COVID-19

[PASabreFan]

8 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Don't qualify for various reasons.....essential employee, still employed, and not Covid positive or symptomatic. My only problem is the high risk factor and it's not considered a reason for unemployment. I even contacted them and another state agency to find out and they told me no. Basically my options are stay at home unpaid or throw myself into the fire. My risk is doubled like some others on here because my wife works at the hospital too and could still bring it home. Then add on the fact I live in an apartment building with 12 units in which 3 other tenants work in nursing homes. One has already had it and I found out after they got out of isolation in home. Just biding my time stressed out waiting.

That's a tough policy when a doctor has told you to stay at home and has your economic future in his or her hands. In PA, a medically-ordered stay at home order triggers unemployment eligibility.

[nfreeman]

 

@Eleven -- since this is a full-service message board, here is @Taro T's post in normal coloring, brought to you via the magic of copy-and-paste:
 

Quote

 

The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19" false.  You seem to be viewing this through an emotional lens.  (One of your initial arguments was that a decade from now this could come back and kill people after having lain dormant.  Or it could combine with a bacteria at that point.  How many other viruses that indicate similarly to the flu have their disease follow that path?  What percentage of total viruses or more specifically corona viruses do those make up.  Lowering the 99% of people that this does not constitute a significant risk of dying to even by an order of magnitude so it's 90% does not now make it a significant risk to an "overwhelming majority" of the population.  (And pretty sure that should you do the math, it won't even be that much.  But for sake of discussion we can say it would be.) 

Your backing your view up by use of a subjective subject (which almost by definition can't be determined a fact) doesn't help your argument IMHO.   

For the overwhelming majority there isn't a significant risk of death.  That is fact.  For most (or the overwhelming majority), the acute effects are similar to the flu.  The thing that seems (to this layman) to be different about it is that it seems to be about an order of magnitude more contagious than the flu.  Which means for those individuals that are at high risk WE (those that aren't in the high risk pool) need to be more vigilant so that we don't accidentally give someone we care about (or, for that matter, even someone we don't) an infection that could very well be fatal.  Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.  Emotion makes them appear to be, it would seem.  And, just because it isn't lethal to an overwhelming majority of the population, it can still be lethal to a significant portion of the population.  

 

 

 

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19" false.  You seem to be viewing this through an emotional lens.  (One of your initial arguments was that a decade from now this could come back and kill people after having lain dormant.  Or it could combine with a bacteria at that point.  How many other viruses that indicate similarly to the flu have their disease follow that path?  What percentage of total viruses or more specifically corona viruses do those make up.  Lowering the 99% of people that this does not constitute a significant risk of dying to even by an order of magnitude so it's 90% does not now make it a significant risk to an "overwhelming majority" of the population.  (And pretty sure that should you do the math, it won't even be that much.  But for sake of discussion we can say it would be.) 

Your backing your view up by use of a subjective subject (which almost by definition can't be determined a fact) doesn't help your argument IMHO.   

For the overwhelming majority there isn't a significant risk of death.  That is fact.  For most (or the overwhelming majority), the acute effects are similar to the flu.  The thing that seems (to this layman) to be different about it is that it seems to be about an order of magnitude more contagious than the flu.  Which means for those individuals that are at high risk WE (those that aren't in the high risk pool) need to be more vigilant so that we don't accidentally give someone we care about (or, for that matter, even someone we don't) an infection that could very well be fatal.  Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.  Emotion makes them appear to be, it would seem.  And, just because it isn't lethal to an overwhelming majority of the population, it can still be lethal to a significant portion of the population.  

Appreciate it.

Taro, no, I'm not viewing it through an emotional lens.  If I were, I would want everything to reopen immediately.  As I wrote, I share the author's opinion.  We simply don't know enough about this virus for me to regard too much as "fact."  Guess we're not going to agree here.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Eleven

[FogBat]

Thanks to the SIP, Mrs. CC had to alter plans for my 50th birthday tomorrow. She had originally planned to get the transportation office at work involved in a brithday party/prank since I was going to hit that milestone (NPI). That's not going to happen.

On top of that, today is my nephew's 3rd birthday. While we can't be there FOR, we did send a video message to my sister in law. We also had a present sent to their house.

Oh, well. It's not like I get to celebrate milestones with huge parties. I spent my 21st in a giant sandbox not far from Kuwait City.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Crosschecking

[Eleven]

Is advertising considered essential?

[Wyldnwoody44]

I played tennis today, I've never in my life seen Como Park as absolutley mobbed as it was today... Jfc this needs to end 

[LTS]

20 hours ago, Weave said:

I've got an underlying condition that has me a bit freaked out about this whole thing.  Nothing has gotten my dander up in a long time like hearing folks that are Ok with the risks to bring some normalcy back.  It's hit the point where I need to filter what I read/see.  I'm getting downright angry with folks that are OK with the risk. I'm not OK with it. 

I can understand your situation as you describe it but I think there are a good number of people who may not have the same risk as you do.  So, the essential question is, should others, who may or may not have the same level of risk be forced to live in a way that protect those who are in the same boat as you or is it incumbent upon people in your situation to reduce your own risk by not venturing out into a society where there is something that can kill you?

I think about this situation quite often and I see arguments on both sides.  For me it boils down to what is a reasonable level of restrictions that should be put in place to protect people who are at increased risk.  I don't know that answer.  Personally, I am not of the opinion that current restrictions are ridiculous.  I don't particularly love the whole wear a mask demand. I've complied with that by simply not going into stores or anywhere where it would be required. 

19 hours ago, Eleven said:

OK.  I've seen a couple of people quote Taro now, and the text still (within the quote) is white on black.  Am I the only one having this problem?   

It appeared that way for me.  I figured I should answer just so you didn't think it was just you.

[Cityo'Rasmii]

2 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I played tennis today, I've never in my life seen Como Park as absolutley mobbed as it was today... Jfc this needs to end 

Glad you were able to get out and hit some.  Tennis is a game for a lifetime and I've played since I was twelve years old.  Hope you had fun!

[PASabreFan]

4 hours ago, LTS said:

I can understand your situation as you describe it but I think there are a good number of people who may not have the same risk as you do.  So, the essential question is, should others, who may or may not have the same level of risk be forced to live in a way that protect those who are in the same boat as you or is it incumbent upon people in your situation to reduce your own risk by not venturing out into a society where there is something that can kill you?

I think about this situation quite often and I see arguments on both sides.  For me it boils down to what is a reasonable level of restrictions that should be put in place to protect people who are at increased risk.  I don't know that answer.  Personally, I am not of the opinion that current restrictions are ridiculous.  I don't particularly love the whole wear a mask demand. I've complied with that by simply not going into stores or anywhere where it would be required. 

The purpose of mitigation is to protect the health care system from being overwhelmed.

[Curt]

5 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I played tennis today, I've never in my life seen Como Park as absolutley mobbed as it was today... Jfc this needs to end 

I don’t get it.  Mitigation needs to end because there were a lot of people at the park today?

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

I don’t get it.  Mitigation needs to end because there were a lot of people at the park today?

No this needs to end in general. The first nice day in this area and the park was basically at capacity. I get everyone being bored as hell but social distancing wasn't really applying at all today, what's the point if that's the case. 

4 hours ago, Cityo'Rasmii said:

Glad you were able to get out and hit some.  Tennis is a game for a lifetime and I've played since I was twelve years old.  Hope you had fun!

I used to play in undergrad, I was never that good, my buddy is a pro, he beat me 6-0, 6-1, but I pushed a couple games to my AD, for a first time out, ill take it. 

I also got sunburned lol 

[Eleven]

8 hours ago, Curt said:

I don’t get it.  Mitigation needs to end because there were a lot of people at the park today?

 

7 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

No this needs to end in general. The first nice day in this area and the park was basically at capacity. I get everyone being bored as hell but social distancing wasn't really applying at all today, what's the point if that's the case. 

I used to play in undergrad, I was never that good, my buddy is a pro, he beat me 6-0, 6-1, but I pushed a couple games to my AD, for a first time out, ill take it. 

I also got sunburned lol 

1.  The amount of people out yesterday shows that we are really climbing the walls to get out.  It doesn't mean that mitigation--and Curt, I like that term for what we are doing--needs to end, but collectively we are really getting aggravated with this.

2.  Woody, you're a ginger.  A ginger who travels to Africa to help people on the regular.  Do you really not have sunscreen?

[LTS]

9 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

The purpose of mitigation is to protect the health care system from being overwhelmed.

It's all well and good, but people are out at essential stores all the time. The concept, initially, was fundamentally sound, but as time goes on its falling apart.  More the point I was making, and you didn't address, is that those who have had, or may not have severe reactions to it (or at least believe that) would not be a strain on the healthcare system because they wouldn't be impacted. As such, they mitigate the situation naturally.  Of course no one KNOWS they are not at severe risk, but as we learn more and more about this virus we are also realizing that more and more people may have had it and never known it.  It furthers the discussion as to who really needs to be protected.

Overall, that's the question that will be raised. How far is too far when it comes to protecting those at higher risk? 

8 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

No this needs to end in general. The first nice day in this area and the park was basically at capacity. I get everyone being bored as hell but social distancing wasn't really applying at all today, what's the point if that's the case. 

I used to play in undergrad, I was never that good, my buddy is a pro, he beat me 6-0, 6-1, but I pushed a couple games to my AD, for a first time out, ill take it. 

I also got sunburned lol 

I was out yesterday, but we avoid locations where there would be groups of people.  At peak there were 6 people standing in a 40 acre space. ?

What gets me right now is what is open and what is not.  I think that leads people to question the validity of any closures.  Campground are now closed through the end of May.  Golf courses and marinas are open, but campgrounds?  No.  

 

 

[Curt]

8 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

No this needs to end in general. The first nice day in this area and the park was basically at capacity. I get everyone being bored as hell but social distancing wasn't really applying at all today, what's the point if that's the case. 

I have not seen this issue around where I live.  I went out to a popular park in the Albany area yesterday.  The crowd was reasonable and people seemed to doing a pretty good job.

Sorry that wasn’t the case where you were yesterday, but it doesn’t invalidate the entire practice of mitigation.  I think it’s best look at the big picture with stuff like this.

[PASabreFan]

57 minutes ago, Curt said:

I have not seen this issue around where I live.  I went out to a popular park in the Albany area yesterday.  The crowd was reasonable and people seemed to doing a pretty good job.

Sorry that wasn’t the case where you were yesterday, but it doesn’t invalidate the entire practice of mitigation.  I think it’s best look at the big picture with stuff like this.

Stop being logical.

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

It's all well and good, but people are out at essential stores all the time. The concept, initially, was fundamentally sound, but as time goes on its falling apart.  More the point I was making, and you didn't address, is that those who have had, or may not have severe reactions to it (or at least believe that) would not be a strain on the healthcare system because they wouldn't be impacted. As such, they mitigate the situation naturally.  Of course no one KNOWS they are not at severe risk, but as we learn more and more about this virus we are also realizing that more and more people may have had it and never known it.  It furthers the discussion as to who really needs to be protected.

Overall, that's the question that will be raised. How far is too far when it comes to protecting those at higher risk? 

I was out yesterday, but we avoid locations where there would be groups of people.  At peak there were 6 people standing in a 40 acre space. ?

What gets me right now is what is open and what is not.  I think that leads people to question the validity of any closures.  Campground are now closed through the end of May.  Golf courses and marinas are open, but campgrounds?  No.  

So odd. I don't even know where to start. Maybe I could start with the fact you are arguing against mitigation but practicing it at the same time. Keep the vulnerable inside and everyone else go back to normal. OK, you first. What are you afraid of? Get in there! Make some new friends!

[Weave]

16 hours ago, LTS said:

I can understand your situation as you describe it but I think there are a good number of people who may not have the same risk as you do.  So, the essential question is, should others, who may or may not have the same level of risk be forced to live in a way that protect those who are in the same boat as you or is it incumbent upon people in your situation to reduce your own risk by not venturing out into a society where there is something that can kill you?

I think about this situation quite often and I see arguments on both sides.  For me it boils down to what is a reasonable level of restrictions that should be put in place to protect people who are at increased risk.  I don't know that answer.  Personally, I am not of the opinion that current restrictions are ridiculous.  I don't particularly love the whole wear a mask demand. I've complied with that by simply not going into stores or anywhere where it would be required. 

It appeared that way for me.  I figured I should answer just so you didn't think it was just you.

 

The big issue (at least for me) is that, as a person of working age and otherwise healthy, how do I reduce my risk when I am told we are going back to normal?  I'm not immuno-suppressed.  My underlying condition that puts me at greater risk for the worst of this disease is shared by millions of other people who are also otherwise healthy.  So I go into the risk pool when it is decided to flip this switch back on, but the risks aren't the same for me.  I wouldn't be in the class of people that we think of as needing protection like the elderly or those with suppressed immune systems.

[Eleven]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

 

The big issue (at least for me) is that, as a person of working age and otherwise healthy, how do I reduce my risk when I am told we are going back to normal?  I'm not immuno-suppressed.  My underlying condition that puts me at greater risk for the worst of this disease is shared by millions of other people who are also otherwise healthy.  So I go into the risk pool when it is decided to flip this switch back on, but the risks aren't the same for me.  I wouldn't be in the class of people that we think of as needing protection like the elderly or those with suppressed immune systems.

I'm psychotic, too.  We'll be ok.

[SwampD]

I’ve been going to work the entire time.

They pay for our lunch.

I guess it’s worth the risk of death.

Getting really tired of the smell of my own breath.

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

I have not seen this issue around where I live.  I went out to a popular park in the Albany area yesterday.  The crowd was reasonable and people seemed to doing a pretty good job.

Sorry that wasn’t the case where you were yesterday, but it doesn’t invalidate the entire practice of mitigation.  I think it’s best look at the big picture with stuff like this.

I was at Saratoga state park last week, and while there were some people on the trails, it was nothing like yesterday. 

I've been on the less popular side of the spectrum since this started, I was and still am all for herd immunity. It's the way it's been done for a long time before the last few decades. I don't mean this in a grim, I want everyone to die sort of way, but I do feel that what's happening now is blown way out of proportion. 

[North Buffalo]

17 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I played tennis today, I've never in my life seen Como Park as absolutley mobbed as it was today... Jfc this needs to end 

I get it and that is fine as long as folks practicing social distancing... this virus is so contagious and can be deadly.

[Wyldnwoody44]

3 hours ago, Eleven said:

 

1.  The amount of people out yesterday shows that we are really climbing the walls to get out.  It doesn't mean that mitigation--and Curt, I like that term for what we are doing--needs to end, but collectively we are really getting aggravated with this.

2.  Woody, you're a ginger.  A ginger who travels to Africa to help people on the regular.  Do you really not have sunscreen?

Hey now, I'm a blonde, I'm not quite to the ginger pale level, maybe one notch up lol, I own sunscreen, but for some reason I forget to apply 

2 hours ago, LTS said:

It's all well and good, but people are out at essential stores all the time. The concept, initially, was fundamentally sound, but as time goes on its falling apart.  More the point I was making, and you didn't address, is that those who have had, or may not have severe reactions to it (or at least believe that) would not be a strain on the healthcare system because they wouldn't be impacted. As such, they mitigate the situation naturally.  Of course no one KNOWS they are not at severe risk, but as we learn more and more about this virus we are also realizing that more and more people may have had it and never known it.  It furthers the discussion as to who really needs to be protected.

Overall, that's the question that will be raised. How far is too far when it comes to protecting those at higher risk? 

I was out yesterday, but we avoid locations where there would be groups of people.  At peak there were 6 people standing in a 40 acre space. ?

What gets me right now is what is open and what is not.  I think that leads people to question the validity of any closures.  Campground are now closed through the end of May.  Golf courses and marinas are open, but campgrounds?  No.  

 

 

I don't get it either, it's OK for rich Joe blow to go golf, but it's not ok for me to go pitch a tent that's at least 50 feet from another site.....this whole thing was half @ssed since it started and it continues to be. Incompetence at the highest

[SwampD]

6 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Hey now, I'm a blonde, I'm not quite to the ginger pale level, maybe one notch up lol, I own sunscreen, but for some reason I forget to apply 

I don't get it either, it's OK for rich Joe blow to go golf, but it's not ok for me to go pitch a tent that's at least 50 feet from another site.....this whole thing was half @ssed since it started and it continues to be. Incompetence at the highest

But it’s working.

[North Buffalo]

9 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Hey now, I'm a blonde, I'm not quite to the ginger pale level, maybe one notch up lol, I own sunscreen, but for some reason I forget to apply 

I don't get it either, it's OK for rich Joe blow to go golf, but it's not ok for me to go pitch a tent that's at least 50 feet from another site.....this whole thing was half @ssed since it started and it continues to be. Incompetence at the highest

Yeh I agree some of the restrictions are dumb... though kinda get the camping thing... it should be defined better.  No large scale camping... one tent. RV parks meh... problem we see along the the lower ny camp grounds is large family groups getting together at camp ground and they are hard to police... plus state is trying to save revenue not having to police so it sort of makes sense.

Your idea of camping and mine is not what others think it is.

Edited April 26, 2020 by North Buffalo
additional info

[Weave]

8 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I was at Saratoga state park last week, and while there were some people on the trails, it was nothing like yesterday. 

I've been on the less popular side of the spectrum since this started, I was and still am all for herd immunity. It's the way it's been done for a long time before the last few decades. I don't mean this in a grim, I want everyone to die sort of way, but I do feel that what's happening now is blown way out of proportion. 

You have a risk taking personality.  Your everyday life shows that you are comfortable with risk.  That is the difference in perspective here.