If the goal is zero risk with no consideration for people being able to live their life for fear that it might lead to their death or the death of anyone else at all then I totally get why this is "troublesome."
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
Yep, this is something that's not very well understood. No matter how careful people are, if you increase the number of interactions, if you increase the activity and mobility of the population there inevitably will be increased risk. Just think about it - in hospitals, where people are professionally trained and are on alert as part of their job, there are huge numbers of infections even in the wards that don't work with COVID-19 directly.
This is not to say that educating the public about safety and hygiene is useless - on the contrary - it probably can save a ton of lives, but it won't curb the general trend.
There are places that people 'choose' to go to (grocery/work/doctor/etc) and there are places people really choose to go to (club/movies/etc).
Personally I'm currently leaning towards - mandatory public mask wearing, extra cleanliness from everyone involved, better contact tracing/testing (it's still total crap), and cutting out extremely high risk activities (concerts, movies, sporting events - with spectators).
Basically if we'd taken the time to actually do something with testing/tracing over the last month I'd be in support of a 95% re-opening right now. As is, yeah, I think we still need to get better stuff in place prior to fully opening. But we're already well off that track, and I'm hoping for the best but expecting a not so great outcome (read a second wave potentially worse than the first and by the end of the year 200k+ lives lost in the US).
Personally I'm currently leaning towards - mandatory public mask wearing, extra cleanliness from everyone involved, better contact tracing/testing (it's still total crap), and cutting out extremely high risk activities (concerts, movies, sporting events - with spectators).
Basically if we'd taken the time to actually do something with testing/tracing over the last month I'd be in support of a 95% re-opening right now. As is, yeah, I think we still need to get better stuff in place prior to fully opening. But we're already well off that track, and I'm hoping for the best but expecting a not so great outcome (read a second wave potentially worse than the first and by the end of the year 200k+ lives lost in the US).
I thought the goal (as I understood RanyforRubio) was for everyone to decide for themselves the level of risk. If you're fine with Person A increasing the risk for Person B, with no input from B, I would disagree, but that is a consistent position that could be defended. Portraying my position as some "zero risk" fantasy is not helpful to the conversation.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
We are not immune and there is no vaccine. The crashing economy is devastating, but until the government gets a handle on the spread of the virus, the economy is going nowhere.
I just think we're applying a standard to risk that our society has never had before.
We never really cared that people were certainly going to die because of behaviors that we all engage in that could be done differently to prevent the vast majority of those deaths.
We never really cared that people were certainly going to die because of behaviors that we all engage in that could be done differently to prevent the vast majority of those deaths.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
Fair or unfair, the economy won't get back on track before the pandemic is largely contained. If you agree, then what is the best path for containment? It isn't opening the economy imo.
New things are opening back up and other things have been open the entire time.
I'm not really looking at this from an economic standpoint.
And I'm not really advocating for anything. I thought it was silly that OB seemed to be purposefully ignoring the point whoever else was making. I can understand the argument for largely opening back up with precautions in place. I mean that's 90% where we are right now.
The infection rate in Utah has been really low. Yes, the measures taken are absolutely part of why that is. We've been partially reopened since May 1st and the numbers have been steady. I'm expecting an increase but so far it isn't happening.
Again, I just think we are applying a standard for risk that is completely abnormal in our society.
The example I was going to make above was in regard to driving. It is absolutely possible for our society to function under a strictly enforced 20mph speed limit. They could dictate that auto manufacturers place hard limits on the top speed of any vehicle to 20mph. That would almost completely eliminate traffic deaths. It would also mean that much smaller engines that operate extremely efficiently could be used. That much less pollution, that much less resource need.
But we don't do that. Not only are speed limits much higher than that (70mph on most freeways in the Salt Lake Valley, even higher in rural areas) but speeding is the norm. We are making a decision as a society to accept traffic deaths. Innocent people get killed by others every single day on our roads. We are fine with that.
Look at the logic being used in regard to COVID-19 in this thread and just imagine if we applied that standard to our roadways. We'd all be driving 20mph all the time. But as a society we are okay with deaths because we don't want to drive that slow.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
You aren't advocating for anything in this post, or for any remedy to the end of this mess?
Perhaps those that say to open things back up aren't really advocating for that as a means to an end either. they just want to argue their point.
And I agree, speeding is out of control. Parleys and I-15 is ridiculous, both before and after the start of the stay at home orders. Where is everyone going so fast to? Slow down, obey the limits and smell the roses.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Am we supposed to feel compassion for these classless morons?
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
candrew
Well-Known Member
In all fairness they're from Long Island.
I believe you're legally obligated to be a douche bag to live there.
Red
Well-Known Member
Yesterday was laundry day, and that’s my job. I am very high risk, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Mask and gloves, off I go. I am about 10 seconds away from closing the lid on the washing machine, and leaving to take my exercise walk while my clothes are washed. Guy decides to use the machine next to mine, stands within a foot of me, no mask. Sign on door clearly states do not enter laundromat without a mask. I lost it, and chewed him out loudly: “who the **** do you think you are, and wtf are you doing!?”. Of course, now he’s pissed at me, and I could have been more polite. But, that ain’t me. I speak my mind. I was acting responsibly. The mask I’m wearing protects others. I expect the same consideration from others, and I will not be silent when **** like that happens. But, I did apologize to the attendant for causing a scene, once I was calm again, and heading home.
Masks are mandatory in a public space in RI, indoors and out. Out biking or walking by yourself, you can leave the mask off. I will practice social distancing and wear a mask until there is a vaccine. My state leads in % of population tested, about 10% now, and in contact tracing.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
That sucks!
I was standing in line for a coffee this winter, when the guy behind me caughed unaware enough to blow the hair on my head. I turned and said DUDE!
It's going to take take for many people to change their consciuosnesses though... Many never will. Only a few months ago the occasional Asian would walk through the SL airport with a mask. It wasn't always my first thought that they were wearing a mask mostly for safety of other people.
same thing with people's willingness to stay at home or social distance at laundromats. They are not doing it mostly for themselves but rather for the good of others. Many will never get it.
Last edited:
Political Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
My previous response was a little terse, so I wanted to expand upon it by analogy. Every time we drive, we are risking our lives and the lives of other people on the road. That doesn't stop us from driving, but it should be enough to make sure we keep ourselves and our car in a reasonably maximized condition of safety (don't drive when drunk or angry, the car is in good repair, etc.). Similarly, every time you go out, you should be acting in a way that reasonably maximizes the safety to other people regarding this communicable disease.
I disagree. If one drives drunk, one is more likely to be held responsible for an accident, and we tell people all the time to not drive drunk. If you travel mask-less or gather with a large group, you are similarly responsible.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It’s interesting how Trump apparently trump desires to test less. It’s almost as if he’s more concerned with the numbers and their impact on his re-election rather the health of Americans.
Red
Well-Known Member
https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...lster-the-cdc-a-leading-medical-journal-urges
Americans should oust President Trump from the White House and elect a leader who will support – rather than undermine – public health experts who are battling the COVID-19 pandemic, British medical journal The Lancet says in a newly published editorial.
The unsigned editorial sharply criticizes the Trump administration, saying it has marginalized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to a degree that is dangerous for both the U.S. and the world.
"Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics," the journal says.
Americans should oust President Trump from the White House and elect a leader who will support – rather than undermine – public health experts who are battling the COVID-19 pandemic, British medical journal The Lancet says in a newly published editorial.
The unsigned editorial sharply criticizes the Trump administration, saying it has marginalized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to a degree that is dangerous for both the U.S. and the world.
"Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics," the journal says.
So there have been a few reports of a person testing positive, then testing negative and then some time later testing positive again.
What I haven't heard about these situations seems to be the most important part, imho.
Did the person initially show definite symptoms? Did they then recover from those symptoms? After recovering from symptoms did they start displaying symptoms again?
I haven't seen that mentioned at all. Does anyone know?
What I haven't heard about these situations seems to be the most important part, imho.
Did the person initially show definite symptoms? Did they then recover from those symptoms? After recovering from symptoms did they start displaying symptoms again?
I haven't seen that mentioned at all. Does anyone know?