^ Both state’s plans look very ambiguous. On another note, IL’s healthcare system remained far from overwhelmed, luckily. When this started, we converted McCormick Place (convention center) into a makeshift hospital. Spent $65MM to do so. They are now closing it after it treated “less than 3 dozen” patients total. I don’t fault the decision to be over-prepared with McCormick Place, but the current 5 phase plan has the potential to do more harm than good.
The initial lockdown reaction and preparation for potentially overwhelming numbers of infected individuals was correct. Now we know more, and can ease things up.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Clearly much more likely than not, but not quite very likely hmm
Right? Just hedged enough to not really make you feel terribly confident either way.
I guess there's no way to know for sure if a vaccine will work until it actually works. And I expect he's hesitant to overpromise. So, his willingness to say significantly more than likely is certainly encouraging.
The IL phased re-opening plan currently shows dining in restaurants on track for June 26 at the earliest. This is going to further cripple our restaurant industry and force many to shut doors permanently. What a mess.
Not even outdoor seating? At least you got some details. Our plan in MA was crafted by the underpants gnomes.
Not even outdoor seating from what I’ve read. Here is our plan. No definitive timelines.
Where are you now - phase 2? Any indication as to when Phase 3 will start?
In BC, we never stopped manufacturing, agriculture, and the like. After next weekend we are essentially moving into the rest of your Phase 3, along with some restaurant seating, either outside or inside, with spacing and other safety requirements.
At least there are some details here in this plan, and I appreciate that their grammar is correct - "10 people or fewer". They did not fall into the "10 items or less" trap.
Yes. We are currently in phase 2 (northeast IL). Other counties in central and southern IL might have moved to phase 3, as they are more rural overall, but I’m not certain. The initial indication was phase 3 would be around June 1, but the models recently pushed our expected peak from mid-May to mid-June, so it is all up in the air.
^ Both state’s plans look very ambiguous. On another note, IL’s healthcare system remained far from overwhelmed, luckily. When this started, we converted McCormick Place (convention center) into a makeshift hospital. Spent $65MM to do so. They are now closing it after it treated “less than 3 dozen” patients total. I don’t fault the decision to be over-prepared with McCormick Place, but the current 5 phase plan has the potential to do more harm than good.
The initial lockdown reaction and preparation for potentially overwhelming numbers of infected individuals was correct. Now we know more, and can ease things up.
Absolutely. I was a huge supporter of converting McCormick Place and applaud the decision. It turns out we didn’t need it, which is the best possible outcome. I do feel our governor is teetering on being too conservative with some decisions at this stage though, knowing that we didn’t end up overwhelming our hospitals.
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
From what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has done an excellent job in his role and has been one of the few voices at the federal level who has demonstrated real leadership. But incentives are a real thing. His legacy is ultimately going to hang strictly on covid-related outcomes. His incentive is to be as conservative as possible without having the populace revolt. If there are spikes in suicide, overdose, domestic violence, behavioral health issue prevalence, progression of chronic illness, homelessness, home foreclosures, etc. - all the ill effects of keeping people locked down - it won't ultimately fall on him. He certainly won't be tasked with steering out of any of those potential crises. Which is to say Dr. Fauci is a very important voice in the room but there are other important voices that need to be considered, too. My concern is that I'm not sure we're hearing those voices.
Osterholm again predicting that 60-70% of the entire planet gets infected with Covid-19. I'd much rather be in the 30-40% camp, but ominous predictions like this really make me wonder if all of this effort is simply prolonging the inevitable.
Vaccine(s) and/or highly effective treatment(s) are, I think, the biggest wildcards in this whole thing. If we wind up with one or both by the fall, the low end looks like reality and we'll feel pretty great about lockdown efforts. If we're looking back 18 months from now and neither materialized, we're probably looking at the higher end and wondering if we ultimately would have been better off accepting more risk. This is what drives me nuts about people angrily arguing for a particular approach - each one comes with risk and trade-offs. I don't see an objectively correct (or even most likely correct) path.
I could not agree more. I certainly understand, and support, the need for the initial lockdowns to prevent overwhelming the healthcare system. The harsh reality is that we cannot keep the economy locked down for much longer. It is simply unsustainable. If this thing continues to decimate the global population for 12-18 months, we're going to need to open up and simply accept the risk. No one knows the right answer. I certainly don't.
The harsh reality might be to observe whether the lockdown caused economic calamity or whether it was a worldwide pandemic. I am not sure why many assume it was the lockdown.
Are we assuming people are not smart enough to recognize risk and act accordingly whether or not there is a “lockdown.”
March data clearly suggests restaurants were nearly 100% empty before they were ordered closed.
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
From what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has done an excellent job in his role and has been one of the few voices at the federal level who has demonstrated real leadership. But incentives are a real thing. His legacy is ultimately going to hang strictly on covid-related outcomes. His incentive is to be as conservative as possible without having the populace revolt. If there are spikes in suicide, overdose, domestic violence, behavioral health issue prevalence, progression of chronic illness, homelessness, home foreclosures, etc. - all the ill effects of keeping people locked down - it won't ultimately fall on him. He certainly won't be tasked with steering out of any of those potential crises. Which is to say Dr. Fauci is a very important voice in the room but there are other important voices that need to be considered, too. My concern is that I'm not sure we're hearing those voices.
In a deadly health crisis we should listen to the real estate business man who was handed his fortune by his dad or the sheep obeying his every whim?
I am perplexed why anyone thinks lifting a lockdown can solve economic calamity caused by a “lockdown” when in reality the truth is that it was caused by a deadly illness easily transferable.
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
From what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has done an excellent job in his role and has been one of the few voices at the federal level who has demonstrated real leadership. But incentives are a real thing. His legacy is ultimately going to hang strictly on covid-related outcomes. His incentive is to be as conservative as possible without having the populace revolt. If there are spikes in suicide, overdose, domestic violence, behavioral health issue prevalence, progression of chronic illness, homelessness, home foreclosures, etc. - all the ill effects of keeping people locked down - it won't ultimately fall on him. He certainly won't be tasked with steering out of any of those potential crises. Which is to say Dr. Fauci is a very important voice in the room but there are other important voices that need to be considered, too. My concern is that I'm not sure we're hearing those voices.
In a deadly health crisis we should listen to the real estate business man who was handed his fortune by his dad or the sheep obeying his every whim?
I am perplexed why anyone thinks lifting a lockdown can solve economic calamity caused by a “lockdown” when in reality the truth is that it was caused by a deadly illness easily transferable.
We should definitely not listen to Trump and your second point is fair but doesn't apply universally. People are certainly not going to be piling into restaurants right now, but how many small businesses can open with similar safety guidelines to grocery stores and Target? You're not going to solve a calamity, but you can ease the descent. Matter of degrees.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Have you returned to work?
I've been fortunate enough to be working from home and the company hasn't set a timeline for bringing everyone back in
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
From what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has done an excellent job in his role and has been one of the few voices at the federal level who has demonstrated real leadership. But incentives are a real thing. His legacy is ultimately going to hang strictly on covid-related outcomes. His incentive is to be as conservative as possible without having the populace revolt. If there are spikes in suicide, overdose, domestic violence, behavioral health issue prevalence, progression of chronic illness, homelessness, home foreclosures, etc. - all the ill effects of keeping people locked down - it won't ultimately fall on him. He certainly won't be tasked with steering out of any of those potential crises. Which is to say Dr. Fauci is a very important voice in the room but there are other important voices that need to be considered, too. My concern is that I'm not sure we're hearing those voices.
In a deadly health crisis we should listen to the real estate business man who was handed his fortune by his dad or the sheep obeying his every whim?
I am perplexed why anyone thinks lifting a lockdown can solve economic calamity caused by a “lockdown” when in reality the truth is that it was caused by a deadly illness easily transferable.
We should definitely not listen to Trump and your second point is fair but doesn't apply universally. People are certainly not going to be piling into restaurants right now, but how many small businesses can open with similar safety guidelines to grocery stores and Target? You're not going to solve a calamity, but you can ease the descent. Matter of degrees.
I agree with that detail. The challenge we have is a rallying cry is brewing among the masses that needs to be tempered. It’s leading to many on the right and center believing political action is causing our economic hardship and not a deadly disease. We need to figure out how to safely do it.
Ironically, Cuomo said yesterday that NY is allowing landscapers to reopen Friday but in rural counties only. I live in one of the highest infected areas in the NY suburbs and landscapers have been operating all along. When I walk and cross a semi main road there are a ton of cars. I’m not sure how closed the NY metro area is currently.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Have you returned to work?
I've been fortunate enough to be working from home and the company hasn't set a timeline for bringing everyone back in
Should employers that want to reopen be held liable if their returning to work employees get sick? Where do you sit with that? Repubs seem to want to reopen businesses but not allow the businesses to assume the risk for their employees getting sick. If an employee refuses to return to work and is let go, would you support unemployment for that former employee?
I'm sorry you (general you) lost your business but are you (general you) sorry your employee lost their life?
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
From what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has done an excellent job in his role and has been one of the few voices at the federal level who has demonstrated real leadership. But incentives are a real thing. His legacy is ultimately going to hang strictly on covid-related outcomes. His incentive is to be as conservative as possible without having the populace revolt. If there are spikes in suicide, overdose, domestic violence, behavioral health issue prevalence, progression of chronic illness, homelessness, home foreclosures, etc. - all the ill effects of keeping people locked down - it won't ultimately fall on him. He certainly won't be tasked with steering out of any of those potential crises. Which is to say Dr. Fauci is a very important voice in the room but there are other important voices that need to be considered, too. My concern is that I'm not sure we're hearing those voices.
In a deadly health crisis we should listen to the real estate business man who was handed his fortune by his dad or the sheep obeying his every whim?
I am perplexed why anyone thinks lifting a lockdown can solve economic calamity caused by a “lockdown” when in reality the truth is that it was caused by a deadly illness easily transferable.
I understand you concern here, but I do think pj44 makes a good point, and it highlights the failure of leadership at the very top. It is the president's job to take all the information and make an informed decision. It is true that Dr Fauci will have a slanted view considering only 1 portion of the overall issue. It's a leader's responsibility to understand what really matters and make decisions based off the input of the experts in the various areas.
Right or wrong (who the f really knows anyway?) this opening up thing is like walking out on a tight rope to me. My legs are getting shaky.
Our county's "opening up" is accelerating more than some parts of California. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, but what do I know? Sure seems premature to me. Fauci and Osterholm are both predicting a surge in case with these loosening restrictions. Damned if we do, damned if we don't? I don't know. Does anybody? Damn, I don't know shit.
"The
officials — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease
expert, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention — predicted dire consequences if the
nation reopened its economy too soon, noting that the United States
still lacked critical testing capacity and the ability to trace the
contacts of those infected.
If
economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr.
Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak
that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in
“some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could
even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
From what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has done an excellent job in his role and has been one of the few voices at the federal level who has demonstrated real leadership. But incentives are a real thing. His legacy is ultimately going to hang strictly on covid-related outcomes. His incentive is to be as conservative as possible without having the populace revolt. If there are spikes in suicide, overdose, domestic violence, behavioral health issue prevalence, progression of chronic illness, homelessness, home foreclosures, etc. - all the ill effects of keeping people locked down - it won't ultimately fall on him. He certainly won't be tasked with steering out of any of those potential crises. Which is to say Dr. Fauci is a very important voice in the room but there are other important voices that need to be considered, too. My concern is that I'm not sure we're hearing those voices.
In a deadly health crisis we should listen to the real estate business man who was handed his fortune by his dad or the sheep obeying his every whim?
I am perplexed why anyone thinks lifting a lockdown can solve economic calamity caused by a “lockdown” when in reality the truth is that it was caused by a deadly illness easily transferable.
We should definitely not listen to Trump and your second point is fair but doesn't apply universally. People are certainly not going to be piling into restaurants right now, but how many small businesses can open with similar safety guidelines to grocery stores and Target? You're not going to solve a calamity, but you can ease the descent. Matter of degrees.
I agree with that detail. The challenge we have is a rallying cry is brewing among the masses that needs to be tempered. It’s leading to many on the right and center believing political action is causing our economic hardship and not a deadly disease. We need to figure out how to safely do it.
Ironically, Cuomo said yesterday that NY is allowing landscapers to reopen Friday but in rural counties only. I live in one of the highest infected areas in the NY suburbs and landscapers have been operating all along. When I walk and cross a semi main road there are a ton of cars. I’m not sure how closed the NY metro area is currently.
I agree with your assessment and would add that there are many who advocate for strict lockdowns because they haven't personally felt any financial, physiological, or psychological impact. Like I've said before, I don’t think there is an obviously correct answer. Mostly because I don't think many people (of all dispositions) seem to realize how long we're going to be on this ride and I wonder how that informs their opinions.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Have you returned to work?
I've been fortunate enough to be working from home and the company hasn't set a timeline for bringing everyone back in
Should employers that want to reopen be held liable if their returning to work employees get sick? Where do you sit with that? Repubs seem to want to reopen businesses but not allow the businesses to assume the risk for their employees getting sick. If an employee refuses to return to work and is let go, would you support unemployment for that former employee?
I'm sorry you (general you) lost your business but are you (general you) sorry your employee lost their life?
I think that there should be guidelines laid out by the municipality or state. If a business is in compliance, they wouldn't have any liability. Like any occupational safety/hazard situation. For example, Massachusetts put forth these workplace standards:
Osterholm again predicting that 60-70% of the entire planet gets infected with Covid-19. I'd much rather be in the 30-40% camp, but ominous predictions like this really make me wonder if all of this effort is simply prolonging the inevitable.
Vaccine(s) and/or highly effective treatment(s) are, I think, the biggest wildcards in this whole thing. If we wind up with one or both by the fall, the low end looks like reality and we'll feel pretty great about lockdown efforts. If we're looking back 18 months from now and neither materialized, we're probably looking at the higher end and wondering if we ultimately would have been better off accepting more risk. This is what drives me nuts about people angrily arguing for a particular approach - each one comes with risk and trade-offs. I don't see an objectively correct (or even most likely correct) path.
I could not agree more. I certainly understand, and support, the need for the initial lockdowns to prevent overwhelming the healthcare system. The harsh reality is that we cannot keep the economy locked down for much longer. It is simply unsustainable. If this thing continues to decimate the global population for 12-18 months, we're going to need to open up and simply accept the risk. No one knows the right answer. I certainly don't.
The harsh reality might be to observe whether the lockdown caused economic calamity or whether it was a worldwide pandemic. I am not sure why many assume it was the lockdown.
Are we assuming people are not smart enough to recognize risk and act accordingly whether or not there is a “lockdown.”
March data clearly suggests restaurants were nearly 100% empty before they were ordered closed.
I don't see a date on this graph, but assuming it was mid-March, this is no surprise. The general public has a better idea today than they did on March 15 as to how their immediate area would be impacted by this virus. Based on that information, the general public can now weigh the cost/benefit of going to dine in a restaurant. There is zero chance I would dine in a restaurant anytime soon; however, I know many people that would, so I'd like to compare that graph with today's graph in areas that have re-opened restaurants.
I am by no means in the "open everything up" camp. There is a health crisis on one hand and an economic crisis on the other hand. I do think that areas that have not overwhelmed healthcare should slowly open things up with protective measures put in place. This virus is not going to stop, so people will need to assess their own risk tolerance with what they choose to do. The carnage from forcing small business to remain closed indefinitely could equal that of the pandemic. I'll say it again. There are no good answers here.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Have you returned to work?
I've been fortunate enough to be working from home and the company hasn't set a timeline for bringing everyone back in
Should employers that want to reopen be held liable if their returning to work employees get sick? Where do you sit with that? Repubs seem to want to reopen businesses but not allow the businesses to assume the risk for their employees getting sick. If an employee refuses to return to work and is let go, would you support unemployment for that former employee?
I'm sorry you (general you) lost your business but are you (general you) sorry your employee lost their life?
I think that there should be guidelines laid out by the municipality or state. If a business is in compliance, they wouldn't have any liability. Like any occupational safety/hazard situation. For example, Massachusetts put forth these workplace standards:
What about having to commute to work? The more I read up on the virus, who and how it effects, I don't even want to go to the grocery store. That said, those that want to open up, go back to work, "act normal," have at it. But good luck with that. Unless I could go in to the office in a hazmat suit, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near public transportation or the thriving masses. People can't social distance at the grocery store, how do you expect them to do it in an office or while commuting? Crazy times. I'm also in no rush to go out to eat, go to the movies or mall, attend concerts or live sporting events, etc. Not until there's a vaccine. So, I'll wait a year or two, hope I make it through. Can't control it nor its ramifications so I control myself and my choices. Part of me says. regardless, its just a matter of time.
i read late last night that sweden has had a sudden spike in new cases and are reconsidering their approach. can anybody confirm?
That’s interesting, even more interesting will be what Greta Thunberg has to say about the Wuhan Virus. She will be featured on CNN’s townhall Show on Thursday. Can’t wait to hear what a 17 year old has to say about a World Pandemic.
i read late last night that sweden has had a sudden spike in new cases and are reconsidering their approach. can anybody confirm?
That’s interesting, even more interesting will be what Greta Thunberg has to say about the Wuhan Virus. She will be featured on CNN’s townhall Show on Thursday. Can’t wait to hear what a 17 year old has to say about a World Pandemic.
I am not claiming to be an expert in coronaviruses, medicine, or preparedness.
I have PhD in Microbiology and Immunology from James Cook University, Australia.
I am a Assoc. Prof. of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where I teach and research infectious diseases and host immune responses of animals.
I get all of my information directly from experts in their fields and from the papers those experts are publishing daily.
I mostly write these articles for my family, friends, and students, who value my advice.
My email is erin.bromage@umassd.edu if you would like to verify the authenticity of my posts.
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Have you returned to work?
I've been fortunate enough to be working from home and the company hasn't set a timeline for bringing everyone back in
Should employers that want to reopen be held liable if their returning to work employees get sick? Where do you sit with that? Repubs seem to want to reopen businesses but not allow the businesses to assume the risk for their employees getting sick. If an employee refuses to return to work and is let go, would you support unemployment for that former employee?
I'm sorry you (general you) lost your business but are you (general you) sorry your employee lost their life?
I think that there should be guidelines laid out by the municipality or state. If a business is in compliance, they wouldn't have any liability. Like any occupational safety/hazard situation. For example, Massachusetts put forth these workplace standards:
What about having to commute to work? The more I read up on the virus, who and how it effects, I don't even want to go to the grocery store. That said, those that want to open up, go back to work, "act normal," have at it. But good luck with that. Unless I could go in to the office in a hazmat suit, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near public transportation or the thriving masses. People can't social distance at the grocery store, how do you expect them to do it in an office or while commuting? Crazy times. I'm also in no rush to go out to eat, go to the movies or mall, attend concerts or live sporting events, etc. Not until there's a vaccine. So, I'll wait a year or two, hope I make it through. Can't control it nor its ramifications so I control myself and my choices. Part of me says. regardless, its just a matter of time.
I totally get that. There's going to be a pretty wide range of risk tolerance and that is going to create its own set of challenges. What is your work situation? Do you have flexibility? If so, do you expect that to continue?
i read late last night that sweden has had a sudden spike in new cases and are reconsidering their approach. can anybody confirm?
That’s interesting, even more interesting will be what Greta Thunberg has to say about the Wuhan Virus. She will be featured on CNN’s townhall Show on Thursday. Can’t wait to hear what a 17 year old has to say about a World Pandemic.
Anything is better than hearing anymore about what a 73-year-old with a terrible comb over and spray tan thinks.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
I am not claiming to be an expert in coronaviruses, medicine, or preparedness.
I have PhD in Microbiology and Immunology from James Cook University, Australia.
I am a Assoc. Prof. of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where I teach and research infectious diseases and host immune responses of animals.
I get all of my information directly from experts in their fields and from the papers those experts are publishing daily.
I mostly write these articles for my family, friends, and students, who value my advice.
My email is erin.bromage@umassd.edu if you would like to verify the authenticity of my posts.
A good read with useful information - thanks.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Also, I'm not talking strictly about the economy. Give people guidelines on gathering safely. Assess your locality and give people guidelines on accessing routine health care.
Have you returned to work?
I've been fortunate enough to be working from home and the company hasn't set a timeline for bringing everyone back in
Should employers that want to reopen be held liable if their returning to work employees get sick? Where do you sit with that? Repubs seem to want to reopen businesses but not allow the businesses to assume the risk for their employees getting sick. If an employee refuses to return to work and is let go, would you support unemployment for that former employee?
I'm sorry you (general you) lost your business but are you (general you) sorry your employee lost their life?
I think that there should be guidelines laid out by the municipality or state. If a business is in compliance, they wouldn't have any liability. Like any occupational safety/hazard situation. For example, Massachusetts put forth these workplace standards:
What about having to commute to work? The more I read up on the virus, who and how it effects, I don't even want to go to the grocery store. That said, those that want to open up, go back to work, "act normal," have at it. But good luck with that. Unless I could go in to the office in a hazmat suit, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near public transportation or the thriving masses. People can't social distance at the grocery store, how do you expect them to do it in an office or while commuting? Crazy times. I'm also in no rush to go out to eat, go to the movies or mall, attend concerts or live sporting events, etc. Not until there's a vaccine. So, I'll wait a year or two, hope I make it through. Can't control it nor its ramifications so I control myself and my choices. Part of me says. regardless, its just a matter of time.
I totally get that. There's going to be a pretty wide range of risk tolerance and that is going to create its own set of challenges. What is your work situation? Do you have flexibility? If so, do you expect that to continue?
I almost never get a seat on the commuter rail, and if I have to take the orange line or green line from North Station to the office because of bad weather (so most of the time in Boston), I generally have to wait for two or three trains to load up just for the convenience of being squeezed against a door by lardos on that third or fourth train that has a square foot vacant.
Yeah, with two high-risk family members at home, I'm not going to back to Boston for the foreseeable future. If I lose my job because of this, I'll seek whatever legal remedies are available at the time.
i read late last night that sweden has had a sudden spike in new cases and are reconsidering their approach. can anybody confirm?
That’s interesting, even more interesting will be what Greta Thunberg has to say about the Wuhan Virus. She will be featured on CNN’s townhall Show on Thursday. Can’t wait to hear what a 17 year old has to say about a World Pandemic.
Anything is better than hearing anymore about what a 73-year-old with a terrible comb over and spray tan thinks.
Comments
The initial lockdown reaction and preparation for potentially overwhelming numbers of infected individuals was correct. Now we know more, and can ease things up.
Meanwhile, the mayor of Chicago headlined a graduation ceremony for 88 Chicago FD.
If economic interests were allowed to override public health concerns, Dr. Fauci warned, “there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control.” That could result not only in “some suffering and death that could be avoided,” he said, “but could even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery.”
Are we assuming people are not smart enough to recognize risk and act accordingly whether or not there is a “lockdown.”
March data clearly suggests restaurants were nearly 100% empty before they were ordered closed.
I am perplexed why anyone thinks lifting a lockdown can solve economic calamity caused by a “lockdown” when in reality the truth is that it was caused by a deadly illness easily transferable.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I agree with that detail. The challenge we have is a rallying cry is brewing among the masses that needs to be tempered. It’s leading to many on the right and center believing political action is causing our economic hardship and not a deadly disease. We need to figure out how to safely do it.
Ironically, Cuomo said yesterday that NY is allowing landscapers to reopen Friday but in rural counties only. I live in one of the highest infected areas in the NY suburbs and landscapers have been operating all along. When I walk and cross a semi main road there are a ton of cars. I’m not sure how closed the NY metro area is currently.
I'm sorry you (general you) lost your business but are you (general you) sorry your employee lost their life?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/reopening-mandatory-safety-standards-for-workplaces
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What you need to know up front:
I am not claiming to be an expert in coronaviruses, medicine, or preparedness.
I have PhD in Microbiology and Immunology from James Cook University, Australia.
I am a Assoc. Prof. of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where I teach and research infectious diseases and host immune responses of animals.
I get all of my information directly from experts in their fields and from the papers those experts are publishing daily.
I mostly write these articles for my family, friends, and students, who value my advice.
My email is erin.bromage@umassd.edu if you would like to verify the authenticity of my posts.
Anything is better than hearing anymore about what a 73-year-old with a terrible comb over and spray tan thinks.
Yeah, with two high-risk family members at home, I'm not going to back to Boston for the foreseeable future. If I lose my job because of this, I'll seek whatever legal remedies are available at the time.