There should be a national dialogue in getting back to work

[dubs]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I would say yes it does.

 

Two things. 25% of the deaths were under 65, so that would be a huge number of deaths if unchecked. And, if you opened schools, hotels, sporting events and restaurants, the people there might only be carriers, but they will come in contact with the elderly, sick and unfit. Nursing homes and other places would be at a huge increased risk. We would see a huge uptick in deaths all across the spectrum. 

 

I honestly do understand the concern and how scary it can be.  We are all going through that in some way, shape or form.  But I don't agree that it means the appropriate response is to shut it all down.  The only way that would make sense is if the country was shut down until there was a vaccine and that vaccine was able to be produced in such mass quantities to administer to 330 million people.  If we did that, the country would collapse and anarchy would follow.

 

Rather, I think the appropriate response is to open and put measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population.  For the rest of the population, individuals need to make choices on their own as to how they best want to approach this.

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

We as a country need  to have the discussion about the impacts of keeping the economy closed is going to have long term. Expected deaths with a crashed economy, how long till we pay of the debt, what impacts on social programs the debt will impact etc. That includes best guesses based on available data  on which populations will suffer the most in terms of expected morbidity, expected life expetency  in those affected populations etc on opening up.

 

Indeed. Where is this data, though? I hear a lot about it and most supporters of re-opening with no restrictions shout it but we never see the actual data their takes are based on.

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

No, its just the "facts"( and his supporters) he is using don't agree with the "facts" that anti Trump folks( of which i am one) are using, and hence , goest o the heart of the argument in this thread..Title of which is " needs to be a discussion" ...

 

But when only the "science" that supports your view is used, and all sides to the argument are not considered, and their is an election coming up, discussion and debate is none existant. You either want to save lives, or you are a greedy SOB who only cares about net worth.

 

We as a country need  to have the discussion about the impacts of keeping the economy closed is going to have long term. Expected deaths with a crashed economy, how long till we pay of the debt, what impacts on social programs the debt will impact etc. That includes best guesses based on available data  on which populations will suffer the most in terms of expected morbidity, expected life expetency  in those affected populations etc on opening up.

 

And then a cost benefit analysis needs to occur...sound awful I know, but it is the reality. 

 

 

 

 

Well, we will see how it goes in Texas which is basically opening up even as the number of cases there is still on the rise. 

[plenzmd1]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I would say yes it does.

 

Two things. 25% of the deaths were under 65, so that would be a huge number of deaths if unchecked. And, if you opened schools, hotels, sporting events and restaurants, the people there might only be carriers, but they will come in contact with the elderly, sick and unfit. Nursing homes and other places would be at a huge increased risk. We would see a huge uptick in deaths all across the spectrum. 

But that is the discussion that needs to happen...you say huge uptick..that may be correct, may not be. And if the fear is that people in the "open economy" will be in contact with the elderly, how can we mitigate that risk, knowing it will never be 100%. I think the big thing is we have to comfortable with having the conversation that this is "an act of god" and that deaths among the elderly and with comorbidity factors are gunna rise, and what level point do we morally say it is the correct thing to do(open).

 

I mean, we have gone to wars for 250 years to preserve our way of life and understand there is going hundreds of thousands of lives lost , almost all of them young people at the start of their lives. And if you think a great depression is not gunna sow social unrest at levels we have never seen and threaten out way of life, look at the those folks i Michigan the other day. Just wait till people cant pay for medicines and feed their family in December. 

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

Rather, I think the appropriate response is to open and put measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population.  For the rest of the population, individuals need to make choices on their own as to how they best want to approach this.

 

I agree with this, but unfortunately measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population requires the rest of the population to make sacrifices such as maintaining social distancing and wearing a mask in public. We've seen in recent days members of "the rest of the population" resist wearing masks and three even decided to murder someone over it. "The rest of the population" also is not maintaining social distancing. 

 

Freedoms are important and it's understandable why someone feel like their rights are being infringed, but one should be able to understand they are making a sacrifice for the health of the greater good. When "the rest of the population" can barely tolerate wearing a mask in public and social distancing, how can the country balance it's freedoms while keeping everyone safe? It's not possible if "the rest of the population" refuses to take precautions. 

 

 

Now we're being asked to wear masks in public and maintain social distancing. We should be able to do at least that - at a minimum. 

[KRC]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

But that is the discussion that needs to happen...you say huge uptick..that may be correct, may not be. And if the fear is that people in the "open economy" will be in contact with the elderly, how can we mitigate that risk, knowing it will never be 100%. I think the big thing is we have to comfortable with having the conversation that this is "an act of god" and that deaths among the elderly and with comorbidity factors are gunna rise, and what level point do we morally say it is the correct thing to do(open).

 

I mean, we have gone to wars for 250 years to preserve our way of life and understand there is going hundreds of thousands of lives lost , almost all of them young people at the start of their lives. And if you think a great depression is not gunna sow social unrest at levels we have never seen and threaten out way of life, look at the those folks i Michigan the other day. Just wait till people cant pay for medicines and feed their family in December. 

 

 

 

That is already happening now for some who lost their jobs. Not an easy decision.

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

Indeed. Where is this data, though? I hear a lot about it and most supporters of re-opening with no restrictions shout it but we never see the actual data their takes are based on.

there are the studies that say antibodies show way more infection, studies that show outside of NYC death rates are disproportionately in the elderly with comorbidity factors, and the hospitliztion rates and  ICU rates. All these things should be used. 

 

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Well, we will see how it goes in Texas which is basically opening up even as the number of cases there is still on the rise. 

I think we can see how Sweden goes as a quicker model. Must admit I have not seen any recent data from there, need to look. 

 

And again, i think the "discussion " that needs to be had, and it sounds like an abhorrent discussion, is what level of an increase in Covid deaths is "acceptable" vs the impacts of keeping everything closed. 

 

 

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

there are the studies that say antibodies show way more infection, studies that show outside of NYC death rates are disproportionately in the elderly with comorbidity factors, and the hospitliztion rates and  ICU rates. All these things should be used. 

 

For sure - I'm mainly talking about legit studies that show the death rate because of a crashing economy. I haven't seen any of these but it's been a huge talking point.

[ALF]

At senior home, staff stays put 24-7 to stop virus spread

 

Williams is among about 70 employees who are sheltering in place alongside more than 500 residents at an upscale assisted-living facility just outside Atlanta. Since the end of March, Park Springs has had employees live on its 61-acre campus instead of commute from home to protect residents from the coronavirus — an unusual approach, even as nursing homes have been among the hardest-hit places by the pandemic.

 

The approach has been used elsewhere: In France, staff at a nursing home ended a 47-day quarantine Monday. In Connecticut, the owner of an assisted-living facility that is housing staff on the premises, Tyson Belanger, has called for government funding to help more senior communities do so.

 

https://www.ksat.com/news/national/2020/05/05/at-senior-home-staff-stays-put-24-7-to-stop-virus-spread/

 

The extreme way to protect assisted living and nursing homes. The only other way is to test each worker before entering the facility every time with a quick test result.

 

Some health care workers don't go home but stay at a hotel 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by ALF

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

 

 

 

 

This is the issue about having a discussion...it is painted like this on the one side as though "sitting on the couch" has no economic impacts, and that economic impacts are just gunna be minimal.

 

Do you deny there are impacts that are occurring to harm people because of the stay at home orders?

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

13 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

But that is the discussion that needs to happen...you say huge uptick..that may be correct, may not be. And if the fear is that people in the "open economy" will be in contact with the elderly, how can we mitigate that risk, knowing it will never be 100%. I think the big thing is we have to comfortable with having the conversation that this is "an act of god" and that deaths among the elderly and with comorbidity factors are gunna rise, and what level point do we morally say it is the correct thing to do(open).

 

I mean, we have gone to wars for 250 years to preserve our way of life and understand there is going hundreds of thousands of lives lost , almost all of them young people at the start of their lives. And if you think a great depression is not gunna sow social unrest at levels we have never seen and threaten out way of life, look at the those folks i Michigan the other day. Just wait till people cant pay for medicines and feed their family in December. 

 

 

Good points. What would happen to the economy if this things gets out of hand is another question worth considering. Perhaps, this is all just unavoidable. If there is a crash on a health care system in a state, the fear alone would ripple through the economy and shut things down. 

 

Would there have been a worse recession if the stay at home orders were not given? Maybe. 

[IDBillzFan]

43 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  There has to be more to the story than what you are saying.  Any breeding cattle is normally kept to maintain a flow of stock.  If he was just raising stock for processing you would have already seen the nature of the cycle.  Some operators this time of year start moving stock to state lands that allow grazing which have lower costs.  

 

The key to his little story is "we figure" this is what he did.

 

Typical. Create a reason that suits your current narrative based on the well-proven "we figure" analysis.

 

Here. Let me try.

 

My neighbor is always in his garden, but he stopped going out there for the past three days. We figure he died of Corona virus because Trump is president.

 

Gee. So easy even a Tibs can do it.

[Warren Zevon]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

This is the issue about having a discussion...it is painted like this on the one side as though "sitting on the couch" has no economic impacts, and that economic impacts are just gunna be minimal.

 

Do you deny there are impacts that are occurring to harm people because of the stay at home orders?

 

No way. The impacts are massive. I'm for opening up carefully. 

[plenzmd1]

5 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

No way. The impacts are massive. I'm for opening up carefully. 

But what does that mean? how do we do it? Not saying that sarcastically, but that is the discussion we need to have

[KRC]

8 minutes ago, ALF said:

At senior home, staff stays put 24-7 to stop virus spread

 

Williams is among about 70 employees who are sheltering in place alongside more than 500 residents at an upscale assisted-living facility just outside Atlanta. Since the end of March, Park Springs has had employees live on its 61-acre campus instead of commute from home to protect residents from the coronavirus — an unusual approach, even as nursing homes have been among the hardest-hit places by the pandemic.

 

The approach has been used elsewhere: In France, staff at a nursing home ended a 47-day quarantine Monday. In Connecticut, the owner of an assisted-living facility that is housing staff on the premises, Tyson Belanger, has called for government funding to help more senior communities do so.

 

https://www.ksat.com/news/national/2020/05/05/at-senior-home-staff-stays-put-24-7-to-stop-virus-spread/

 

The extreme way to protect assisted living and nursing homes. The only other way is to test each worker before entering the facility every time with a quick test result.

 

Some health care workers don't go home but stay at a hotel 

 

 

The facility where my in-laws are staying checks for symptoms of employees before entering the building. They give them COVID tests if there are any symptoms. There have been 5 employees that tested positive. Nobody outside of employees are allowed in the building.

 

They have also shifted patients based on test results to keep the non-COVID patients away from the positive patients. They also have workers only work with one group of patients to minimize transference of the disease. You either only work with positive or only negative patients.

[shoshin]

2 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

The facility where my in-laws are staying checks for symptoms of employees before entering the building. They give them COVID tests if there are any symptoms. There have been 5 employees that tested positive. Nobody outside of employees are allowed in the building.

 

They have also shifted patients based on test results to keep the non-COVID patients away from the positive patients. They also have workers only work with one group of patients to minimize transference of the disease. You either only work with positive or only negative patients.

 

That's about all they can do in the current situation because we don't have the testing we need yet. 

[dubs]

19 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

I agree with this, but unfortunately measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population requires the rest of the population to make sacrifices such as maintaining social distancing and wearing a mask in public. We've seen in recent days members of "the rest of the population" resist wearing masks and three even decided to murder someone over it. "The rest of the population" also is not maintaining social distancing. 

 

Freedoms are important and it's understandable why someone feel like their rights are being infringed, but one should be able to understand they are making a sacrifice for the health of the greater good. When "the rest of the population" can barely tolerate wearing a mask in public and social distancing, how can the country balance it's freedoms while keeping everyone safe? It's not possible if "the rest of the population" refuses to take precautions. 

 

 

Now we're being asked to wear masks in public and maintain social distancing. We should be able to do at least that - at a minimum. 

 

 

Totally understand.  The only think I think we need to be careful about is the idea that anything less than 100% compliance with safety measures is failure and reason for draconian measure to stay in place.

 

My belief is that the vast vast majority of people will do the things they need to, wear masks, social distance, wash hands, etc...  But there will certainly be a small group that refuses to do that.  Certainly frustrating to see, but not indicative of how most people will conduct themselves.

[ALF]

8 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

The facility where my in-laws are staying checks for symptoms of employees before entering the building. They give them COVID tests if there are any symptoms. There have been 5 employees that tested positive. Nobody outside of employees are allowed in the building.

 

They have also shifted patients based on test results to keep the non-COVID patients away from the positive patients. They also have workers only work with one group of patients to minimize transference of the disease. You either only work with positive or only negative patients.

 

Could You Be an Asymptomatic COVID-19 Carrier? Here's What You Need to Know

 

Blood tests that check for exposure to the coronavirus are starting to come online, and preliminary findings suggest that many people have been infected without knowing it.

 

Even people who do eventually experience the common symptoms of COVID-19 don't start coughing and spiking fevers the moment they're infected.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-physician-answers-5-questions-about-asymptomatic-covid-19

 

that's what makes it a lot more dangerous 

[GG]

21 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

For sure - I'm mainly talking about legit studies that show the death rate because of a crashing economy. I haven't seen any of these but it's been a huge talking point.

 

If you care to be serious about a topic for a change - USA had a 55/100K rate for "deaths of despair" for 25-64 yr olds in 2017.   That translates to about 185K fatalities each year.  There were numerous studies that tried to explain the increased slope of the deaths of despair trendline, especially in the 2010-2014 periods.   

 

Also notable is that starting in 2018, US life expectancy started to increase, driven primarily by a decrease in the deaths of despair rates.

 

Draw whatever conclusion you want from these data sets.

[dubs]

5 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Could You Be an Asymptomatic COVID-19 Carrier? Here's What You Need to Know

 

Blood tests that check for exposure to the coronavirus are starting to come online, and preliminary findings suggest that many people have been infected without knowing it.

 

Even people who do eventually experience the common symptoms of COVID-19 don't start coughing and spiking fevers the moment they're infected.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-physician-answers-5-questions-about-asymptomatic-covid-19

 

that's what makes it a lot more dangerous 

 

I would argue that it makes the virus very infectious, but actually less dangerous.  If the estimates this person used are accurate and 1 in 5 people in NYC have been already infected, that's about 1,700,000 cases.