has had on me is it gave me final push needed to try something new. Specifically oil painting. With lot more time at my hands figured another hobby besides miniatures would be nice.
It actually is also making me put price of miniatures in context...Oil painting isn't cheapest hobby out there either!
But I have had fun so far. Have made 1 practice piece, then the real one which will go to mother as mother's day present(https://i.imgur.com/n36PJk4.jpg) and now finished 3rd(https://i.imgur.com/n36PJk4.jpg). Dunno what to do with it. Give to dad?-) Plenty to practice still but at least I'm having fun with these.
Have any of you guys started new hobbies with the situation?
It's an opt-in app with well publicised functions that will recieve heavy scrutiny. It's really not the stasi.
For now.
Did you read it? the app will 'let you know' when you've been outside too long...I mean, for one, I'm a functioning human. I don't need an electronic device to tell me things like that.'
Literally any state that prides itself in democratic and liberal values can NOT enforce it without getting massive public backlash just due to how they derive legitimacy in government.
So no, never. except of course you are speaking about iliberal democracies like Hungary.
Yes, in theory, but thats how they do it, gradually, bit by bit. get people used to something, then increase, rinse and repeat.
So we got used to apps tracking us without telling us, now we get used to apps tracking us when they do tel us, next we will get used to apps asking permission to track us! The horror!
Typical of him. For him only correct thing here is ignore whole corona. Just let it spread without anything because his freedom to do what he wants, including infecting others with his actions, is all that matters.
I get the logic - there's still people going out to "Oh I'll just grab a few stamps/quick can of paint/etc..." esp with supermarkets which sell a whole range of products, not just food.
I suspect its more about clamping down on those "little trips" rather than your big weekly shop where you happen to put a few DVD's into the bag.
Of course its a bit too late since by the time you're at the till heading home you've already done any damage/been exposed. There are also other, less invasive ways to control/influence without using the police and police time. Notices on the supermarket windows; shop staff refusing sale of select goods if bought only on their own; adverts on the TV/shopping advice etc..
There's means without making a policeman stand on the end of the shopping line.
This is a bit linked to a post corona world I suppose, but I just keep thinking, imagine if this virus was far more deadly and infectious, be it by air. Genuinely scary stuff, especially if there was a slow response which I’d argue nearly every country has had except those countries with recent history of similar illnesses like South Korea etc.
I also wonder how the response will be long term in regards to relations with China. There’s no doubt there was a cover up at first, and a slow response by them in their own country....
In terms of economic impact it could be absolutely huge globally if bitter infighting and punishment tariffs are utilised wholesale. It felt like we were close to a new war earlier in the year, we may be even closer now, or if not direct war, a new Cold War era could certainly be on the cards.
In reference to potential police measures, yeah, they probably won’t be all that effective, but if it stops just one person being an idiot then maybe it would be worth it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: I get the logic - there's still people going out to "Oh I'll just grab a few stamps/quick can of paint/etc..." esp with supermarkets which sell a whole range of products, not just food.
I suspect its more about clamping down on those "little trips" rather than your big weekly shop where you happen to put a few DVD's into the bag.
Of course its a bit too late since by the time you're at the till heading home you've already done any damage/been exposed. There are also other, less invasive ways to control/influence without using the police and police time. Notices on the supermarket windows; shop staff refusing sale of select goods if bought only on their own; adverts on the TV/shopping advice etc..
There's means without making a policeman stand on the end of the shopping line.
My mother works at a large Tesco that has an upstairs with all the entertainment, electronics etc. They simple closed the upstairs... It’s really not that hard to close an aisle. They could restrict loads of product sales if they wanted too... It would cause uproar but why keep the alcohol aisles open, why are cigarette counters still open?
In fact they don’t need to close the aisles, they just need to stop stocking those shelves, maybe stock them with even more essentials instead. It really should be just ultimate no frills currently in all shops.
I wouldn't begrudge someone picking up a new movie, game or book if they are already doing a grocery shop. Not everyone has a pile of unpainted models to ward of the cabin fever But going to the shops specifically for something that's not food or essential is irresponsible.
tneva82 wrote: Typical of him. For him only correct thing here is ignore whole corona. Just let it spread without anything because his freedom to do what he wants, including infecting others with his actions, is all that matters.
Bore off with your straw men mate. I've been civil so far but I'm bored of them now. I get it, you're clearly OK with your police overreaching in Finland, cool. I'm not, so unless you're going to engage with something other than useless logical fallacies, maybe just don't bother?
The risk is implied in going to the shop at all not whether whilst you were there you picked up a DVD or a naan bread.
Haha yeah this guy is one of the worst culprits. Aparantly he used to work for greater Manchester aswell, which might explain their poor performance of late.
Overread wrote: I get the logic - there's still people going out to "Oh I'll just grab a few stamps/quick can of paint/etc..." esp with supermarkets which sell a whole range of products, not just food.
I suspect its more about clamping down on those "little trips" rather than your big weekly shop where you happen to put a few DVD's into the bag.
Of course its a bit too late since by the time you're at the till heading home you've already done any damage/been exposed. There are also other, less invasive ways to control/influence without using the police and police time. Notices on the supermarket windows; shop staff refusing sale of select goods if bought only on their own; adverts on the TV/shopping advice etc..
There's means without making a policeman stand on the end of the shopping line.
My mother works at a large Tesco that has an upstairs with all the entertainment, electronics etc. They simple closed the upstairs... It’s really not that hard to close an aisle. They could restrict loads of product sales if they wanted too... It would cause uproar but why keep the alcohol aisles open, why are cigarette counters still open?
In fact they don’t need to close the aisles, they just need to stop stocking those shelves, maybe stock them with even more essentials instead. It really should be just ultimate no frills currently in all shops.
Why? So people have nothing fun to do while they're stuck inside? What difference does it make what people buy? It really is no one else's business.
And no one is going to close alcohol or tobacco services, that would be idiotic. That's a huge swathe of their revenue gone like that.
I can’t wait until this virus is over and done with. There’s one thing that’s really getting to me atm; my grandfather died in January, and it would have been his and my grandmothers 60th wedding anniversary a couple of weeks back. My dad asked me to paint them as a present for that, but the virus has cancelled everything, and my gran has yet to see the painting yet. And I’m really worried about her during all this too.
Maybe I could take the time out to continue working on it, provided that I jack in this stupid job. Originally they were squinting, but my dad asked me to paint in their eyes, which I did, but I’m not sure I’ve done such a good job: https://i.imgur.com/OLbrdV0.jpg
Well the courts have handed down the first sentences for those using threats/attempts to infect others with corona virus,
6 months & 8 months for the lovely chaps that threated to infect police who were are attempting to arrest them, and 1 year for the Man (edit: I initially said woman but either I misheard or later reports corrected it) with a suspected infection who deliberately blew on 2 nurses
hopefully the swift response means we see fewer idiots trying to exploit this
And you guessed right too! It was supposed to be oil but on the advice of the art shop, I went with acrylic instead. Speaking of which, I hope they’re doing ok too. I’ve been going to that shop since I was a kid.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well the courts have handed down the first sentences for those using threats/attempts to infect others with corona virus,
6 months & 8 months for the lovely chaps that threated to infect police who were are attempting to arrest them, and 1 year for the woman with a suspected infection who deliberately blew on 2 nurses
hopefully the swift response means we see fewer idiots trying to exploit this
And you guessed right too! It was supposed to be oil but on the advice of the art shop, I went with acrylic instead. Speaking of which, I hope they’re doing ok too. I’ve been going to that shop since I was a kid.
Oils are a more difficult medium to work with. I've never done an oil canvas, but since I started using them on minis I think I could probably have a go.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well the courts have handed down the first sentences for those using threats/attempts to infect others with corona virus,
6 months & 8 months for the lovely chaps that threated to infect police who were are attempting to arrest them, and 1 year for the woman with a suspected infection who deliberately blew on 2 nurses
hopefully the swift response means we see fewer idiots trying to exploit this
Rightly so.
Ours Chuckleheads are getting charged with Terrorist (insert charge type) and whatever else fit.
Like the Nutjoob that spit/sneeze on 35K worth of food. Same type of charge with a guy that did the same in Walmart..
So how's Italy doing? Government control North Mafia Control South?
The worst effect of this virus is the paranoid hate.
Yes there are deaths.
Yes there are going to be empty streets when this is over.
Yes the countries economy is done for.
But this thread alone is proving the divide, paranoia and hate in communities.
Yes that's always been common on dakka.
But outside of dakka...
ValentineGames wrote: The worst effect of this virus is the paranoid hate.
Yes there are deaths.
Yes there are going to be empty streets when this is over.
Yes the countries economy is done for.
But this thread alone is proving the divide, paranoia and hate in communities.
Yes that's always been common on dakka.
But outside of dakka...
In other news, A particular religious group that likes to go door to door to "attract new members" sent me a letter. Hurrah for social distancing I guess. I do think it's super weird that they decided to send me a letter. Hopefully they don't send anymore.
The gibberish in the letter said something to the effect of "will the suffering ever end".
I'd send a reply but I don't want to encourage any more unsolicited communication.
Also I can't not think about Pinhead from Hell raiser when thinking of a reply.
Just saw a video by Dr. Ezek Emanuel saying that a 12 to 18 month lock-down is the time table we should be looking at. I dont disagree with the strategy working the way he says it would. Basically don't leave your house until we have a vaccine in 18 month...Yeah that would be the least possible deaths. What I disagree with is even the notion that locking down the public for 12 months to a year should even be entertained. In the long run a 12-18 month international lockdown kills more people than you'd save from Covid deaths. International famine from food shortages due to lost production / inevitable conflicts arising from such things / suicides from social depression.
Any sort lockdown short of that isn't going to save many lives at all and without vaccine the numbers will look the same. Eventually nearly everyone will be exposed to the virus. So I think the initial 1 month lockdown to give health services a chance to catch up on required materials and learn how to treat the patient was good. Now It is time now to get back to work. 12 - 18 lockdown is so absurd. Clearly that is not happening.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Nine hundred and eighty confirmed deaths in the UK today. Bloody hell.
So pretty much 9000 now.
It's gonna get allot worse once Easter weekend is over.
I'm guessing 11,000 to 12,000 Tuesday morning.
And still nobody will give a gak.
In 12-18 months when a vaccine is available, it would seem that at the current rate of infection, herd immunity will have developed.
And locking people in their homes for a year? It’s only been a few weeks and already people are getting stir crazy. Not going to happen.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Nine hundred and eighty confirmed deaths in the UK today. Bloody hell.
And the peak isn't even here. And the numbers released aren't even actually that accurate so there could be more later(initial days it was 80% too little per day in first report compared to what that day had casualties after more accurate numbers came out...Something about how they count things that the first number is quickly calculated but doesn't cover all)
Just read about a private jet being sent back to the UK from France , 10 people on board non of them even British by the sounds of it ....lockdowns going well
Well on your average day in the US about 9k people die on average. From the data I have seen 92% of those people are dying of natural causes (old age). Worst day for corona virus was about 1000. So you are still a lot more likely to die of natural causes than corona virus. Not trying to belittle the tragedy - it is ofc terrible that huge amounts of people are dying from this. Data is pretty worthless without perspective.
1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.
I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.
And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally
Overread wrote: 1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.
I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.
And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally
Don't disagree with any of that. What we are seeing right now is the result of the virus spreading unimpeded. The Virus has about a 2 week incubation period and can survive on surfaces in 2-3 day and it takes about 3+ days to kill it's victims. You will see the number of deaths per day start to fall now if lockdown is effective.
How effective is lockdown anyways with people still congregating in grocery stores/ gas stations/ and doing "essential" work. Realistically the lock down does not reduce total deaths in the long run a society like the UK or the USA. All it does is spread them out and reduce the rate at which people get infected. This could be effective if we had a vaccine right around the corner but it is 12 months away at the absolute earliest. The planet can not shut down for that long. Gotta be realistic even the most grim projections from coronavirus (which honestly can't be accurate because we aren't even close to knowing the total number of people already infected with the virus) pale in comparison a global shutdown causing WW3. WW3 could potentially end life on earth...I'd really like to avoid that one.
And that's the pattern I think the UK government is accepting and working with. Even if the economy could cope with a years' shut down the population wouldn't easily cope. Especially with how casually highly mobile we've all grown up in. There isn't a generation alive that hasn't enjoyed easy transport and unimpeded movement over the country.
A vaccine is years away; the whole program is about not prevention but smoothing the curve. About keeping things within health systems capabilities and where it does overwhelm at least trying to reduce it. Plus it stretches things out, giving more time for more training, equipment, understanding etc...
UK certainly seems to be going down that pathway. Likely with several small re-activations of the country for a few weeks then another lockdown.
Xenomancers wrote: Well on your average day in the US about 9k people die on average. From the data I have seen 92% of those people are dying of natural causes (old age). Worst day for corona virus was about 1000. So you are still a lot more likely to die of natural causes than corona virus. Not trying to belittle the tragedy - it is ofc terrible that huge amounts of people are dying from this. Data is pretty worthless without perspective.
Nearly 2000 people died yesterday of coronavirus. Today's deaths will likely top that.
Overread wrote: 1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.
I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.
And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally
And in US about 1.7k dies per day to heart attack. That's the biggest killer. So 1k vs 1.7k of US's(lot bigger country)'s biggest killer.
It's not that insignificant number. And likely lot lower than truth(they don't include those who died to corona outside hospital for example. Died in old people's care house? Don't count)
US btw just couple hundred deaths from taking #1 spot in number of deaths from Italy. And Italy rate has been dropping. Well US is lot bigger so to be expected but wonder how bad it will get. Around 102k + 5 times what italy still suffers and they are about same related to population. On equal response US should be less than Italy related to population count,
...but you can't really spread and/or catch a heart attack, right?
There's a reason why 'social distancing' is working and helping a lot here, but eventually people are going to have to get back out there to work too - it's a razor's edge of a balancing act...
Alpharius wrote: ...but you can't really spread and/or catch a heart attack, right?
There's a reason why 'social distancing' is working and helping a lot here, but eventually people are going to have to get back out there to work too - it's a razor's edge of a balancing act...
Yes but point is in US daily death rate Corona is already equaling or exceeding #1 killer. So much for harmless flu like some people dismiss it as. It is killing more in US than previous #1 killer per day.
They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.
In order to effectively open up areas in the USA, we're really going to have to flatten curves in the hot spots, limit travel , expand rapid testing, be able to contact trace, and just overall have a real, actual plan.
We're getting closer to that, but we're not that close yet.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.
I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.
Although a vaccine may be 2 years away, real treatments could be sooner. And even months of additional study of this bug will help. Lots of ways the distancing is helping.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.
I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.
Though no evidence how good protection having recovered from virus provides.
I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook
The longer you stretch things out the more chance that new drugs can be deployed to reduce the serverity. Furthermore staff become more aware of the signs and symptoms of things going bad and the facilities get more funding for ventilators and the like. So the longer you can stretch out the infection curve the better it is in the long run.
The disaster is a run-away infection rate that just grows and grows as it blazes through the population; which basically totally overwhelms medical services and results in many who would have survived, being killed.
Of course a run-away infection rate would end things pretty fast; give it a month or two and the nation would get back to operation because it would have burned through most of them. However it would result in a huge spike of deaths and many of them would be needless deaths simply the result of not being able to see a doctor or use a ventilator etc....
A vaccine is a very long way off right now, but closer to now we've been hearing about several drugs that can reduce the recovery period and lessen symptoms. Reducing the recovery period is a big thing, if you can deploy the drug you can either use it on vulnerable groups who can get increased survival from a faster recovery; and/or you can deploy it to larger swathes of the population so that the recovery rate speeds up and the burden on the health service reduces.
There are positives in the mix, but right now most nations are in the grim period of increasing infections.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook
The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.
Ghool wrote: In 12-18 months when a vaccine is available, it would seem that at the current rate of infection, herd immunity will have developed.
And locking people in their homes for a year? It’s only been a few weeks and already people are getting stir crazy. Not going to happen.
agreed. that was my response when Trudeau mentioned this could go on for a year and a half, however, I think it's not going to be going as bad for the next year, rather that until a vaccine is going to be developed some things will be a bit differant.
My uncle’s mother died today. That wasn’t corona related, but her funeral is going to be affected by this, right in the middle of our surge week. I feel awful for him.
If they started opening parts of Britain I'd suggest leaving cities closed off completely. Leave London, Birmingham, Manchester etc etc etc in a complete and total lock down.
Those are the places of biggest risk and highest foot traffic.
Retain a larger distancing.
BAN GLOVES FOR FRICK SAKE THEY ARE DEADLY!!!
Keep public toilets closed.
Keep store number limits.
Keep pubs, restaurants, cinemas closed.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.
I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.
Though no evidence how good protection having recovered from virus provides.
Well, that's not strictly true. Covid 19 is just a Coronavirus. Coronavirises in general are common and fairly well understood. While one has to allow room for exceptions and corner cases, the assumption that a certain amount of immunity is gained by those who recover is a well founded one.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook
The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.
So why are they doing the antibody test and making it like if you've had it you'll be OK? I think the 'reinfections' are likely caused by false positives during testing.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook
The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.
If you're going to make claims like that, please source it.
That would pretty much be a first in medical history. The entire reason viruses are called Novel is because no one is out there with antibodies in their system. The only way people won't produce antibodies for this is if their immune system is compromised.
Even Dr. Fauci says that it's likely people will develop antibodies that probably will last about a year or two. With Coronaviruses, historically the worse the virus the longer the body produces antibodies for, and other than the transmission rates, Covid19 is (relatively) weak compared to things like SARs, or Swine Flu.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook
The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.
If you're going to make claims like that, please source it.
Honestly doesn't really back up you initial claim, and the main thrust of *mild infection provokes mild response, so might be vulnerable to stronger infection" is probably just simple common sense.
The point is, people getting reinfected has been a thing since it was still largely confined to Wuhan. No new information has really come forward to change the thinking since that time. Yes, reinfection has possibly happened, but then it could be misdiagnosis, premature discharge, unknown contributory issues, mild immune response being overwhelmed by a much heavier viral load etc etc.
The fact is all people can do is play percentages, and the historic information suggests that assuming immunity is the right call. I mean, people can only get chicken pox once, except sometimes people get it again, but nobody is particularly worried about chicken pox reinfection rates, because, percentage wise, it isn't worth too much concern.
Alpharius wrote: ...which will only potentially pan out IF, and only IF, this 'good news' and a general flattening of the curve doesn't lead to Social Distancing being lessened and people trying to 'return to normal' too soon!
That does not sound like a particularly American thing to do at all...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: People are worried enough to get shingle shots. Anyway, I hope this Coronavirus is easy to develop an immunity to.
Some people are. Just like some people are concerned about Covid reinfection. That there are people holding a contrary opinion shouldn't detract from following the statistically probable path.
gorgon wrote: Although a vaccine may be 2 years away, real treatments could be sooner. And even months of additional study of this bug will help. Lots of ways the distancing is helping.
This is a good point and I should have added it into my list - having effective treatments, therapeutics, etc. will be key in getting back to normal because, as you say, a vaccine is still a long ways off...
On the testing front - a doctor my relative works with tested negative on a "2 day" test result, then positive on a "12 day" test result. I'm guessing the additional test result is due to their being a doctor and having contact with many patients. Unfortunately, they resumed work between the two results
Heck of a lot better to err on the side of caution
It's two tests of the same sample - from my limited exposure to lab work, "culture" tests with a smaller concentration (i.e. if you're not very sick when tested) can come up negative, then positive if given more time. So, he likely didn't have a very large viral load when taking the test.
Anyway, just wanted to share it as a fyi! I did work on a medical diagnostic, and obviously they're not going to share raw data with the public, but there's often a lot of grey area where you have to make a judgement call on pos/neg, and you establish a minimum criteria for calling a positive.
Obviously, he didn't meet that criteria in the first result, but turns out he was positive on the follow up...
Edit:
It looks like estimates are that up to 1/3 of people may be getting false negatives:
So basically, the medical advice is to act as if you tested positive (i.e. finish the full length of self quarantine) even if you test negative, if you've experienced any symptoms. Just wanted to share that here - again, better to err on the side of caution, particularly if the rate truly is 1-in-3 false negatives, or anything close to that.
So basically, everyone should self-quarantine now, for 14 days (I guess that would nip this thing quicker!)...or is it everyone with any of the symptoms on the COVID-19 list should self-quarantine for 14 days, regardless of test result?
Regarding the test, my reading of those articles is that it's anyone with symptoms and/or likely exposure (although obviously everyone should be social distancing). There's enough uncertainty in the results that people shouldn't take a negative result as a clean bill of health.
So yeah... better testing would obviously be very helpful lol. From reading some other articles just now, it looks like quite a few are being developed - since many medical diagnostic companies have basically dropped everything to work on this.
The U.S. should be compared to all of Europe, though, if looking at simply totals. Things obviously vary massively by region in both places (New York or Italy vs. elsewhere in the region, for example). Thankfully the projections are coming down somewhat with all the social distancing...
If you look whole europe vs US then US should be losing like 2-3 times as much per day and still be off easy...Spain, Italy, France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Swiss and Netherlands amount to about 4k plus other countries.
US with just 2000 deaths with population over 5 times say Italy which is worst suffering but even at worst was around 1000 deaths shows US is suffering lot less than there was potential. Especially with the extremely slow and half assed response US had to begin with. Suspiciously low numbers.
Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
The WHO issued warnings about the virus in early January, based purely on the fact it was a coronavirus like SARS and MERS, even before it was confirmed to be so dangerous.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
EU started sooner and the US got less surprised in that sense. But the US hotspot of NY seems no less intense in deaths when you think about the fact that its only 8 mil people and they get as many deaths as entire European countries with larger populations per day. If its spreading as it did in the EU it could get much worse for the US, as it did in the EU, but that all really depends.
Italy got it spreading before it was really noticed and from there to the EU and NY. But since then measures have been put in place which means that NY might bear the brunt of the US.
mekkiah wrote: Another 917 deaths reported in the uk, worth remembering these figures are only the deaths in hospitals so the real figure will be higher still
No surprises. Looking out the window all I've seen all done is cars racing, idiots walking up and down to and from shop with booze. Parties in next doors garden with everyone in neighbourhood going round.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
EU started sooner and the US got less surprised in that sense.
Why?
Doesn't the US have tons of international air traffic? Aren't our tourists everywhere? I don't get how the US of all places could be timelapsed behind the rest of the world. I seem to remember the US lagging behind other countries in testing Feb/ first half of March, but surely we haven't been affected later?
My opinion is US got the virus from multiple sources by, at the very latest, early January. I really want to know what everyone else does.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
EU started sooner and the US got less surprised in that sense. But the US hotspot of NY seems no less intense in deaths when you think about the fact that its only 8 mil people and they get as many deaths as entire European countries with larger populations per day. If its spreading as it did in the EU it could get much worse for the US, as it did in the EU, but that all really depends.
Italy got it spreading before it was really noticed and from there to the EU and NY. But since then measures have been put in place which means that NY might bear the brunt of the US.
Unfortunately it doesn't look that way. Thanks to the way the states work, responses varied wildly- California shut down earlier than New York, and so is doing better. Some central states refused to institute any sort of lockdown at all. Ohio locked up tight way early, so is getting off fairly light so far (but that may be changing, they've hit 5000+ cases, but that's a third of some of the neighboring states), but Philadelphia, Detroit and New Orleans are starting to show growth that suggests the next major hot spots. And unfortunately this is a pattern that can repeat over and over again in different areas and different (or the same) cities. And once restrictions start relaxing, it only takes a few cases to start a new fire, or restart the cycle in a city like NYC or LA.
At this point its already everywhere- the lightest hit states are Wyoming and Alaska, and they've already got 200+ cases each. It may end up spreading really fast in some of the central states, despite a relative lack of big cities, because they resisted doing any sort of lockdowns at all, thinking they were safe for being rural and people's rights and whatever.
It won't exist. Period. Unless you want it to cost 100.000$ a pop. Literally every medical/chemical test out there designed to detect minute amounts of anything has uncertainty one way or another - if you want it to detect better, you increase rate of false positives, if you want it to ignore these you get a lot of false negatives. In fact, whole branch of chemists making tests does nothing but tries to establish which way the test errs and how much.
To put things in perspective, one cubic millimeter of virus, divided evenly, has enough virus loads to infect anywhere from 100 million to one billion people. We should be praising the fact we can detect it at all.
tneva82 wrote: If you look whole europe vs US then US should be losing like 2-3 times as much per day and still be off easy...Spain, Italy, France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Swiss and Netherlands amount to about 4k plus other countries.
US with just 2000 deaths with population over 5 times say Italy which is worst suffering but even at worst was around 1000 deaths shows US is suffering lot less than there was potential. Especially with the extremely slow and half assed response US had to begin with. Suspiciously low numbers.
USA has population density of 33/km^2. Netherlands has 422/km^2, so do other heavily hit EU regions like north Italy (or Switzerland, where 3/4 of country is just naked rock). For perspective, New York state has 159/km^2. If EU seems 'bad', it's because they are fighting it in environment much worse than even NY, though NY itself makes EU pale in comparison. If USA had EU population density, every single state would look like New York, and half of them would be even worse due to abysmal healthcare systems. As it is, the low density will slow down virus a bit, but will do little to stop it.
complex57 wrote: Some sources predict our (USA) peak could come as early as April 12, 2020
What the models ignore, is that it's Easter. Given how many fundamentalists managed to secure no restriction for churches as """essential services""" (and to make it even more depressing, a lot of these issued calls to congregate in tightly packed crowds under various threats or honeyed lies) I am kind of expecting new explosion of cases in two weeks. I wish you were right, but that ain't gonna happen, IMO, the math does not take massive sabotage events into account.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
EU started sooner and the US got less surprised in that sense.
Why?
Doesn't the US have tons of international air traffic? Aren't our tourists everywhere? I don't get how the US of all places could be timelapsed behind the rest of the world. I seem to remember the US lagging behind other countries in testing Feb/ first half of March, but surely we haven't been affected later?
My opinion is US got the virus from multiple sources by, at the very latest, early January. I really want to know what everyone else does.
It does, but the main vector of infection from China spread in Washington and California. Those states took quick action once the spread was noted and managed to clamp down on the more horrible peaking you see in NY. The NY strain was mostly traced back to the spread from Italy and in both cases seems to have started spreading earlier than noticed. This is why it managed to get so bad in part, besides a lack of testing it was also spreading earlier than anticipated with a clamp down.
Its just that slowdown between California and Washington starting to peak in regards to China and then several weeks later NY in regards to Italy. So in that sense the US is 'behind' Europe in their larger peak coming out of NY. A lot more Europeans got infected in northern Italy so it spread faster once they travelled back, but the US got it subsequently from Europeans and Americans travelling back to the US, through NY.
Italy got completely blindsided by how much it had already spread around the north. A lot of the death toll is a consequence of that, while other countries and NY had a bit more of an advanced warning thanks to how Italy was unfolding.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
EU started sooner and the US got less surprised in that sense. But the US hotspot of NY seems no less intense in deaths when you think about the fact that its only 8 mil people and they get as many deaths as entire European countries with larger populations per day. If its spreading as it did in the EU it could get much worse for the US, as it did in the EU, but that all really depends.
Italy got it spreading before it was really noticed and from there to the EU and NY. But since then measures have been put in place which means that NY might bear the brunt of the US.
Unfortunately it doesn't look that way. Thanks to the way the states work, responses varied wildly- California shut down earlier than New York, and so is doing better. Some central states refused to institute any sort of lockdown at all. Ohio locked up tight way early, so is getting off fairly light so far (but that may be changing, they've hit 5000+ cases, but that's a third of some of the neighboring states), but Philadelphia, Detroit and New Orleans are starting to show growth that suggests the next major hot spots. And unfortunately this is a pattern that can repeat over and over again in different areas and different (or the same) cities. And once restrictions start relaxing, it only takes a few cases to start a new fire, or restart the cycle in a city like NYC or LA.
At this point its already everywhere- the lightest hit states are Wyoming and Alaska, and they've already got 200+ cases each. It may end up spreading really fast in some of the central states, despite a relative lack of big cities, because they resisted doing any sort of lockdowns at all, thinking they were safe for being rural and people's rights and whatever.
Yes, hence the ifs and maybes. I'm not sure why they keep running the numbers down on death tolls when there is still a testing gap and a significant difference in lock down approach with normal flights across the US. It might never get as bad per capita as some European countries, but that is very dependent on the actions that reluctant states will take in the future.
So when we say behind are we talking about time until peak cases then?
And America is further from that then Italy because Italy was basically the worst hit and it can't get much worse for them.
Is that sort of what you're communicating?
Yes, it boils down to build up and peak order, China>Italy>Western Europe>NY and most other states. Italy has hit the peak about last week and is seeing hospitals using less beds again. Western Europe has seen this point in the past few days from what Ive seen in the reporting of numbers. The NY area is expected to peak the upcoming week, so deaths might still shoot up.
That is why you can't easily make a one on one comparison right now, circumstances, preparedness and point in time aren't equal.
Two things NY has going against it is the density and reliance of public transportation. With so many people in one spot, and needing to take the subways/busses to get anywhere, something that spreads like the Corona is just going to get everywhere. It’s just a bad scene.
As someone was mentioning before, we really will not be able to make a call on the US peaking until the end of April, because of Easter. We may have a 'double peak' where the 'natural' one occurs then we get a secondary due to large numbers of people violating social distancing orders to attend Easter services in densely seated, enclosed structures.
The 'US' as a whole won't peak anyway. Different cities and areas will peak at different times regardless of Easter.
LA is already (roughly) at peak, NYC looks to be getting there, but other cities haven't even started skyrocketing yet, and it looks like they will. Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans and Philadelphia are all on slightly different stages, and aren't going to move in tandem with LA, NYC or Washington state.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As someone was mentioning before, we really will not be able to make a call on the US peaking until the end of April, because of Easter. We may have a 'double peak' where the 'natural' one occurs then we get a secondary due to large numbers of people violating social distancing orders to attend Easter services in densely seated, enclosed structures.
USA might not be the only one.
UK saw a spike in people socialising over Mothersday even though it was technically just before full lockdown it was still when Government were telling people not to socialise and for restaurants to be closing etc... It sadly wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people still go out this Easter in the UK even though we are still on full lockdown. Though I'd wager the majority won't, but a significant minority will.
If the USA has some states allowing or even encouraging gatherings then I'd well expect a secondary spike to happen in a few weeks as a direct result. I can see it happening for other countries too; sadly so many people get locked into an attitude that certain things happen at certain times and its very hard to turn them from that viewpoint. Of course at times the will and desire to carry on as if nothing is happening can be a good thing. In war times, eg WWII it was part of the contributing attitude that allows cities to function even whilst under the threat of being bombed. However at a time when direct communal action is the very cause of the core problem (infection spreading); it becomes a negative trait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: The 'US' as a whole won't peak anyway. Different cities and areas will peak at different times regardless of Easter.
That's a very true point. It's hard when you're not part of the USA to really appreciate its size and scale at times like this. Especially when most of the general stats and talk we get tends to speak of the USA as a whole. Then again something like easter could spark multiple spikes at the same time across multiple states. I suspect at the end we might be able to see some general spikes and falls from the combined stats of the USA, however yes it should be that there will be quite marked variation state to state.
Here in my state (Michigan) there is a steadily growing movement on Facebook that is claiming the state government is evil and trying to take all the citizens' freedoms like they are "Jews in WW2 Germany". While I think some of the measures are overly draconian, people are steadily refusing to obey any of the mitigation procedures, ignoring "those stupid masks" and the like. I've heard it from other states, too. Things are going from blaming our governmental leaders for not doing enough, to claims now that they are trying to turn us into prisoners.
I have no doubt that Easter services tomorrow are definitely going to exacerbate the situation, as people are claiming that "the right to peacibly assemble" and the Freedom of Religion of our Constitution overrules social distancing measures.
It's just saddening and more than a bit discouraging when being super vigilant can be overturned by a ton of idiots who either distrust everything or just don't care. I would imagine people who went through the 1918 Pandemic would be severely unimpressed with what's going on compared to what they had to give up to beat the Flu virus then.
Overread wrote: Isn't the USA a bit behind many EU countries in the stage its at? Ergo its at an earlier stage in the curve where things don't look as bad, but where there is (sadly) likely far worse to come. Meanwhile countries like Italy are starting to hit a very slow turning point.
EU started sooner and the US got less surprised in that sense.
Why?
Doesn't the US have tons of international air traffic? Aren't our tourists everywhere? I don't get how the US of all places could be timelapsed behind the rest of the world. I seem to remember the US lagging behind other countries in testing Feb/ first half of March, but surely we haven't been affected later?
My opinion is US got the virus from multiple sources by, at the very latest, early January. I really want to know what everyone else does.
There's a very large Italian-American population in New York City, and many of them retain very close ties with family in 'the old country'.
May not be the whole explanation, but I'd bet it's a strong start.
EDIT: As far as the post-Easter spike goes, it will START two weeks later - so on April 26th. But remember those people will have been out shopping and what-not, circulating the virus and infecting other people. I'd expect the peak to hit two to three weeks later still as geometric progression has it's way with the American population. So early to mid May... give or take.
New York has a lot of strong ties with...just about everywhere, put particularly with Europe, and the Pacific Northwest has a lot of strong ties with a lot of places in Asia.
Alpharius wrote: New York has a lot of strong ties with...just about everywhere, put particularly with Europe, and the Pacific Northwest has a lot of strong ties with a lot of places in Asia.
That's true, but it's the Italian connection that is important here.
AegisGrimm wrote: Here in my state (Michigan) there is a steadily growing movement on Facebook that is claiming the state government is evil and trying to take all the citizens' freedoms like they are "Jews in WW2 Germany". While I think some of the measures are overly draconian, people are steadily refusing to obey any of the mitigation procedures, ignoring "those stupid masks" and the like. I've heard it from other states, too. Things are going from blaming our governmental leaders for not doing enough, to claims now that they are trying to turn us into prisoners.
I have no doubt that Easter services tomorrow are definitely going to exacerbate the situation, as people are claiming that "the right to peacibly assemble" and the Freedom of Religion of our Constitution overrules social distancing measures.
They need a reminder that those rights stop when they run into other people's rights to not die.
This weekend needed a bigger PR campaign. 'How many people did you murder today? Should have stayed home instead' expresses it best.
Very unexpected indeed, take it from someone who lives there. Rarely is Kentucky the one taking the side of sanity when it comes to religious matters.
Exalted.
On another front, a pork processing plant has become the 4th leading hotspot for corona in the US, with many workers infected. I believe this is not as dire as it sounds as if pork is cooked correctly the virus will surely be killed. I am not certain how corona will survive freezing. Anyone here have the info on that?
My church has been doing Facebook Live services for the past few weeks with plenty of the regulars tuned in, so there's no need for people to actually get together right now, Easter or not. Unfortunately some other pastors across America are stubborn. God may protect us, but he still wants us to use our heads!
And I've been seeing some of the alarmist posts about taking away our freedoms too. While some good points have been raised, I think that this is a special situation where suspending a few things is for the greater good [/tau]. I don't actually think the government is going to continue to enact these measures once the threat of the virus has gone away. Maybe I'm woefully naive in thinking this, but...eh.
Just because it would be for the best for everybody to stay home doesn't mean you can violate 2 Constitutional rights as well as a host of settled case law surrounding those rights. Thats far worse than any harm spreading the virus could do.
1) You can't force quarantine on people who haven't tested positive. That violates the Sixth amendment. Quarantine legally requires Due Process be given. IE: The person has to have been tested positive for a disease AND then have a court order to remain in custody.
2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
And I've been seeing some of the alarmist posts about taking away our freedoms too. While some good points have been raised, I think that this is a special situation where suspending a few things is for the greater good [/tau]. I don't actually think the government is going to continue to enact these measures once the threat of the virus has gone away. Maybe I'm woefully naive in thinking this, but...eh.
This would set a precedent that the government can just "declare an emergency" and then proceed to ignore any rights they choose. That is a terrible idea. Its the line of thinking that led to the Japanese Internment Camps in WW2.
Coronavirus is definitely not serious enough that we can excuse the ignoring of basic rights. Having advice that we should shelter in place and avoid unnecessary exposure is fine. But Enforcing that advice is morally unacceptable.
Well actually reading the article it just says that the state will send people a letter.
And since it's been established in law there's no expectation of privacy in a public setting I don't see how gathering the license plate info is an issue either.
But hey, I guess a country that's so jacked on hyper-individualism that telling folks on a sinking ship to get to the lifeboats is "destroying freedom" is surely a country that's going to do well in a pandemic.
It's merely applying the same limitations on religious gatherings as have been implemented on other gatherings. If sporting events, concerts, and the like are dangerous in the current situation then so are religious events. If you start making exceptions in one case people will start asking for them in others.
Grey Templar wrote: [quote=Matt Swain 784835 10769114
Yeah, but that is very very very very illegal.
Just because it would be for the best for everybody to stay home doesn't mean you can violate 2 Constitutional rights as well as a host of settled case law surrounding those rights. Thats far worse than any harm spreading the virus could do.
1) You can't force quarantine on people who haven't tested positive. That violates the Sixth amendment. Quarantine legally requires Due Process be given. IE: The person has to have been tested positive for a disease AND then have a court order to remain in custody.
And I've been seeing some of the alarmist posts about taking away our freedoms too. While some good points have been raised, I think that this is a special situation where suspending a few things is for the greater good [/tau]. I don't actually think the government is going to continue to enact these measures once the threat of the virus has gone away. Maybe I'm woefully naive in thinking this, but...eh.
This would set a precedent that the government can just "declare an emergency" and then proceed to ignore any rights they choose. That is a terrible idea. Its the line of thinking that led to the Japanese Internment Camps in WW2.
Coronavirus is definitely not serious enough that we can excuse the ignoring of basic rights. Having advice that we should shelter in place and avoid unnecessary exposure is fine. But Enforcing that advice is morally unacceptable.
You're barking up the wrong tree trying to point out those things in here mate. People want their illusion of safety too much.
Just because it would be for the best for everybody to stay home doesn't mean you can violate 2 Constitutional rights as well as a host of settled case law surrounding those rights. Thats far worse than any harm spreading the virus could do.
1) You can't force quarantine on people who haven't tested positive. That violates the Sixth amendment. Quarantine legally requires Due Process be given. IE: The person has to have been tested positive for a disease AND then have a court order to remain in custody.
2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
And I've been seeing some of the alarmist posts about taking away our freedoms too. While some good points have been raised, I think that this is a special situation where suspending a few things is for the greater good [/tau]. I don't actually think the government is going to continue to enact these measures once the threat of the virus has gone away. Maybe I'm woefully naive in thinking this, but...eh.
This would set a precedent that the government can just "declare an emergency" and then proceed to ignore any rights they choose. That is a terrible idea. Its the line of thinking that led to the Japanese Internment Camps in WW2.
Coronavirus is definitely not serious enough that we can excuse the ignoring of basic rights. Having advice that we should shelter in place and avoid unnecessary exposure is fine. But Enforcing that advice is morally unacceptable.
Seriously? We had a little things called 9-11 in which ~3,000 americans were killed and we got the patriot act, FISA courts, no knock warrants, unlimited surveillance wiretaps, trials with secret evidence the defense was not allowed to see, detention without trial, or legal council, torture, rendition to foreign countries for torture, etc. and it's still going on.
Within a couple days the covid pandemic will kill 10x more americans than 9-11 did. If temporarily violating the rights of church goers to slow it's spread helps, then lets do it. It's not like these people are being held indefinitely without charges, legal council, family contact, etc. it's not like they're being waterboarded or subject to other forms of torture. They're being told they can't go to church for a few months maybe. They think that violates their rights? Waah waah. They mostly want to force rape victims to go thru with a forced pregnancy. I don't give a if they can't go to church for a few months. Waah waah.
Let's face it, the post 911 patriot act and other acts pretty much rendered the constitution moot anyway. We're dealing with something that probably going to kill at least 20x more americans than 911 did. Close the churches.
"Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.
Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...
In fairness I think some of the "government doing things right" viewpoint links to the whole "well they aren't perfect but trying to oust one government for another at this time would only spell utter confusion and doom".
2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
It doesn't have to violate the free exercise of religion, because even religion is limited in its free exercise depending on what the religion entails. Where the interest of the state clashes with religion, the state takes precedence, such as with polygamy.
Temporarily suspending services in the public interest would probably hold up at the SC, because it is not forbidding the practice of said religion, just the assembly of the congregation for a period of time. Meanwhile services can easily continue in a world that has radio, tv and the internet.
The freedom of assembly is also limited by certain factors where the state trumps personal freedom, such as an immediate threat to public safety, which you could possibly argue pretty well in front of the SC for. As these people might get infected at a church service, which is not essential (being food and medication to survive) and then infect people at essential services such as supermarkets and pharmacies. It just cannot unfairly single out church services, but if everything gets suspended, they are not being unfairly targeted.
Yes the first amendment protects quite a bit, but if push comes to shove the state would probably win in the SC based on precedence in similar cases due to the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.
re that question above (the sane one)
To my understanding corona viruses as a class survive being frozen quite well. Its also, I believe, the standard method for preserving active virus in a lab setting.
This site has helped me get some perspective. They are using the same models used by the White House.
Originally, the projections were that 1-2% of the population would die, then it was 1 - 2 mil, then it was 900k, now it's down to around 60k.
When these models are constructed, they make assumptions about the nature of the virus, the size of the population, medical resources available, and other factors that are known at the time. They adjust them as other factors come into play - changes to any of the previous factors, identification of new therapeutic regimens, implementation of policy to prevent spread, etc.
A few things occur to me:
- The general public does not understand where these numbers come from or their significance. This is public health policy data, all meaning depends on trends and context. The part most people don't get: there is no right or wrong, there's just the projections and how they influence other policies.
- It's very hard to explain the significance of projections. There's moral / social / political inferences that are polluting our interpretation of the data, which makes it hard to have a common understanding of the real risk. What I think Western countries have been doing, and I'm grateful for, is trying to scare the gak out of the public so everyone stays at home. This is probably the best thing that could have been done, given other factors.
- We haven't had a major health scare in the US / EU for a while, these used to be much more frequent. No one is used to having their lives disrupted, the shock seems to be magnifying the reaction. This leads to a lot of misinformation about what's happening, people live in information bubbles and try to find data that agrees with their biases. They want someone or something to blame for this disruption and they're willing to take a lot on faith.
- Public opinion seems to be wildly in favor of protecting all life instead of the economy. There doesn't appear to be a recognition of the long term consequences of keeping the economy shut down, which also involves mortality. The comparative metrics for economic instability aren't available to the public (nor should they be.) A lot of the people chiming in on what should be the next steps are very short sighted, and that's kind of dangerous.
- We live in an information economy, there's an expectation that data will be available in real time or there's a defect. This extends all the way down the food chain to personal testing for the virus. There's a few ways in which this could be called overly optimistic thinking, the things we do have personal tests for kill more people each year than the virus ever will. They took years to make, it's unrealistic to expect they will suddenly appear overnight.
From everything I've gathered, the total number of deaths attributable to the virus is less than what we could have expected from other causes over the same time period (at least in the US.) It's debatable and not meant to sound callous.
But my prescription for the virus would be better thinking. This is an information emergency as much as it is a public health emergency. Being able to think critically about our options will be more important as time goes on, especially if we're plunging into a recession. There will be a lot of voices calling for a lot of remedies, some of which will lead to better days and some of which will create unnecessary suffering and hardship. Knowing how to sort one from the other will be the most important skill to have.
- Public opinion seems to be wildly in favor of protecting all life instead of the economy. There doesn't appear to be a recognition of the long term consequences of keeping the economy shut down, which also involves mortality. The comparative metrics for economic instability aren't available to the public (nor should they be.) A lot of the people chiming in on what should be the next steps are very short sighted, and that's kind of dangerous.
Then by all means, do the math, or find a source. Essential jobs are not shut down, many industries are working from home or just trudging along- so if this economic impact is so dire, what percentage of our economy do we need to keep shut down for a few months to stop the spread of this thing? What percentage of our economy is shut down right now? For that matter, what's unemployment, which is essentially what shutdown does, do to life expectancy? And another factor to consider- how much does each Coronavirus victim's treatment cost? Not even the just the deaths, the ones who are hospitalized for a week and put on ventilators.
Once you've got the numbers of probable deaths from unemployment, compare it to the death toll of an unmitigated Corona virus outbreak. This should give you a raw life comparison, form a very utilitarian mindset.
Adjust for cost of treatment of victims.
Then, finally, calculate the average age of virus victims. Compare with average age of retirement, and average earnings. That'll give you a rough estimate of the economic value of a worker. If you can find something about how much they contribute to GDP or another of the economic factors, all the better. Then you can tell us what this mysterious and feared economic impact is, and why it is more important than the deaths of our friends and family.
And economy is something that bounces back and recovers. Seeing core needs and wants aren't changed and nothign concrete is destroyed once money flow starts to flow economy will start to recover and quite likely faster than some people expect.
Death is something you can't recover from. And ATM it's #1 killer in US and wouldn't surprise if Italy, Spain, French, UK etc it would be #1 death cause atm.
Of course, there need to be periods of lockdown to create breathing room so the economy can slowly start back up in a reduced capacity, as well as to create room for other essential healthcare that is on hold right now. Just having a full lockdown for a year is not feasible given other health issues that the population suffers from and the economic consequences.
But no country is advocating a full lockdown until a vaccine, they all want to have the periodic approach. Because the periodic approach is best in terms of cost benefit analysis. But now a period of lockdown is essential because having hundreds of thousands die to keep the economy going is certain to tank it regardless. The sectors hit hardest because of a lockdown would suffer the same fate from a runaway pandemic to preserve the economy.
What is frequently forgotten in the 'look at the number of deaths argument' is that A. This is with significant measures in place to blunt the number of death and B. When comparing it to other causes of death they tend to forget that those causes of death happen in a normal healthcare capacity, now watch all those causes shoot up together with Coronavirus deaths because your healthcare system just collapsed under a wave of patients it was not build to handle. Virus death numbers ignore all the other deaths that would be a consequence of an imploded healthcare system.
I forgot also to mention that in my state the Facebook group is encouraging people to turn off their phones when they go out and drive "so the government can't use Google to get numbers telling them if citizens have been properly sheltering in place."
They are claiming Google is working with the government to make a program which can track individual people who can then be fined for travelling too far, so this will "defend" against that injustice, and will let you "travel as you please without restrictions".
People are calling for a march on the state capitol to force the state to lift restrictions, and at worse, remove certain leaders from office.
America is going to conspiracy theory and freedom riot ourselves into making the pandemic worse. A certain level of finding any kind of personal restriction to be horribly chafing is just self-harming.
Oh feth no. Wasn't a massive fan of the Goodies but am a huge fan of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue (best radio panel game ever, in my opinion). Only got Graeme Garden left on that front. Really thankful I got the chance to see the live Isihac show with Tim in January
tneva82 wrote: And economy is something that bounces back and recovers. .
UK side the furlough payments should help the economy bounce back fairly well. We will still lose many businesses, but we should manage to maintain enough to kick things off well to a restart. Granted it generates a lot of national level debt, but hopefully by keeping things "sort of going" during with payments, it should boost any recovery period.
I'm not as sure about the US approach which seems to be putting the loan in the name of individuals rather than the nation; which might help bounce things back, but could also mute any recovery as people all end up with a debt over their heads at a personal level; curtailing investment/spending.
Just because it would be for the best for everybody to stay home doesn't mean you can violate 2 Constitutional rights as well as a host of settled case law surrounding those rights. Thats far worse than any harm spreading the virus could do.
1) You can't force quarantine on people who haven't tested positive. That violates the Sixth amendment. Quarantine legally requires Due Process be given. IE: The person has to have been tested positive for a disease AND then have a court order to remain in custody.
2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
And I've been seeing some of the alarmist posts about taking away our freedoms too. While some good points have been raised, I think that this is a special situation where suspending a few things is for the greater good [/tau]. I don't actually think the government is going to continue to enact these measures once the threat of the virus has gone away. Maybe I'm woefully naive in thinking this, but...eh.
This would set a precedent that the government can just "declare an emergency" and then proceed to ignore any rights they choose. That is a terrible idea. Its the line of thinking that led to the Japanese Internment Camps in WW2.
Coronavirus is definitely not serious enough that we can excuse the ignoring of basic rights. Having advice that we should shelter in place and avoid unnecessary exposure is fine. But Enforcing that advice is morally unacceptable.
Seriously? We had a little things called 9-11 in which ~3,000 americans were killed and we got the patriot act, FISA courts, no knock warrants, unlimited surveillance wiretaps, trials with secret evidence the defense was not allowed to see, detention without trial, or legal council, torture, rendition to foreign countries for torture, etc. and it's still going on.
Within a couple days the covid pandemic will kill 10x more americans than 9-11 did. If temporarily violating the rights of church goers to slow it's spread helps, then lets do it. It's not like these people are being held indefinitely without charges, legal council, family contact, etc. it's not like they're being waterboarded or subject to other forms of torture. They're being told they can't go to church for a few months maybe. They think that violates their rights? Waah waah. They mostly want to force rape victims to go thru with a forced pregnancy. I don't give a if they can't go to church for a few months. Waah waah.
Let's face it, the post 911 patriot act and other acts pretty much rendered the constitution moot anyway. We're dealing with something that probably going to kill at least 20x more americans than 911 did. Close the churches.
You're assuming that the Patriot act is Constitutional. Its definitely not.
2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
It doesn't have to violate the free exercise of religion, because even religion is limited in its free exercise depending on what the religion entails. Where the interest of the state clashes with religion, the state takes precedence, such as with polygamy.
Temporarily suspending services in the public interest would probably hold up at the SC, because it is not forbidding the practice of said religion, just the assembly of the congregation for a period of time. Meanwhile services can easily continue in a world that has radio, tv and the internet.
The freedom of assembly is also limited by certain factors where the state trumps personal freedom, such as an immediate threat to public safety, which you could possibly argue pretty well in front of the SC for. As these people might get infected at a church service, which is not essential (being food and medication to survive) and then infect people at essential services such as supermarkets and pharmacies. It just cannot unfairly single out church services, but if everything gets suspended, they are not being unfairly targeted.
Yes the first amendment protects quite a bit, but if push comes to shove the state would probably win in the SC based on precedence in similar cases due to the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.
It would be quite a stretch to say that simply holding a service alone is a compelling threat to safety and security to be a valid reason for violating the 1st amendment on two different counts(Religion and Assembly) for several reasons. The only precedent for a crackdown of this magnitude is Foreign Invasion. Pandemics do not have legal precedent for violations of this magnitude.
Its one thing to prevent the practice polygamy or human sacrifice. Its a huge stretch to make that same logic cover simply meeting in a public place. The 1st amendment is designed to protect from this exact situation. An overzealous government coming up with excuses to prevent gatherings and practice.
If this were to be held as legal, it would also be legal to permanently shut down all Mosques because Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC because you can declare "Its in the public interest". Not a good precedent.
It would be quite a stretch to say that simply holding a service alone is a compelling threat to safety and security to be a valid reason for violating the 1st amendment on two different counts(Religion and Assembly) for several reasons. The only precedent for a crackdown of this magnitude is Foreign Invasion. Pandemics do not have legal precedent for violations of this magnitude.
Its one thing to prevent the practice polygamy or human sacrifice. Its a huge stretch to make that same logic cover simply meeting in a public place. The 1st amendment is designed to protect from this exact situation. An overzealous government coming up with excuses to prevent gatherings and practice.
If this were to be held as legal, it would also be legal to permanently shut down all Mosques because Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC because you can declare "Its in the public interest". Not a good precedent.
It's not preventing nor shutting down organised religious groups.
It's simply preventing physical gatherings of people in the same place, which happens to also include religious gatherings.
You can still gather on skype or facebook; you can still transmit the services through twitch or youtube to the flock etc...
Furthermore its proven that the virus spreads person to person very rapidly when in close proximity to other people and when in an enclosed space. Meanwhile you don't just walk into a Mosque and "catch terrorism" by being with a group. The two are in no way comparable.
2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
It doesn't have to violate the free exercise of religion, because even religion is limited in its free exercise depending on what the religion entails. Where the interest of the state clashes with religion, the state takes precedence, such as with polygamy.
Temporarily suspending services in the public interest would probably hold up at the SC, because it is not forbidding the practice of said religion, just the assembly of the congregation for a period of time. Meanwhile services can easily continue in a world that has radio, tv and the internet.
The freedom of assembly is also limited by certain factors where the state trumps personal freedom, such as an immediate threat to public safety, which you could possibly argue pretty well in front of the SC for. As these people might get infected at a church service, which is not essential (being food and medication to survive) and then infect people at essential services such as supermarkets and pharmacies. It just cannot unfairly single out church services, but if everything gets suspended, they are not being unfairly targeted.
Yes the first amendment protects quite a bit, but if push comes to shove the state would probably win in the SC based on precedence in similar cases due to the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.
It would be quite a stretch to say that simply holding a service alone is a compelling threat to safety and security to be a valid reason for violating the 1st amendment on two different counts(Religion and Assembly) for several reasons. The only precedent for a crackdown of this magnitude is Foreign Invasion. Pandemics do not have legal precedent for violations of this magnitude.
Its one thing to prevent the practice polygamy or human sacrifice. Its a huge stretch to make that same logic cover simply meeting in a public place. The 1st amendment is designed to protect from this exact situation. An overzealous government coming up with excuses to prevent gatherings and practice.
If this were to be held as legal, it would also be legal to permanently shut down all Mosques because Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC. Not a good precedent.
Well that depends on how you view the safety argument. What would fall under that? Something as bad as a pandemic might get included because just like war, its a massive threat to the stability of the state. The argument can be made in that regard that temporary (which really needs to be stressed) suspension of physical services on location should be on the table if the proper distance is not able to be maintained. For the sake of argument, fire codes and amount of people inside are already a restriction on church services in a building no? Nevertheless, I don't think this is going to become something that the courts get involved in. Either these services happen without much issue or the congregation gets sick and starts dying of and self preservation start kicking in.
The 1st amendment is not a blank cheque, it also states that the state make no law against it. But a temporary suspension is not a governmental ban, because there is a clear point when this suspension will stop, the end of the pandemic. That is not down to government excuses. This is also the issue with your mosque example. That is blatantly problematic in court because it is a blanket ban against one specific religion for an act outside their control, instead of a temporary suspension for all religions equally in response to a massive public health crisis. And everything is getting shut down, temporarily so the argument that this is against freedom of religion will be a tough one to sell in court.
It's not preventing nor shutting down organised religious groups.
It's simply preventing physical gatherings of people in the same place, which happens to also include religious gatherings.
You can still gather on skype or facebook; you can still transmit the services through twitch or youtube to the flock etc...
Banning, even temporarily, gathering in the same place does specifically target religious groups. Especially when that group's beliefs do have explicit exhortations to gather together. Its also coincided with Easter, the most important religious event for Christianity.
Furthermore its proven that the virus spreads person to person very rapidly when in close proximity to other people and when in an enclosed space. Meanwhile you don't just walk into a Mosque and "catch terrorism" by being with a group. The two are in no way comparable.
If terrorists used Mosques to meet and plot their schemes, then it would be relevant to shut them down for public safety. Its the same justification being used here. Temporarily or permanently makes no difference.
Of would you also argue that the Japenese Internment Camps in WW2 were ok because they were also temporary?
Well that depends on how you view the safety argument. What would fall under that? Something as bad as a pandemic might get included because just like war, its a massive threat to the stability of the state. The argument can be made in that regard that temporary (which really needs to be stressed) suspension of physical services on location should be on the table if the proper distance is not able to be maintained. For the sake of argument, fire codes and amount of people inside are already a restriction on church services in a building no? Nevertheless, I don't think this is going to become something that the courts get involved in. Either these services happen without much issue or the congregation gets sick and starts dying of and self preservation start kicking in.
The 1st amendment is not a blank cheque, it also states that the state make no law against it. But a temporary suspension is not a governmental ban, because there is a clear point when this suspension will stop, the end of the pandemic. That is not down to government excuses. This is also the issue with your mosque example. That is blatantly problematic in court because it is a blanket ban against one specific religion for an act outside their control, instead of a temporary suspension for all religions equally in response to a massive public health crisis. And everything is shutting down, so the argument that this is against religion will be a tough one to sell in court.
Temporary or permanent doesn't really matter. Again, the Japanese Internment Camps were held to be illegal, but were justified with the same criteria we are currently using to justify shutting down Churches. They had a definite end point(End of the War) and were arguably in public interest.
The timing also shows this isn't effecting all religions equally. This is Easter weekend.
Pandemics don't really have the same emergency level as war. War threatens the entire population because there is the threat of a foreign invasion. If an invasion did occur, casualties from that would far eclipse any pandemic. The death projections for COVID have severely dropped over the last couple days. Enough to where you can't justify draconian measures like this any longer.
- Public opinion seems to be wildly in favor of protecting all life instead of the economy. There doesn't appear to be a recognition of the long term consequences of keeping the economy shut down, which also involves mortality. The comparative metrics for economic instability aren't available to the public (nor should they be.) A lot of the people chiming in on what should be the next steps are very short sighted, and that's kind of dangerous.
Then by all means, do the math, or find a source. Essential jobs are not shut down, many industries are working from home or just trudging along- so if this economic impact is so dire, what percentage of our economy do we need to keep shut down for a few months to stop the spread of this thing? What percentage of our economy is shut down right now? For that matter, what's unemployment, which is essentially what shutdown does, do to life expectancy? And another factor to consider- how much does each Coronavirus victim's treatment cost? Not even the just the deaths, the ones who are hospitalized for a week and put on ventilators.
Once you've got the numbers of probable deaths from unemployment, compare it to the death toll of an unmitigated Corona virus outbreak. This should give you a raw life comparison, form a very utilitarian mindset.
Adjust for cost of treatment of victims.
Then, finally, calculate the average age of virus victims. Compare with average age of retirement, and average earnings. That'll give you a rough estimate of the economic value of a worker. If you can find something about how much they contribute to GDP or another of the economic factors, all the better. Then you can tell us what this mysterious and feared economic impact is, and why it is more important than the deaths of our friends and family.
Yeah, the problem with that is the wild political angle. It's an election year in the US, we're not going to see anything approaching accuracy in the figures. It's not that you can't do the math, it's that you can't discuss it intelligently in a manner that helps people understand their options.
Instead, we have projections. One rubric that's getting tossed about is 97% of the economy can restart if we get back to work by April 15, 92% of the economy can restart if this goes to May 1. No way to tell you how accurate either number is, projections are an attempt to influence behavior more than provide an accurate gauge of the future.
An aspect people don't understand fully about the economic angle is the amount that gets spent on healthcare in the US. It's almost 18% of the GDP, and slightly more than half that amount goes to care delivered in the last 6 months of life. Were we to lose a lot of seniors, there's about $2T of services that won't be delivered. That's part of the economic argument in favor of keeping the economy shut down.
OTOH, if we move too fast, that's a significant chunk of the GDP that doesn't get spent in another area. The number of doctors, clinicians, nurses, therapists, supply manufacturers, etc who would get caught up in this is significant, they can't all just take different jobs.
So there's a give and take that goes along with all of this. Healthcare is not the only one. Any retail sales that operate on a manufacturer -> distributor -> storefront model is at risk right now, that describes about 40% of US consumer spending. Stimulus dollars will help but some industries are going to go under.
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
It's not preventing nor shutting down organised religious groups.
It's simply preventing physical gatherings of people in the same place, which happens to also include religious gatherings.
You can still gather on skype or facebook; you can still transmit the services through twitch or youtube to the flock etc...
Banning, even temporarily, gathering in the same place does specifically target religious groups. Especially when that group's beliefs do have explicit exhortations to gather together. Its also coincided with Easter, the most important religious event for Christianity.
Except its not targeting religions, its targeting gatherings. Public meetings; fairs; country shows; sporting events (all); music halls; dance clubs; hobby groups (including warhammer); live esport events; music fairs; conventions; parties; beaches everything. You'd have to really argue that religion is in some way except from temporary measure to ban/restrict mass gatherings when those restrictions are purely designed to help safeguard all those attending and the greater population as a whole.
Furthermore its proven that the virus spreads person to person very rapidly when in close proximity to other people and when in an enclosed space. Meanwhile you don't just walk into a Mosque and "catch terrorism" by being with a group. The two are in no way comparable.
If terrorists used Mosques to meet and plot their schemes, then it would be relevant to shut them down for public safety. Its the same justification being used here. Temporarily or permanently makes no difference.
Of would you also argue that the Japenese Internment Camps in WW2 were ok because they were also temporary?
Except that the virus cannot spread to other people if people are not meeting up; meanwhile your example of terrorists; the shutting down of one religious groups gathering place would not prevent recruitment, planning nor preparation. A terrorist group can adapt to communicate in other ways - a virus cannot just suddenly say "Ok I can't spread by association I'll start spreading by spores in the air spread over huge distances." This is the real world not Plague Inc.
Prison camps during war time have nothing to do with this; its a weak attempt to deflect the discussion into another line of argument where you can gain an upper hand or at least hold a valid position.
Well that depends on how you view the safety argument. What would fall under that? Something as bad as a pandemic might get included because just like war, its a massive threat to the stability of the state. The argument can be made in that regard that temporary (which really needs to be stressed) suspension of physical services on location should be on the table if the proper distance is not able to be maintained. For the sake of argument, fire codes and amount of people inside are already a restriction on church services in a building no? Nevertheless, I don't think this is going to become something that the courts get involved in. Either these services happen without much issue or the congregation gets sick and starts dying of and self preservation start kicking in.
The 1st amendment is not a blank cheque, it also states that the state make no law against it. But a temporary suspension is not a governmental ban, because there is a clear point when this suspension will stop, the end of the pandemic. That is not down to government excuses. This is also the issue with your mosque example. That is blatantly problematic in court because it is a blanket ban against one specific religion for an act outside their control, instead of a temporary suspension for all religions equally in response to a massive public health crisis. And everything is shutting down, so the argument that this is against religion will be a tough one to sell in court.
Temporary or permanent doesn't really matter. Again, the Japanese Internment Camps were held to be illegal, but were justified with the same criteria we are currently using to justify shutting down Churches. They had a definite end point(End of the War) and were arguably in public interest.
The timing also shows this isn't effecting all religions equally. This is Easter weekend.
Pandemics don't really have the same emergency level as war. War threatens the entire population because there is the threat of a foreign invasion. If an invasion did occur, casualties from that would far eclipse any pandemic. The death projections for COVID have severely dropped over the last couple days. Enough to where you can't justify draconian measures like this any longer.
Japanese internment camps are a terrible example, which was brought on by nothing more than racism as evidenced by the fact that German Americans and Italian Americans were judged on an individual basis as opposed to collective punishment for Japanese Americans. So you have a disproportionate measure based on the ethnicity of a population that you don't even maintain for other 'hostile' nationalities.
Meanwhile the Coronavirus measures apply to everyone and every religion equally, churches are just a small part of public life being shut down, they aren't unfairly singled out for this. Coronavirus is a much greater threat to the state than some vague accusation of Japanese American spying..
As for Easter weekend, I'm sorry that the Coronavirus did not take the religious calendar into consideration, bad virus? Besides Easter it also hits Passover for the Jews and at this point and Ramadan for Muslims in the upcoming weeks. So yes, all religions equally.
Wait, you think a pandemic is not akin to war? Without measures a projected +/- 2 million Americans were going to die from Coronavirus alone, let alone all other conditions that would go untreated and too little capacity pushing up the death rate. How are those not wartime numbers? That is worse than any war the US has ever experienced, including the Civil War on its own soil. Death projections have dropped exatcly because of measures to enforce distancing. Packing everyone together in church for Easter does the exact opposite of what caused the death projections to fall so much lower...
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?
Exactly, organising parties and having people visit is totally non-essential travel.
No, that is the advice /guidance, not the law. The law is a lot less restrictive than what the government would like us to do as laid out in their guidelines, but they are somewhat wary of breaching parts of the ECHR, and rightly so. For example, you can leave your house for whatever reason you like, as many times as you like, despite the police setting up snitch websites for curtain twitchers to grass up their neighbours. This is why we've had problems. Certain parts of the law are unclear, and some police have mistaken some of the guidance for things they can enforce, (despite it really being in their professional remit to ensure they are aware of what can and can not be enforced.)
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?
Exactly, organising parties and having people visit is totally non-essential travel.
tneva82 wrote: "Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.
Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...
Trump doesn't literally believe that the virus is smart, but he does follow the long-held belief that germs are slowly adapting to be more resistant to our medicines and antibiotics. He words it very poorly, but what else is new with Trump? I think he was being facetious, personally, but it just came out wrong.
tneva82 wrote: "Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.
Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...
Trump doesn't literally believe that the virus is smart, but he does follow the long-held belief that germs are slowly adapting to be more resistant to our medicines and antibiotics. He words it very poorly, but what else is new with Trump? I think he was being facetious, personally, but it just came out wrong.
Eh point is the guy thinks antibiotics should work here. Those work on bacteria. Not on virus. Corona isn't smart by being adapting. Antibiotics were never going to affect it! You don't get rid of virus with antibiotics. Only reason you are given antibiotics when in hospital due to corona is there's potential for bacterial infection alongside which doesn't make things easier.
Corona didn't adapt to antibiotics. It was immune to it from get go just like every single virus in the human history. Trying antibiotics vs virus is like trying to use water as fuel for gasoline engine...Good luck doing that!
Trump doesn't even know what difference there is between virus and bacteria(and this is pretty darn basic knowledge which doesn't even require any speial teaching...). Nor even bother to ask any of experts he has(or at least should have) around to help him in areas where his experience doesn't cover.
Scary how somebody who has so little grasp of basics is leading US and affecting response to the corona.
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
Same reason the police have a right to visit someone's home when they're filming a snuff movie. They're doing harm, which can easily end up with corpses.
This isn't a TV murder mystery or a hypothetical rights discussion. This is a worldwide epidemic. Having a party while people die is literally a villainous cliche in this scenario.
GoatboyBeta wrote: My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.
Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.
The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.
Same reason the police have a right to visit someone's home when they're filming a snuff movie. They're doing harm, which can easily end up with corpses.
This isn't a TV murder mystery or a hypothetical rights discussion. This is a worldwide epidemic. Having a party while people die is literally a villainous cliche in this scenario.
Except a snuff film would feature murder, which is an actual crime, so try again.
My daughter was coming home from a walk in the evening. SHe said there was a bus parked outside, with one passenger in it who was unconscious.
We looked out of our front window. The bus was there. The driver was outside, talking on his smartphone. He had blue gloves but no mask.
We didn't know what to do. I want to go and help, maybe offer him a cup of tea, but my wife forbade me.
After a while the ambulance arrived. Two paramedics got out. Ther had masks, gloves and aprons, but no face shields.
They got the casualty out of the bus. She was a middle-aged woman, it looked like. They took her into the amulance on a folding trolley stretcher.
The ambulance, then the bus drove off.
All this happened about 30 yards from my front door.
Damn that's crazy. As a first aider/medic trained I would be obligated to go and help in the scenario, but I wonder if I would in the current circumstances or would I hesitate?
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm a lapsed first aider, but the first rule of first aid is not to become part of the problem.
That's the dilemma facing all medics now, should you help without the proper equipment, and risk spreading the virus further?
I still think the bus driver could have been given a cup of tea without any serious hazard.
Leaving a cuppa on a wall or even the ground for him to pick up would probably have been fine, as long as you used a mug you didn't want back Poor guy must be bricking it, I hope he's kept informed. But overall your wife was probably right to stay out of it. As you said its best not to become part of the problem, and helping out could potentially expose you and your whole family, making things even worse.
tneva82 wrote: "Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.
Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...
Trump doesn't literally believe that the virus is smart, but he does follow the long-held belief that germs are slowly adapting to be more resistant to our medicines and antibiotics. He words it very poorly, but what else is new with Trump? I think he was being facetious, personally, but it just came out wrong.
Eh point is the guy thinks antibiotics should work here. Those work on bacteria. Not on virus. Corona isn't smart by being adapting. Antibiotics were never going to affect it! You don't get rid of virus with antibiotics. Only reason you are given antibiotics when in hospital due to corona is there's potential for bacterial infection alongside which doesn't make things easier.
Corona didn't adapt to antibiotics. It was immune to it from get go just like every single virus in the human history. Trying antibiotics vs virus is like trying to use water as fuel for gasoline engine...Good luck doing that!
Trump doesn't even know what difference there is between virus and bacteria(and this is pretty darn basic knowledge which doesn't even require any speial teaching...). Nor even bother to ask any of experts he has(or at least should have) around to help him in areas where his experience doesn't cover.
Scary how somebody who has so little grasp of basics is leading US and affecting response to the corona.
feth me I'm the last one to defend the bloke, but you're trying to hard to manufacture outrage here. assuming the quote is accurate, he's talking about how adaptable microorganisms can be, and using how bacteria constantly outpace the efficacy of antibiotics as an example. Bacteria adapting to antibiotic treatments is not the same as a virus mutating, but it is analogous enough that I'll concede I understand his point and don't fundamentally disagree with it, rather than raging about the minute inaccuracies in how he's expressed himself and holding it up as an example of how big an idiot he is. There's already plenty of examples of that.
He seems to pretty specifically be saying that antibiotics cannot keep up with this particular problem. He is referencing the the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Taken as a whole it is rather damming evidence that the head of managing this crisis does not know the difference between a virus and a bacterium. I do not expect a degree in micro biology, but that is basic knowledge I feel any official in a position of making decisions about this pandemic should know. That the topmost official does not bodes ill* for the US.
I wouldn't worry to much about any privacy concerns. If there track record on other tech projects is anything to go by, we will all have been vaccinated before it goes live
NinthMusketeer wrote: He seems to pretty specifically be saying that antibiotics cannot keep up with this particular problem. He is referencing the the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Taken as a whole it is rather damming evidence that the head of managing this crisis does not know the difference between a virus and a bacterium. I do not expect a degree in micro biology, but that is basic knowledge I feel any official in a position of making decisions about this pandemic should know. That the topmost official does not bodes ill* for the US.
*Literally!
This. How many times has Trump said something stupid Y, people came out and said he meant X, and then Trump comes out and says he did mean Y.
At this point, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt seems a bit naive.
Big Brothering worries aside, at the same time I can see the possible advantages of a tracking app. I've heard theories about one being planned where if you end up in the hospital or test positive for the virus, the app can backtrack your movements and list others with the app that you were in close contact within a certain window of time, so they can be alerted. Essentially a halfway-test for the virus for the people who were close to you.
Taken in a vacuum that is an excellent idea for helping contain the spread of this pandemic. It would take tracking outbreaks to the next level and remove a lot of the guesswork. But....there are serious downsides of the app being used as a Watchdog, or for commercial uses.
My daughter was coming home from a walk in the evening. SHe said there was a bus parked outside, with one passenger in it who was unconscious.
We looked out of our front window. The bus was there. The driver was outside, talking on his smartphone. He had blue gloves but no mask.
We didn't know what to do. I want to go and help, maybe offer him a cup of tea, but my wife forbade me.
After a while the ambulance arrived. Two paramedics got out. Ther had masks, gloves and aprons, but no face shields.
They got the casualty out of the bus. She was a middle-aged woman, it looked like. They took her into the amulance on a folding trolley stretcher.
The ambulance, then the bus drove off.
All this happened about 30 yards from my front door.
I'm very sorry to hear that, KK . That sounds like something that might be from another medical condition, though, right? Did they explain what happened?
My daughter was coming home from a walk in the evening. SHe said there was a bus parked outside, with one passenger in it who was unconscious.
We looked out of our front window. The bus was there. The driver was outside, talking on his smartphone. He had blue gloves but no mask.
We didn't know what to do. I want to go and help, maybe offer him a cup of tea, but my wife forbade me.
After a while the ambulance arrived. Two paramedics got out. Ther had masks, gloves and aprons, but no face shields.
They got the casualty out of the bus. She was a middle-aged woman, it looked like. They took her into the amulance on a folding trolley stretcher.
The ambulance, then the bus drove off.
All this happened about 30 yards from my front door.
I'm very sorry to hear that, KK . That sounds like something that might be from another medical condition, though, right? Did they explain what happened?
Going lay good money down it wan another medical condition. If she actually had the virus that's going all out she wouldn't have made it to the bus stop let alone out of bed.
As for Trump gaffe(s) all past PROTUS has made them. GW Jr mixed up his left hand with his right hand comment. Though I will say when Trump makes a gaffe or being not informed it does take the mind off the Corona virus for a bit.
I'm hearing southern Italy is now Mafia territory.
AegisGrimm wrote: Big Brothering worries aside, at the same time I can see the possible advantages of a tracking app. I've heard theories about one being planned where if you end up in the hospital or test positive for the virus, the app can backtrack your movements and list others with the app that you were in close contact within a certain window of time, so they can be alerted. Essentially a halfway-test for the virus for the people who were close to you.
Taken in a vacuum that is an excellent idea for helping contain the spread of this pandemic. It would take tracking outbreaks to the next level and remove a lot of the guesswork. But....there are serious downsides of the app being used as a Watchdog, or for commercial uses.
The one being planned by Apple and Google is a nightmarish blend of stupidity, ineffectiveness and at best a lot of false positives.
It requires:
Everyone involved have a phone, the app, have it on, on their person, and running, accurately enter if they have the virus or not (and remove themselves if they recover and are no longer infectious), registers anonymously if you come 'close enough' (by what criteria is unclear) and will send out alerts if you at some point contract the virus, are diagnosed with the virus and actually enter that information into the app. Then it alerts people (again anonymously) that they've been 'in close proximity' to someone that now has the virus in the past... unknown number of days, based on the likely unknown number of days you've been infectious.
For actually tracking real contact and not every random Joe who passed close by on the street but likely not close enough to infect (in either direction), it sounds amazingly useless. A good tool for making people paranoid about everyone around them, but it doesn't sound like its actually worth spit for tracing real infectious contact between individual people.
It also can't even vaguely track if you came along in a public place and touched a surface with infectious traces left behind by a person five minutes ago. Someone sneezed on a counter or door handle (or their hand, and then manipulated said surface)? App can't track that. Picked up a cereal box that someone thought about buying an hour ago? Can't track that.
Even if it is useful in some small way, it requires a level of buy-in, meticulousness and carrying your phone at all times that most people just don't seem capable of. Most people I know routinely leave their phones at home, in their cars or at their desks. It isn't in their pocket for 90% of their day, even when they are out of the house. If its actually charged for more than half the day, its a minor miracle.
I concur with Voss. a useless app thats a pointless waste of storage at best, and a poorly disguised potential further creep into peoples privacy at worst.
Yep. Some people will find it incomprehensible that there are members of the general population that don't have a smart phone - and not just those at the bottom rung of society, some chose not to. Add in the fact that it needs to be carried, installed and on it seems a waste of resources. China made it work but that's because I assume that not having the app/phone meant you were counted as 'Red'. But did the app help in a meaningful way beyond the general lockdown?
MarkNorfolk wrote: China made it work but that's because I assume that not having the app/phone meant you were counted as 'Red'. But did the app help in a meaningful way beyond the general lockdown?
I didn't think China used any apps to help - they did track the phones of people confirmed infected and phoned them regularly to check they had it with them and hadn't snuck out and left it at home. Obviously this isn't feasible in countries without the overarching powers of the Chinese government.
As I understand it, the main shining case study in the success of a tracing app was in South Korea.
MarkNorfolk wrote: Yep. Some people will find it incomprehensible that there are members of the general population that don't have a smart phone - and not just those at the bottom rung of society, some chose not to. Add in the fact that it needs to be carried, installed and on it seems a waste of resources. China made it work but that's because I assume that not having the app/phone meant you were counted as 'Red'. But did the app help in a meaningful way beyond the general lockdown?
Well these days here the price difference between non smart phone and smart phone is so cheap not many don't have.
And you don't have to have it on everybody to have use. That's like saying you need to ask everybody for poll to have polls to be any use. It's not silver bullet but any tool helps. Masks aren't silver bullet that fixes everything either yet should we abandon masks because they don't provide 100% solution?
tneva82 wrote: At least here people do have phone generally so there's that.
And surface thing isn't much of worry. Has there yet been single confirmed case of surface infection?
A confirmed case? Not really sure. If you can't get it from surfaces, people and governments have wasted billions on some pointless cleaning routines. (Though every time I see images of teams disinfecting streets, I roll my eyes).
And you don't have to have it on everybody to have use. That's like saying you need to ask everybody for poll to have polls to be any use.
No it isn't. A poll is trying to extrapolate a general feeling about very strictly limited options. A contact trace is actually trying to identify specific people an infected person has been in contact with and may have infected. The methodology is completely different- 'select approve/disapprove/indifferent' is completely unlike identifying which of potentially hundreds (or thousands in a big city) of people you were really physically close to and not just in the same general area at roughly the same time
----
In other news, Spain has decided to loosen restrictions. I guess someone had to be the test bed for how quickly a resurgence can happen.
One potentially nice thing about Covid is nature recovery - when you look about news about clear Venetian channels, endangered turtles in Brazil surviving hatching in much greater numbers thanks to empty beaches, and other stories that would be impossible a year ago because powerful lobby funded by rich screamed MUH ECONOMY when someone proposed temporary limits to give animals some space when they are most vulnerable I hope we can repeat that in next years even without prompting. Humans can live with beach closed for a week when turtles need to lay eggs, forests being off limits in mating season. But who I am kidding, greed and lack of empathy will probably mean business as usual in 2021 and following, better cut every single tree down and concrete every last single bit of ground, think of profits and the economy, eh?
Simple comparison between these two photos shows how insane we are - literally killing ourselves under the dictando of oil and car lobbies spending billions to arrest changes each year, even thought simple alternatives exist (see Dutch cities, closing centers for traffic except on bike or electric, well developed public transportation, and foot friendly infrastructure aren't new concepts, and they work well if introduced in every example I looked at, even though conservative propaganda predicted collapse and desertion of cities before trials started).
And the funny/sad part is, if we introduced clean measures earlier, we would have easier fight with Covid too. I live in relatively clean city, and I found the difference in air quality with big, polluting cities that don't care about it (like Krakow, London, or Glasgow) to be pretty staggering - and we apparently have infection ratio below national average thanks to the fact our air doesn't damage lungs making them much more vulnerable to infection, even though my home town still has a way to go before reaching truly green, sustainable standard. Maybe seeing what we're missing will finally prompt some change?
Azreal13 wrote: feth me I'm the last one to defend the bloke, but you're trying to hard to manufacture outrage here. assuming the quote is accurate, he's talking about how adaptable microorganisms can be, and using how bacteria constantly outpace the efficacy of antibiotics as an example. Bacteria adapting to antibiotic treatments is not the same as a virus mutating, but it is analogous enough that I'll concede I understand his point and don't fundamentally disagree with it, rather than raging about the minute inaccuracies in how he's expressed himself and holding it up as an example of how big an idiot he is. There's already plenty of examples of that.
What? You know you're defending a dude who made up story about hydroxychloroquine being drug for Covid (spoiler alert: it's useless), causing shortages threatening lives of people who really have diseases treated by it, causing multiple deaths as people ran to obtain it in false hopes of protecting themselves and guzzled it without supervision:
And is now threatening economic war with India if they don't release all their supplies immediately (again, ignoring people who need it and India has big malaria problem)?
If someone wrote about president of the country threatening others with retaliation just to protect his ego after spreading story he heard on Fox Lies ten years ago I'd think the author is crazy or on drugs. Alas, here we are now.
Xenomancers wrote: Just saw a video by Dr. Ezek Emanuel saying that a 12 to 18 month lock-down is the time table we should be looking at. I dont disagree with the strategy working the way he says it would. Basically don't leave your house until we have a vaccine in 18 month...Yeah that would be the least possible deaths. What I disagree with is even the notion that locking down the public for 12 months to a year should even be entertained. In the long run a 12-18 month international lockdown kills more people than you'd save from Covid deaths. International famine from food shortages due to lost production / inevitable conflicts arising from such things / suicides from social depression.
Any sort lockdown short of that isn't going to save many lives at all and without vaccine the numbers will look the same. Eventually nearly everyone will be exposed to the virus. So I think the initial 1 month lockdown to give health services a chance to catch up on required materials and learn how to treat the patient was good. Now It is time now to get back to work. 12 - 18 lockdown is so absurd. Clearly that is not happening.
I don't think you fully comprehend how this whole thing works. A 1 month lockdown doesn't mean that suddenly health services can treat the virus and everything is going to be okay, there is still an absolute 100% risk of our health system collapsing if we go back to work.
Ghool wrote: In 12-18 months when a vaccine is available, it would seem that at the current rate of infection, herd immunity will have developed.
And locking people in their homes for a year? It’s only been a few weeks and already people are getting stir crazy. Not going to happen.
Math I crunched a dozen or so pages ago indicated that it would be more like 24-36 months to develop herd immunity, the number would have to be revised to account for the additional impact of tighter social distancing measures, but that revision would shift the timeline to the right, social distancing makes the process of developing herd immunity take longer as a result of fewer people getting infections.
Don't disagree with any of that. What we are seeing right now is the result of the virus spreading unimpeded. The Virus has about a 2 week incubation period and can survive on surfaces in 2-3 day and it takes about 3+ days to kill it's victims. You will see the number of deaths per day start to fall now if lockdown is effective.
These numbers are a bit off. It has a ~5 day incubation period and on average it takes 9-15 days for it to kill you (though I've seen examples of up to 20+ days) after you become symptomatic. What we are seeing right now are deaths from infections that probably occurred almost a month ago, it may have been unimpeded at the time but it was far from widespread. The number will likely keep increasing for a while yet before it starts falling.
How effective is lockdown anyways with people still congregating in grocery stores/ gas stations/ and doing "essential" work.
Very effective. Projected deaths fell from 2.2 million down to 60 thousand. Thats quite a bit.
Realistically the lock down does not reduce total deaths in the long run a society like the UK or the USA. All it does is spread them out and reduce the rate at which people get infected.
In and of itself, no it doesn't reduce the number of deaths, but it buys you time to develop a vaccine or effective treatment, or at the very least expand your ability to treat and triage victims so that the healthcare system isn't overwhelmed.
This could be effective if we had a vaccine right around the corner but it is 12 months away at the absolute earliest.
Then we wait. For all 12-18 months.
The planet can not shut down for that long
Sure it can. Mind you, that 12-18 month wait will not necessarily look exactly like this, but I expect that the economy will be "half open" for most of that time (if we consider its current state "closed") - movie theaters and restaurants operating at a fraction of their full capacity, gathering sizes limited, etc.
Gotta be realistic even the most grim projections from coronavirus (which honestly can't be accurate because we aren't even close to knowing the total number of people already infected with the virus)
Its unlikely that a large number of people have already been infected based on the comparative data with countries that have been more aggressive about testing, the numbers are likely fairly accurate.
pale in comparison a global shutdown causing WW3. WW3 could potentially end life on earth...I'd really like to avoid that one.
Wut.
What about this is going to cause WW3?
I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.
That would require something like an ID that shows you're immune or something, which if this thread is any indication, will be met with shouts of "stasi", "gestapo", "dictatorship", "big brother", etc.
The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.
Is there a source for this? I'm still seeing a lot of speculation about this, but very little in the way of hard data or fact that confirms one way or another what the prospects for reinfection are.
According to that article, it’s fairly common for Coronaviruses to reinfect people.
"Long-term immunity", in the case of that article, refers to a period greater than 5-10 years. The other 4 coronavirus strains do produce post-infection immunity, but it only lasts for a period of 1-3 years on the low end and 3-5 on the high end. This is considered "short term".
The point is, people getting reinfected has been a thing since it was still largely confined to Wuhan. No new information has really come forward to change the thinking since that time. Yes, reinfection has possibly happened, but then it could be misdiagnosis, premature discharge, unknown contributory issues, mild immune response being overwhelmed by a much heavier viral load etc etc.
The fact is all people can do is play percentages, and the historic information suggests that assuming immunity is the right call. I mean, people can only get chicken pox once, except sometimes people get it again, but nobody is particularly worried about chicken pox reinfection rates, because, percentage wise, it isn't worth too much concern.
This. Until we have something that indicates widespread patterns of reinfection, its best to consider these examples as isolated one-off instances of it occurring for various reasons. 50-60 people out of 100k+ infections worldwide is statistically insignificant and much ado about nothing. Even for the ~10k or so in South Korea that number is essentially meaningless.
If you look whole europe vs US then US should be losing like 2-3 times as much per day and still be off easy...Spain, Italy, France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Swiss and Netherlands amount to about 4k plus other countries.
US with just 2000 deaths with population over 5 times say Italy which is worst suffering but even at worst was around 1000 deaths shows US is suffering lot less than there was potential. Especially with the extremely slow and half assed response US had to begin with. Suspiciously low numbers.
You have to keep population density in mind, most of our cases and deaths are coming from a handful of locations with a fraction of the population of Europe, while much of the rest of the country is much less densely populated and far more rural. The virus is spreading nationwide, but its spreading more slowly in those areas as the population is naturally distanced as a result of geography and the population distribution. Unfortunately, a lot of those areas have not been very active in imposing measures to combat the virus, and will likely see continued growth in cases and deaths for some time as a result, the flip side is that these are the areas where we have a slight excess in healthcare capacity, so they will be better able to endure as a result.
As someone was mentioning before, we really will not be able to make a call on the US peaking until the end of April, because of Easter. We may have a 'double peak' where the 'natural' one occurs then we get a secondary due to large numbers of people violating social distancing orders to attend Easter services in densely seated, enclosed structures.
It goes deeper than that - we can't make the call on the peak because half the country has either had little or no social distancing/curve flattening measures in place or are only now basically just starting to implement them - as I said, they are less densely populated so they had some degree of baked-in protection to begin with but its still going to spread through. The current peak isn't really the "American peak" so much as it is the "New York peak". In truth, its possible that they are synonymous just by virtue of how aggressive the viral threat was to the NYC/NJ region, but it really comes down to how bad the non-coastal states get nailed by this thing.
What -actually- makes the US great is a certain optimism and 'can-do' attitude underlining our culture. Unfortunately that works against us here.
I really don't feel like this is something exclusive to Americans, the optimism and "can-do"-ness I mean. What I think actually is underlying modern American culture which is working against us at this point is a lack of public trust (particularly with regards to the government), anti-intellectualism, and a seemingly bottomless appetite for conspiracy theories.
There's a very large Italian-American population in New York City, and many of them retain very close ties with family in 'the old country'.
I don't feel thats true. Off the top of my head I think I know maybe 2 or 3 Italian-Americans who have ever been to Italy, let alone still have familial ties with the old country, and like another 100+ (my family included) who think that "gabbagool", "ricott", "mozarell", etc. are how actual Italians speak and that chicken parmigiana is a real Italian dish.
Unfortunately some other pastors across America are stubborn. God may protect us, but he still wants us to use our heads!
Seems the trend has been the bigger the church/congregation, the more stubborn and self-important the pastor. Unfortunately, this seems to mean that when they flaunt social distancing, etc. its not a dozen people at the small neighborhood church, but hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands showing up at what is better described as an arena.
This would set a precedent that the government can just "declare an emergency" and then proceed to ignore any rights they choose. That is a terrible idea. Its the line of thinking that led to the Japanese Internment Camps in WW2.
Theres something like 136 specific statutory powers that the President has in the event of a declared national emergency (a list which didn't exist in the 1940s), so I think this is a bit of a non-issue to begin with. From what I understand about the legal debate, I think its generally agreed that the states *do* have the legal authority to impose quarantine measures however.
From everything I've gathered, the total number of deaths attributable to the virus is less than what we could have expected from other causes over the same time period (at least in the US.) It's debatable and not meant to sound callous.
The total number of deaths attributable to the virus would be pretty damned high, and would happen within a relatively short 3 month window if left unchecked. Thats not really debatable. It would certainly kill more people in that 3 month span of time than heart disease kills over the course of an entire year. Thats not really deabatable at all.
- Public opinion seems to be wildly in favor of protecting all life instead of the economy. There doesn't appear to be a recognition of the long term consequences of keeping the economy shut down, which also involves mortality. The comparative metrics for economic instability aren't available to the public (nor should they be.) A lot of the people chiming in on what should be the next steps are very short sighted, and that's kind of dangerous.
If you go back a dozen pages there was a link to an economic study done which concluded that the virus if left unchecked would be far more economically disastrous than the impact of social distancing. While the study didn't necessarily include the long term impacts of things, its fair to assume that the result which imposes a 26 trillion dollar hit to our economy (the cost of doing nothing) would be far worse in the long term than the course of action that only imposes a 5 trillion dollar hit (the cost of distancing).
You're assuming that the Patriot act is Constitutional. Its definitely not.
The only true arbiter of Constitutionality is the Supreme Court, while SCOTUS has found parts of the law unconstitutional and struck down those provisions, on the whole the law still stands. A lot of people have personal opinions as to what is and isn't Constitutional, but the only word that matters on that subject is the judicial branch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Don't know about other parts of the country, but in the northeast the courts basically are at a standstill, so any decision about constitutionality will probably have to wait until well after this all blows over.
If terrorists used Mosques to meet and plot their schemes, then it would be relevant to shut them down for public safety. Its the same justification being used here. Temporarily or permanently makes no difference.
I think the difference you're missing here is that in your scenario you're shutting down the mosque and banning religious practices of a single targeted religion entirely. In the real world we are only banning physical gatherings for all purposes, both religious and otherwise, for the purposes of public safety, but are allowing religious practices to continue uninterrupted through alternative means (phone/skype/zoom, etc.). In any case, slippery slopes such as yours are logically fallacious, it would be best for you not to hang your hat on this.
Instead, we have projections. One rubric that's getting tossed about is 97% of the economy can restart if we get back to work by April 15, 92% of the economy can restart if this goes to May 1. No way to tell you how accurate either number is, projections are an attempt to influence behavior more than provide an accurate gauge of the future.
Haven't seen this, have a source? I feel like something is being lost in translation here, 100% of the economy can restart regardless of what date we go back to work on, we don't magically lose the ability to restart some portion of the economy because we took to long - we do however lose employers as a result of financial strain forcing them to close up permanently, in this case yes we would be slightly less economically productive than we were beforehand as a result. This, of course, is the point of the stimulus bills we have enacted, in order to prevent employers from going under and allow for as close to a full restart on "emergence day" as possible.
Its worth noting however that these numbers, however, don't tell the whole story. If we went back to work on April 15th, for example, we might have only "lost" 3% of the "economy", but if the virus is still out there then the follow-on impact of the virus ravaging the population while business is still attempting to remain in operation will be much more severe and result in further economic losses after the fact, considerably greater if estimates are to be believed.
USS Nimitz crew that self quarantine had news go out of infection. One sailor was on leave but caught it and was locked down in his state before self isolation went into effect. The other had symptoms and they removed him to the pier along with his section and now in quarantine. There is a medical barge by it and isolation tents on the pier.
Azreal13 wrote: feth me I'm the last one to defend the bloke, but you're trying to hard to manufacture outrage here. assuming the quote is accurate, he's talking about how adaptable microorganisms can be, and using how bacteria constantly outpace the efficacy of antibiotics as an example. Bacteria adapting to antibiotic treatments is not the same as a virus mutating, but it is analogous enough that I'll concede I understand his point and don't fundamentally disagree with it, rather than raging about the minute inaccuracies in how he's expressed himself and holding it up as an example of how big an idiot he is. There's already plenty of examples of that.
What? You know you're defending a dude who made up story about hydroxychloroquine being drug for Covid (spoiler alert: it's useless), causing shortages threatening lives of people who really have diseases treated by it, causing multiple deaths as people ran to obtain it in false hopes of protecting themselves and guzzled it without supervision:
And is now threatening economic war with India if they don't release all their supplies immediately (again, ignoring people who need it and India has big malaria problem)?
If someone wrote about president of the country threatening others with retaliation just to protect his ego after spreading story he heard on Fox Lies ten years ago I'd think the author is crazy or on drugs. Alas, here we are now.
So what's your point? I qualified my statement with both a comment that I'm not in anyway a Trump sympathiser, and also that I there are many things he deserves criticism for, and your response is to point out to me things he almost certainly justifies heavy criticism for? Frankly it reads as though you're just looking for a chance to rant and found my post a useful jumping off point, but I'm sure that's not the case because politics is banned.
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
You have to make sacrifices.
If you can't help everyone then you have to help someone.
I'd rather 100 deaths isolated to Scotland than 1000 to the entire UK.
It's gak... But its maths.
Seems there isn't really any concern about "special treatment" here, rather its that the PPE manufacturers are prioritizing one region or state or whatever you lot call yourselves over another for sales/supply (if anything, that means that England is getting the special treatment), which is causing supply shortages in Scotland. The sensible thing to do would be to take Scotlands orders and find a way to allocate supply proportionately between the two regions.
I went to Lidl in Wallingfor today, a regular haunt of Dakka colleague Queen Anne's Revenge.
There was no queue to get in, but inside there were couplesm and a serious degree of anti-social distancing. I got really scared, the way people were behaving. Complete selfishness and stupidity.
At least I was able to get nearly everything I wanted. Out of the absolute basics, only eggs and flour were out of stock.
But the queues at the checkouts were so long! They only had two tills open. Everyone wasn't obeying distancing rules in the queues.
I decided I never want to go back there unless it's a very quick dive to get prunes and smoked salmon. I can't get them at Aldi where the social behaviour is much better.
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
Scotland has a devolved government who are constantly trying to gain independence, but soon as it goes south they want special treatment.
that is based off your evidence-less point though. I'd be surprised if that was actually the case.
Dr Donald McCaskill, chief of Scottish Care (that's the voice of the private care sector, nothing to do with the SNP [quite the opposite!] or the Scottish NHS) said this morning on BBC radio Scotland that the four largest UK PPE suppliers are refusing to sell them PPE.
Rather than the Scottish government wanting special treatment, they've stepped in to sort it out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I went to Lidl in Wallingfor today, a regular haunt of Dakka colleague Queen Anne's Revenge.
There was no queue to get in, but inside there were couplesm and a serious degree of anti-social distancing. I got really scared, the way people were behaving. Complete selfishness and stupidity.
At least I was able to get nearly everything I wanted. Out of the absolute basics, only eggs and flour were out of stock.
But the queues at the checkouts were so long! They only had two tills open. Everyone wasn't obeying distancing rules in the queues.
I decided I never want to go back there unless it's a very quick dive to get prunes and smoked salmon. I can't get them at Aldi where the social behaviour is much better.
Honestly the Aldi we shop at has been doing really well. Line outside is neat and orderly and everyone generally keeps 2m or greater away from each other. In the heat of Thursday they even walked down the line offering waterbottles for those waiting (being very sure to clarify that things were wiped down before being handed out). They also advanced someone for the medical profession forward to the front when they spotted them in the line with their ID badge on. Inside they've got one way stickers on the floor, but they've also left the gaps between aisles open. Which honestly is quite practical. If you're only in there for one or two things there's no point prolonging exposure of you to others and others to you in having you go the whole way around.
Tills have their screens up and they generally open every other till and wave you forward from the main line. The only downside is that the line can get very long and back up a bit, but everyone generally keeps distance during that.
I think the lines are longer because I generally see less staff around, I figure with having one or two on the front washing trollies and monitoring the line; coupled to likely staff lost to self isolating etc.... or jsut other duties; they might not have the staff to call on to keep more lanes open. That said staff at Aldi are generally super-fast at processing stuff through = though they do now have it that instead of bagging at the tills you basically throw everything back into the trolly and do your bagging at the car, which is fair and it does help a lot in speeding things up.
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
Scotland has a devolved government who are constantly trying to gain independence, but soon as it goes south they want special treatment.
that is based off your evidence-less point though. I'd be surprised if that was actually the case.
Dr Donald McCaskill, chief of Scottish Care (that's the voice of the private care sector, nothing to do with the SNP [quite the opposite!] or the Scottish NHS) said this morning on BBC radio Scotland that the four largest UK PPE suppliers are refusing to sell them PPE.
Rather than the Scottish government wanting special treatment, they've stepped in to sort it out.
Are they specifically refusing Hospitals in Scotland or hospitals that happen to be within Scotland. I can see that it might be the PPE is being pushed toward places like London and Manchester etc.... - ergo the very big urban centres that already have a massive spike in cases. Ergo that Scotland isn't being pushed out, but rather its there with other regions that have currently got lower pressures.
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
Scotland has a devolved government who are constantly trying to gain independence, but soon as it goes south they want special treatment.
that is based off your evidence-less point though. I'd be surprised if that was actually the case.
Dr Donald McCaskill, chief of Scottish Care (that's the voice of the private care sector, nothing to do with the SNP [quite the opposite!] or the Scottish NHS) said this morning on BBC radio Scotland that the four largest UK PPE suppliers are refusing to sell them PPE.
Rather than the Scottish government wanting special treatment, they've stepped in to sort it out.
Are they specifically refusing Hospitals in Scotland or hospitals that happen to be within Scotland. I can see that it might be the PPE is being pushed toward places like London and Manchester etc.... - ergo the very big urban centres that already have a massive spike in cases. Ergo that Scotland isn't being pushed out, but rather its there with other regions that have currently got lower pressures.
Said they were prioritising English hospitals and English carers. Very little detail.
Kilkrazy wrote: I went to Lidl in Wallingfor today, a regular haunt of Dakka colleague Queen Anne's Revenge.
There was no queue to get in, but inside there were couplesm and a serious degree of anti-social distancing. I got really scared, the way people were behaving. Complete selfishness and stupidity.
At least I was able to get nearly everything I wanted. Out of the absolute basics, only eggs and flour were out of stock.
But the queues at the checkouts were so long! They only had two tills open. Everyone wasn't obeying distancing rules in the queues.
I decided I never want to go back there unless it's a very quick dive to get prunes and smoked salmon. I can't get them at Aldi where the social behaviour is much better.
Why I started stocking up in early Jan when we became aware of Wuhan. Since we had the SARs, West Nile, and a few other outbreaks I start to slowly build up knowing its going to empty shelves soon. . When that Aussie who brought it to Seattle was confirmed I left work earl and brought (conservative here) meat products that would fit in my freezer and dry goods. So Im good for 6 months and will only go to the store if I really need it. I wasn't and still not concern with the virus. Its the people that scares me like you mention by piling up on two checkout lines (tills)
My last purchase was ammo. Don't freaking ask how much
Now the goldening star of a buy....a Dehydrator to make jerky. That thing has paid itself off already lol
Tips.
- Hydrogen Poroxide to clean kitchen counters
- As above if needed cupful to wash cloths
- I mix bleach and water in a spray container to also clean counters and spray my hands.
- When I do go out. Latex gloves...I've a lot due to airbrushing...and surgical masks. FFFS ensure you have the ,metal strip on top and conform around your nose. Also in a glad bag that has soak Isopropyl alcohol wash cloth for the shopping cart handle and basket itself.
- I also brought dehydrated eggs powder (damn the Army ) and powdered milk from Amazon. Same as Flour. I crap you not. I know how to make bread
- Instant mash potato and beef veggie soup stock up
- Bullions (I've quite a bit)
- Seeds (yes seeds and cannot remember what US state said they are non essential) I've a nice little plot that has been tilled and planted with 8 ft fence to prevent deer going in.
I can go on with tips and advice from experience (Anyone remember when USA(somethingsomething) and me went at it when we found a village in Afghanistan that was not inoculated from Small Pox quite awhile back?) I am not Hijacking this thread.
Edit 1
For cuts and stuff. Use vinegar instead of Isopropyl alcohol. Works as well still today as did back in the Roman Legions
Considering that California's governor has already said he'll do what he wants and help other states as well i wouldnt be shocked by any non trump governor following the white houses direction.
Minnesota is going to do what it wants and thinks best. Same with Texas. Trump can say what he wants but states will do what they do. You dont get to start leading once all the hard work and decisions already got done.
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
You have to make sacrifices.
If you can't help everyone then you have to help someone.
I'd rather 100 deaths isolated to Scotland than 1000 to the entire UK.
It's gak... But its maths.
As a Scot, I find your comment highly offensive, with its inference that Scots are somehow more disposable.
Isn't it clearly defined in the Constitution that the Power rest with the State Governors and not with Federal Government (PROTUS)?
As in dealing with something of this nature (Corona spread)
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
Scotland has a devolved government who are constantly trying to gain independence, but soon as it goes south they want special treatment.
that is based off your evidence-less point though. I'd be surprised if that was actually the case.
Dr Donald McCaskill, chief of Scottish Care (that's the voice of the private care sector, nothing to do with the SNP [quite the opposite!] or the Scottish NHS) said this morning on BBC radio Scotland that the four largest UK PPE suppliers are refusing to sell them PPE.
Rather than the Scottish government wanting special treatment, they've stepped in to sort it out.
Are they specifically refusing Hospitals in Scotland or hospitals that happen to be within Scotland. I can see that it might be the PPE is being pushed toward places like London and Manchester etc.... - ergo the very big urban centres that already have a massive spike in cases. Ergo that Scotland isn't being pushed out, but rather its there with other regions that have currently got lower pressures.
Said they were prioritising English hospitals and English carers. Very little detail.
Yeah it just seems odd to specifically target Scotland like this for no reason other than "they are scots". I'd find it more plausible that its simply a supply and demand situation whereby Scotland's lesser (current) outbreak compared to more populated southern cities means that its getting less prioritising in comparison. Likely a pattern seen in English counties that lack a major city.
You poor man, these truely are dark times I've been doing my shopping at the local butchers or farm shop, got to keep these smaller places going after all! The supermarket bosses are already raking it in under the guise of 'doing their bit for Britain'...
The issue with PPE for Scotland may well turn out to be that central government got in first (after all London was spiking far in advance of the rest of the UK) with large (or even unlimited) capacity orders before the Scotish Parliament got round to trying to order extra themselves
(and central government is buying PPE on behalf of all 4 nations so Scotland is going to be getting their 'fair' share of it anyway, it's not as if care homes, hospitals, health visitors in England & wales aren't screaming out for more too)
I've also seen the same basic story being run with wales saying they're not being sold PPE because England is buying it all
Kilkrazy wrote: I went to Lidl in Wallingfor today, a regular haunt of Dakka colleague Queen Anne's Revenge.
There was no queue to get in, but inside there were couplesm and a serious degree of anti-social distancing. I got really scared, the way people were behaving. Complete selfishness and stupidity.
At least I was able to get nearly everything I wanted. Out of the absolute basics, only eggs and flour were out of stock.
But the queues at the checkouts were so long! They only had two tills open. Everyone wasn't obeying distancing rules in the queues.
I decided I never want to go back there unless it's a very quick dive to get prunes and smoked salmon. I can't get them at Aldi where the social behaviour is much better.
I havent had any issues there. had to queue behind 3 others on thursday night but it was only about 5 minutes which I can deal with. havent noticed any particularly bad behaviour there myself, but then maybe I have too lax an attitude about it to judge. it really doesnt bother me, I've just been shopping the same as usual.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: The issue with PPE for Scotland may well turn out to be that central government got in first (after all London was spiking far in advance of the rest of the UK) with large (or even unlimited) capacity orders before the Scotish Parliament got round to trying to order extra themselves
Again, the story was about the private sector in Scotland. Scottish NHS procurement appears to be fine and they had enough available to help the private sector when they struggled to source more from their suppliers who are now prioritising facilities in England.
Frazzled wrote: Father in law has it. Considering he lives in rural East Texas thats a surprise.
Frazz!!!
Whew!
We hadn't heard from you in a while - I was getting worried!
Still alive, still working in the budding metropolis of Austin. Hoping this dies down as the Boy is getting married in August, and as he's marrying up we can't let this one get away.
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
You have to make sacrifices.
If you can't help everyone then you have to help someone.
I'd rather 100 deaths isolated to Scotland than 1000 to the entire UK.
It's gak... But its maths.
As a Scot, I find your comment highly offensive, with its inference that Scots are somehow more disposable.
I shall hold my tongue now.
You are the one reading an inference I never made.
You're offending yourself by creating a fictional narrative.
which I hold no responsibility for.
Jihadin wrote: Isn't it clearly defined in the Constitution that the Power rest with the State Governors and not with Federal Government (PROTUS)?
As in dealing with something of this nature (Corona spread)
Not to throw shade at you, and as intense as this thread seems to be getting I wanted to make that clear, but when the constitution was written there was more or less nothing that could be done during a plague except pay some guy a helluva lotta money to drive the cart yelling "Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!" and bury or burn the bodies ASAP.
Today we have the technology and resources to at least significantly mitigate a plague, and in that a state can't do a lot by itself the fed needs to be able to.
This assumes a leader that actually cares about anything but himself, unfortunately.
Frazzled wrote: Father in law has it. Considering he lives in rural East Texas thats a surprise.
Frazz!!!
Whew!
We hadn't heard from you in a while - I was getting worried!
Still alive, still working in the budding metropolis of Austin. Hoping this dies down as the Boy is getting married in August, and as he's marrying up we can't let this one get away.
In a similar boat. My step sister is getting married at the end of august. Worried for the chances of weddings happening. Stay safe, Fraz, and I hope your FIL recovers quickly. The amount of age jokes you’ve made about yourself, I’m assuming he’s not a young’in!
In a similar boat. My step sister is getting married at the end of august. Worried for the chances of weddings happening. Stay safe, Fraz, and I hope your FIL recovers quickly. The amount of age jokes you’ve made about yourself, I’m assuming he’s not a young’in!
I shall. Its hard with the FIL as, at his age, anything could get him, and frankly with his dementia it wouldn't be that bad.
I can't make that argument too strongly though as the wife and kids already think most of the screws fell off my wagon some miles back.
I think August will be substantially more opened up for weddings.
Hulksmash wrote: Considering that California's governor has already said he'll do what he wants and help other states as well i wouldnt be shocked by any non trump governor following the white houses direction.
Minnesota is going to do what it wants and thinks best. Same with Texas. Trump can say what he wants but states will do what they do. You dont get to start leading once all the hard work and decisions already got done.
I think the risk is that the guy with the biggest soapbox and the largest platform is going to go out on national TV and say "everyone back to work" while the governors say "no stay at home" through the much more limited media airtime that is generally afforded to them.
Its just a lot of confusion that people are going to have to sort through and with conflicting information being presented, a lot of people are going to have to make a decision, and I'm not convinced that the average American is properly equipped with the facts to make that decision. I would wager that most people think of the government in strictly hierarchal terms and automatically assume that federal actions automatically supercede state actions - even if they know better they will feign ignorance if it suits their personal interests to follow the advice of the President contrary to their governor.
Isn't it clearly defined in the Constitution that the Power rest with the State Governors and not with Federal Government (PROTUS)?
I don't know that anything is clearly defined enough in the Constitution that they won't try to argue that it means something else entirely.
Also, why do you keep using PROTUS instead of the more common and accepted POTUS? Literally never seen or heard PROTUS before, what does the R stand for?
tneva82 wrote: Poor scotland not getting masks and other PPE from english companies as they are focusing only to england now. Hardly surprising.
You have to make sacrifices.
If you can't help everyone then you have to help someone.
I'd rather 100 deaths isolated to Scotland than 1000 to the entire UK.
It's gak... But its maths.
As a Scot, I find your comment highly offensive, with its inference that Scots are somehow more disposable.
I went to the grocery store yesterday because I was desperate for ice cream. I've been working remote, so this was the first time I've left the house in about a week.
The good news, not only was there good stock of Haagen Das, it was $4 each. I haven't seen it that low in a while.
There was still absolutely no toilet paper. There were 2 rolls of overpriced paper towels - not price gougey, just normal overpriced brand.
I brought a mask and a bunch of gloves in the car with me, but decided I was stupid to wear the mask so just wore the gloves. When I got in the store, half the shoppers and most of the employees were wearing masks.
I know a lot of people have said not to wear gloves, that hand washing is better, but for me, I trust gloves: I don't wear them very long (I tossed them when I left the store, and put a fresh pair on for the post office, then tossed those and washed my hands when I got home). The other thing for me and gloves is that I wear them all the time normally - I don't handle the 3d printing resin without them on. It's a skin irritant. As a result, I am super, super good about not touching my face when I have gloves on. I probably have at least 200 gloves left, so I should be good for a while there. I've stopped printing nonessential resin 3D stuff for now to preserve my glove supply.
More mast attacks in Birmingham too (although whether this is actually by people who thing 5G = virus, or just people who want the masts gone it's hard to tell)
And my answer to your self created fictional inference is the same as I already gave.
You are the one reading an inference I never made.
You're offending yourself by creating a fictional narrative.
which I hold no responsibility for.
You can claim all you like. But it's got nothing to do with being Scottish. Simple as.
Wouldn't matter if you were Scottish, Welsh, Irish or pigmy goat.
Your weak efforts to find a hidden meaning are silly and pointless and you're relying on the biased mods to take your sides in a falsehood of your own creation.
How very open minded of you.
If people are taking offense to something you say, it's always a good idea to stop and ask yourself why. You are responsible for the things you say, whether they come out how you intended or not.
While I can see what you intended to say, the way you said it does make it easy to read as being a comment against Scottish people. Let's chalk it up as poor phrasing, learn from it and move on, hmm?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: More mast attacks in Birmingham too (although whether this is actually by people who thing 5G = virus, or just people who want the masts gone it's hard to tell)
Yeah, I would think that the attacks are more likely linked to the more common, general '5G is bad because someone on the internet said so' movement than the Coronavirus thing specifically.
Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Eh I think that's likely got an impact on supplies; but far less than the fact that everyone went out and bought multiple loads more than they normally do all at the very same time. What ran those supplies low is the same thing that ran all the rest of the food low.
Especially in urban environments where people are more used to shopping ad-hock when they need it every day; rather than planning for a week or two weeks in advance and doing one big shop up. So suddenly you have a huge number of people buying a month or more's worth of toiletroll in a day or two.
Plus once news got out that supplies were low everyone went into silly panic mode and even more people bough extra even if they didn't need any. Once the supply was drained out it remained so because whenever it gets back into stock some people go nuts buying it.
Food was the same, though unlike food you don't need freezers to store toiletroll - the only limit is how much space you have. I think this further made the situation worse because some people did hoard it up at insane volumes. Food they could only store so much of before they ran out of space to keep it long term (and even then a two week period later and a lot of bread and other products are being thrown out because it went bad - people didn't have 20 freezers at home)
Hulksmash wrote: Considering that California's governor has already said he'll do what he wants and help other states as well i wouldnt be shocked by any non trump governor following the white houses direction.
Minnesota is going to do what it wants and thinks best. Same with Texas. Trump can say what he wants but states will do what they do. You dont get to start leading once all the hard work and decisions already got done.
I think the risk is that the guy with the biggest soapbox and the largest platform is going to go out on national TV and say "everyone back to work" while the governors say "no stay at home" through the much more limited media airtime that is generally afforded to them.
Its just a lot of confusion that people are going to have to sort through and with conflicting information being presented, a lot of people are going to have to make a decision, and I'm not convinced that the average American is properly equipped with the facts to make that decision. I would wager that most people think of the government in strictly hierarchal terms and automatically assume that federal actions automatically supercede state actions - even if they know better they will feign ignorance if it suits their personal interests to follow the advice of the President contrary to their governor.
Isn't it clearly defined in the Constitution that the Power rest with the State Governors and not with Federal Government (PROTUS)?
I don't know that anything is clearly defined enough in the Constitution that they won't try to argue that it means something else entirely.
Also, why do you keep using PROTUS instead of the more common and accepted POTUS? Literally never seen or heard PROTUS before, what does the R stand for?
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
I really can't see that. There used to be a giant wall of toilet paper at my local Dollar General, with at least a dozen of each kind available. Even the crappiest stuff that was barely above truckstop quality. But lo and behold, two weeks before my state even announced the Stay At Home order, everything was gone in a matter of maybe two-three days after the online rumor of a shortage of it was going to happen, and every time they get a truck in, the ladies there say it's gone the same day. Also, the other even larger Supermarket in the other direction has been out of everything from toilet paper to napkins the three times I have gone there in the last three weeks. So is the other Family Dollar across the street from THAT supermarket. None of those stores are more than 4 miles from my house.
Thousands and thousands of rolls in my rural county are being used? No, that's hoarding. No one craps that much. I am sheltering in place with my Wife and two kids (5 and 3). We had a thirty-roll pack from Costco that was bought at the end of February, and we still have nearly 15 rolls left and we haven't even been cutting back on how much we use. I repeat, no one craps that much.
The shortage if from families of two people having 50 rolls in their basement, if not more.
Irbis wrote: One potentially nice thing about Covid is nature recovery - when you look about news about clear Venetian channels, endangered turtles in Brazil surviving hatching in much greater numbers thanks to empty beaches, and other stories that would be impossible a year ago because powerful lobby funded by rich screamed MUH ECONOMY when someone proposed temporary limits to give animals some space when they are most vulnerable I hope we can repeat that in next years even without prompting. Humans can live with beach closed for a week when turtles need to lay eggs, forests being off limits in mating season. But who I am kidding, greed and lack of empathy will probably mean business as usual in 2021 and following, better cut every single tree down and concrete every last single bit of ground, think of profits and the economy, eh?
Did anyone see Trumps rant in his press conference it was quite the thing,
I am concerned and watch with bated breath the countries that are releasing measures , as they still have many cases and am concerned they ramp up again. I hope not I really do.
There’s a group on Facebook ( was? It’s been reported) claiming covid doesn’t exist , it’s just an excuse for nhs workers to kill people .... got a few thousand members somehow
dalezzz wrote: There’s a group on Facebook ( was? It’s been reported) claiming covid doesn’t exist , it’s just an excuse for nhs workers to kill people .... got a few thousand members somehow
OK......
Last time i checked you don't kill off the hand that feeds you.....
dalezzz wrote: There’s a group on Facebook ( was? It’s been reported) claiming covid doesn’t exist , it’s just an excuse for nhs workers to kill people .... got a few thousand members somehow
An excuse for NHS workers to kill people... in China???
In general, people fear being out of control of their lives. The virus creates a terrible feeling of being out of control, so we search for something we can do that makes us feel we are getting some contril. Buying supplies helps with that.
TP is special because once we are potty trained, we fear loss of bowel control as one of the most disgraceful, unfortunate things that can happen to us. It's strongly associated with dirt and disease.
Who ever could have foreseen this? Its almost like I predicted it, I must be psychic... Real talk, realistically I believe this is going to delay Trumps ability to reopen the country (well, the governors ability to reopen the country, as Trump decidedly does not have the authority to do so no matter how much he might wish otherwise). You can't have the country firing on all cylinders economically while a segment of it is basically non-functional because a failure to take action has turned it into a viral hotspot. If you're the governor of New York or New Jersey, you're not going to be too keen to re-normalize interstate commerce after beating this thing while other states are failing to maintain public health and posing a risk of reinfection.
Who ever could have foreseen this? Its almost like I predicted it, I must be psychic... Real talk, realistically I believe this is going to delay Trumps ability to reopen the country (well, the governors ability to reopen the country, as Trump decidedly does not have the authority to do so no matter how much he might wish otherwise). You can't have the country firing on all cylinders economically while a segment of it is basically non-functional because a failure to take action has turned it into a viral hotspot. If you're the governor of New York or New Jersey, you're not going to be to keen to re-normalize interstate commerce after beating this thing while other states are failing to maintain public health and posing a risk of reinfection.
Actually you'd be highly keen due to economic reasons since you had to take a hit to close down, except the clowns that didn't now basically prolong your closure and have made the situation worse for all involved.
Kilkrazy wrote: The toilet paper situation is due to psychology.
In general, people fear being out of control of their lives. The virus creates a terrible feeling of being out of control, so we search for something we can do that makes us feel we are getting some contril. Buying supplies helps with that.
TP is special because once we are potty trained, we fear loss of bowel control as one of the most disgraceful, unfortunate things that can happen to us. It's strongly associated with dirt and disease.
The psychological link with the virus is obvious.
Indeed. thats why it seems to no longer be an issue.. people have realised that the end of the world isnt actually here and they arent going to die with a messy anus.
Actually you'd be highly keen due to economic reasons since you had to take a hit to close down, except the clowns that didn't now basically prolong your closure and have made the situation worse for all involved.
I think this virus might kill off my car. It’s engine needs some work but obviously every garage is closed and I can’t get the parts myself either. And I can’t park it up and leave it be because it’s the only way I can get to work. I guess that’s another reason to leave that job...besides the danger of getting the virus.
Interesting comment on a Yahoo comments section. Obviously, I'm gonna keep an eye out for more info. But you should already know that a fever is how your body combats viruses, and preventing your body from raising its temperature would be advantageous to the virus. Time for a good long soak in the hot tub, I suppose.
Possible adjunctive therapyrobably more than SARS 1, SARS 2/ COVID 19 seems to supress fevers more than usual. A lot of people have the virus, don't know they have it and have no fever at all. This may be the reason the virus is able to replicate and spread. (calm before the storm) So if we can increase the core body temperature using whatever techniques are available like contrast showers, hydro thermal therapy, hot bath then cold, this might actually help speed up recovery and not spread the virus.
Patients coming in with COVID-19 have elevated liver function tests. Non steroidal medications inhibit the production of prostaglandins, which are directly responsible for antibody production. That is the adaptive immune response but no the innate immune system. The impact of COVID-19 isn't just on lungs. It attacks the entire body including the heart, kidneys, liver, the collagulation system, neuroligical system.
Thermal stress produces heat shock proteins which are immune modulators. They essentially jumstarts the immune response whereas this virus tries to downregulate the innate immune system. This treatment has to be complimented with current medical care. If you are relatively fit the same can be accomplished with exercise to increase core temperature then cooling off with a cold shower.
In terms of anyone who might be immunocompromised, many companies are looking at the natural killer cells to help with immunity in other diseases and repurposed to look at COVID-19. They are taking it and infusing it on people coming in to the hospital. Imagine that you can do this in much less invasive ways much earlier in the process with hydro thermal therapy.
Warning to anyone with asthma as steam hot showers can precipitate an astma attacks. Hot/Cold therapy treatment can potentially boost immunity with coronavirus. He cites 4 studies below indicate affects the part of the SARS COV2 natural cells and monocytes. Keep in mind there is no studies on this with COVID-19 but he is using the next best scenario studies if you follow. Hot and cold temperature regulation affects part of the innate immune system that helps with targeting viral infections. Hyperthermia and then cooling off actually improved surrogates for the immune system monocytes and their stimulation/ response to foreign invaders.
Consider taking contrast showers 4-6 minutes warm/hot water, clean yourself, then rinse with 1-3 minutes cold water. Every day. Takes 1-2 weeks to get used to it, but it's well worth it. Or hot bath/then cold shower. Consult with your doctor first but here is a instructional video on contrast showers https://vimeo.com/165013134/346f3ef87a
If you go out in public practice social distancing and wear a mask or face covering of some kind. They make a whole room UV light sanitizer on http://uvsterilizex.com/ they make for surfaces/rooms. UV light is highly effective at killing viruses. The three main types of UV rays are UVA, UVB, and UVC. Because UVC rays have the shortest wavelength, and therefore highest energy, they are capable of killing bacteria and viruses, also called pathogens.
Regarding prescriptions if they run out another doctor, Dr. Nicole Apelian has recently come up with alternative herbal remedies along with natural plants to use. She has some great coronavirus tips but please don't discount her as she has a PHD and is a herbalist because an unexpected diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in 2000 led Nicole to apply her research skills towards her own personal wellness.She was selected on history channel back in 2015 on a survival show called Alone. Her guide is on http://lostremedies.pg-blog.com/
Here are some additional proactive tips coming from several doctors on coronavirus. If you have a compromised immune system or just want to boost it against this virus here are some proactive measures that can help according to pulmonologist Dr. Seheult. & John Campbell. Make sure you are not Zinc deficient and start a daily dose 10-50 micrograms (400-2000 IU). of Vitamin D, get some daily sun in. Getting more than 50 micrograms reduces the positive effect. Taking this amount reduces respiratory infection by 50%.
I live in a rural Red State, and the State government was very lax about the issue at first, following the lead of the president. It was actually local County Public Health departments and leaders who stepped in and issued Closure Orders.
So far, my county has only had 1 case, and they reacted and shutdown everything as soon as the first case showed up at our local Hospital.
Neighboring counties that did not react as quickly were hit harder. So far, only 1 person has died in my entire state. However, my entire state has less people than a small Metro area like Minneapolis/St. Paul
We are a rural area not that many people will actually get infected, and the rural folks here will NOT understand why the economy tanked over this virus.
The scary thing is that we have literal history to learn from with the 1918 pandemic, and are still being stupid as a nation. It's well documented, and reading parts of the reports seems eerily familiar, from the lack of quick response, the unwillingness of so e states to impose a lockdown, etc.
We now have some ONS figures for England and Wales and they are... not good.
Weekly deaths up 60% (yep, sixty) on the five year average week ending 3rd April. Half of that increase, about 20% of all deaths, are officially recorded as COVID-19 but government accepting the real number will be higher. Carehome deaths increased tenfold but aren't integrated with the CV death figures.
Neighboring counties that did not react as quickly were hit harder. So far, only 1 person has died in my entire state. However, my entire state has less people than a small Metro area like Minneapolis/St. Paul
Im confused, your location says that youre in MN - which is Minnesota, but Minneapolis/St. Paul are both cities in Minnesota - how can your entire state have less people than the largest city in your states??
We are a rural area not that many people will actually get infected, and the rural folks here will NOT understand why the economy tanked over this virus.
This is the source of a lot of problems in modern America, seems like a lot of people have this issue where if they can't experience something directly then it doesn't apply to them or isn't real. Its why people in rural states are going to their local hospitals and photographing them as proof that this whole thing is a media manufactured hoax, because they can't comprehend that an area like New York is experiencing things differently, etc. But it reaches far beyond just coronavirus to perceptions of lifestyle, society, political thinking, etc.
Flip side of that though is reporting on violent crime in like, Detroit, suddenly makes everyone think that the crime rate is up nationwide and everyone is at risk of being murdered in their sleep.
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Who poops at the office?
Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime. That's why I poop on company time.
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Neighboring counties that did not react as quickly were hit harder. So far, only 1 person has died in my entire state. However, my entire state has less people than a small Metro area like Minneapolis/St. Paul
Im confused, your location says that youre in MN - which is Minnesota, but Minneapolis/St. Paul are both cities in Minnesota - how can your entire state have less people than the largest city in your states??
I moved to WY and am not in MN at the moment.
I should probably update that, but being a MN citizen most of my life, i have a feeling I will be going back one way or another, someday.
Future War Cultist wrote: I think this virus might kill off my car. It’s engine needs some work but obviously every garage is closed and I can’t get the parts myself either. And I can’t park it up and leave it be because it’s the only way I can get to work. I guess that’s another reason to leave that job...besides the danger of getting the virus.
Is that right (about the garages)? Halfords is staying open, and we have a poster in the thread who is still working at his car parts shop. Probably worth a ring in case they are open for emergencies (nurses and key workers still need their cars to work after all).
Future War Cultist wrote: I think this virus might kill off my car. It’s engine needs some work but obviously every garage is closed and I can’t get the parts myself either. And I can’t park it up and leave it be because it’s the only way I can get to work. I guess that’s another reason to leave that job...besides the danger of getting the virus.
Is that right (about the garages)? Halfords is staying open, and we have a poster in the thread who is still working at his car parts shop. Probably worth a ring in case they are open for emergencies (nurses and key workers still need their cars to work).
Garages are listed as essential businesses, at least in my city (I'd say state, but our governor is a useless POS). Mind, I wouldn't blame them for shutting their doors right now anyway, but they do have the option to remain open.
EDIT: Oh, you're British. Yeah, results may vary here.
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Who poops at the office?
What, you hold them for 9 hours?
ummmmmmmmmm, yes?
how else does one sleep and go to to work?
Working from home has been great - basically always on the clock. 55-60 hour weeks and painting intermittently throughout. This is saving me a few hundred a month not driving out of state with bridge tolls and gas.
The gf hates working remote in comparison. Animal Crossing with her coworkers and friends helps a bit.
My city hasnt been annihilated with cases yet - lots of people wearing masks and staying safe.
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Who poops at the office?
What, you hold them for 9 hours?
ummmmmmmmmm, yes?
how else does one sleep and go to to work?
If you have your pooping solely confined to some 4 hour period of downtime and home, good for you. The reality is that many people need to poop at least once in a while during their work days.
Irbis wrote: One potentially nice thing about Covid is nature recovery - when you look about news about clear Venetian channels, endangered turtles in Brazil surviving hatching in much greater numbers thanks to empty beaches, and other stories that would be impossible a year ago because powerful lobby funded by rich screamed MUH ECONOMY when someone proposed temporary limits to give animals some space when they are most vulnerable I hope we can repeat that in next years even without prompting. Humans can live with beach closed for a week when turtles need to lay eggs, forests being off limits in mating season. But who I am kidding, greed and lack of empathy will probably mean business as usual in 2021 and following, better cut every single tree down and concrete every last single bit of ground, think of profits and the economy, eh?
Nevelon wrote: Heard an interesting theory on toilet paper. It’s not so much hoarding, but supply and demand. With supply being part of it.
There is a difference between the TP most offices use, and home use. Big rolls, crappy quality. You know the stuff. You used it during the 8 hours a day you were at work.
But now you are working from home. You are using the normal, decent quality stuff. All those mid-day trips you used office TP for? Now you are using your home stuff. As an individual, your consumption just doubled.
And they can’t just shuffle the industrial rolls of TP over to Walmart of whatever shop to sell to home users. Not normal sized rolls, not in inventory system, etc.
So as a nation (planet? not sure if other countries have similar work/home styles of TP) we just doubled our use of the kind of TP that’s sold in stores to regular people. And wonder why they can’t keep it in stock.
They are going to have to re-tool the factory from that one-ply snadpaper to charmin.
Who poops at the office?
What, you hold them for 9 hours?
ummmmmmmmmm, yes?
how else does one sleep and go to to work?
Is HSM1 his generation's gak Break - American Pie 2020 style?!?
Future War Cultist wrote: I think this virus might kill off my car. It’s engine needs some work but obviously every garage is closed and I can’t get the parts myself either. And I can’t park it up and leave it be because it’s the only way I can get to work. I guess that’s another reason to leave that job...besides the danger of getting the virus.
Is that right (about the garages)? Halfords is staying open, and we have a poster in the thread who is still working at his car parts shop. Probably worth a ring in case they are open for emergencies (nurses and key workers still need their cars to work after all).
Yep parts supply and repairs are essential services(got an official form in the glove box to prove it ) Most of the large national chains are open, although probably operating with reduced staff and hours. Independents are the tricky ones as repair work has really dropped off, especially with the M.O.T extension. Also some of the more uncommon parts could be tricky to source at the moment. Best thing to do is ring round your locals and see who picks up.
Also, yeh totally poop at the office. Always use the firms TP before your own. Just wipe the seat before you go, especially now
AegisGrimm wrote: The scary thing is that we have literal history to learn from with the 1918 pandemic, and are still being stupid as a nation. It's well documented, and reading parts of the reports seems eerily familiar, from the lack of quick response, the unwillingness of so e states to impose a lockdown, etc.
The BBC put up an article the other day that was (by the title) nominally about Pericles because he's Boris' political hero. In actuality, the meat of it was about Greek histories of the Athenian epidemics (particularly the Great Plague in 430 BC), and Thucydides' observations about human reactions and behavior. Almost 2500 years later, human behavior is largely the same
For me once a day is sufficient most of the days. Even with couple work time(where btw rolls are actually pretty much same...) that hardly means doubling home usage. Maybe 20% increase if that.
And besides people didn't hoard double what they need. Who needs tens of packs? Do they use one roll every time they go to toilet
And in finland it starts to look pretty sure the most severe restriction so far(blockage of whole Uusimaa) is not going to be extended. Constitutationally would be pretty hard to justify extending beyond 19th. Movement inside Finland is protected by law(it was free even during ww2) so can only be restricted on very exceptional reasons. It was blocked in first place because most of cases were in Uusimaa with rest having just few cases. Now while daily new cases is dropping despite increased testings the infection count in Uusimaa and elsewhere is evening up. Ergo either restriction lifts or you pretty much have to start locking up other regions as well. Can't justify locking of one region if other regions which have equal infection rate aren't locked up.
Rest of restrictions are still in for mid/end of may as before with possible extensions possible still for those.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Which makes sense, because humans are largely the same. If anything, expecting a different response goes against what should be the basic assumption.
The big difference between now and 2,500 years ago is science. But the people have had enough of experts.
I would disagree, the fact that the vast majority of brits are not only voluntarily locking themselves in their homes, but chastising those they believe are 'breaking the rules' and actually calling for tighter restrictions on their own freedoms (wrongly in my opinion as most of you know) shows that they are taking the mainstream line of thinking seriously.
) Do the hospitals not provide staff lockers anymore?
Sermon turned quite hilarious turn thanks to that ;-)
if they can't go to church for a few months. Waah waah.
