OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part V
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
- Status
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 26,577
- 33,819
That doesn't make sense. The stay at home order won't be in effect till summer/fall of 2021. I think that was suppose to be in stage 3.
So, Basically all sporting events will be like a Florida Panthers game till 2021?
mrmovies779
The Greatest Teacher,Failure is.
- Feb 5, 2013
- 7,074
- 6,577
Nah, 70% of Rangers fans usually fill those games.... or wait that’s Devils games I think, lol.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
It is tough. My employer sent out an email to everyone and included was a survey. This survey asked questions such as... how worried are you about contracting COVID in the office? Do you have concerns about finding childcare once we begin our partial reopening of the corporate office? If you answered yes about the childcare question, what do you propose that would help you remedy this situation?
We are giving people with kids a lot of grace in terms of schedule flexibility. If anyone complains about certain people getting a more flexible schedule, were pretty much telling them to go pound sand. Now is not the time to bitch and complain.
On a different note, was finally able to get a haircut today. It was good. No more than 6 people in the place at one time, everyone is required to wear masks as per the state law and, there are additional sanitary measures they are taking in between each client. One person entered without a mask while I was there and the owner (who is a friend of mine) told them she will provide them with a mask and if they refuse then they can go elsewhere. The person put on a mask and was fine.
will1066
Your positivity is not welcomed
- Oct 12, 2008
- 44,462
- 60,974
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
f***ing God bless you!
I don't care where you stand, and I'm not meaning to make a political statement here, but I can't stand the "what about me's?" when we help people who are really in trouble. It reminds me of this:
Opinion | Targeted Lockdowns Are Better
Trump's decision to lockdown the US country wide could be one of the biggest mistakes ever by a politician.
The MIT research show that the best way to protect the elders is by locking them down, while creating herd immunity in the younger population that has a very low mortality rate, and hence you save more lives by not locking down, because by reaching effective herd immunity levels faster you reduce the risk of the elders being infected through contacts between young and old.
The optimal policy according to the researches:
"Figure 6 depicts the optimal fully-targeted policy, again for the same parameter values. The oldest group is once more fully locked down for the duration of the non-vaccine period, while the other two groups are put under a less severe lockdown, so that the overall form of optimal policy is once more a mixture of waiting for the vaccine and partial herd immunity for the younger groups. Specifically, in this case, the youngest group has a very limited lockdown, starting with only 30% of their cohort being subject to lockdown and with these restrictions being lifted very rapidly, while the middle-aged group experiences a more extensive lockdown than under the semi-targeted policy (but much less than the uniform policy). 30We refer to this pattern as “partial herd immunity” because infections come down without a vaccine, but this is only because the older group is kept in lockdown."
Trump's decision to lockdown the US country wide could be one of the biggest mistakes ever by a politician.
The MIT research show that the best way to protect the elders is by locking them down, while creating herd immunity in the younger population that has a very low mortality rate, and hence you save more lives by not locking down, because by reaching effective herd immunity levels faster you reduce the risk of the elders being infected through contacts between young and old.
The optimal policy according to the researches:
"Figure 6 depicts the optimal fully-targeted policy, again for the same parameter values. The oldest group is once more fully locked down for the duration of the non-vaccine period, while the other two groups are put under a less severe lockdown, so that the overall form of optimal policy is once more a mixture of waiting for the vaccine and partial herd immunity for the younger groups. Specifically, in this case, the youngest group has a very limited lockdown, starting with only 30% of their cohort being subject to lockdown and with these restrictions being lifted very rapidly, while the middle-aged group experiences a more extensive lockdown than under the semi-targeted policy (but much less than the uniform policy). 30We refer to this pattern as “partial herd immunity” because infections come down without a vaccine, but this is only because the older group is kept in lockdown."
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Yes...limited/targeted policies have always been the goal. Cuomo and others have said that pretty much from the start.
The problem is...our government has no idea/is still working on, what those policies/procedures would look like. And partial lockdowns won't work if not fully planned out and enforced.
So, until then, a full/close to full lockdown is the most ideal. It then transforms into these partial/limited lockdowns which then continues to loosen once medication or even a vaccine arrives is the best option. The tighter quarantine/lockdown has shown to work. Yes, it's not something that can feasibly last forever, but it was the right move to make.
The US is not at the point where you can open the valve a bit yet. We've already seen that the few states that have "re-opened" recently did it too early and had an increase in infections.
The problem is...our government has no idea/is still working on, what those policies/procedures would look like. And partial lockdowns won't work if not fully planned out and enforced.
So, until then, a full/close to full lockdown is the most ideal. It then transforms into these partial/limited lockdowns which then continues to loosen once medication or even a vaccine arrives is the best option. The tighter quarantine/lockdown has shown to work. Yes, it's not something that can feasibly last forever, but it was the right move to make.
The US is not at the point where you can open the valve a bit yet. We've already seen that the few states that have "re-opened" recently did it too early and had an increase in infections.
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 26,577
- 33,819
Partial lock downs have almost no chance of working because people in the locked down area will just travel to the areas without it. The "partial" areas have to be huge which I guess like NY's will be, but it's going to be 2+ months of a full lock down anyway.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Right, which is part of reason why policies/procedures are so difficult to create.
Partial/targeted lockdowns will only work when A) the gov't figures out how to properly create, regulate, and enforce those policies and, most importantly, B) the spread of the virus is manageable enough to enact said policies.
Countries like Sweden and the US aren't close to either of these points, so tight quarantine will be the proper status quo.
Barnaby
Registered User
I thought the idea of locking down was to “flatten the curve.” So that hospitals could meet demand and not be overwhelmed. I don’t think it was ever realistic that we would be locked down until this disease is completely eradicated. A medicine or vaccine could take years or never come at all. Of course every place is different but it seems like we need to start smartly reintroducing people back into the world. Continue to keep high risk people at home, if you can work at home for a longer period of time then do so, but stores need to be opened gradually and kids should be at camps in the summer and school in September.
Barnaby
Registered User
The government can’t realistically enforce a total shut down unless we are talking about really radical methods. Martial law. Having cops writing some summonses won’t cover it. Do you want checkpoints? People being stopped to ask what their business is? Also, if you’ve been out much lately (not sure what your situation is or where you’re living), you’ll notice that people are coming out more in increasing numbers. I’m “essential” so I’m on the road a lot and traffic has started getting significantly heavier. Wait until July and August and a significant portion of Long Island is getting to that “enough is enough” stage. You can get people to wear masks in the supermarket but they aren’t going to shutter the doors and windows for months on end “hoping” a vaccine or cure shows up. You’re better off doing in on a controlled way before it gets out of hand. We aren’t at that point yet, but we are moving in that direction.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Yes, the primary idea of "flattening the curve" was about medical capacity. A secondary effect of a tight quarantine with staying home/strict social distancing/masks/whatnot also inhibits the spread of the coronavirus. They go hand in hand with each other.
And yes, no one expected to be in a full quarantine for a long time. But right now, countries like the US and Sweden aren't ready for re-opening. Gotta be in control first before you can gradually re-open.
Slowly but surely. Probably not fast enough to people's liking, which is why we're seeing a lot of people getting antsy.
Barnaby
Registered User
Im not proposing a full immediate reopening, but I am proposing a gradual one. What is your definition of “in control?” At some point it will need to reopen and not next February. For example kids risk (of course not saying kids with significant health risks) is extremely minimal. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to get them out in the world for their human development and to build antibodies? I’m thinking a chicken pox effect here. Maybe grandma and grandpa will stay away from the grandkids for a few months but they won’t be staying away forever. It might be a good idea to start building herd immunity in the extremely low risk people so they present less of a risk to more at risk people when they ultimately do come out.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
"In control" is probably bad terminology, fair.
It's more looking at trending deaths/new cases/etc. and seeing when we enter a long period of time where we get a sustained decrease and then eventual near-pause to all of that.
I think it's fair to first look at the trending overall data from across the country first, and then once we've reached that ideal state across the country, we can start to "re-open" regions of the country where potential second wave impacts will be minimal.
The US is still not at that sustained decrease/near-pause in new cases/deaths, but getting somewhat close. I think a few more weeks to mid-June, assuming these results continue, is the ideal here.
The US is somewhat close...just not yet.
It's more looking at trending deaths/new cases/etc. and seeing when we enter a long period of time where we get a sustained decrease and then eventual near-pause to all of that.
I think it's fair to first look at the trending overall data from across the country first, and then once we've reached that ideal state across the country, we can start to "re-open" regions of the country where potential second wave impacts will be minimal.
The US is still not at that sustained decrease/near-pause in new cases/deaths, but getting somewhat close. I think a few more weeks to mid-June, assuming these results continue, is the ideal here.
The US is somewhat close...just not yet.
Last edited:
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Also this is all without accounting for medical breakthroughs, of course.
If a drug or something is derived that suppresses transmission/symptoms of the virus, something that people could take daily/weekly in order to live a "normal" life, then that could be something. A vaccine won't be around until at least the first half of next year, assuming one begins trials and testing now. If there is something developed that can be easily accessible and used in the meantime...that would shift plans substantially.
If a drug or something is derived that suppresses transmission/symptoms of the virus, something that people could take daily/weekly in order to live a "normal" life, then that could be something. A vaccine won't be around until at least the first half of next year, assuming one begins trials and testing now. If there is something developed that can be easily accessible and used in the meantime...that would shift plans substantially.
Chaels Arms
Formerly Lias Andersson
How long is each phase supposed to last?
Also, Cuomo said last week upstate regions would be able to reopen construction and manufacturing (phase 1) but as of yesterday no regions in NY satisfy all of his criteria. Does that mean construction and manufacturing own't be reopening upstate?
Also, Cuomo said last week upstate regions would be able to reopen construction and manufacturing (phase 1) but as of yesterday no regions in NY satisfy all of his criteria. Does that mean construction and manufacturing own't be reopening upstate?
Barnaby
Registered User
"In control" is probably bad terminology, fair.
It's more looking at trending deaths/new cases/etc. and seeing when we enter a long period of time where we get a sustained decrease and then eventual near-pause to all of that.
I think it's fair to first look at the trending overall data from across the country first, and then once we've reached that ideal state across the country, we can start to "re-open" regions of the country where potential second wave impacts will be minimal.
The US is still not at that sustained decrease/near-pause in new cases/deaths, but getting somewhat close. I think a few more weeks to mid-June, assuming these results continue, is the ideal here.
The US is somewhat close...just not yet.
I think there are areas of the country that can begin reopening now... perhaps areas like NY, NJ etc... should ride it out awhile longer.
That’s certainly a very fair opinion. I had gotten the incorrect opinion that you were talking more about another 6 months or year until it’s either completely gone or we have a vaccine (which who knows if or when that might be).
I do think it’s fair to note that whenever we begin to reopen there will be an uptick in cases - It’s unavoidable. There might even be some hot spots here or there that may need to shut down again or go back to more restrictive policies.
This is a very delicate situation and there is no “perfect” answer.
Barnaby
Registered User
It’s not based on a timeline... like “every phase is 30 days.” It’s completely dependent on where you are in the process. Our country is diverse in so many ways that everyplace could react differently. You could also slide back a phase if things don’t go as planned.
As for your second question - I’m not sure, but common sense would dictate Manhattan is a lot different from Potsdam and it should be treated accordingly.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
That depends entirely on rate of infection.
Reopening begins May 15th the earliest, so I guess he'll see where the criteria are then.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Yeah, in the end...it's all a moving timeframe. Things are changing every day.
Like you said, upticks will be unavoidable when re-opening.
It's just about not re-opening too fast and too early, and being sure that it's done properly.
This will pass. No doubt. Just about mitigating potential relapses on top of current mitigation.
Chaels Arms
Formerly Lias Andersson
As someone who often used the trains in my younger years in the dead of night and early mornings for journeys never to be spoken of again I have this very strange eerie feeling realizing this is the first time in over 100 years the system has come to a complete shutdown overnight and that I can't just hop out my door and onto the train for the first time in my life.
- Status
