Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:07 am

Feral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:16 am Gosh, hope these aren't already sold out!

I cannot fathom who would think this is a good idea right now. Besides, I guess, rubes who want to BOOK A CRUISE TO OWN THE LIBS.

Cruise-line liability is already going to massive. I can't imagine what they're thinking taking on this.

And, I'd think the only ports that would accept the ships are those that desperately need the tourism dollars. Disaster.

And here I was worried about restaurants at 50% capacity.

An old college buddy called me yesterday and told me an exciting story about his one month (February) experience on a cruise ship visiting all the Hawaiian Island, Bora Bora, and other exotic ports. Even on the 1st day of February, prior to boarding, their passports were checked for entry to China and they had their temperature taken. He said that during the trip some people were getting sick but no one was really alarmed, he didn't sense any panic. Post voyage they spent four days in LA sightseeing. Upon his return to KS on the 4th of March, he started feeling feverish and developed a dry cough. He visited his doctor and they sent him straight from there to St. Francis in Topeka where he spent eight days. The dude only has one and a portion of his lungs and congestive heart failure to boot. He appears to have totally recovered and his last comment about his experience was " the 19 had me trippin balls."

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:38 am And here I was worried about restaurants at 50% capacity.

And of course - because we were so unprepared (and are now rushing so headlong into "reopening"), now those same restaurants that are reopening will have to deal with product shortages.

Just got this from a doctor friend:

“The end of stay-at-home orders doesn’t mean the pandemic is over. It just means they currently have room for you in the ICU.”

Which, of course, was exactly the plan of "flattening the curve."

The issue is that, absent the ability to quickly comprehensively test and trace, we aren't in a position to detect and extinguish flare-ups (and will not know about outbreaks until they're full-on brushfires).

Only plan that would probably work would be if every person in the world stayed away from anyone else for 6 consecutive weeks - all at the same starting and ending date.
In other words, there can be a million plans and not a single one would be a perfect plan - or close to a perfect plan.
So do we go back to "normal" as the "new normal" will be? Or do we allow the "disease" to ruin our life for the rest of our life?
Problem is it seems the best legitimate "plan" might not be a "good" plan. It's a lose lose situation.

Even with adequate testing, which we don't yet have. Tracing is gonna be a nightmare. So many broken links in the chain due to asymptomatic carriers...not to mention the lag between shedding the virus and developing symptoms.

I think re-instituting restrictions is an inevitability, it's just a matter of where, and how often.

Really hoping we get lucky.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:04 pm Which, of course, was exactly the plan of "flattening the curve."

The issue is that, absent the ability to quickly comprehensively test and trace, we aren't in a position to detect and extinguish flare-ups (and will not know about outbreaks until they're full-on brushfires).

Well, I thought that another big part of the plan was also to buy us time to line up resources such as tests, PPE, etc.

But needless to say...

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:18 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:04 pm Which, of course, was exactly the plan of "flattening the curve."

The issue is that, absent the ability to quickly comprehensively test and trace, we aren't in a position to detect and extinguish flare-ups (and will not know about outbreaks until they're full-on brushfires).

Well, I thought that another big part of the plan was also to buy us time to line up resources such as tests, PPE, etc.

But needless to say...

That's what I'm saying - we succeeded in "flattening the curve" (on a national basis, anyway), but failed to use the time spent doing that in order to be ready to reopen.

In other words, we're very much pointed toward at least one more round of severe isolation.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:20 pm In other words, we're very much pointed toward at least one more round of severe isolation.

My hope is that's not the case nationwide. Hopefully it's done in pockets of the country.

And for the economy, I hope it is asynchronous. (although that might make it less effective)

If another round is the case, how many Mericans would even go along with it?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:32 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:07 am

Feral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:16 am Gosh, hope these aren't already sold out!

I cannot fathom who would think this is a good idea right now. Besides, I guess, rubes who want to BOOK A CRUISE TO OWN THE LIBS.

Cruise-line liability is already going to massive. I can't imagine what they're thinking taking on this.

I refused to go on cruises long before this. Every cruise I’ve heard of ended up having a rotavirus outbreak. I can’t see the point in spending a bunch of money to sit on the toilet in my cabin for several days.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:25 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:20 pm In other words, we're very much pointed toward at least one more round of severe isolation.

My hope is that's not the case nationwide. Hopefully it's done in pockets of the country.

And for the economy, I hope it is asynchronous. (although that might make it less effective)

The logic here (in the situation, not your post) is amazing.

If further lockdowns are "in pockets", it will be where there is testing.

And so, the most catastrophic human tolls (and, I'd argue, long-term economic tolls) will be felt where testing is the worst.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:39 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:25 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:20 pm In other words, we're very much pointed toward at least one more round of severe isolation.

My hope is that's not the case nationwide. Hopefully it's done in pockets of the country.

And for the economy, I hope it is asynchronous. (although that might make it less effective)

1. The logic here (in the situation, not your post) is amazing.

2. If further lockdowns are "in pockets", it will be where there is testing.

3. And so, the most catastrophic human tolls (and, I'd argue, long-term economic tolls) will be felt where testing is the worst.

Well, with respect to #2, at some point, if there are enough cases, it won't matter about testing, because the healthcare facilities will be swamped. It's not like a positive test is the only readout for the disease....it's just the best, the only way to test asymptomatic people, and more importantly the earliest. So, in that case, they would eventually have a lockdown.

but regardless, I think #3 seems like it will be right. Though there may be places where population densities are low enough, isolated enough, and void of things like public transportation etc. that they will be less susceptible, than say, the extreme opposite example, NYC.

(sadly, this is me being optomistic)

A pork processing plant it my old hometown had 373 employees test positive for coronavirus and all of them were reported as asymptomatic. With the doors opening up in society, I think we are about to send a flood of people back out into society carrying this virus who pass a thermometer test and "feel fine".

I am very concerned for those among us with compromised immune systems. And I think that too few people are going to continue to hassle with annoying masks that make them feel like they are suffocating. It feels like we are going to see a lot more deaths this summer and it wouldn't surprise me at all if another lock down happens.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 1:57 pm Just got this from a doctor friend:

“The end of stay-at-home orders doesn’t mean the pandemic is over. It just means they currently have room for you in the ICU.”

Ya. It is scary...but that was also a large part of the reason we went into lock-down...so that we could increase ICU beds and ventilators.

I'm continuing stay at home precautions for the foreseeable future.... but smaller counties around IL are basically saying fuck the governors orders and citizens/law enforcement officers are in favor of that in those areas. Many should be relatively safe from widespread outbreak, but undoubtedly will see increases in cases.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 4:21 pm A pork processing plant it my old hometown had 373 employees test positive for coronavirus and all of them were reported as asymptomatic. With the doors opening up in society, I think we are about to send a flood of people back out into society carrying this virus who pass a thermometer test and "feel fine".

I am very concerned for those among us with compromised immune systems. And I think that too few people are going to continue to hassle with annoying masks that make them feel like they are suffocating. It feels like we are going to see a lot more deaths this summer and it wouldn't surprise me at all if another lock down happens.

Local lockdowns may happen, but widespread lockdowns won't because they won't be followed. (Not saying that's right, but it's reality).

Part of the logic behind it is exactly what you pointed out (again not saying I agree with it): 357 people all without symptoms. So older folks and compromised immune system people should stay inside and away from people because its dangerous to them....but the vast majority of people show no symptoms or mild symptoms and recover easily often without even knowing they had something.