[Goose]

Interesting article on vaccine developments. Not going to help us real soon, but this is a good update.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5

[Goose]

Interesting article on vaccine developments. Not going to help us real soon, but this is a good update.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5

[Farm93]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession?  Half-full restaurants only need half the staff.  Quarter-full stadiums provide 1/4 the revenue.  Flights at 60% capacity means grounding a lot of planes if it's going to be profitable for the airlines.  

I am increasingly certain that there is no solution to the economic hit until we have a vaccine or hit herd-immunity levels of infection.  If the ongoing social distancing is mandatory, it essentially puts a cap on how many jobs the economy can create.  Scott Gottlieb, Trump's earlier FDA commissioner thinks that 80% of the economy can return if we open up again soon.  A 20% hit to the economy is still near great depression levels. 

Voluntary social distancing is still going to be a thing, too.  As Farm93 pointed out, a lot of people (including my family) will not be doing anything unnecessary in public until there is a vaccine or a cure.  Again, even if only 20% of people isolated themselves, we're looking at a depression, at least in a lot of service sectors.

If you are thinking that contact tracing will save us, I'd encourage you to read this article, which probably deserves its own thread: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/c...employment

It is 3-38.   "We" got a FG, so we did a few things right in 2020, but we gave up 38 points.   

The Feds are cheering the idea that we are testing more than other countries.   A bit like getting chunk plays when down by 5 TDs and claiming no other opponent got big plays against that same team.   It is a bit sad because most of us are on this team, but the winning countries will never touch our testing numbers per capita because they never lost control.

For the USA, and really the world since the EU is in the same place, this economic game in 2020 is over.   In a real war countries wouldn't focus heavily on economic metrics during the war.  In most wars even the winner's economy is thrashed and it takes several years to recover.    

Every form of social distancing will cause economic pain.   Mandatory reductions in the numbers at stadiums, restaurants, shopping centers will all be massive economic drags.  Even without the mandatory reductions the voluntary reductions are going throw the USA, and all of Europe, into a real nasty recession. 

That's downturn is our reality, and the best government officials around the world are already getting their citizens prepared for that reality.

POTUS45 and his allies are selling a fantasy they will claim before the election that we could have had if everyone had trusted them in April.

At this point, I trust Fauci, Cuomo, Newsom & Dewine.

POTUS45 is a cheerleader and at this point and he has about as much credibility to me as that cheerleader that holds up a "MAKE SOME NOISE" sign late in the 4th quarter with the team down 3-38.

[Farm93]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession?  Half-full restaurants only need half the staff.  Quarter-full stadiums provide 1/4 the revenue.  Flights at 60% capacity means grounding a lot of planes if it's going to be profitable for the airlines.  

I am increasingly certain that there is no solution to the economic hit until we have a vaccine or hit herd-immunity levels of infection.  If the ongoing social distancing is mandatory, it essentially puts a cap on how many jobs the economy can create.  Scott Gottlieb, Trump's earlier FDA commissioner thinks that 80% of the economy can return if we open up again soon.  A 20% hit to the economy is still near great depression levels. 

Voluntary social distancing is still going to be a thing, too.  As Farm93 pointed out, a lot of people (including my family) will not be doing anything unnecessary in public until there is a vaccine or a cure.  Again, even if only 20% of people isolated themselves, we're looking at a depression, at least in a lot of service sectors.

If you are thinking that contact tracing will save us, I'd encourage you to read this article, which probably deserves its own thread: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/c...employment

It is 3-38.   "We" got a FG, so we did a few things right in 2020, but we gave up 38 points.   

The Feds are cheering the idea that we are testing more than other countries.   A bit like getting chunk plays when down by 5 TDs and claiming no other opponent got big plays against that same team.   It is a bit sad because most of us are on this team, but the winning countries will never touch our testing numbers per capita because they never lost control.

For the USA, and really the world since the EU is in the same place, this economic game in 2020 is over.   In a real war countries wouldn't focus heavily on economic metrics during the war.  In most wars even the winner's economy is thrashed and it takes several years to recover.    

Every form of social distancing will cause economic pain.   Mandatory reductions in the numbers at stadiums, restaurants, shopping centers will all be massive economic drags.  Even without the mandatory reductions the voluntary reductions are going throw the USA, and all of Europe, into a real nasty recession. 

That's downturn is our reality, and the best government officials around the world are already getting their citizens prepared for that reality.

POTUS45 and his allies are selling a fantasy they will claim before the election that we could have had if everyone had trusted them in April.

At this point, I trust Fauci, Cuomo, Newsom & Dewine.

POTUS45 is a cheerleader and at this point and he has about as much credibility to me as that cheerleader that holds up a "MAKE SOME NOISE" sign late in the 4th quarter with the team down 3-38.

[oregontim]

Obviously it's time to stop the current disastrous policy, but you proponents of that policy can rest easy.  It won't happen here.  The people on this board who advocate the destruction of America's economy to save a small percentage of the 330 million have the resources to care for themselves personally, and don't have to care about the tens of millions whose lives are now ruined or the country that will be financially devastated.


The good part is that the economy will be so devastated that chaos will reign, and while Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren won't be elected, their policies will be implemented.  Soak the rich is right around the corner.  Probably not a French Revolution or October Revolution for those who desperately deserve it, but who knows?

So I'm one of the "small percentage," I suppose; I'm 72. And ...

• I think everybody who wants to loosen restrictions should push just as hard for massive testing. So we copy the smaller nations who successfully used "test and separate" instead of social distancing. For that we need the fictitious testing for everybody to be actually true.
  
• Isn't the idea that social distancing is a sacrifice some make for others already out of date? If it were just about us, our grandkids could be at school, and their parents at work, without endangering us if they just stay away from us. And the rest of the world could be at theaters and restaurants while we stayed away. That tired meme that old people should be happy to sacrifice themselves for the economy was dumb from the start. It seems clear that social distancing for all is, in fact, for all. Don't blame me.
  

[oregontim]

Obviously it's time to stop the current disastrous policy, but you proponents of that policy can rest easy.  It won't happen here.  The people on this board who advocate the destruction of America's economy to save a small percentage of the 330 million have the resources to care for themselves personally, and don't have to care about the tens of millions whose lives are now ruined or the country that will be financially devastated.


The good part is that the economy will be so devastated that chaos will reign, and while Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren won't be elected, their policies will be implemented.  Soak the rich is right around the corner.  Probably not a French Revolution or October Revolution for those who desperately deserve it, but who knows?

So I'm one of the "small percentage," I suppose; I'm 72. And ...

• I think everybody who wants to loosen restrictions should push just as hard for massive testing. So we copy the smaller nations who successfully used "test and separate" instead of social distancing. For that we need the fictitious testing for everybody to be actually true.
  
• Isn't the idea that social distancing is a sacrifice some make for others already out of date? If it were just about us, our grandkids could be at school, and their parents at work, without endangering us if they just stay away from us. And the rest of the world could be at theaters and restaurants while we stayed away. That tired meme that old people should be happy to sacrifice themselves for the economy was dumb from the start. It seems clear that social distancing for all is, in fact, for all. Don't blame me.
  

[oldalum]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession? 

Yes, until we get an effective vaccine or highly effective treatment.

---

Just in case you were curious, about 1,000 Americans have been thrown out of work for every COVID-19 death.  More than 1,000 families devastated so a diabetic, heart failure, hypertense old person like me could live a few extra years.  

I understand what you're getting at, but this overstates the case. People are not being disemployed for every Covid-19 death that HAS already occurred, it is to prevent the many many more deaths, and the more numerous serious illnesses requiring hospitalization and even intubation, and the 2-week isolation that the much more numerous people with minor illness must do, that WILL occur in the future without these measures if the infections (and deaths) continue to spread exponentially. All of those deaths and illnesses have economic effects, too. And it's not just sick old geezers dying a few years early; in Santa Clara County, 22% of deaths have been in people under 61, and another 15% in the 61-70 age group.

[oldalum]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession? 

Yes, until we get an effective vaccine or highly effective treatment.

---

Just in case you were curious, about 1,000 Americans have been thrown out of work for every COVID-19 death.  More than 1,000 families devastated so a diabetic, heart failure, hypertense old person like me could live a few extra years.  

I understand what you're getting at, but this overstates the case. People are not being disemployed for every Covid-19 death that HAS already occurred, it is to prevent the many many more deaths, and the more numerous serious illnesses requiring hospitalization and even intubation, and the 2-week isolation that the much more numerous people with minor illness must do, that WILL occur in the future without these measures if the infections (and deaths) continue to spread exponentially. All of those deaths and illnesses have economic effects, too. And it's not just sick old geezers dying a few years early; in Santa Clara County, 22% of deaths have been in people under 61, and another 15% in the 61-70 age group.

[2006alum]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession? 

Yes, until we get an effective vaccine or highly effective treatment.

---

Just in case you were curious, about 1,000 Americans have been thrown out of work for every COVID-19 death.  More than 1,000 families devastated so a diabetic, heart failure, hypertense old person like me could live a few extra years.  

I understand what you're getting at, but this overstates the case. People are not being disemployed for every Covid-19 death that HAS already occurred, it is to prevent the many many more deaths, and the more numerous serious illnesses requiring hospitalization and even intubation, and the 2-week isolation that the much more numerous people with minor illness must do, that WILL occur in the future without these measures if the infections (and deaths) continue to spread exponentially. All of those deaths and illnesses have economic effects, too. And it's not just sick old geezers dying a few years early; in Santa Clara County, 22% of deaths have been in people under 60, and another 15% in the 61-70 age group.

And I would add: now knowing several people who have had to be admitted to the ICU and intubated, I am painfully aware of how the road to recovery back from serious COVID-19 infection is long, painful, and scary. Anyone who has a severe reaction to COVID-19 will be out of the workforce for 4-6 weeks, at a minimum, and potentially permanent impaired relative to their lung capacity and functioning prior to the illness. And those don't even count as part of the CFR numerator.

The notion that we're doing all of this just to save fat old geezers is total folly, and Mick, I wish you'd stop saying it because we both know it's not true. Many many more people will suffer tremendously for every life lost to COVID-19.

[2006alum]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession? 

Yes, until we get an effective vaccine or highly effective treatment.

---

Just in case you were curious, about 1,000 Americans have been thrown out of work for every COVID-19 death.  More than 1,000 families devastated so a diabetic, heart failure, hypertense old person like me could live a few extra years.  

I understand what you're getting at, but this overstates the case. People are not being disemployed for every Covid-19 death that HAS already occurred, it is to prevent the many many more deaths, and the more numerous serious illnesses requiring hospitalization and even intubation, and the 2-week isolation that the much more numerous people with minor illness must do, that WILL occur in the future without these measures if the infections (and deaths) continue to spread exponentially. All of those deaths and illnesses have economic effects, too. And it's not just sick old geezers dying a few years early; in Santa Clara County, 22% of deaths have been in people under 60, and another 15% in the 61-70 age group.

And I would add: now knowing several people who have had to be admitted to the ICU and intubated, I am painfully aware of how the road to recovery back from serious COVID-19 infection is long, painful, and scary. Anyone who has a severe reaction to COVID-19 will be out of the workforce for 4-6 weeks, at a minimum, and potentially permanent impaired relative to their lung capacity and functioning prior to the illness. And those don't even count as part of the CFR numerator.

The notion that we're doing all of this just to save fat old geezers is total folly, and Mick, I wish you'd stop saying it because we both know it's not true. Many many more people will suffer tremendously for every life lost to COVID-19.

[Goose]

Maybe another step closer. I think we can all use good news.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/armys-seattle...46379.html

[Goose]

Maybe another step closer. I think we can all use good news.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/armys-seattle...46379.html

[Mick]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession? 

Yes, until we get an effective vaccine or highly effective treatment.

---

Just in case you were curious, about 1,000 Americans have been thrown out of work for every COVID-19 death.  More than 1,000 families devastated so a diabetic, heart failure, hypertense old person like me could live a few extra years.  

I understand what you're getting at, but this overstates the case. People are not being disemployed for every Covid-19 death that HAS already occurred, it is to prevent the many many more deaths, and the more numerous serious illnesses requiring hospitalization and even intubation, and the 2-week isolation that the much more numerous people with minor illness must do, that WILL occur in the future without these measures if the infections (and deaths) continue to spread exponentially. All of those deaths and illnesses have economic effects, too. And it's not just sick old geezers dying a few years early; in Santa Clara County, 22% of deaths have been in people under 60, and another 15% in the 61-70 age group.

And I would add: now knowing several people who have had to be admitted to the ICU and intubated, I am painfully aware of how the road to recovery back from serious COVID-19 infection is long, painful, and scary. Anyone who has a severe reaction to COVID-19 will be out of the workforce for 4-6 weeks, at a minimum, and potentially permanent impaired relative to their lung capacity and functioning prior to the illness. And those don't even count as part of the CFR numerator.

The notion that we're doing all of this just to save fat old geezers is total folly, and Mick, I wish you'd stop saying it because we both know it's not true. Many many more people will suffer tremendously for every life lost to COVID-19.

Pretty certain I never said we were stopping the economy in its tracks and throwing 17 million (well...to date anyway) out of work and ruining 50 million lives (assuming 3x people affected for every job loss) solely to save people like me. Apparently you need me to acknowledge that a small percentage of all COVID-19 related deaths will occur to younger people and those without comorbidities. So acknowledged.

[Mick]

Doesn't that still imply a giant loss of jobs and, essentially, a permanent recession? 

Yes, until we get an effective vaccine or highly effective treatment.

---

Just in case you were curious, about 1,000 Americans have been thrown out of work for every COVID-19 death.  More than 1,000 families devastated so a diabetic, heart failure, hypertense old person like me could live a few extra years.  

I understand what you're getting at, but this overstates the case. People are not being disemployed for every Covid-19 death that HAS already occurred, it is to prevent the many many more deaths, and the more numerous serious illnesses requiring hospitalization and even intubation, and the 2-week isolation that the much more numerous people with minor illness must do, that WILL occur in the future without these measures if the infections (and deaths) continue to spread exponentially. All of those deaths and illnesses have economic effects, too. And it's not just sick old geezers dying a few years early; in Santa Clara County, 22% of deaths have been in people under 60, and another 15% in the 61-70 age group.

And I would add: now knowing several people who have had to be admitted to the ICU and intubated, I am painfully aware of how the road to recovery back from serious COVID-19 infection is long, painful, and scary. Anyone who has a severe reaction to COVID-19 will be out of the workforce for 4-6 weeks, at a minimum, and potentially permanent impaired relative to their lung capacity and functioning prior to the illness. And those don't even count as part of the CFR numerator.

The notion that we're doing all of this just to save fat old geezers is total folly, and Mick, I wish you'd stop saying it because we both know it's not true. Many many more people will suffer tremendously for every life lost to COVID-19.

Pretty certain I never said we were stopping the economy in its tracks and throwing 17 million (well...to date anyway) out of work and ruining 50 million lives (assuming 3x people affected for every job loss) solely to save people like me. Apparently you need me to acknowledge that a small percentage of all COVID-19 related deaths will occur to younger people and those without comorbidities. So acknowledged.

[dabigv13]

Depends on how you define small percentage. About a quarter of hospitalized patients are less than 50. In some states almost 10% of deaths have been patients less than 50%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20...us-deaths/

[dabigv13]

Depends on how you define small percentage. About a quarter of hospitalized patients are less than 50. In some states almost 10% of deaths have been patients less than 50%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20...us-deaths/

[oldalum]

Pretty certain I never said we were stopping the economy in its tracks . . . solely to save people like me.

Actually, you're right, you didn't! But it sure reads naturally that you meant that the lives saved were old and sick anyway. Anyway, the main point of my response to your post was that your figure of preventing one death at a cost of 1,000 unemployed is wrong. The economic costs are intended to prevent many more future deaths than one. How many is uncertain, of course, but it's also not a dichotomy: policymakers could decide to risk the many more deaths and then have to undergo the economic shutdown anyway, and possibly for longer. Which is the source of the concern about releasing the restrictions prematurely.

[oldalum]

Pretty certain I never said we were stopping the economy in its tracks . . . solely to save people like me.

Actually, you're right, you didn't! But it sure reads naturally that you meant that the lives saved were old and sick anyway. Anyway, the main point of my response to your post was that your figure of preventing one death at a cost of 1,000 unemployed is wrong. The economic costs are intended to prevent many more future deaths than one. How many is uncertain, of course, but it's also not a dichotomy: policymakers could decide to risk the many more deaths and then have to undergo the economic shutdown anyway, and possibly for longer. Which is the source of the concern about releasing the restrictions prematurely.

[teejers1]

Depends on how you define small percentage. About a quarter of hospitalized patients are less than 50. In some states almost 10% of deaths have been patients less than 50%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20...us-deaths/

Ramp the treatment resources and "embrace" (too strong a word - but be prepared for) the inevitable flare up - that's not the end of the world.

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  Certainly, for some it is the ultimate in disastrous.  For the overwhelming majority, it is not.  I think this gets blurred in all the numbers bandied about.  

Separately, not a brobdingnagian fan of the "surrender monkey" attitude: i.e., we're screwed, nothing can be done, we all just have to accept everything cratering and deal with it in your homes.  Eff that attitude!

Last point, judging from the posts here, few will change their behavior once restrictions lifted.  Fine.  Good for you.  Others might want to enjoy a public beach, state park (and park there to do so), a round of golf, dinner outside at a local restaurant that has seating and other restrictions (I'm not sure how dining out poses materially greater risk than having same group cook your food and same person "deliver" your food at a table instead of at your door).

But whatever . .

[teejers1]

Depends on how you define small percentage. About a quarter of hospitalized patients are less than 50. In some states almost 10% of deaths have been patients less than 50%.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20...us-deaths/

Ramp the treatment resources and "embrace" (too strong a word - but be prepared for) the inevitable flare up - that's not the end of the world.

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  Certainly, for some it is the ultimate in disastrous.  For the overwhelming majority, it is not.  I think this gets blurred in all the numbers bandied about.  

Separately, not a brobdingnagian fan of the "surrender monkey" attitude: i.e., we're screwed, nothing can be done, we all just have to accept everything cratering and deal with it in your homes.  Eff that attitude!

Last point, judging from the posts here, few will change their behavior once restrictions lifted.  Fine.  Good for you.  Others might want to enjoy a public beach, state park (and park there to do so), a round of golf, dinner outside at a local restaurant that has seating and other restrictions (I'm not sure how dining out poses materially greater risk than having same group cook your food and same person "deliver" your food at a table instead of at your door).

But whatever . .

[JustAnotherFan]

Last point, judging from the posts here, few will change their behavior once restrictions lifted.  Fine.  Good for you.  Others might want to enjoy a public beach, state park (and park there to do so), a round of golf, dinner outside at a local restaurant that has seating and other restrictions (I'm not sure how dining out poses materially greater risk than having same group cook your food and same person "deliver" your food at a table instead of at your door).

But whatever . .

It's all about what lens you're looking through. You seem to focus on what brings you risk of catching the virus. I think about it in terms of who I could infect.

I feel that I have a much lower chance of infecting the workers in the restaurant and the people who would be seated around me at a restaurant if I stayed at home. So I'm going to stay at home. Pretty sure that's kinda the point when we talk about lowering R0.

[JustAnotherFan]

Last point, judging from the posts here, few will change their behavior once restrictions lifted.  Fine.  Good for you.  Others might want to enjoy a public beach, state park (and park there to do so), a round of golf, dinner outside at a local restaurant that has seating and other restrictions (I'm not sure how dining out poses materially greater risk than having same group cook your food and same person "deliver" your food at a table instead of at your door).

But whatever . .

It's all about what lens you're looking through. You seem to focus on what brings you risk of catching the virus. I think about it in terms of who I could infect.

I feel that I have a much lower chance of infecting the workers in the restaurant and the people who would be seated around me at a restaurant if I stayed at home. So I'm going to stay at home. Pretty sure that's kinda the point when we talk about lowering R0.

[oldalum]

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  

I don't think that's the point. It's that people who get the virus will spread it to other people. Which, if it continues with R much >1, WOULD be a disaster. The point of stay at home is to get the R down to a level manageable by the health system, not to eliminate the infection which will continue.

[oldalum]

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  

I don't think that's the point. It's that people who get the virus will spread it to other people. Which, if it continues with R much >1, WOULD be a disaster. The point of stay at home is to get the R down to a level manageable by the health system, not to eliminate the infection which will continue.

[2006alum]

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  

I suspect you don't know anyone who's had a bad reaction to it. I know two, one who ended up in the ICU, one "just" in the hospital. Both in late 30s/early 40s. Neither with comorbidities. Both had a spouse and kid, and so not only were they out of work, but also couldn't attend to childcare, which fell entirely on the spouses while they were self-quarantining and then admitted to the hospital. Once admitted in the hospital, neither could see their spouse or kid for weeks, and most updates were via third-party hospital employees (including for the full week one was on a ventilator and functionally unconscious). In each case, both the nuclear family and nearby grandparents who tried to help triage had their lives completely upturned for close to a month.

In the sense that both (thankfully) recovered, yes, it was not a disaster to the same extent as, say, the Titanic. But JFC will I do everything in my power to avoid that. And again, those are examples of people who won't even count in the CFR statistics that seem to be driving most of our discussion.

[2006alum]

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  

I suspect you don't know anyone who's had a bad reaction to it. I know two, one who ended up in the ICU, one "just" in the hospital. Both in late 30s/early 40s. Neither with comorbidities. Both had a spouse and kid, and so not only were they out of work, but also couldn't attend to childcare, which fell entirely on the spouses while they were self-quarantining and then admitted to the hospital. Once admitted in the hospital, neither could see their spouse or kid for weeks, and most updates were via third-party hospital employees (including for the full week one was on a ventilator and functionally unconscious). In each case, both the nuclear family and nearby grandparents who tried to help triage had their lives completely upturned for close to a month.

In the sense that both (thankfully) recovered, yes, it was not a disaster to the same extent as, say, the Titanic. But JFC will I do everything in my power to avoid that. And again, those are examples of people who won't even count in the CFR statistics that seem to be driving most of our discussion.

[dabigv13]

Yesterday a patient in their 40s died from this at our hospital. I suspect that as this goes on, and whether it's in this first wave or the second that comes once we relax restrictions, more and more people will be touched by this disease, themselves or their family and friends. Maybe then attitudes will change.

Yeah, I want to go to a restaurant again and go snowboarding again and do all the things that normally bring me joy. But while this is still circulating in our communities, it's just not responsible as a citizen.

[dabigv13]

Yesterday a patient in their 40s died from this at our hospital. I suspect that as this goes on, and whether it's in this first wave or the second that comes once we relax restrictions, more and more people will be touched by this disease, themselves or their family and friends. Maybe then attitudes will change.

Yeah, I want to go to a restaurant again and go snowboarding again and do all the things that normally bring me joy. But while this is still circulating in our communities, it's just not responsible as a citizen.

[cardcrimson]

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  

I suspect you don't know anyone who's had a bad reaction to it. I know two, one who ended up in the ICU, one "just" in the hospital. Both in late 30s/early 40s. Neither with comorbidities. Both had a spouse and kid, and so not only were they out of work, but also couldn't attend to childcare, which fell entirely on the spouses while they were self-quarantining and then admitted to the hospital. Once admitted in the hospital, neither could see their spouse or kid for weeks, and most updates were via third-party hospital employees (including for the full week one was on a ventilator and functionally unconscious). In each case, both the nuclear family and nearby grandparents who tried to help triage had their lives completely upturned for close to a month.

In the sense that both (thankfully) recovered, yes, it was not a disaster to the same extent as, say, the Titanic. But JFC will I do everything in my power to avoid that. And again, those are examples of people who won't even count in the CFR statistics that seem to be driving most of our discussion.

Please. If you're going to quote someone, quote him in context and completely. It's only fair and appropriate. Here's what he said "Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  Certainly, for some it is the ultimate in disastrous. . . .". Bold my addition.

Kind of an important sentence you omitted, don't you think? I'm sorry for those you know that are suffering, but your anecdote is completely in line with what he posted.

[cardcrimson]

Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  

I suspect you don't know anyone who's had a bad reaction to it. I know two, one who ended up in the ICU, one "just" in the hospital. Both in late 30s/early 40s. Neither with comorbidities. Both had a spouse and kid, and so not only were they out of work, but also couldn't attend to childcare, which fell entirely on the spouses while they were self-quarantining and then admitted to the hospital. Once admitted in the hospital, neither could see their spouse or kid for weeks, and most updates were via third-party hospital employees (including for the full week one was on a ventilator and functionally unconscious). In each case, both the nuclear family and nearby grandparents who tried to help triage had their lives completely upturned for close to a month.

In the sense that both (thankfully) recovered, yes, it was not a disaster to the same extent as, say, the Titanic. But JFC will I do everything in my power to avoid that. And again, those are examples of people who won't even count in the CFR statistics that seem to be driving most of our discussion.

Please. If you're going to quote someone, quote him in context and completely. It's only fair and appropriate. Here's what he said "Similarly, it's not a DISASTER that people get the virus.  Certainly, for some it is the ultimate in disastrous. . . .". Bold my addition.

Kind of an important sentence you omitted, don't you think? I'm sorry for those you know that are suffering, but your anecdote is completely in line with what he posted.

[oldalum]

Kind of an important sentence you omitted, don't you think? 

might be my fault for just quoting that first phrase, even though my post did use it in the context it was intended.

[oldalum]

Kind of an important sentence you omitted, don't you think? 

might be my fault for just quoting that first phrase, even though my post did use it in the context it was intended.

[magnus]

Last point, judging from the posts here, few will change their behavior once restrictions lifted.  Fine.  Good for you.  Others might want to enjoy a public beach, state park (and park there to do so), a round of golf, dinner outside at a local restaurant that has seating and other restrictions (I'm not sure how dining out poses materially greater risk than having same group cook your food and same person "deliver" your food at a table instead of at your door).

But whatever . .

I'll give the self preservationist perspective's reason.   If you go to a restaurant to eat,  there are other strangers sitting or standing near you that may cough in your general direction or touch something that you touch too (menu?).

At home,  it's only people you know and probably only people you've been sheltering with.

[magnus]

Last point, judging from the posts here, few will change their behavior once restrictions lifted.  Fine.  Good for you.  Others might want to enjoy a public beach, state park (and park there to do so), a round of golf, dinner outside at a local restaurant that has seating and other restrictions (I'm not sure how dining out poses materially greater risk than having same group cook your food and same person "deliver" your food at a table instead of at your door).

But whatever . .

I'll give the self preservationist perspective's reason.   If you go to a restaurant to eat,  there are other strangers sitting or standing near you that may cough in your general direction or touch something that you touch too (menu?).

At home,  it's only people you know and probably only people you've been sheltering with.

[cardcrimson]

. . . .there are other strangers sitting or standing near you that may cough in your general direction

It could be worse as history points out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obu_HoafGxg

[cardcrimson]

. . . .there are other strangers sitting or standing near you that may cough in your general direction

It could be worse as history points out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obu_HoafGxg

[oldalum]

NY Times Sunday magazine article (available online now) with a panel discussion of some of these issues:
 Restarting America Means People Will Die. So When Do We Do It? Five thinkers weigh moral choices in a crisis.

[oldalum]

NY Times Sunday magazine article (available online now) with a panel discussion of some of these issues:
 Restarting America Means People Will Die. So When Do We Do It? Five thinkers weigh moral choices in a crisis.

[teejers1]

NY Times Sunday magazine article (available online now) with a panel discussion of some of these issues:
 Restarting America Means People Will Die. So When Do We Do It? Five thinkers weigh moral choices in a crisis.

Thanks for the link.  Interesting perspectives.

[teejers1]

NY Times Sunday magazine article (available online now) with a panel discussion of some of these issues:
 Restarting America Means People Will Die. So When Do We Do It? Five thinkers weigh moral choices in a crisis.

Thanks for the link.  Interesting perspectives.