There should be a national dialogue in getting back to work

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

All of which should trouble the pro-life people. I'm sure they want the lock down to save as many people as possible 

I get the philosophical debate one can have about the diametrically opposed positions..I am a living   breathing example of it..I am pro-life yet very anti capital punishment. 

 

Having said that, now is not the time to let politics and being right, or more important it seems, proving the other guy wrong, drive our policy decsions..Unfortunately that is driving the discussion  on both sides i believe, and prevents meaningful conversations and debate..I know, always that way, but in this mess would hope it would change. Does not help we are in an election year.

 

 

[dubs]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

All of which should trouble the pro-life people. I'm sure they want the lock down to save as many people as possible 

 

Huh?  What are you talking about?

 

Some more context:

 

For the entire population, 75% had a known underlying health issue.  2% did not.  The rest were unknown.

 

So basically, and I thank you for sharing the data, what we know is that the vast majority of deaths are people over age 65 with a serious underlying health issue as a co-factor.

 

Thanks Tibs!

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

 

Huh?  What are you talking about?

 

Some more context:

 

For the entire population, 75% had a known underlying health issue.  2% did not.  The rest were unknown.

 

So basically, and I thank you for sharing the data, what we know is that the vast majority of deaths are people over age 65 with a serious underlying health issue as a co-factor.

 

Thanks Tibs!

 

 

100% correct. Birx and Fauchi screwed this up big time. The data was right there in front of them. 

[RochesterRob]

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

My mom rents out her land for cattle grazing. The guy doing the renting just cleared out all his cattle, maybe fifty of them, all gone. We figure he was chasing high prices in the market now for the area. 

 

This situation agains shows why the shutdown is logical.

  There has to be more to the story than what you are saying.  Any breeding cattle is normally kept to maintain a flow of stock.  If he was just raising stock for processing you would have already seen the nature of the cycle.  Some operators this time of year start moving stock to state lands that allow grazing which have lower costs.  

[Warren Zevon]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I get the philosophical debate one can have about the diametrically opposed positions..I am a living   breathing example of it..I am pro-life yet very anti capital punishment. 

 

Having said that, now is not the time to let politics and being right, or more important it seems, proving the other guy wrong, drive our policy decsions..Unfortunately that is driving the discussion  on both sides i believe, and prevents meaningful conversations and debate..I know, always that way, but in this mess would hope it would change. Does not help we are in an election year.

 

 

 

It's May and there still isn't a national testing strategy. A national dialogue absent of politics requires a national leader to moderate with facts and projections based off those facts. That's not happening. When a leader does not lead by example his or her hypocrisy is amplified by the opposing political party. It's been that way since long before Trump. #OrangeManBad or whatever - it's his job to be a leader and unite the country. That is not happening. 

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

All of which should trouble the pro-life people. I'm sure they want the lock down to save as many people as possible 

Does your ass hurt from pulling all the stuff out of it?

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, dubs said:

 

Huh?  What are you talking about?

 

Some more context:

 

For the entire population, 75% had a known underlying health issue.  2% did not.  The rest were unknown.

 

So basically, and I thank you for sharing the data, what we know is that the vast majority of deaths are people over age 65 with a serious underlying health issue as a co-factor.

 

Thanks Tibs!

 

 

So? I don't get what point you are making by breaking down who died. Was it to address the point that only people with a few months to live are dying, which is not true? 

8 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  There has to be more to the story than what you are saying.  Any breeding cattle is normally kept to maintain a flow of stock.  If he was just raising stock for processing you would have already seen the nature of the cycle.  Some operators this time of year start moving stock to state lands that allow grazing which have lower costs.  

You might be right, because he also took his two horses with him. Not sure what's going on. I'm not unhappy he left, though. 

 

He hasn't moved them for cheaper grazing, he had a great situation there. 

[dubs]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So? I don't get what point you are making by breaking down who died. Was it to address the point that only people with a few months to live are dying, which is not true? 

it’s just to put things into the proper context. 
 

if we know that the vast majority of deaths are with a specific group, does it make sense to enact such draconian measures rather than more targeted measures to combat the virus?  That’s all. 

 

Especially when we also know that the number of cases is extremely underreported, especially with the younger, less succeptible groups, so the death rates are much lower and even more skewed toward the vulnerable group that we should be able to target with less constrict mitigation efforts.

Edited May 6, 2020 by dubs

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, dubs said:

it’s just to put things into the proper context. 
 

if we know that the vast majority of deaths are with a specific group, does it make sense to enact such draconian measures rather than more targeted measures to combat the virus?  That’s all. 

I would say yes it does.

 

Two things. 25% of the deaths were under 65, so that would be a huge number of deaths if unchecked. And, if you opened schools, hotels, sporting events and restaurants, the people there might only be carriers, but they will come in contact with the elderly, sick and unfit. Nursing homes and other places would be at a huge increased risk. We would see a huge uptick in deaths all across the spectrum. 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

It's May and there still isn't a national testing strategy. A national dialogue absent of politics requires a national leader to moderate with facts and projections based off those facts. That's not happening. When a leader does not lead by example his or her hypocrisy is amplified by the opposing political party. It's been that way since long before Trump. #OrangeManBad or whatever - it's his job to be a leader and unite the country. That is not happening. 

No, its just the "facts"( and his supporters) he is using don't agree with the "facts" that anti Trump folks( of which i am one) are using, and hence , goest o the heart of the argument in this thread..Title of which is " needs to be a discussion" ...

 

But when only the "science" that supports your view is used, and all sides to the argument are not considered, and their is an election coming up, discussion and debate is none existant. You either want to save lives, or you are a greedy SOB who only cares about net worth.

 

We as a country need  to have the discussion about the impacts of keeping the economy closed is going to have long term. Expected deaths with a crashed economy, how long till we pay of the debt, what impacts on social programs the debt will impact etc. That includes best guesses based on available data  on which populations will suffer the most in terms of expected morbidity, expected life expetency  in those affected populations etc on opening up.

 

And then a cost benefit analysis needs to occur...sound awful I know, but it is the reality. 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

 

[dubs]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I would say yes it does.

 

Two things. 25% of the deaths were under 65, so that would be a huge number of deaths if unchecked. And, if you opened schools, hotels, sporting events and restaurants, the people there might only be carriers, but they will come in contact with the elderly, sick and unfit. Nursing homes and other places would be at a huge increased risk. We would see a huge uptick in deaths all across the spectrum. 

 

I honestly do understand the concern and how scary it can be.  We are all going through that in some way, shape or form.  But I don't agree that it means the appropriate response is to shut it all down.  The only way that would make sense is if the country was shut down until there was a vaccine and that vaccine was able to be produced in such mass quantities to administer to 330 million people.  If we did that, the country would collapse and anarchy would follow.

 

Rather, I think the appropriate response is to open and put measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population.  For the rest of the population, individuals need to make choices on their own as to how they best want to approach this.

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

We as a country need  to have the discussion about the impacts of keeping the economy closed is going to have long term. Expected deaths with a crashed economy, how long till we pay of the debt, what impacts on social programs the debt will impact etc. That includes best guesses based on available data  on which populations will suffer the most in terms of expected morbidity, expected life expetency  in those affected populations etc on opening up.

 

Indeed. Where is this data, though? I hear a lot about it and most supporters of re-opening with no restrictions shout it but we never see the actual data their takes are based on.

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

No, its just the "facts"( and his supporters) he is using don't agree with the "facts" that anti Trump folks( of which i am one) are using, and hence , goest o the heart of the argument in this thread..Title of which is " needs to be a discussion" ...

 

But when only the "science" that supports your view is used, and all sides to the argument are not considered, and their is an election coming up, discussion and debate is none existant. You either want to save lives, or you are a greedy SOB who only cares about net worth.

 

We as a country need  to have the discussion about the impacts of keeping the economy closed is going to have long term. Expected deaths with a crashed economy, how long till we pay of the debt, what impacts on social programs the debt will impact etc. That includes best guesses based on available data  on which populations will suffer the most in terms of expected morbidity, expected life expetency  in those affected populations etc on opening up.

 

And then a cost benefit analysis needs to occur...sound awful I know, but it is the reality. 

 

 

 

 

Well, we will see how it goes in Texas which is basically opening up even as the number of cases there is still on the rise. 

[plenzmd1]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I would say yes it does.

 

Two things. 25% of the deaths were under 65, so that would be a huge number of deaths if unchecked. And, if you opened schools, hotels, sporting events and restaurants, the people there might only be carriers, but they will come in contact with the elderly, sick and unfit. Nursing homes and other places would be at a huge increased risk. We would see a huge uptick in deaths all across the spectrum. 

But that is the discussion that needs to happen...you say huge uptick..that may be correct, may not be. And if the fear is that people in the "open economy" will be in contact with the elderly, how can we mitigate that risk, knowing it will never be 100%. I think the big thing is we have to comfortable with having the conversation that this is "an act of god" and that deaths among the elderly and with comorbidity factors are gunna rise, and what level point do we morally say it is the correct thing to do(open).

 

I mean, we have gone to wars for 250 years to preserve our way of life and understand there is going hundreds of thousands of lives lost , almost all of them young people at the start of their lives. And if you think a great depression is not gunna sow social unrest at levels we have never seen and threaten out way of life, look at the those folks i Michigan the other day. Just wait till people cant pay for medicines and feed their family in December. 

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

Rather, I think the appropriate response is to open and put measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population.  For the rest of the population, individuals need to make choices on their own as to how they best want to approach this.

 

I agree with this, but unfortunately measures in place to protect as best as possible the most at risk population requires the rest of the population to make sacrifices such as maintaining social distancing and wearing a mask in public. We've seen in recent days members of "the rest of the population" resist wearing masks and three even decided to murder someone over it. "The rest of the population" also is not maintaining social distancing. 

 

Freedoms are important and it's understandable why someone feel like their rights are being infringed, but one should be able to understand they are making a sacrifice for the health of the greater good. When "the rest of the population" can barely tolerate wearing a mask in public and social distancing, how can the country balance it's freedoms while keeping everyone safe? It's not possible if "the rest of the population" refuses to take precautions. 

 

 

Now we're being asked to wear masks in public and maintain social distancing. We should be able to do at least that - at a minimum. 

[KRC]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

But that is the discussion that needs to happen...you say huge uptick..that may be correct, may not be. And if the fear is that people in the "open economy" will be in contact with the elderly, how can we mitigate that risk, knowing it will never be 100%. I think the big thing is we have to comfortable with having the conversation that this is "an act of god" and that deaths among the elderly and with comorbidity factors are gunna rise, and what level point do we morally say it is the correct thing to do(open).

 

I mean, we have gone to wars for 250 years to preserve our way of life and understand there is going hundreds of thousands of lives lost , almost all of them young people at the start of their lives. And if you think a great depression is not gunna sow social unrest at levels we have never seen and threaten out way of life, look at the those folks i Michigan the other day. Just wait till people cant pay for medicines and feed their family in December. 

 

 

 

That is already happening now for some who lost their jobs. Not an easy decision.

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

Indeed. Where is this data, though? I hear a lot about it and most supporters of re-opening with no restrictions shout it but we never see the actual data their takes are based on.

there are the studies that say antibodies show way more infection, studies that show outside of NYC death rates are disproportionately in the elderly with comorbidity factors, and the hospitliztion rates and  ICU rates. All these things should be used. 

 

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Well, we will see how it goes in Texas which is basically opening up even as the number of cases there is still on the rise. 

I think we can see how Sweden goes as a quicker model. Must admit I have not seen any recent data from there, need to look. 

 

And again, i think the "discussion " that needs to be had, and it sounds like an abhorrent discussion, is what level of an increase in Covid deaths is "acceptable" vs the impacts of keeping everything closed. 

 

 

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

there are the studies that say antibodies show way more infection, studies that show outside of NYC death rates are disproportionately in the elderly with comorbidity factors, and the hospitliztion rates and  ICU rates. All these things should be used. 

 

For sure - I'm mainly talking about legit studies that show the death rate because of a crashing economy. I haven't seen any of these but it's been a huge talking point.

[ALF]

At senior home, staff stays put 24-7 to stop virus spread

 

Williams is among about 70 employees who are sheltering in place alongside more than 500 residents at an upscale assisted-living facility just outside Atlanta. Since the end of March, Park Springs has had employees live on its 61-acre campus instead of commute from home to protect residents from the coronavirus — an unusual approach, even as nursing homes have been among the hardest-hit places by the pandemic.

 

The approach has been used elsewhere: In France, staff at a nursing home ended a 47-day quarantine Monday. In Connecticut, the owner of an assisted-living facility that is housing staff on the premises, Tyson Belanger, has called for government funding to help more senior communities do so.

 

https://www.ksat.com/news/national/2020/05/05/at-senior-home-staff-stays-put-24-7-to-stop-virus-spread/

 

The extreme way to protect assisted living and nursing homes. The only other way is to test each worker before entering the facility every time with a quick test result.

 

Some health care workers don't go home but stay at a hotel 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by ALF