Why?

[DeniseJH]

Yes, we know.

Good, I'm glad you are aware.

 

[Farro]

Yes, it is. The reality - we value children more than the elderly in America.

Well yeah. Same everywhere. I don't love my parents less, but even they would say they'd rather the children survive even if it means they wont. But god forbid please.

I have no children. Don't especially love children . But we need the human race to go on, dont we?

Again, I get its uncomfortable and feels unfair, but its nature and its need to survive.

 

[Farro]

Good, I'm glad you are aware.

How does that change what I posted?

 

[DeniseJH]

How does that change what I posted?

Never mind. No need to argue.
Edited: I obviously took something the wrong way. My apologies.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And, my original purpose for the thread is "Why panic?".

You initially asked why is the virus so scary

Should a building be evacuated because there's been a positive case from an employee? I don't think so.

An evacuation, at least around here, is done so they can bring in cleaning crews to deep clean the entire building. Workplaces unfortunately are easy targets for spreading especially if people get up from their desks and goes to meetings, goes to get coffee, goes to the bathroom, goes to lunch, goes to the printer/faxer/copier, etc. So if they can removing all employees allows the company the ability to clean it all. Will it 100% prevent spread no because those employees could have already been exposed by the other employee but at least they can try to start with a much cleaner building once the employee who is considered to have had exposure or is tested positive. Schools follow workplaces in that respect too.

There's a run on TP and food stuffs. These are the kinds of things I'm referring to.

When you are told to practice social distancing it usually means limiting your ability to go to restaurants and be out and about like one may normally be. Our local news has focused on having enough supplies for 2-4 weeks NOT months and months or years worth.

My husband and I don't plan out meals for that long so yeah we needed to think what meals we could reasonably have more than we would have. We aren't locked in our homes though but when we would have gone to breakfast out with the in-laws on the weekend we opted to purchase food to make breakfast instead at least for this weekend. When we would have maybe gone out to dinner once or twice during the week we have now purchased more than we would have to make dinners at home. My husband presently is still at work in the office but going remote is a possibility and is treated day to day.

Do I think all the steps that various people/companies are taking are all absolutely necessary? No.

I agree some of the decisions are a bit extreme or they don't make as much sense. I like to think majority are necessary with there being some on the extreme side that seem to more swap one issue for another.

My mom's accounting department for an insurance company in the name of social distancing they are taking certain sections of her accounting department to go remote for 8 weeks at a time. Now they were already in a pilot program for 2 times out of the month going remote but now they've opted to do 8 weeks straight at home. However, when I talked to my mom about it I asked her "well did they pick half of a section to go remote leaving half at the office so they could put an empty cubicle in between people?" she answered "well no they took a whole section to work from home"..and I responded "ok but how does that promote social distancing at the office when you're still within 2 feet (or closer) of each other all the time?"...she responds "well I guess it doesn't". Now her accounting department is unique in that really only 1 or 2 people could be responsible for things so it presents a problem with choosing who goes remote and who doesn't but still. Don't say it's for social distancing (and mean it for more keeping distance between each other) when what they are doing is more about limiting the number of people at the office at any given time as that's not the same as keeping a 6-10feet distance between you and the next person.

Certain decisions Universities have made (like closing campus AND kicking all students out of dorms AND telling off campus students they should really go home too) don't seem like the best decision to me as it sends thousands and thousands of students all across the U.S. now but guess we'll see how that pans out.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

But we need the human race to go on, dont we?

It is because we love children far more than the elderly. Has nothing to do with the human race enduring. If we were really worried about the human race enduring then other things would be of much greater importance in our lives, like global warming and pollution.

Too many simply don't mind that this is killing the elderly.

 

[Farro]

It is because we love children far more than the elderly. Has nothing to do with the human race enduring. If we were really worried about the human race enduring then other things would be of much greater importance in our lives, like global warming and pollution.

Too many simply don't mind that this is killing the elderly.

Well sure. That's the most frustrating thing too. Everyone panics and wants to fix now because its hitting them at home, but gives a crap about the environment because it doesnt seem real to them yet.

And your last statement is just silly. Everyone cares.

 

[BrianL]

It is because we love children far more than the elderly. Has nothing to do with the human race enduring. If we were really worried about the human race enduring then other things would be of much greater importance in our lives, like global warming and pollution.

Too many simply don't mind that this is killing the elderly.

Protecting the young is a biological imperative. It is human nature, and the same for just about every species on the planet. That's part of our programming and doesn't necessarily translate to other scenarios. I don't think its fair to say we "love" children more than the elderly, but there is a natural inclination to favor one over the other.

 

[leebee]

This virus is comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, the deadliest in history (so far), infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide—about one-third of the planet’s population—and killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million victims, including some 675,000 Americans. We have the model and experience from that pandemic to follow this time, and we know that distancing worked:



https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

 

[wilbret]

One thing I don’t get, is even if you don’t believe there is more risk than the flu, people have to acknowledge it is different than the flu, and there are many unknowns to us that experts DO know, and have recommended extreme measures to slow down the spread.

 

[wvjules]

This is why we are closing schools, canceling events and working from home...

 

[LSUmiss]

Right now, the focus is not on saving lives or keeping people from catching it. Catching it now is a given. The thrust, currently is (or should be) ensuring that the population doesn't sort of come down with it all at one time. This will overwhelm the medical infrastructure and cause us to get to a point (like Italy) where will we have to choose who gets care and who doesn't by whose life is more valuable.

If we can do a lot of social distancings through closures, we can sort of meter out the illness rate. That's all we can do now: ensure the doctors and hospitals do not get overwhelmed. Listen to a few things said by Dr. Fauci.

Exactly in Italy & other places critically ill ppl aren’t able to get medical care b/c the hospitals are overwhelmed so more ppl die than would need to. Plus the reg flu is still here too so there are certain percentage of ppl who will be critically ill from that who will still need medical care also. At the rate the numbers are rising here, we are on course to be the next Italy if we don’t take action so that’s what the closures are about.

 

[leebee]

Certain decisions Universities have made (like closing campus AND kicking all students out of dorms AND telling off campus students they should really go home too) don't seem like the best decision to me as it sends thousands and thousands of students all across the U.S. now but guess we'll see how that pans out.

Communal living accelerates the rate of transmission and illness, so it makes sense to not have students living that way; it increases the infection rate, and there is no way to control where they go, what they do, etc. when they aren't in class, so who knows what they will really be exposed to?

I really think the timing of spring break came into play. At the university where I teach, break started yesterday so we sent the students home and told them not to come back. The concern is that we don't know where the students are going, with whom they'll be in contact, and therefore what they might be bringing back to our small community. Epidemiology studies and stats have shown that living in a dorm is like being on a cruise ship... and we all know how that's going at the moment. The University is leaving the dorms and a dining hall open during break for students whose parents couldn't drop everything to come get them yesterday (free- hard to imagine, but no charge for anyone staying this week, and room/board for the remainder of the semester will be prorated/refunded), but the goal is to have no students living in very large, closed-quarters groups, nobody sitting literally beside someone in a 300-person lecture, etc. Plans are in the works for managing those students who can't go home, but the qualifications for staying are stringent. There is a plan in place for housing those students, including limiting the number of rooms on a floor that can be occupied, nobody is being assigned roommates, communal study areas are shut down, there is discussion of meals being available on a take-out basis only (instead of in a dining hall or commons).

I know that none of the Universities made this decision lightly, and as faculty we are busting our butts during break to have everything ready for the students to continue their education. However, I think this is "social distancing" at its peak, and is the best way to contain and "flatten the curve."

 

[LSUmiss]

It is worth noting that China instituted some very extreme policies themselves to finally get a handle on it to stop spreading it. It's not like they stopped at 80K by using average precautionary measures.

Exactly & ppl would FREAK if the US tried to do that so doing this now helps us not get to china proportions while allowing Americans to still keep most of the freedoms we are used to having.

 

[ronandannette]

I once went 6 years without getting a cold. I work in a high school. So your "everyone gets a cold at least once a year" makes your comparison invalid, IMO.

To get COVID-19 you need to get the virus in your mouth, eyes, or nasal passages. Same as any other virus. Wash your hands, don't touch your face; if you have to cough, do it into your elbow.

Sweet!! But you have had a cold at some point, right? I guess I should have said “at some point” rather than “every year”. I don’t think it invalidated the point though.

 

[Farro]

One thing I don’t get, is even if you don’t believe there is more risk than the flu, people have to acknowledge it is different than the flu, and there are many unknowns to us that experts DO know, and have recommended extreme measures to slow down the spread.

I think people need to look at things differently.

Yes, this is new and we know nothing. We have no vaccine and no natural immunity yet. I do think over the years this will be on par with the flu.

So while I get people questioning why we dont make as big a deal out of the flu,the flu has been around longer. We have vaccinations and some natural immunity. But sure, looking at numbers it's doesn't seem this virus is "that" bad in comparison. The issue is everyone catching it at same time because it's so new.

We aren't social distancing, closing etc. to stop virus. We are doing it to slow spread because it's easier to catch than flu right now due to above.
We wont stop virus, but rather stop overwhelming the hospitals so people don't die needlessly due to not getting treatment. That's why we should be concerned.

I think that's the disconnect for some?

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Protecting the young is a biological imperative. It is human nature, and the same for just about every species on the planet. That's part of our programming and doesn't necessarily translate to other scenarios. I don't think its fair to say we "love" children more than the elderly, but there is a natural inclination to favor one over the other.

Still, the result - we don't care that this is killing our elderly nearly as much as if it was killing our children (or any other age group). If this was killing our children, no group would be complaining about the measures taken to protect them. People would accept the risk to the economy.

 

[Jfldis]

I have a hard time trashing people who are skeptical of the scope and reality of this outbreak. I guess I technically am at risk person so I sure don’t want to get this and am doing what is recommended. I’m on this board because we had a mid April trip planned to celebrate my daughters sweet 16. I am heartbroken for her that I might not happen (gonna be just a little optimistic until I can’t be) but we’ve discussed it as a family and it is what it is and we’ll deal. But back to the skeptics...I have spoken with medical professionals in my orbit and some think it’s a bit of an over reaction. I myself am not sure. The problem is the mixed messages being put out from all corners. I won’t get political, but no matter your persuasion you must admit one side said don’t worry, the other side said worry. And those in positions of authority continue to frame the discussion along those lines, which filters into the media coverage. Again I am not espousing either view, just noting the climate. I do believe that depending on the federal government to handle anything efficiently is a pipe dream. I think it is best handled at a local level and I have noticed that the last few days more and more governotlrs of states have started taking charge and seem to be making some real progress. But I too am somewhat confused about the inconsistent handling. For example, I heard one student cancelled its primary for a couple of weeks down the road but fla will still have theirs next week. My mom is on fla today and her friends today were. going to a casino which she said is still open. Fla? Talk about high risk population...lastly some of these protections are being put in place because some people are arrogant and stupid. Dis you see the story about the sick guy that got on a plane in ny to fly to fla while sick? He had been tested and while in flight got a text to say the test was positive for Corona. The fact that people have to be told to wash their hands in further proof. I mean cmon all...anyway sorry for the length. Hope we can all take a deep breath and get through. And I think people should feel free to qiuestion things until they are satisfied that they have enough info on how to approach this completely unprecedented situation

 

[Farro]

Still, the result - we don't care that this is killing our elderly nearly as much as if it was killing our children (or any other age group). If this was killing our children, no group would be complaining about the measures taken to protect them. People would accept the risk to the economy.

You're just going to need to accept it because that's the way it is and always will be. People will instinctively value young healthy lives or elderly or sick people.

I say this at 46 where I know people would rather save a child than me. (hey, I've got a lot left to give people! )

But I think you are dead wrong that the world isn't taking this seriously. They are and they are trying to protect our sick and elderly. It's new and people are making mistakes. It will happen and then we learn.

 

[mousefan73]

OP: just take a look at Italy. Granted their population is one of the oldest but they have numbers under 20,000 positive and already are deciding who gets the ICU bed or not. That is not the normal flu. A friend lives in Rome and stated though rare, this dies affect young and healthy. They are also in the ICU. But with low numbers. Plus this thing spreads like wild fire due to so many with zero symptoms