Feel like they keep moving the goal posts

amother

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 5:15 am

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

You're forgetting the fact that neighboring states have not yet peaked--what does it matter if NYC has peaked if people hop back and forth between NJ and Connecticut? It's not like it's a sealed border. They're making a coordinated effort to reopen because it's necessary. I know it's painful. I was praying the news after YT would be better than it was.

Well that’s the problem. The news was overall good. Lowest death toll by far. An r-knot of less than 1 which is what indicates a stable infection rate and hospital admissions and ventilations down. I just think if people continue to hear good news like this they will be much more lax in social distancing and if we don’t already have the proper protocols in place and aren’t ready for that then we’ll end up shooting ourselves in the foot by extending the lockdown.

amother

Vermilion

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 5:18 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

They need it 1) better than stable, 2) across the tristate intertwined economy.

southernbubby

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 5:28 am

amother [ Oak ] wrote:

I understand what you are saying here. I wonder as well regarding time frame. In other words, won't it take many more weeks until the threat is mitigated.

I suppose where we differ is that I DO believe that we are buying time that will reap major benefits. Such as knowledge of the virus and how to treat it (successful medications ARE being found and used), as well as producing and improving tests and testing methods, hospital resources, etc.

This is where I am with all of this; biding my time, holed up in this apartment, unable to hug my grandchildren, and waiting for medical science to come up with treatment options. I am grateful to the Aibishter for sparing DH and I this far. The hospitals are still overwhelmed and hopefully if the curve flattens, it won't be so dangerous

amother

Red

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 5:40 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Cuomo has now extended the shutdown for at least another month despite the fact that NY has started trending down by every measure. We have flattened the curve. Now we’re trying to... do what? We started giving ventilators to other states so we obviously have enough medical supplies. What’s the point of extending the shut down? I was under the impression that the shutdown was to try to flatten the curve and shore up medical supplies and we’ve done that. So what are we trying to do now exactly? I’m still following the guidelines but I’m starting to get frustrated feeling like we don’t have any type of end point or goal. What’s the goal at this point??

It's actually very simple.

The "flattening the curve" idea was so the the hospital capacity shouldn't be overwhelmed. Nobody should die as a result of not being able to get treatment. People stayed inside and now bh the curve is flattening as hospital admittance is down.

On to the next issue, and this is one that many many many people don't understand. Flattening the curve DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE VIRUS. Therefore if everyone just went out about things as we were all doing a few months ago, the very same crisis from a few weeks ago would reoccur. There would be a massive amount of sick people at the same time overwhelming hospital capacity.

Therefore what Trump said yesterday actually makes sense. He said he will leave the opening of the economy to state's governors. So if in a rural area like Wyoming where everything is spaced out and they've had a very minor (relatively speaking) outbreak, their governor can start lessening restrictions and let some people go back to work, and perhaps allow small social gatherings.

Unfortunately NYC will seemingly be the last to get back to normal. Firstly, most of us live very densely. If we are allowed to go out we will be closer to each other than in just about any other city in the country. The second issue is the NY had the worst outbreak per capita of anyplace in the world. This makes it likely that the restrictions won't be lowered for awhile.

amother

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 5:44 am

amother [ Red ] wrote:

I agree with you. The problem is this is not a long term solution. It’s not even a medium term solution. They will need to open up sooner rather than later. So what are the goal posts they’re using to determine whether that will be in 2 weeks 4 weeks or 6 weeks?

Additionally lockdown is not an all or nothing. It’s not like things will go back to business as normal. People who are high risk like the elderly and immunocompromised probably will have to quarantine until there’s an effective treatment or vaccine. If they can do that then the number of hospital admissions will be significantly down even if healthy younger people go out. Well all be wearing masks and be much more conscious of who we touch.

The virus is gong to surge again no matter what so what are we doing?

amother

Cyan

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:00 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Trying to save as many lives as possible.

This virus is something new. Science doesn't work as fast as we want it to. So we need to bide our time, watch and learn and absorb information from other countries who started out before us. As of now, all accounts of those who re-opened early was not good news. So I'm assuming they added a few weeks to give them time to figure out how we can re-open our country safely.

Life comes above all else. No matter how hard it is for us to hunker down and be locked in, those who have lost their lives, or those who have lost family members, or those still crying over their tehillims for their loves to be spared will undoubtedly assure us that it doesn't come close to their pain. Anyone not in those groups should count their blessings, and think about how they can contribute to less people joining those ranks. The cavalier attitude is that everyone will be exposed is self-centered. Every life is a world in itself. Save one life, you've saved a world.

amother

Cyan

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:36 am

amother [ Smokey ] wrote:

Is there any agreement on how long people shed? The CDC says that 3 days fever free and a week from the onset and you're good to go. I plan on not going into a store again for as long as I can, sticking to curbside pickup.

No agreement. There are multiple reports contradicting one another. A very recent ones says that the virus remains active for 37 days post infection. No one really knows just yet, so they need to take the safest route.

mommy3b2c

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:38 am

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

Life is very important. Not only those who die from corona are important. People are dropping dead from heart attacks left and right. People are not getting their cancer treatments. People are in agony from chronic pain and their surgeries are postponed in definitely. People are committing suicide and drowning in their depression and anxiety. Little children and women are getting beaten by their abusers with no place to run. At what cost are we saving all these lives?

SixOfWands

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:47 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Involved is one thing. Involved would be making recommendations and enforcing those recommendations to a somewhat reasonable degree. If you are not comfortable with the risk, you are welcome to stay inside. The same way someone who is comfortable with the risk should be welcome to go outside.

Actually, you're welcome to go outside unless you're quarantined from a positive test. I've been sick, but my friends all walk miles a day. Wear a mask and stay 6 feet away from others, and you're good to go.

The problem with your plan is all of the others you put at risk. Should doctors, nurses, therapists, cleaners, and other hospital workers have to put their lives at risk because you ignored basis medical advice? Would you be willing to sign that if you, your children, your parents get sick, you won't request treatment, even if that means dying?

amother

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:51 am

SixOfWands wrote:

By this logic no one with HIV or any other communicable disease would ever be allowed to go out because they put hospital workers at risk. Is that what you’re saying?

amother

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:53 am

mommy3b2c wrote:

I agree. I think we’ve developed tunnel vision that only coronavirus deaths are worth preventing. Not even counting that numerous hospitals are closing and lying people off because they aren’t doing elective procedures and don’t have revenue. What happens when someone who lives near one of those hospitals has a heart attack and would have been saved had the hospital been open?

I personally have a family friend who was waiting on a non-emergent heart procedure. They didn’t think if they waited anything bad would happen imminently. He dropped dead last week of a heart attack. Was his life not worth saving?

I think it’s incredibly silly to pretend like we’ll do anything to save one life or even tens of thousands of lives. We already don’t do that in society.

amother

Cyan

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:55 am

mommy3b2c wrote:

Does anyone honestly think that the people are the only ones aware of the above, and all the leaders and medical directors in every single country are in total oblivion? The directors and leader have to weigh all of the above and make a decision based on the information they have. I doubt its an easy decision, and that the choices before them are between bad or worse.

Almost all countries are coming to the same conclusion, and the few holdouts have come on board as of late. That in itself speaks volumes.

amother

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:57 am

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

I think it speaks volumes about the political pressure countries are under to minimize the death no matter the cost.

I like to think our elected officials are working in our best interest, but the longer this goes on once we have flattened the curve, the more inclined I am to think that they’re terrified to open up because people will be furious when they see how bad the politicians let everything else get.

amother

Green

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 7:58 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Exactly. Had we been concerned with lives so much we would've closed down much earlier. Timely.

I think your posts are very logical and levelheaded OP.

Thanks.

amother

Green

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 8:03 am

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

Yes I really think so. If you talk privately to doctors you will hear what their real opinion is.

It bothers me that most people think like the citizens in Communistic countries think; "our government is the greatest teh best. Our government makes no mistakes."

amother

Linen

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 8:03 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

....exactly? So I can’t impinge on your rights anymore than you or the government can impinge on mine.

If you’re scared of getting infected you have every right to stay inside

No!

Because all of you dumb enough not scared of getting infected will put all the healthcare workers at risk and overload the healthcare system.

Because you weren’t “scared” enough to stay inside..

What do you know?

And then when you need help, you come running to hospitals..

SixOfWands

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 8:03 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

By this logic no one with HIV or any other communicable disease would ever be allowed to go out because they put hospital workers at risk. Is that what you’re saying?

That's absurd.

First of all, there are means to protect hospital workers.There is virtually no transmission of HIV.

Moreover, we're in the middle of a pandemic. Very different. You want to ignore the rules, fine. But don't do it and then endanger MY family. You want to take the risk, go ahead. Accept ALL the risks.

amother

Oak

Fri, Apr 17 2020, 8:05 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

The "obsession" with Corona is basic triage. Hospitals inundated with a dangerous pathogen are NOT safe places for people with other diseases in need of treatment to be in.

So yes, the "experts" realize that there are other sick people who need medical help too. Ironically, just entering a hospital puts them in mortal danger in this current crisis. Makes sense to aggressively focus on ridding us of this virus right?