bigjoey

Even if you show no symptoms, if you test positive you may be contagious which is the issue.

Yes, it may not be easy but if the facility has workers who test positive it is a necessity to get family members out of there. No one said life is “easy”. Some times you have to put on your big boy pants and do what needs to be done. To me it is unconscionable that a senior facility would allow employees who test positive to be in the facility.

Bad news: https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/gilead-end-coronavirus-drug-trials-195535591.html

They are fucked up. Two solutions for the “staffing shortage”: 1-raise the pay of the staff and attract more employees (or temps) 2-reduce the resident population (can be done over a period of time as residents leave (move out or die) The senior campus where I volunteer (right now no one is being allowed in the building but residents and staff) has just raised a large amount of funds to pay a sizable bonus to front line employees who have had the brunt of the pandemic. This was done to show appreciation for a hard job well done. The management has long treated the employees well because they realized that as the key to good resident care. A non-profit with community support can do this. Treating employees well has been a long tradition at this senior care facility. The key to any business being successful is treating employees well; if the employees are happy, the customers will be treated right. The business rule I was use to was NOT “The customer is number one” but instead “The employee is number one.” That rule works. Anyone having family in the senior living facility in the original post should move them out as fast as possible.

“Thank You got Being A Friend” AKA the theme song from Golden Girls.???

More on vitamin D: https://scitechdaily.com/vitamin-d-determines-severity-in-covid-19-researchers-urge-government-to-change-advice/

From what I have read, the masks have a psychological effect. It keeps the person wearing the mask from touching their face and is a reminder to keep physical distancing. Having a constant reminder improves behaviors needed during the pandemic.

While I have been steady in my belief that we will not see a vaccine anytime soon, a friend just sent me information about a vaccine going into clinical trials: https://m.jpost.com/opinion/hillels-tech-corner-migvax-israeli-covid-19-vaccine-closer-to-trials-626512/amp A Google search brings up more stories about the company and the institute behind it. As an aside, three Arab Gulf states are cooperating with Israel on the Coronavirus work; they must be onto something for that to happen.

Absolutely in becoming infected often involves a choice. My point was not how you become infected, but once infected AIDS/HIV is now a treatable chronic condition. Once, it was a death sentence. If medical therapies are found that can treat people with the virus to lessen/shorten the infection and take away the fear of dying in an ICU, then having a vaccine is not that important. These treatments will take away the fear of those of us in high risk groups from going out. With such treatments, we can perhaps hope to return to a “ normal” life. Currently, restaurants are starting to open with restrictions in place on sanitizing and physical distancing but I have a fear of going out. These medical therapies would banish that fear.

I understood the effects beyond the pure medical aspects. I just did not think that those aspects could declare the end of the pandemic. This matches up with a story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal where in Europe the seniors are starting to revolt and do not want to live in a bubble. They are wanting to be included in the phase outs of the lockdowns.

I never thought of pandemics ending in any other way but medically. Interesting that history has a “social end” to some pandemics. I never realized that. I see they included the 1968 pandemic in their list. To learn from past pandemics is why I brought that pandemic up in prior posts: to learn from the past.

If there are medical treatments for those infected with the virus, life can go on even if there is no vaccine. Think of HIV/AIDS where those infected now have a chronic condition rather than a death sentence. If medical treatments can lower the death rate of those persons hospitalized, then this virus becomes something like the flu. Now keep in mind that tens of thousands still die from the flu each year but we manage to live with it.

In the short run while waiting for a vaccine, I think a better hope for cutting the death rate is finding effective treatments for those who require hospitalization. All types of things are being tried. When a nurse this morning told me they were using an IV form of vitamin C, I thought he was joking. However, after doing research, that is indeed true: https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/COVID19/IV-VitaminC-virus TO BE CLEAR, this has nothing to do with vitamin C supplements that you can buy in a drug store. If effective treatments can be found, like what we have seen with HIV/AIDS, then the virus becomes something that we can live with as a society even if there is no vaccine.

Great?. Since your post #360 you now admit there were pandemics even though you put the word in quotation marks which indicates you are still in denial. However, your most recent post concentrates on how the collateral damage numbers to the economy are worse than those of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics. I agree. The job losses, bankruptcies, loss of educational opportunities, suicides and mental illness are all worse. The remedy being applied is not balanced and is making this worse on the social and economic side as you note. Thank you for illustrating my point?. At this point, on the other side the death numbers are not worse and when adjusted for population, still have a way to go. Until a year or so from now we will not be able to make a comparison. As they say in opera, we need to wait until the fat lady sings. As I have maintained, there is not a single choice between destruction of the economy and mass deaths of the vulnerable population. It is not just black and white. The answer lies in the gray area in between tries to minimize deaths and minimize harm to the economy. Reasonable people will come down differently on where that balance lies. I believe there is no right answer for everyone when it comes to social policy. Thank you for your support if my contention that the way this has been handled that is destroying the economy is making our lives worse than the two previous pandemics by the figures you post. Your help is appreciated.? The Sunday morning talking heads were interesting about what to expect from the numbers to come (which is what this thread is about: Coronavirus Numbers). The news was not good with thousands more dying and approaching or exceeding the deaths in the other two recent pandemics. The shows made it clear that currently, our best immediate hope is a quick instant test and perhaps some effective medical therapies. In the meantime, as Peggy Noonan sadly put it, we will continue to just muddle through.

I am not trying to “white wash” anything. I only mentioned eliminating NYC’s counts to get statistics that more accurately reflect the rest of the country. A common statistical practice to remove an outlier that distorts the total. If you read my posts, I said when comparing our counts to other countries, I would leave the NYC counts because the other countries counts include hot spots as well. I even said the totals and rates should be given both ways and let the reader select which figures to use. Why not compare the current pandemic to the two most recent ones? Why not look at how the most recent ones were handled and compare those to our current one Not sure why you denied there was a 1968 pandemic. I do not see why you say I am “white washing” anything. I have multiple posts on the current pandemic and the havoc it is wrecking.

I am not exaggerating. I have provided the links to the figures of the people who died. The government officially called these pandemics. Not sure what you are talking about “backing down.” You are the one who seems to be denying there were pandemics those years despite being so labeled by the government and listing the death counts. It seems like you are the one in denial of history and do not want to back down. Where you personally were located during the pandemic is of no interest as to the truth of what happened.

I have given links before https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html Yes, it was an official pandemic and over 100,000 Americans died. When you adjust for population, that is the equivalent of about 160,000 people today. My point has been as you point out, life went along as normal for most people. The was no national lockdown. Google can provide more information. Not sure why you are in denial that there was a pandemic that year as well as 1957 which was even worse in terms of deaths. In both of those pandemics which occurred in our lifetimes, there was no media hype every day. I would gather that most people here do not remember the 1968 pandemic because while 100,000 Americans died, there was no 24/7 news to hype the story; as you point out, people had other concerns and with no lockdown, unless they knew someone who died, the pandemic was not an issue.

To me, the real problem is protecting seniors and vulnerable populations. If you look at the numbers around the world, that is where the big numbers of deaths are coming from be it NYC or Sweden or Italy. If those populations had been successfully isolated, the whole society would not have needed to shut down with the collateral damage we see. The numbers indicate that as we age, most people lose the effectiveness of his/her immune system. Mother Nature gives young children a strong system and this makes sense from a Darwinian point of view. As we grow older, past our reproductive age, like a wilting flower, our purpose is over as far as nature is concerned. Unless there is a vaccine for Covid19, the reason we are told there will be a second wave is the part of the population that was not infected and has antibodies will be open to getting infected in “round two.” At that point, the best we can hope is there are medical treatments for those that need hospitalization and that will lower the death rate. “Round two” can have large numbers of infected people without the death rates we see today. The numbers are telling us who needs to be protected for the next waves. When those waves hit, it should be clear that the whole society does not need to be shut down. When those waves hit, the medical community should be better prepared. When those new waves hit, a test-trace-isolate program should be in place. When the next waves hit, we should know who to isolate and who can assume the risk of going out and about. I hope this lesson is remembered, at least for the short run. No doubt, just as we forget the lessons of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, in time, we will forget the lessons of this one, too.

From the Economist, graphs that try to capture the uncounted deaths that the official counts miss. Some of these may other deaths be cases of people with the virus, suicides, etc. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

A number estimate put to the deaths caused due to mental health issues from the lockdown and the pandemic: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/05/08/coronavirus-pandemic-boosts-suicide-alcohol-drug-death-predictions/3081706001/ Continuing the lockdowns clearly is causing distress and for those whose jobs or businesses were lost due to the lockdowns, the mental harm will linger for years. Not sure how these numbers will be accounted for in the history books. Most likely history will just give an estimate of the direct number who die and not this collateral damage.

Not notifying the person who makes the decision is a problem that frequently happens if the document is not known. One of the biggest mistakes is people put the document with their will in a safety deposit box. The person in an emergency ends up in the hospital and no one knows about the directive until the safety deposit box is opened after they are dead.? The moral is that someone who is actively involved in your life should know about the directive and where the document is located with access to it.

You are correct there are negative effects on the health of the total population besides those who have had the virus. CVS just put out the following: https://www.morningstar.com/news/dowjones/202005072102/cvs-warns-of-nonvirus-health-crisis-wsj This is exactly what I was talking about in balancing a total lockdown which saves lives with other effects that are harmful. I believe the correct response is somewhere between the two extremes.

An interesting comparison to the 1968 pandemic and today. Note they place an equivalent number higher than what I have been assuming. Even at a lower equivalent figure, the 1968 pandemic had more deaths: https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/ The reaction then and now makes an interesting comparison. The 1957 pandemic had an even higher death count and the reaction was about the same as in 1968. As I have noted, we are far from done and the numbers from our current pandemic will not be finalized for some time. But our numbers seem to be in line with these two prior pandemics that occurred during my lifetime.

If you look at the chart, when you add the assisted living and congregate facilities where people are NOT out and about and working in groceries, drug stores, hospitals, on the subways and buses that get you to 90% of the hospitalization cases! This one population cohort should be ones not getting the virus. To this figure, we really need to know what percentage of the population is/was quarantined and what percentage was working or otherwise out and about. However, it indicates that the virus is finding its victims and as noted, “flattening the curve” just allows for a more controlled access to the hospitals. The numbers will eventually be analyzed when this is all over before definite conclusions can be drawn.

Interesting statistics from Cuomo: 66% of hospitalization cases were people who were staying home and sheltered in place plus 18% were from nursing homes. That is 84% of the people who needed hospitalization were not out and about but still the virus found them. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html More evidence that the total lockdown may not have been necessary. A partial lockdown of “older” populations and those most at risk could possibly done as well without all the collateral damage to the economy and people.