Actually, I find I am mistaken about the reopening plan. It does not defer to the virus statictics of spread for making the decisions on reopening. It defers to the Governors, and they are divided along party lines. Obviously, it will be a very long time before the economy restarts and begins recovery.
OvermodOh, get real. It's related to the shutdown of ordinary clinical practice and probably to suppression of voluntary surgical or medical procedures.
This. And the very real fact that we simply aren't getting cases up here. As of this afternoon (report from the county executive) there have been 51 positive tests of 1,176 total tests. Thirty-four are reported as recovered. Those numbers reflect testing since the beginning. Fifteen are currently in mandatory isolation, 66 in mandatory quarantine (possible contact with a confirmed person), and 22 are in precautionary quarantine.
The good news is that the governor is allowing golf courses and marinas to open, with certain restrictions. One step at a time.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD I would venture that laying off staff has absolutely nothing to do with the incidence of covid-19 or any other disease that is treated there.
Oh, get real. It's related to the shutdown of ordinary clinical practice and probably to suppression of voluntary surgical or medical procedures. Every industry isn't necessarily run by hedge-fund managers and haunting Harrisons to throw it in the cheapness toilet.
What Tree is pointing out is that, whether or not people are still 'returning from New York' infected, there isn't an entering case rate of people already sick with critical conditions like ARDS. Which is one of the large unremarked problems with the New York City 'response' as it has been elsewhere. If you wait until a runaway autoimmune condition has reached critical levels before even beginning to think about triaging it ... you'll fail at emergency medicine. Just as so many facilities, explicitly including poorly-considered temporary ones, have been. In Tree's country, they've learned to watch and report potential early incidence, and prospectively to get them first isolated and then under expedient care short of ARDS progression. (And, at least in theory, to have time to transport them to a better-equipped critical care facility should their case take a malignant turn...)
Convicted OneWe have a great propensity to attribute to a single cause, problems that are the probuct of many. Stir in a little apophenia....
Thanks. You made me look up a new (to me) word and learn what it meant. So this old dog learned a new word.
tree68 BaltACD But how many of those with symptoms will end up occupying hospital beds and how long will they occupy them - that is the question, the answer to which may swamp the health care system. I think we can determine that pretty well already. As I've noted elsewhere, we are no where near swamping the system in my area. My county currently has two in the hospital (down from four) and all of the hospitals in the area are laying off staff...
BaltACD But how many of those with symptoms will end up occupying hospital beds and how long will they occupy them - that is the question, the answer to which may swamp the health care system.
I think we can determine that pretty well already. As I've noted elsewhere, we are no where near swamping the system in my area. My county currently has two in the hospital (down from four) and all of the hospitals in the area are laying off staff...
When did the last person return from a trip to NYC? I would venture that laying off staff has absolutely nothing to do with the incidence of covid-19 or any other disease that is treated there. It is nothing more and nothing less that bean counter inspired. They could have 100 covid-19 cases come in tomorrow and the staff cuts would still be made. The old 'do more with less'. PSH - Precision Scheduled Hospital.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDCovid-19 patients when placed on ventilators stay on them for approximately two weeks or more.
Did the article specify what the reason for taking the referenced COVID-19 patients off the ventilators was? I'll bet a hat over 80% were because of incident death, which might have been protracted during increasingly-obvious multiple "organ shutdown".
The issue isn't the patients on ventilators; it's letting them become so affected by ARDS that they require a ventilator upon admission ... by which point it may be too late for them to 'throw off' the combination of viral infection and cytokine storm.
I see arguments that alternative means of treating patients in 'respiratory distress' now can involve postural factors ... ridiculously, to me, including putting them 'on their bellies' ... but that implicitly these have at least a good 'prognosis' as those actually invasively respirated in these mass settings.
It is going to be interesting indeed, perhaps much more so than for leaking silicone inserts, when the plaintiff's-bar marketing machine begins to get hold of the actual respirator-patient recovery statistics. If you thought stents were quick, easy, big money ... watch.
BaltACDBut how many of those with symptoms will end up occupying hospital beds and how long will they occupy them - that is the question, the answer to which may swamp the health care system.
Paul_D_North_Jr Plus, exposure to sunlight does the virus no good (I can't prove that it has a deleterious effect, but sunlight in moderation can't hurt - unlike fish tank cleaner . . . ).
Plus, exposure to sunlight does the virus no good (I can't prove that it has a deleterious effect, but sunlight in moderation can't hurt - unlike fish tank cleaner . . . ).
I've seen references stating that the UV from sunlight does indeed kill the virus in a short time. Experience from the 1918 pandemic was that patients recovered faster when kept outside in daytime hours.
Euclid Actually there are three motives: 1) Survival 2) Slowing the economy 3) Making a living by working Items #1 and #3 are in conflict with each other to the extent that survival requires not working. And likewise with that same requirement, items #1 and #2 are linked so that as #1 increases, so does #2.
Actually there are three motives:
1) Survival
2) Slowing the economy
3) Making a living by working
Items #1 and #3 are in conflict with each other to the extent that survival requires not working.
And likewise with that same requirement, items #1 and #2 are linked so that as #1 increases, so does #2.
I think this new blended plan to follow only virus medical data will eliminate my item #2 (slowing the economy) as an objective because it eliminates the ability to blame anyone for a slow economy. The virus is now driving the bus, and the blended plan will take orders from the virus. It is a beautiful concept that arrived just in time to prevent a showdown over executive power versus the power of the Governors. So yes, let’s just let the lockdowns continue as long needed. I have enough 91% alcohol to last two years.
Convicted One I'm thinking that those trying to advance the idea that sacrificing the lives of some is a worthwhile bargain in order to get the economy restarted, likely have more in common with uncle Adolf than they realize.
I'm thinking that those trying to advance the idea that sacrificing the lives of some is a worthwhile bargain in order to get the economy restarted, likely have more in common with uncle Adolf than they realize.
Keep in mind that the lockdown itself will be lethal to some people. One of the "non-essential" activities in many jurisdictions include elective surgeries, which include cancer surgery and stents. These can be postponed a short time without too much ill effect, but will end up killing people if postponed too long. A high sustained unemployment rate will also end up raising death rates, so there will be a point where the cure is worse than the disease.
Tanking the stock market affects more than just the "1%", as a good number of people rely on 401-k's or pension funds for retirement, both relying on the stock market.
Convicted One Flintlock76 How's that? I'm thinking that those trying to advance the idea that sacrificing the lives of some is a worthwhile bargain in order to get the economy restarted, likely have more in common with uncle Adolf than they realize.
Flintlock76 How's that?
If the virus does not quit, the lockdown protocol could go on forever. Nobody is going to risk one single life. If anything, it will be the collapsing economy that will drive us to lift the restrictions in order to prevent things like mass starvation. Or it may all just be over in another month. But as of yesterday, it is the virus that is in the driver's seat.
tree68 BaltACD The real problem with Covid-19 and its transmission. https://www.businessinsider.com/testing-reveals-most-aircraft0-carrier-sailors-coronavirus-had-no-symptoms-2020-4 And an antibody study in California is showing that 50 to 85 times as many as previously thought may have been exposed to the virus. That could mean that as many as 58 million have been exposed or had the virus, most with few or no symptoms. That would put the current death rate at 0.06%... It also appears that a significant number of the sailors on the Theodore Roosevelt (carrier) also tested positive, with no symptoms. This gives lie to the conclusion many seem to have (including many government leaders and the media) that everyone who gets the virus will die. Disclaimer - the Stamford study has not yet been peer reviewed. I would opine that it will be thorougly attacked by those who are invested in high casualty numbers.
BaltACD The real problem with Covid-19 and its transmission. https://www.businessinsider.com/testing-reveals-most-aircraft0-carrier-sailors-coronavirus-had-no-symptoms-2020-4
And an antibody study in California is showing that 50 to 85 times as many as previously thought may have been exposed to the virus. That could mean that as many as 58 million have been exposed or had the virus, most with few or no symptoms. That would put the current death rate at 0.06%...
It also appears that a significant number of the sailors on the Theodore Roosevelt (carrier) also tested positive, with no symptoms.
This gives lie to the conclusion many seem to have (including many government leaders and the media) that everyone who gets the virus will die.
Disclaimer - the Stamford study has not yet been peer reviewed. I would opine that it will be thorougly attacked by those who are invested in high casualty numbers.
But how many of those with symptoms will end up occupying hospital beds and how long will they occupy them - that is the question, the answer to which may swamp the health care system.
One article I read stated that 'normal' vetilator use on patients had averaged 2 or 3 days in the past. Covid-19 patients when placed on ventilators stay on them for approximately two weeks or more. That being the case, a Covid-19 patient 'steals' the ventilator from 5 to 7 or more 'normal' patients - with most patients coming through the door being Covid-19 the ventilator shortage grows geomentrially.
BaltACDThe real problem with Covid-19 and its transmission. https://www.businessinsider.com/testing-reveals-most-aircraft0-carrier-sailors-coronavirus-had-no-symptoms-2020-4
Leadership, and the responsibilities that come with it, can be a tough, ugly business, especially if you're one of the "good guys." A lot of them are finding that out right now.
The real problem with Covid-19 and its transmission.
https://www.businessinsider.com/testing-reveals-most-aircraft0-carrier-sailors-coronavirus-had-no-symptoms-2020-4
Flintlock76How's that?
Convicted One Flintlock76 The unsuccessful ones (Think Hitler and his mad ideology) don't. Godwin's law rides again!! I (personally) anticipate that some state will go "renegade", and the success or failure that results will guide others.
Flintlock76 The unsuccessful ones (Think Hitler and his mad ideology) don't.
Godwin's law rides again!!
I (personally) anticipate that some state will go "renegade", and the success or failure that results will guide others.
I have to admit I had to look up "Godwin's Law." Oh, so that's what it is.
I mentioned Adolf because I couldn't think of a better example.
How about one in reverse? When the Soviet Union was invaded in June of 1941 Winston Churchill, a life-long anti-Communist, immediately sought to make common cause with Stalin, and was successful. Here was a case of a leader forgetting his personal ideology because it was in the national interest to do so.
How's that?
In northern NY, legislative and local leaders are pointing out to the governor that we are very different from NYC. Reopening some businesses and recreational facilities is very possible, still maintaining social distancing and other requisite practices.
NYC has had 90% of the cases (and an even greater percentage of the deaths) attributed to NY state. Bronx has had over 25,000 cases, Nassau County (Long Island) almost 28,000 cases.
My county has had just 50 confirmed cases (almost all of whom have recovered at this point) and no deaths.
Right now there are maybe 100 people under precautionary quarantine here - they may have been in contact with a confirmed case. I know two of them. So far neither has shown any sign of sickness.
Our hospitals are laying off staff, including medical staff. Farmers are dumping milk.
No one is advocating for a free-for-all, but keeping things at the current level of lockdown is ridiculous.
If I understand it correctly, a new plan for lifting versus maintaining lockdowns has been agreed upon and implemented with a blended approach that will follow the medical numbers indicating the status of the spread. The blended plan is neither the will of Trump or of the Governors.
This is a big change because earlier last week, Trump told the reporters that the President has absolute power and therefore, he could override decisions by the Governors to remain locked down after he gives the order to unlock.
That position abruptly changed with a reversal to allow the blended plan to go forward. But while Trump deferred to the blended plan, it is not clear whether all of the Governors will do likewise.
Flintlock76The unsuccessful ones (Think Hitler and his mad ideology) don't.
I just checked the current data from the CDC/ National Center For Health Statistics concerning COVID-19 deaths. This is from the period covering 2/1/10 to 4/11/20.
Deaths from COVID-19, 13,130. Deaths from all other causes, 582,565.
Now allow me to think out loud for a bit, you can agree or disagree as you choose, I won't argue or be offended.
We are apporaching a "tipping point," and by that I mean the ugly problem of arithmetic that many leaders have to solve in one way or another, in this case the greatest good for the greatest number.
What's the death toll for COVID-19 likely to be? No-one knows. Measure that against the 22 million out of work, and facing poverty or one kind of economic distress or another. At what point do you lift the lockdowns and quarantines to get those unemployed back to work? And bear in mind those unemployed want to work, they don't want to spend who-knows-how-long on the dole. We're seeing the frustration level rising as we speak.
The time is fast approaching when the decision has to be made and the risk assumed. And I don't believe it's a case of "Ideology versus national interest." All successful leaders through history have realised that when it comes to the above national interest always wins out. The unsuccessful ones (Think Hitler and his mad ideology) don't.
Personally, when the lid comes off I think those with money to spend are going to go out and spend it and the economy will show no long-term effects. When those without the money catch up they'll start spending again as well.
When it comes to assuming risk I remember what President Lincoln said before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He knew it was a risk, and this is what he said:
"If I do this, and we win, then all will come right in the end. But if I do this and we lose, all the angels in Heaven saying I was right will make no difference!"
Needless to say, Abe made sure he won!
How do we win? Pick a target date, the middle of May for example, that's the time when historically flu season begins to slack off. A date gives people hope, a target to shoot at. Then remove the restrictions and see what happens. I'm optimistic things will get to normal pretty quickly.
Convicted One Euclid Survival is one motive.
Euclid Survival is one motive.
Sheriffs protest governor's executive order
https://www.record-eagle.com/collections/sheriffs-protest-governors-executive-order/article_f690d06a-7f4a-11ea-ae83-8f568b188a52.html
From the link:
"Some of Whitmer’s restrictions overstep her executive authority, they said. The orders are vague and confuse people and instead of enforcing the restrictions, each case will be handled individually.
“We’re trying to apply some common sense to the situation we’re in,” Schendel said.
In Mason County a couple drove to a two-track to go for a walk, Cole said. When they got in their car to go home they were stopped by a Michigan State Police trooper who issued them a $1,000 fine."
I suspect that we will start to see some civil disobedience - especially regarding some of the less logical prohibitions.
Golf courses, f'rinstance. While the course is still "closed," an owner could decline to proscecute "trespassers," meanwhile taking a trip around the course for security purposes - and to collect the contents of the "tip containers" scattered amongst the tees.
The municipal boat launches might be closed, but marina owners might look the other way when you launch your fishing boat. Except when they're emptying out the "tip jar."
Local law enforcement might put a very low priority on things like people walking on a beach or in a park (that cooped up couple beating on each other clearly has precedence). Even a pick-up softball game might not engender a lot of scrutiny (again, ignored by the diamond owner).
Bear in mind that these activities can certainly occur in areas where the virus has had minimal impact (my county is up to just 50 confirmed cases and no deaths since this all began). And folks will have to be respectful of others. Keep that six feet of social distancing. Don't show up at the beach or park with 100 of your closest friends.
The danger will be if the petit tyrants find out and threaten financial penalties (ie, loss of aid) against the governing agencies.
Convicted One Euclid Survival is one motive. It is my firm belief that faction shall flourish while the other gradually dwindles. Bravado makes an unfortunate epitaph.
It is my firm belief that faction shall flourish while the other gradually dwindles. Bravado makes an unfortunate epitaph.
I don't see why one faction has to fall if the other rises.
EuclidSurvival is one motive.
EuclidSurvival is one motive. A massive poltical agenda is the other motive. For that motive, the virus driving a need to shut down the economy is a gift from heaven.
I wish this didn't make as much sense as it does. Just as "being paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they're not out to get you", recognizing the existence of apophenia doesn't necessarily mean things aren't related.
There is little doubt that various people jumped on the 'coronavirus' bandwagon in order to get it to the current level of recognition and governmental 'action'. I expect the same kinds of factor that led the Republicans in the first year of the Trump administration to fail to 'roll back Obamacare' to lead to dramatically slow "repeal" of many of the emergency provisions passed when everyone was dying. It took a far longer time to get rid of the silly double-nickel 'gas-saving' speed limit once gas saving was no longer a knee-jerk priority for millions; in a sense, it still persists in dear old traffic-attorney-run Virginia where 'statutory reckless driving' is still calculated relative to a 55mph limit even on roads built and maintained to over 70mph 85th-percentile standards.
What we're approaching is a social singularity, and as with most other singularities what we'll actually settle into on the 'far side' of the new-normal social changes may be largely unrecognizable to those of us looking at the situation now. Perhaps the silver lining in this is that some of the 'unchangeable' inequities and social conventions in current society will change along with other parts of the paradigm.
I certainly don't see society collapsing into another 'depression of the 70% just to suit the whims of the 1%' -- although if we do the same craven fallback into bank-creditworthiness and quarterly-results-driven economics that we did from the 'friction-free economy' after the 2001 crash, perhaps we will once again deserve the democracy we elect. Unfortunately, both the personal effort and the general social will to 'improve things' will have to be very high, much higher than a society that prizes "diversity" as if it were a core unifying value is likely to produce on its own, and unlikely long-term to be sustainable by the usual forms of influence and shaming that have been so effective in producing PC kinds of perception in those learning in various parts of our current society.
What I am more worried about is the transient characteristics that lead to the singularity, and that will doubtless characterize any convergence to stability on the 'far side' of its effective event horizon. Again, enormous parts of that will have to hinge on some commonly-accepted kinds of morality and acceptable ethics, and while I think this is not objectively difficult to achieve in a properly diverse-and-proud-of-it society it is also something that can be easily short-routed by a wide variety of fairly predictable distortions, conspiracies, call them what you will according to your personal philosophies or level of tinfoil haberdashery ... but characterizable by expedient compromise of 'haves' for purposes more satisfying to them than as 'consent of the governed'.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.