COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Gerald Boggs]

Here's the article on the problems of getting the food to people in Nigeria
How Africa Risks Reeling From a Health Crisis to a Food Crisis - The New York Times

[George Christiansen]

I believe this was the intent. Sweden is accepting more cases and more deaths in the short term in exchange for a shortened timeline and achieving herd immunity more quickly. This is the theory underpinning the idea of hashtag-flatten-the-curve which assumes most people will be exposed to the virus eventually and the goal should be to not overstress the healthcare system. Sweden seems to be doing fine in that regard, although I feel like a lot of people have moved the goalposts from "don't exceed healthcare capacity" to "don't let anyone get infected."

The stated intent, according to their PM, was to not violate Swedish citizens' rights.

Those crazy Swedes actually think that they can inform the citizenry and let them do due diligence themselves with very little, if any top down efforts.

[MAD9692]

I see people driving down the street alone in the car with the windows rolled up and a mask on.

so do I.

[spacediver]

SD,

I’ll discuss with you because you actually seem to want to discuss and exchange ideas on their merit. Thank you.

And I appreciate your response.

The article stated, “...Sweden, whose lenient policy did not implement any kind of lockdown.”

You replied, “This is blatantly false. Sweden has implemented significant physical distancing measures. It's just that most of them have been voluntary.”

I disagree with your assertion. I do not know anyone who characterizes “physical distancing” as a “lockdown.” Nor do I believe “voluntary” measures can be fairly described as state ordered “lockdowns.”

I re-read Isaac Ben Israel's article, and it appears I was overly harsh on him. He does acknowledge the difference between a full lockdown and moderate physical distancing, so my bad on that one.

“This flu like all previous viral flues will give way only to herd immunity’, does not imply herd immunity has been achieved, rather the contrary. He is saying we are on the downward slope and that the cure is worse than the disease.

Further destruction of our economy will kill far more people than whatever embers are left smoldering in this “pandemic.”

I agree that in many contexts, the cure is worse than the disease. But I think it's foolish to think that only embers are left and that we are on a downward slope and that "the pandemic is over".

Let's be clear. If the pandemic was over, then we could go completely back to normal. There is still plenty of fuel left to feed this virus.

Do you think that we should go completely back to normal (especially in those places that haven't already been hit hard, and are therefore farther behind in herd immunity)?

[Mark Rippetoe]

More importantly, people are beginning to realize that this looks awfully similar to a naked power grab by petty tyrants and their bosses higher up. This is the kind of shit that makes people talk about the New World Order/Trilateral Commission/Council on Foreign Relations/Bilderbergers, etc. If you destroy all our small businesses and put our employees out of work, you're creating a lot of frustration and resentment, especially since the vast overwhelming majority of people don't know anybody that's dead of this shit that wasn't already sick with something else in a rest home, if they know anybody dead of this shit at all. It's hard to be concerned with an overwhelmed healthcare system when you're out of toilet paper and flour. This whole thing stinks, and people are waking up -- if these politicians want to keep their jobs, they have a very short time left to leave us the fuck alone.

YouTube

God, I hate this, but she may be right.

Wouldn't having less overwhelmed hospitals result in less deaths overall? I would think that the less people a particular ICU is dealing with at any given time the less people would die within that ICU - less people with the same amount of resources would ideally lead to better patient outcomes. That being said, I've never worked in an ICU. My experience with them is limited to the month my kids spent in one after they were born. It's definitely something I'll look into though.

How many ICUs outside of NYC were actually overwhelmed?

Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

Of course it doesn't.

[spacediver]

That being said, my grandmother was not able to be with him when he passed.

My great aunt died last night. She and her sister had lived together their entire lives. They were essentially a married couple. When the ambulance came at 2am, her sister asked to go to the hospital with her, but was refused because covid.

The sister who died had recently been in hospital for viral pneumonia and had tested negative for covid. Her death was unrelated to the pandemic.

In a situation where ICUs are overwhelmed and/or PPE is in shortage, I can perhaps see an argument for not allowing a loved one to be by the side of a dying person. But what if ICUs are not overwhelmed, there is no shortage of PPE, and the party takes full responsibility and agrees to isolate themselves for 2 weeks afterwards?

The only reasons I can see for not allowing this is:

1) The visitors would get in the way of the medical staff, and compromise their ability to do their job
2) They could pick up the virus and harm others.
3) They could pick up the virus and harm themselves.

These risks would be exacerbated in situations like peak New York, Italy, Spain, Iran, etc.

But in other places, I think there are measures that could be taken to reduce these risks. And 3) shouldn't count with informed consent and self isolation afterwards.

[Robert Santana]

This was an entertaining piece on pushback in New Mexico.

Emotions run high as mayor of Grants defies governor's order, allows businesses to reopen | KOB 4

[Shea Frazier]

YouTube

God, I hate this, but she may be right.



How many ICUs outside of NYC were actually overwhelmed?



Of course it doesn't.

I don't know the answer to that question, Rip. Was it because of the measures put in place to stop the spread? Was it because the virus isn't what it was people were making it out to be? I'll never know, and neither will you.

Why would it seem unreasonable to me, Rip? I have parents that are older, who also happen to have health issues that make them more likely to suffer complications were they to become infected. More importantly than that, I have a son that is also more susceptible to any sort of respiratory illness due to medical complications that arose as a result of him being born premature. His lungs are less able to fight off infections as a result. Are you really going to tell me that attempting to protect my parents and son from an infection that may take their lives by doing something as simple as wearing a mask while out and about is unreasonable? Seems a rather silly position to take, if you ask me.

[Mainstream]

OK....OK....We got it...the elderly and people with underlying conditions must take precautions....for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY that are not in this category....you're chance of having any serious complications are LOW....so low that they really don't need to worry about it....yet here we are...

I definitely think these " STAY HOME UNTIL I TELL YOU TO COME OUT! " orders are unconstitutional ( i.e. arbitrary) .....they need a clear calculus spelled out in advance...after 14 days of downward trend in new cases we will begin opening up non-essential businesses ....something like that

[Yngvi]

YouTube

God, I hate this, but she may be right.

It is stunning how many high-net-worth individuals in our country have recently become infatuated with the Chinese system. They take a trip to China, the Chinese treat them like kings, show them only the golden facade, promise them more wealth and send them home convinced that China's political system has created an unstoppable juggernaut.

The powerful individuals then attempt to emulate the Chinese system in the United States. This may be the biggest con of the century.