Did you catch it ?

Juliet Hotel said:
True enough. So there are two ways to do that. You can assume the worst and clamp down with the possible worst case end result being you were completely wrong and now some people are poorer because of it. Or you assume the best and open up everything with the possible worst case end result being you were completely wrong and now some people are dead because of it.
Click to expand...

This is really a false dichotomy. People die at higher rates when they are poor or when they are locked up and isolated.

But that is getting off on politics which is likely best avoided in a PoA thread.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Similar conclusions from a study in Israel about a lack of effect of lockdowns.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-e...wth-the-decline-in-the-spread-of-coronavirus/

I am beginning to wonder more seriously if something else is going on here with Covid-19 to explain this apparent decrease.
Click to expand...

Propose a mechanism. Without a cause-effect hypothesis, you got nothing. One thing we do know is many individuals are practicing isolation whether or not they are ordered to, and I would suspect that has had a significant impact.
 
chemgeek said:
Propose a mechanism. Without a cause-effect hypothesis, you got nothing. One thing we do know is many individuals are practicing isolation whether or not they are ordered to, and I would suspect that has had a significant impact.
Click to expand...
Our family is in that group. Any study of quarantine/isolation/etc. is likely to be flawed, as people lie. We know with certainty that without contact this wouldn't spread. but it spread. Thus, contact. As I mentioned, if the strategy isn't working, it's because it's not properly implemented.
I'd rather be poor than dead, if someone wants to make a poll on that.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Any study of quarantine/isolation/etc. is likely to be flawed, as people lie.
Click to expand...
FWIW: I don't think it's as much as lying as most people put their prosperity/wealth above their health. They were doing this before COVID, are doing this during COVID, and will do it after COVID. The archives are full of polls which show this.
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: I don't think it's as much as lying as most people put their prosperity/wealth above their health. They were doing this before COVID, are doing this during COVID, and will do it after COVID. The archives are full of polls which show this.
Click to expand...


People believe their wealth and livelihood are hanging by a thread (and they’re probably right) but their chances of dying from the virus are less than 1 in 100 (and they’re probably right). Thus their behavior is actually quite reasonable.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
...
I'd rather be poor than dead, if someone wants to make a poll on that.
Click to expand...
I would agree, as would virtually everyone else. However, that's not an accurate portrayal of the choices we face. The choice is, more accurately, would you rather live a severely restricted and, for many many people, impoverished life for the possibility of lowering the 0.2% - 0.57% chance that you and the people you may infect should you become ill may die.
Personally, given the very good odds that contracting COVID would be a non-event, I'd choose living a normal full life with a tiny bit of risk in a heartbeat. The choice is made more difficult by the fact that my decision has the potential to harm someone around me, and so I follow the guidelines. It has nothing to do with being afraid of dying or choosing poverty over death.
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: I don't think it's as much as lying as most people put their prosperity/wealth above their health....
Click to expand...
That may be true, but I think it's more than prosperity and wealth... It's the ability to live a fulfilling, active life as they wish to live it. Some of those choices are definitely not healthy, nor do they lead to wealth and prosperity (smoking, for example), but folks like to be in charge of their own lives...or at least feel like they are. In many situations, health takes a back seat to that desire. We're all pilots; arguably, we'd all be a tiny bit safer (and therefore "healthier," if defined as potentially living longer) if we didn't fly at all. Anyone here willing to give up flying so they can live longer?
I do realize that, after some soul searching, a small group of pilots probably do eventually stop flying for that very reason, but at least it's their decision.
 
MuseChaser said:
I would agree, as would virtually everyone else. However, that's not an accurate portrayal of the choices we face. The choice is, more accurately, would you rather live a severely restricted and, for many many people, impoverished life for the possibility of lowering the 0.2% - 0.57% chance that you and the people you may infect should you become ill may die.
Personally, given the very good odds that contracting COVID would be a non-event, I'd choose living a normal full life with a tiny bit of risk in a heartbeat. The choice is made more difficult by the fact that my decision has the potential to harm someone around me, and so I follow the guidelines. It has nothing to do with being afraid of dying or choosing poverty over death.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, the point of getting everyone to go into isolation was supposed to be to buy time to ramp up hospital capacity and hopefully find improved therapies. The idea was to 'flatten the curve', not change the number under the curve, meaning most will eventually get it either way. Unfortunately that means prolonging it really isn't saving lives at all. We can't stay locked down until there is a vaccine, assuming there will ever be one. The most efficient way to pass this is to keep the most vulnerable sheltered at home, and reopen the rest of society as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals. Instead everyone is pretending like it's a black & white choice between free-for-all or total lockdown.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I'd rather be poor than dead, if someone wants to make a poll on that.
Click to expand...
You can avoid being poor. You cannot avoid being dead.[*]

[*] Don't read too much into this statement as it may not accurately reflect my views on the current COVID-19 strategy.
 
Jim K said:
The most efficient way to pass this is to keep the most vulnerable sheltered at home, and reopen the rest of society as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that would be possible without significantly more testing capacity than we currently have.
 
chemgeek said:
Propose a mechanism. Without a cause-effect hypothesis, you got nothing. One thing we do know is many individuals are practicing isolation whether or not they are ordered to, and I would suspect that has had a significant impact.
Click to expand...

Two points which may be intermixed here:

The main point is -- the coercive lockdowns don't seem to work. Maybe voluntary social isolation has had an effect, we don't really know for sure.

Second point -- the data are of course primary and are what they are, whether one has a successful theory to explain them or not.

But since the coercive lockdowns, the governments big hammer, is less finely tuned than individual voluntary actions, that can cause a lot more collateral damage than voluntary social distancing. Thus the coercive lockdowns should be ended.
 
Last edited:
The material in this opinion piece is not really news. We already know that the CFR is higher for the older and for those with certain conditions. And we also know that once we get the epidemic under control a less blunt approach is necessary.

The reason for the broad stay-at-home orders is to gain control so that approach will work. The earlier steps are taken in the outbreak, the larger an impact is has, and the sooner you can get back in control. In NY at the onset of the outbreak, the doubling time for new cases was less than 2 (!!) days. That was unacceptable from both a mortality and health care capacity viewpoint. Hence the stay at home orders. We are not yet in a place where we can maintain control in a targeted way. To do that, we need to be at much, much lower caseloads and have significantly more testing. Thats maybe 30 days or more away, looking at the current data. Other major population areas could have gone down the same road. There is no question that the 95% decrease in domestic travel and physical distancing has reduced spread. The question is, now, how do we suppress widespread outbreaks until we achieve herd immunity via a vaccine? We will be maintaining some forms of distancing and viral transmission suppression for some time, I'm afraid. There are no other tools in the box now.

BTW flattening the curve not only reduces the peak caseload, it can also reduce the total area under the curve as well, at the expense of leaving a larger pool of susceptible individuals in the population. But that requires persistent efforts to reduce transmission. Additional waves of outbreaks are still possible until herd immunity is achieved. Sometimes, reality bites. We will have to be creative and resourceful over the next 12-24 months.
 
chemgeek said:
The material in this opinion piece is not really news. We already know that the CFR is higher for the older and for those with certain conditions. And we also know that once we get the epidemic under control a less blunt approach is necessary.

The reason for the broad stay-at-home orders is to gain control so that approach will work. The earlier steps are taken in the outbreak, the larger an impact is has, and the sooner you can get back in control. In NY at the onset of the outbreak, the doubling time for new cases was less than 2 (!!) days. That was unacceptable from both a mortality and health care capacity viewpoint. Hence the stay at home orders. We are not yet in a place where we can maintain control in a targeted way. To do that, we need to be at much, much lower caseloads and have significantly more testing. Thats maybe 30 days or more away, looking at the current data. Other major population areas could have gone down the same road. There is no question that the 95% decrease in domestic travel and physical distancing has reduced spread. The question is, now, how do we suppress widespread outbreaks until we achieve herd immunity via a vaccine? We will be maintaining some forms of distancing and viral transmission suppression for some time, I'm afraid. There are no other tools in the box now.

BTW flattening the curve not only reduces the peak caseload, it can also reduce the total area under the curve as well, at the expense of leaving a larger pool of susceptible individuals in the population. But that requires persistent efforts to reduce transmission. Additional waves of outbreaks are still possible until herd immunity is achieved. Sometimes, reality bites. We will have to be creative and resourceful over the next 12-24 months.
Click to expand...

You provide honest information about self-protection (the "honest" part admittedly being problematic because government is involved), aggressively protect and provide for the most vulnerable, and let everyone else decide for themselves how much risk is acceptable. Those who want to hide under their beds would be free to do so. Most of the rest would go about their lives with reasonable precautions. The reckless who didn't would be Darwin's problem.

That approach seems to be working in Sweden. They're having some wild spikes; but their per-capita death rate is still less than, for example, most of Europe. The real advantage, however, will come this fall. They'll have herd immunity, while we'll be going through this ******** all over again.

Rich
 
Herd immunity for COVID is probably somewhere in the 70-90% range. I don't know if Sweden will be there by fall. An interesting but perhaps irrelevant observation about Sweden from traveling there on business is that they have among the most healthy and fit societies I have seen.
 
chemgeek said:
Herd immunity for COVID is probably somewhere in the 70-90% range. I don't know if Sweden will be there by fall. An interesting but perhaps irrelevant observation about Sweden from traveling there on business is that they have among the most healthy and fit societies I have seen.
Click to expand...

They're officially estimating about two weeks. I think that's probably a bit optimistic. But even if they have 50 or 60 percent by fall, it will be a lot easier on them than on us, with our estimated 4 percent rate except in downstate New York.

Rich
 
chemgeek said:
There is no question that the 95% decrease in domestic travel and physical distancing has reduced spread.
Click to expand...

And where is the data to back up that bold assertion? I have repeatedly asked for ANY empirical study that this has worked in the case of Covid 19 and yet nothing has been posted.

Just theories that it must work in the limit, that’s all. So far as I know, there is NO empirical evidence that the coercive lockdowns have worked or that social distancing has slowed the rate of spread - zero, none, nada!

I do have to wonder if there is an assumption here that this is going to behave like a chemistry experiment. The world of medicine and biology is not as theoretically predictable as chemistry and physics - too many unknown confounding variables.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
And where is the data to back up that bold assertion? I have repeatedly asked for ANY empirical study that this has worked in the case of Covid 19 and yet nothing has been posted.

Just theories that it must work in the limit, that’s all. So far as I know, there is NO empirical evidence that the coercive lockdowns have worked or that social distancing has slowed the rate of spread - zero, none, nada!

I do have to wonder if there is an assumption here that this is going to behave like a chemistry experiment. The world of medicine and biology is not as theoretically predictable as chemistry and physics - too many unknown confounding variables.
Click to expand...
Conversely, what is the mechanism for spread if people are apart?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
And where is the data to back up that bold assertion? I have repeatedly asked for ANY empirical study that this has worked in the case of Covid 19 and yet nothing has been posted.

Just theories that it must work in the limit, that’s all. So far as I know, there is NO empirical evidence that the coercive lockdowns have worked or that social distancing has slowed the rate of spread - zero, none, nada!

I do have to wonder if there is an assumption here that this is going to behave like a chemistry experiment. The world of medicine and biology is not as theoretically predictable as chemistry and physics - too many unknown confounding variables.
Click to expand...

Probably the closest approximation would be a comparison of rural areas to urban areas.

If you exclude the downstate counties (let's say New York City, Long Island, Westchester County, and Rockland County), the rest of New York State has seropositivity rates of well under four percent in asymptomatic individuals who were tested at shopping centers. The fact that they were out and about suggests that they were social distancing, but not isolating.

In New York City, on the other hand, the seropositivity rate was more than 21 percent. Multiple studies suggest that most of these people contracted the virus while riding on mass transit (especially the subways) or from contact with someone who did. Because even young children commonly use mass transit in New York City (more so the buses than the subways in the case of children, but all the conveyances are interconnected), social distancing there is enough of a farce that it qualifies as a population that did not engage in it.

The real question, then, is how much of a distance do the draconian measures currently in effect make compared to a community's normal routine? I believe very little. Nothing will make much of a difference in New York City as long as mass transit is still running, and normal life in rural areas is already social-distanced by nature.

So what differences do forced lockdowns make? I can tell you a few. Because of the coercive lockdowns and other meddling by government, the following are true where I live:

  • Alcohol and drug abuse are up; but rehab groups, AA meetings, and NA meetings are forbidden. (Liquor stores and marijuana stores, however, are open for business. Gotta get that tax revenue.)
  • Suicides are up, but mental health care is essentially non-existent. All treatment groups are canceled, along with routine visits to psychiatrists and other providers.
  • Bankruptcy filings are up. They're done electronically now.
  • Crime is up for multiple reasons including junkies needing money for their fixes, ordinary people becoming desperate enough to steal, domestic violence because people are simply getting sick of each others' presence, and mentally ill people acting out in various illegal ways.
  • The local hardware stores are out of locks because people who haven't locked their homes in so long that they don't even know where the keys are have bought them all.
  • Gasoline theft is up. There's plenty of gas in the stations, but more and more people have no money to buy it.
  • You can't register a car unless you buy it from a dealer because DMV offices are shut down. If you hit a deer, you're screwed. DMV refuses to allow insurance companies to issue temporary tags, for reasons known only to DMV. This also applies to farmers who need to register on-road vehicles that need plates, which basically means any vehicle that could be used for purposes other than farming.
  • Young people who need to get driver's licenses or pesticide licenses to work on their families' farms can't get them.
  • My county has two COVID-19 patients in the hospital -- that's two in the entire county -- but all routine medical and dental appointments and all "elective" surgeries are forbidden in order to "prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed." In the meantime, health care workers are being furloughed because they have nothing to do.
  • In-home DOA's due to treatable non-COVID illnesses are up. Strange how that works. Make routine medical care appointments illegal, and people die at home.
  • There is no milk in the stores, but dairy farmers are discarding milk because commercial and institutional demand is down. Both practical factors and the dizzying maze of State Ag and Markets regulations make it difficult or impossible for them to sell their excess milk to consumers.
  • Many children are getting NO education at all because they live in areas without broadband Internet or cell service, and the online education requires broadband. Many of them probably aren't eating very much, either.
  • High school students who need to take college entrance exams can't take them.

The biggest heroes in the county are the sheriff's department, who do their best to interpret the diarrheic flow of edicts pumped out by the state capitol with projectile force in ways that minimize their harm to local residents. Sometimes this means simply looking the other way. Other times it means becoming ad hoc shrinks, social workers, crisis counselors, grocery deliverers, child-minders, and taxi drivers. I fully expect midwifery to be added to their roles soon. God bless our sheriffs.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Probably the closest approximation would be a comparison of rural areas to urban areas.

If you exclude the downstate counties (let's say New York City, Long Island, Westchester County, and Rockland County), the rest of New York State has seropositivity rates of well under four percent in asymptomatic individuals who were tested at shopping centers. The fact that they were out and about suggests that they were social distancing, but not isolating.

In New York City, on the other hand, the seropositivity rate was more than 21 percent. Multiple studies suggest that most of these people contracted the virus while riding on mass transit (especially the subways) or from contact with someone who did. Because even young children commonly use mass transit in New York City (more so the buses than the subways in the case of children, but all the conveyances are interconnected), social distancing there is enough of a farce that it qualifies as a population that did not engage in it.

The real question, then, is how much of a distance do the draconian measures currently in effect make compared to a community's normal routine? I believe very little. Nothing will make much of a difference in New York City as long as mass transit is still running, and normal life in rural areas is already social-distanced by nature.

So what differences do forced lockdowns make? I can tell you a few. Because of the coercive lockdowns and other meddling by government, the following are true where I live:

  • Alcohol and drug abuse are up; but rehab groups, AA meetings, and NA meetings are forbidden. (Liquor stores and marijuana stores, however, are open for business. Gotta get that tax revenue.)
  • Suicides are up, but mental health care is essentially non-existent. All treatment groups are canceled, along with routine visits to psychiatrists and other providers.
  • Bankruptcy filings are up. They're done electronically now.
  • Crime is up for multiple reasons including junkies needing money for their fixes, ordinary people becoming desperate enough to steal, domestic violence because people are simply getting sick of each others' presence, and mentally ill people acting out in various illegal ways.
  • The local hardware stores are out of locks because people who haven't locked their homes in so long that they don't even know where the keys are have bought them all.
  • Gasoline theft is up. There's plenty of gas in the stations, but more and more people have no money to buy it.
  • You can't register a car unless you buy it from a dealer because DMV offices are shut down. If you hit a deer, you're screwed. DMV refuses to allow insurance companies to issue temporary tags, for reasons known only to DMV. This also applies to farmers who need to register on-road vehicles that need plates, which basically means any vehicle that could be used for purposes other than farming.
  • Young people who need to get driver's licenses or pesticide licenses to work on their families' farms can't get them.
  • My county has two COVID-19 patients in the hospital -- that's two in the entire county -- but all routine medical and dental appointments and all "elective" surgeries are forbidden in order to "prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed." In the meantime, health care workers are being furloughed because they have nothing to do.
  • In-home DOA's due to treatable non-COVID illnesses are up. Strange how that works. Make routine medical care appointments illegal, and people die at home.
  • There is no milk in the stores, but dairy farmers are discarding milk because commercial and institutional demand is down. Both practical factors and the dizzying maze of State Ag and Markets regulations make it difficult or impossible for them to sell their excess milk to consumers.
  • Many children are getting NO education at all because they live in areas without broadband Internet or cell service, and the online education requires broadband. Many of them probably aren't eating very much, either.
  • High school students who need to take college entrance exams can't take them.

The biggest heroes in the county are the sheriff's department, who do their best to interpret the diarrheic flow of edicts pumped out by the state capitol with projectile force in ways that minimize their harm to local residents. Sometimes this means simply looking the other way. Other times it means becoming ad hoc shrinks, social workers, crisis counselors, grocery deliverers, child-minders, and taxi drivers. I fully expect midwifery to be added to their roles soon. God bless our sheriffs.

Rich
Click to expand...

As a person who has lived in extremely rural areas (look up Chase Mills, NY) and loved the many years we spent there, Rich's entire post is spot on and truly brought a tear to my eye... maybe to both eyes. Treating rural America the same as NYC in regards to COVID issues is practically a hate crime.
 
Sometime within the last month or two, I heard a proposal to ease restrictions on a county-by-county basis. At the time, it seemed impractical because of the problem of getting sufficiently granular data, but I have since learned of a Website that displays covid-19 statistics on a per-county basis.

https://covid19.topos.com/

The menus can be used to select different covid-19 statistics.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Conversely, what is the mechanism for spread if people are apart?
Click to expand...

Isolation has to work in the extreme limiting case, that is true based on theory.

But the point here is that is a different question from whether a social or government intervention works. The intervention may not work because it fails to achieve the sort of separation which reduces viral spread in the real world. No other mechanism of spread need to be present.

Thus the need for actual measurements and data to support the hypothesis that something like a coercive lockdown achieves it’s intended effect of reducing the spread of Covid-19. So far, the data do not support that hypothesis, they strongly suggest that coercive lockdowns have not slowed the spread.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Isolation has to work in the extreme limiting case, that is true based on theory.

But the point here is that is a different question from whether a social or government intervention works. The intervention may not work because it fails to achieve the sort of separation which reduces viral spread in the real world. No other mechanism of spread need to be present.

Thus the need for actual measurements and data to support the hypothesis that something like a coercive lockdown achieves it’s intended effect of reducing the spread of Covid-19. So far, the data do not support that hypothesis, they strongly suggest that coercive lockdowns have not slowed the spread.
Click to expand...
Some data seems to have suggested otherwise, and now that politics is involved, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to show one or the other hypothesis is correct.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Some data seems to have suggested otherwise, and now that politics is involved, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to show one or the other hypothesis is correct.
Click to expand...

As long as it's just a discussion of data interpretation, there's no reason not to have the discussion. Hypotheses are not facts, and testing and discussing them is what science is all about. If one hypothesis could be shown to be correct, it would no longer be a hypothesis, but rather a proven fact. Reading the discussion between @chemgeek and @PeterNSteinmetz has been fascinating and I'd hate to see that kind of discourse stifled. I just get a little undie-bunched when statements are made that are blatantly biased and stupid. I do not like "coercive lockdowns" in the broad sense of the word; many of the true, awful suffering being experienced by many industries and individuals is NOT due to the virus, but to our reaction TO the virus. However, I find it difficult to believe that the lockdowns have NOT had an effect on slowing the spread of COVID. That's one of the main reasons I'm glad to read Peter's and Chemgeek's take on things... they both make excellent points and have both obviously taken it upon themselves to become well-versed and well-researched. Personally, I have nothing other than logic and common sense to go by... and an innate desire to find positivity where I can.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Some data seems to have suggested otherwise, and now that politics is involved, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to show one or the other hypothesis is correct.
Click to expand...
It would always have been logistically impossible to do a controlled study. Too many variables. So in the absence of that, we can only look at what has happened in various locations; many uncontrolled experiments, since different locations went about the lockdown in various ways. People are likely to look at the situation through the lens of the place where they live. I live in a medium sized city within a larger metropolitan area where there is a lot of public transportation use and international visitors. Anecdotally, I would say lockdown worked. The incidences here have been way less than feared, based on demographics. On the other hand, I get that the area under the curve hasn't changed, even though it's flat, so the future is uncertain. But it's uncertain everywhere.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Some data seems to have suggested otherwise, and now that politics is involved, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to show one or the other hypothesis is correct.
Click to expand...

What data do you think have suggested that coercive lockdowns have worked, other than the general theory that they must work in the limit?

I agree that it is more difficult to get to the bottom of things in controversial subjects - very true.

But I also believe that if one focuses on looking directly at data and analyses and making independent judgements, it is possible. Keep at it if it is an important subject for you.
 
Palmpilot said:
Sometime within the last month or two, I heard a proposal to ease restrictions on a county-by-county basis. At the time, it seemed impractical because of the problem of getting sufficiently granular data, but I have since learned of a Website that displays covid-19 statistics on a per-county basis.

https://covid19.topos.com/

The menus can be used to select different covid-19 statistics.
Click to expand...

My county publishes a daily report of every case in the county, along with a cumulative summary, graphs, and charts. They include total tests, total diagnoses, tests for which results are still being awaited, status of patients (hospitalized, recovering at home, recovered, or deceased), number in precautionary quarantine, number in mandatory quarantine, and number of out-of-county residents who were transferred back to their counties of residence once it was safe to do so.

The numbers are small. The cumulative total cases diagnosed (not hospitalized, just diagnosed) was 58 as of last night, not counting non-residents who were diagnosed while they happened to be here. That's probably fewer cases than are diagnosed on one floor of a Manhattan high-rise in a day. But the point is that the data is there. All the state has to do is get out of the way and let the counties decide how to best handle things.

On the bright side, the one-way aisles at Price Chopper do help reduce shopping cart traffic jams. So there's that.

Rich
 
Last edited:
I'm against coercive lockdowns, but I think that mandatory lockdowns are OK (where needed). ;)
 
bbchien said:
The country was sooo unprepared.....we cannot yet even test yet for who has the antibody.
Click to expand...

And from what I'm hearing from people like Fauci, recovery with presence of antibodies is still not a guarantee of immunity. He has said that they expect some degree of immunity, but at this point, not enough data to even confirm that.
 
RJM62 said:
All the state has to do is get out of the way and let the counties decide how to best handle things.
Click to expand...
I would agree to that. However I can see a problem coming when people travel more. I have heard that people in rural areas, especially those that are vacation spots, are trying to keep people from the city out.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What data do you think have suggested that coercive lockdowns have worked, other than the general theory that they must work in the limit?

I agree that it is more difficult to get to the bottom of things in controversial subjects - very true.

But I also believe that if one focuses on looking directly at data and analyses and making independent judgements, it is possible. Keep at it if it is an important subject for you.
emoji846.png
Click to expand...
Look at the thread on magic compounds, where people saw the same briefing and came to very different conclusions. I'm content to let the experts advise the different governments. As mentioned earlier, what is good for NYC really doesn't apply to Covid, NE.
 
Everskyward said:
I would agree to that. However I can see a problem coming when people travel more. I have heard that people in rural areas, especially those that are vacation spots, are trying to keep people from the city out.
Click to expand...

We're requesting a 14-day voluntary quarantine, a negative COVID-19 test, a positive antibody test, or verifiable recovery. I think most counties are doing pretty much the same thing.

The quarantine can be made mandatory if the person has symptoms, but I'm not aware of anyone who has refused to voluntarily quarantine. We do have a lot of people with summer homes who came up early to escape the madness. No one's gathered outside their houses and cabins with torches and pitchforks.

You have to understand that tourists, vacationers, and summer residents bring a lot of money to rural counties in the Catskills and the Hudson Valley. Even if for no other reason than that, Catskills and Hudson Valley counties don't want to completely close the doors.

Rich
 
write-stuff said:
And from what I'm hearing from people like Fauci, recovery with presence of antibodies is still not a guarantee of immunity. He has said that they expect some degree of immunity, but at this point, not enough data to even confirm that.
Click to expand...

Dr. Fauci has pretty high standards. I suspect that by the time he's willing to give his imprimatur to something like that, we all will be dead of old age.

Rich
 
MuseChaser said:
That may be true, but I think it's more than prosperity and wealth... It's the ability to live a fulfilling, active life as they wish to live it. Some of those choices are definitely not healthy, nor do they lead to wealth and prosperity (smoking, for example), but folks like to be in charge of their own lives...or at least feel like they are. In many situations, health takes a back seat to that desire. We're all pilots; arguably, we'd all be a tiny bit safer (and therefore "healthier," if defined as potentially living longer) if we didn't fly at all. Anyone here willing to give up flying so they can live longer?
I do realize that, after some soul searching, a small group of pilots probably do eventually stop flying for that very reason, but at least it's their decision.
Click to expand...
If this pandemic was something other than a temporary situation, I'd go about life as normal. But as I have elderly and sick relatives and friends, I'm gonna do what I can to keep them from dying early.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top