Jump to content

The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19


Hedge

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What percentage of people in nursing homes typically die? Otherwise your state is useless.  Nursing  homes are God's waiting room in the best of times.  3% sound low actually.  


Your callousness notwithstanding, you ask a good Q. I can see it generally by extrapolating state nos  but cannot find the specifics. I am digging for my own curiosity. Thank you. 

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There's zero reason to keep the beaches closed at this point.

 

(Other than to stoke fear)


Besides some of CA, most beaches are open no? NY, NJ opened their beaches. If they did it....I assume most have done it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, meazza said:


In one case they don’t really have a choice.  Even in the strictest lockdowns you need people to be able to get to work in essential services. 
 

Again,  beaches and outdoor activities should be open but the comparison doesn’t work.

 

 

It's not the best comparison, but not really message board worthy either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, meazza said:


In one case they don’t really have a choice.  Even in the strictest lockdowns you need people to be able to get to work in essential services. 
 

Again,  beaches and outdoor activities should be open but the comparison doesn’t work.

 

You're still missing the point.  It's not the people's choice, it's the government's edict on what it says is a safe activity for its population to engage in - allowing them to sit in encapsulated mass transit cars or sit in a wide open outdoor space.

 

People have a choice in going to the beach or clustering at home on a beautiful day, just like they have a choice of taking mass transit or riding a bike or walking.  The latter is really inconvenient, and that's why the  government is willing to accept the much higher risk of infection to move people around more efficiently.  But it won't accept a much lower risk of infection to have people enjoy a nice day outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You're still missing the point.  It's not the people's choice, it's the government's edict on what it says is a safe activity for its population to engage in - allowing them to sit in encapsulated mass transit cars or sit in a wide open outdoor space.

 

People have a choice in going to the beach or clustering at home on a beautiful day, just like they have a choice of taking mass transit or riding a bike or walking.  The latter is really inconvenient, and that's why the  government is willing to accept the much higher risk of infection to move people around more efficiently.  But it won't accept a much lower risk of infection to have people enjoy a nice day outside.


I get the point but I’m actually approaching this subject within the context that had they been able to, they would have shut down public transit completely.

 

Moving on, it seems that the decision makers are behind the curve everywhere. It’s been known for a while that the hot weather reduces transmission but this has not been communicated very well.  I also haven’t heard much discussion from sorrento therapeutics which in my opinion, is a game changer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, meazza said:


I get the point but I’m actually approaching this subject within the context that had they been able to, they would have shut down public transit completely.

 

Moving on, it seems that the decision makers are behind the curve everywhere. It’s been known for a while that the hot weather reduces transmission but this has not been communicated very well.  I also haven’t heard much discussion from sorrento therapeutics which in my opinion, is a game changer.

 

They didn't need to shut it down completely, but stopping 24 hr service should have been in place h sooner. 

 

Which all goes to the point of how mismanaged this has been by the people who made the decisions and continue to set policy.  

 

Good forbid that you allow people to go outside on a hot day, when there's only a handful of known transmissions outdoors. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Just ***** kill me now.  Good lord. 

okay? where do i sign up to be first in line?

1 hour ago, shoshin said:


Your callousness notwithstanding, you ask a good Q. I can see it generally by extrapolating state nos  but cannot find the specifics. I am digging for my own curiosity. Thank you. 


Besides some of CA, most beaches are open no? NY, NJ opened their beaches. If they did it....I assume most have done it. 

hmm, what callouness. Average stay in  a nursing  home under 6 months, in a state run facility under 4 months. People leaving aint going home cause they got better. 

 

People freaking die all the time, its what we do. Its why we have hospice.Both parents and my brother  I guess could have gone to nursing homes and eeked out  a few more months, they decided whats the freaking point...gunna die there or die at home..they chose to die at home.

 

The  real callousness is people ( not you i know) who refuse to acknowledge any downstream effects and deaths the lockdowns may cause, especially on children in homes with lesser means...that's some serious callousness.

Edited by plenzmd1
  • Like (+1) 5
  • Sad 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

okay? where do i sign up to be first in line?

hmm, what callouness. Average stay in  a nursing  home under 6 months, in a state run facility under 4 months. People leaving aint going home cause they got better. 

 

People freaking die all the time, its what we do. Its why we have hospice.Both parents and my brother  I guess could have gone to nursing homes and eeked out  a few more months, they decided whats the freaking point...gunna die there or die at home..they chose to die at home.

 

The  real callousness is people ( not you i know) who refuse to acknowledge any downstream effects and deaths the lockdowns may cause, especially on children in homes with lesser means...that's some serious callousness.

Nope.  The lockdown boys are playing 5D chess.  You're right that downstream lives will be impacted and even lost.  But if we give the government complete control downdownstream lives will all be enriched in utopian pleasure.  Who's callous now?

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

okay? where do i sign up to be first in line?

hmm, what callouness. Average stay in  a nursing  home under 6 months, in a state run facility under 4 months. People leaving aint going home cause they got better. 

 

People freaking die all the time, its what we do. Its why we have hospice.Both parents and my brother  I guess could have gone to nursing homes and eeked out  a few more months, they decided whats the freaking point...gunna die there or die at home..they chose to die at home.

 

The  real callousness is people ( not you i know) who refuse to acknowledge any downstream effects and deaths the lockdowns may cause, especially on children in homes with lesser means...that's some serious callousness.

 

No one in this board likely is as exposed to hospice as much as me and I agree that we have a very hard time dying well and accepting it  in the US. But there's accepting and being compassionate about death and then there is  being callous. Every number is a human. 

Edited by shoshin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shoshin said:

 

No one in this board likely is as exposed to hospice as much as me and I agree that we have a very hard time dying in the US. But there's accepting and being compassionate about death and being callous. Every number is a human. 

agreed, and we need to be able to have rational conservations about the moral decisions around sacrificing lives downstream that have an expected life  span of greater than 50  years  vs ones that have an expected lifespan of 3 months.Callousness it may be, i call it utilitarianism ,

 

Why was it not an issue  to send young men( for the most part) to fight wars , but now we have an issue with talking about the fact that some at end of life are going to be put in danger in order to preserve our way of life and yes, our very country.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

agreed, and we need to be able to have rational conservations about the moral decisions around sacrificing lives downstream that have an expected life  span of greater than 50  years  vs ones that have an expected lifespan of 3 months.Callousness it may be, i call it utilitarianism ,

 

Why was it not an issue  to send young men( for the most part) to fight wars , but now we have an issue with talking about the fact that some at end of life are going to be put in danger in order to preserve our way of life and yes, our very country.

Because those young men were part of a generation the likes of which haven't been seen since.  Since then it's been mostly hippies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...