View Single Post
Old 03-27-2020, 04:28 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,524
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
How seriously are you taking the recommendations to socially isolate?
Since I'm considered "essential personnel" I can't isolate when I go to work.

Outside of work, though, I only go out for essential stuff, which means most of my very very few days off I don't go out at all. When I am out, I try to keep as much distance between me and others as possible.

Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
But I'm wondering what aspects of "normal living" ought to be avoided? For example, this evening I am planning on going to a friend's house where 3 of us will play music. Hearing people talk, I'm wondering if I should ask my 2 friends if they think we should cancel. But I really question whether the risk to us - or society - is more than infinitesimally negligible.
It's not negligible.

You should cancel.

You can't see who is and isn't infected and in the pre-symptomatic-but-infectious state.

It could be you. It could be one or both of the other two people.

Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I don't want to suggest that the loss of live from this will be traumatic to many people. But we don't have a good idea exactly what the mortality rate is. And if avoiding crowds/excessive contact, washing hands eliminates the vast majority of risk, how far should we go trying to eliminate the remaining portion?
You make it sound like the choice is between "some people die and the rest are perfectly fine". It's not. Even a "mild" case of this - largely defined as "does not need to be in a hospital" - can be a pretty nasty illness. Also, there are people who seem to have a "mild" case who suddenly die in their homes. In part I suspect this is because our medical system is already so overloaded that both the people doing the evaluating are overworked and are making mistakes, and also because people who ordinarily would be admitted a hospital for observation are being sent home for lack of room for even sicker people in hospitals.

Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
If we are supposed to avoid crowds exceeding 10 (or 50, or 100), then why hasn't air travel and public transportation been shut down?
Because the people elected to be in charge of this country are in a massive state of denial. Absolutely air travel should be shut down. Public transportation should be restricted to just essential personnel going to and from work.

This does leave the problem that there are people who don't own cars and need public transportation to get groceries and medicine, but if the government was competent enough to shut down transportation I'd also assume they were competent enough to ramp up delivery services to such people.

Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I find myself drawing comparisons to 9/11, where IMO we grossly over-reacted to the threat. Feel free to call me irresponsible or whatever if you wish, but I'm really trying to figure out what is a reasonable and responsible approach, balancing between living life as normal, or hoarding and hunkering down like survivalists.
The reasonable and responsible approach:

Hunker down. Stay inside. Don't visit ANYONE you aren't already living with. The only exception is if you actually must go out for food/medicine. If you do, keep your distance. Wash your hands.

Anything else and you risk getting and/or giving the virus.

No, I'm not kidding.

If I didn't have my job to do I'd be inside for the next two weeks barring one or two absolutely mandatory trips outside. I might even forgo laundry (for which I must leave my apartment) and wash underwear in the sink.

Yes, we really are at that point, at least until the new cases come down and the hospitals can handle the influx again.

Last edited by Broomstick; 03-27-2020 at 04:28 AM.