Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 03-27-2020, 03:57 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
There is a qualitative difference between people walking outside by themselves or members of their household who might have incidental contact with someone else at a reasonable distance to prevent aerosol transmission, and people sitting around for hours in close proximity. There is nothing magical about a 6 ft (or 10 ft) separation that will assure that no transmission occurs; it is just an easy-to-remember figure that people can make a best effort to follow in regular contact (and that you still violate every time you go to the grocery store or pick up food at a restaurant) which seeks to minimize the potential for being infected. If you decide that this risk is worth it so you can drink and socialize, well, that is your choice, but consider that if one person in this gathering is unknowingly infected, and despite best efforts to maintain distance infects two or three other people, that means the virus is transmitted to those households, and from there potentially to anyone else (grocery clerks, delivery people, EMTs, et cetera) that they are in contact with.

I'm done responding for now because I've hit my limit of trying to maintain a patient, factual tone with people who continue to insist that they should be able to do as they please, epidemic be damned. I will just encourage you to watch the John Campbell videos because he lays it all out in stark figures and data on what is actually happening in countries where the social isolation was too late or relaxed. You can choose to live in reality or ignore it, but consider that what you do affects other people as well.

Stranger
I'm not trying to be difficult. I am trying to understand. Do you think walking alone outside is socially irresponsible? If you say it is, I will stop doing it.
  #302  
Old 03-27-2020, 04:01 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I'm done responding for now because I've hit my limit of trying to maintain a patient, factual tone with people who continue to insist that they should be able to do as they please, epidemic be damned.
Maybe you've encountered that attitude elsewhere, but I haven't seen anybody saying any such thing in this thread recently.

If any of us were "continuing to insist that we should be able to do as we please, epidemic be damned," we wouldn't be asking what is or is not okay and why.
  #303  
Old 03-27-2020, 04:04 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,443
I wasn't trying to be difficult but Stranger describing me as someone who "insist[s] that they should be able to do as they please, epidemic be damned" is certainly not endearing me to his opinion. My family has been self isolating for 2 weeks. I've been the designated grocery getter, and that's the only thing I've left my house for. We are doing our best to follow guidelines and be good citizens. Guidelines which say that going outside for walks is fine as long as social distancing is maintained.

So I take offense at the characterization.

Last edited by steronz; 03-27-2020 at 04:05 PM.
  #304  
Old 03-27-2020, 04:07 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Maybe you've encountered that attitude elsewhere, but I haven't seen anybody saying any such thing in this thread recently.

If any of us were "continuing to insist that we should be able to do as we please, epidemic be damned," we wouldn't be asking what is or is not okay and why.
Right. There are edges to this. It needs to be possible to talk about those edges without getting attacked, or told you don't care about the future of humanity.

We can't just say "no, there are no edges, any risk is unacceptable". I mean, I still tuck my son in at night. I still sleep with my husband. I still go to the grocery store once a week. If we decide we have no edges to this thing, that any risk is unacceptable, I need to stop all that. I need to ration my food so we can make it last several monotonous months, I need to move into the guest room.
  #305  
Old 03-27-2020, 04:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
Meh, Stranger is a hot head and tends to think his big brain makes him morally correct but basically he wants the best for people.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-27-2020 at 04:09 PM.
  #306  
Old 03-27-2020, 04:30 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Carnal, were you being sarcastic in the end of the last page when you said it was possible to walk responsibly?
  #307  
Old 03-27-2020, 04:44 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I think telling people they can't have a 10ft away happy hour, where you have adult neighbors who are actually following the rules seriously (and will go home to go to the bathroom), is a great way to have people go nuts. Especially when we probably have 2 months to go with this. The guidelines state stay 6 feet away from each other - if you are actually following it, I see nothing wrong with the 10ft away happy hour.

The whole point is the more contact you have with other people, the more the virus spreads. Do I maintain a perfect quarantine? No. But I limit it as much as possible. I try to avoid contact I don't need to have. And I don't NEED to have some kind of 10' happy hour.


Although a casual look out my window tells me there are a lot of people who don't seem overly concerned. It's starting to get nice out so a lot of people are out and about walking around like there's no virus or anything.
  #308  
Old 03-27-2020, 05:03 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
The whole point is the more contact you have with other people, the more the virus spreads. Do I maintain a perfect quarantine? No. But I limit it as much as possible. I try to avoid contact I don't need to have. And I don't NEED to have some kind of 10' happy hour.


Although a casual look out my window tells me there are a lot of people who don't seem overly concerned. It's starting to get nice out so a lot of people are out and about walking around like there's no virus or anything.
I feel like there's something either you are missing, or I am. Because what you say sounds like a non sequitur to me. Walking around outside isn't contact. Just because I'm outdoors doesn't mean I'm having any contact with other people.
  #309  
Old 03-27-2020, 05:06 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 17,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
There is a qualitative difference between people walking outside by themselves or members of their household who might have incidental contact with someone else at a reasonable distance to prevent aerosol transmission, and people sitting around for hours in close proximity. There is nothing magical about a 6 ft (or 10 ft) separation that will assure that no transmission occurs; it is just an easy-to-remember figure that people can make a best effort to follow in regular contact (and that you still violate every time you go to the grocery store or pick up food at a restaurant) which seeks to minimize the potential for being infected. If you decide that this risk is worth it so you can drink and socialize, well, that is your choice, but consider that if one person in this gathering is unknowingly infected, and despite best efforts to maintain distance infects two or three other people, that means the virus is transmitted to those households, and from there potentially to anyone else (grocery clerks, delivery people, EMTs, et cetera) that they are in contact with.
Thank you, Stranger. I deeply appreciate you providing insights in these threads, and I stand corrected.
  #310  
Old 03-27-2020, 05:47 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Meh, Stranger is a hot head and tends to think his big brain makes him morally correct but basically he wants the best for people.
Moderator Note

Let's refrain from personal remarks directed at other posters (even if they include a back-handed compliment). No warning issued.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #311  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
Sorry. I did mean it in a friendly way.
  #312  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:13 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,373
I think the public notices that people can go outside to exercise, but should engage in social distancing, is an attempt to moderate between "scientists really want us to avoid each other right now" and "if there is a zero tolerance policy, with no allowances for any exceptions, people won't attempt to comply, and we will never reduce the spread."

It's kind of like dieting - is it irresponsible to have chocolate cake? Ideally, you will pass. But if having a piece every few weeks keeps you on the straight and narrow the rest of the time, it's probably worth it in the long run to indulge occasionally.

So, from a purely scientific standpoint, you shouldn't be out. But from a practical standpoint, you may have to. And from a realistic standpoint, you may not be able to stand it if you never get to.

(And, from a legal standpoint, it is simply unenforceable in America to require people to remain indoors - if everybody said, 'fuck that', the inability to enforce these questionable blanket orders would be exposed).
  #313  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:21 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
So, from a purely scientific standpoint, you shouldn't be out.
And I'm asking, from a purely scientific standpoint, why?

Is it because I'll breathe out the virus, and the wind will carry it and blow it into the face of a person several blocks away? What is risky about merely being outdoors?
  #314  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:31 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,524
The last European hold-out appears to be Sweden. School continues, groups have been limited to fifty. Their caseload appears similar to Canada’s. Their society seems fairly homogeneous and without much distant travel, but these impressions of mine could be mistaken. Some find their approach cynical and many doctors are critical. But we have, AFAIK, a real life comparison on reaction level between many Western and Asian countries and those like Sweden and Mexico which are more (too?) laid back. Remember the Plague killed 50-60% in a time before treatment and lasted 120 years, and did not survive long outside hosts. This isn’t that. And we will see if these laissez-faire approaches change.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 03-27-2020 at 06:33 PM.
  #315  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:44 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
And I'm asking, from a purely scientific standpoint, why?...
What is risky about merely being outdoors?
I am not a scientist, but I don’t think it’s so much that it’s “risky” to be outdoors as much as “your risk of exposure” increases when you encounter other people. And since there are more people outdoors your home than inside, risk increases by being outside. Ergo, if you are trying to minimize risk, stay indoors.

Last edited by Moriarty; 03-27-2020 at 06:45 PM.
  #316  
Old 03-27-2020, 06:45 PM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,062
I'm hoping Stranger on a Train will answer, as I trust his perspective on this:

Quote:
Brian Labus, a professor in public health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, stresses that you have to treat "going outside as a risk every time you do it".

But, he adds, there are ways to reduce the risk to close to zero if you plan your trip carefully.

"If you're outside walking by yourself, you're not exposed; if you're out walking the dog by yourself, there's no risk… it's when you have contact with other people that you need to be concerned."

Running or cycling as a group - and running past others - is a no-go, due to the need to maintain a 2m distance at all times.

"If you're running past somebody and they sneeze, that's going to land on you. It doesn't matter how fast you're running - you can't outrun a sneeze," says Prof Labus.
But how close to zero is that risk? And just as important, do the immune-boosting benefits of walks compensate for whatever that "close to zero" risk is?
  #317  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:26 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
But how close to zero is that risk? And just as important, do the immune-boosting benefits of walks compensate for whatever that "close to zero" risk is?
Being outside, in only transient contact with people outside your household and maintaining the recommended minimum distance of 2 meters or more, the risk is pretty small. And the benefits of exercise, fresh air, and sunlight if the Sun is shining in your area are all positives to both physical and emotional health that (in my non-professional opinion) outweigh the pretty low risk of contagion. I spent part of the afternoon outside on the fire escape of my building making phone calls while getting sun and air, and I may go hiking w this weekend (maintaining at least the recommended distance to other hikers) on a remote trail that I know to be sparsely travelled even at the most popular times, so I would never tell anyone they shouldn't just go take a walk around the block.

But having prolonged contact, even with the intent of maintaining 10 feet, is not a nothing risk. Is it worth the benefits of social contact? Well, that's up to the individual; certainly many people are taking much greater risks; I live above a restaurant and bar that is still serving takeout food and liquor (which people are still consuming on the deck and sidewalk below) and in the past few days I've witnessed people sharing food, drink and even vaping pens for grog's sake, which is just caviler disregard for the current public health threat. Compared to that, sitting dispersed around the back yard is certainly far less risky, but by how rapidly this virus has spread it appears to only takes a small amount of contact to transmit the virus.

I'm sorry if anyone feels personally attacked because that is absolutely not my intention, nor am I trying to lay any moral judgements on anyone, but what I am seeing, here and elsewhere, is that many people feel as if this epidemic is something that is only happening to other people or that they have no duty to do what they can to prevent the spread of the virus. In general I would side upon the right of individuals to make their own choices without criticism, even if those are choices that harm themselves, because that is part of being an adult in a free society. But preventing the worst case scenario at this point isn't about individuals, or epidemiologists doing their jobs off in a lab somewhere, or Congress passing a law or stimulus package. It is about everyone, everywhere, making choices to alter their behavior to minimize the spread of the virus by reducing social contact to the minimum possible.

For many people, this is an impossible choice; they are on the front lines of the response, or they work a job that puts them in contact with the public, and they have the choice between exposure and paycheck, or isolation and going hungry or homeless. In that context, making the sacrifice to not have a backyard party seems, well, less dramatic. But people will make the choices they are going to make, and it is not as if we are getting the best example from many of our leaders across the spectrum.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 03-27-2020 at 07:27 PM.
  #318  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:39 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,060
...you guys are trying to quantify something that is inherently unquantifiable.

The least risky thing you can be doing right now is staying home in your bubble.

If you want to go for a walk then the degree of risk increases. Can we measure that risk? Not really. It would probably be less risky for me to go for a walk here in New Zealand than it would be to take a walk downtown in New York. But we can't measure the difference in degree.

The advice we have here is:

Quote:
"Every interaction we have with someone else increases the risk of spreading the virus. Stay at home. That is the simplest way to save lives."

People in lockdown should stick to their "bubbles" which, for most people, are those in their households.

Couples who don't live together or parents with shared custody could be in the same bubble, as could the "buddy" of a person living alone - but bubbles shouldn't overlap.

"You can't spend time with other people outside of your bubble."
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star...and-save-lives

The goal is to keep in the bubble, to prevent overlap as much as possible. Its to break the chains of transmission. I understand the urge to find out the limits of the boundaries. But every time you step outside of your bubble it is inherently risky.

The Spinoff covers the bubble here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spinoff
Why can’t we join our neighbour’s bubble? None of us are seeing anyone else, so surely that’s safe? It’s not really “breaking” our bubble, it’s just inviting others in!

As per the emergency message, the people who were in the same household as you last night are the ones now in your bubble.

Siouxsie Wiles explains how the bubbles work in this story. She says, “if it turns out someone in our bubble is incubating Covid-19, then the virus will be limited to our bubble. It won’t be able to spread any further. It also means if no one in our bubble has the virus then as long as we stay in our bubble, we will stay safe and save lives”.

So no, don’t go combining your bubble with your neighbour’s family, or your friend down the street. Like Jacinda Ardern said in her Facebook live video, act as though you already have Covid-19. You wouldn’t want to combine bubbles then, would you?

...

Can I set up some deck chairs and chat in person to my neighbour over the fence at a safe distance?

Again, like the prime minister said: act as though you already have the virus. If this changes how you would conduct yourself, then think about whether it’s necessary. There are plenty of options available to talk to people via video calling, messaging and good old fashioned phonecalls.

Wiles says you can have a chat with your neighbour, but not a long one. “Keep it brief – just a few minutes – and maintain that two metre distance.”
The question "do you think walking alone outside is socially irresponsible" isn't a scientific question with a quantifiable answer. Its a moral question that I don't think anyone, especially Strangers on a Train should be obligated to answer. We aren't in a position to judge you.

The decision on whether or not to join your neighbours in a happy 10ft-away-happy-hour is one that you yourself would have to make. I think all of the scientific experts here I am following have all said that similar activities "would not be a good idea." But here's a thought: if I were to tell you that your neighbours had Covid-19: would that change your calculus at all?

And one final thing from the Spinoff:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spinoff
But if I find a loophole, surely I can exploit it? If an action is risky it would have a specific rule to prevent it, right?


The clearest answer to this was given by controller of the all-of-government response and head of the lockdown taskforce John Ombler when he said: “If you’re looking for exceptions to the rule, you’ve missed the point of it and means other New Zealanders could die.”
I think the biggest problem that America faces is that there is a leadership vacuum from the top. The messaging from our government from those in power to those in political opposition have been lock-step in agreement. We are being told "this is what you need to do to get through this. Stay at home." The latest update we had is still zero deaths, 12 in hospital, 1 on ventilator. We know that that number is going to go up. But if all I have to do to play my part in keeping the numbers down is to stay at home, wrapped up and post to the Straightdope, then that is what I will do. I'm watching what is happening in America with horror and despair. Please stay safe everyone. And listen to people like Stranger.
  #319  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:49 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
The question "do you think walking alone outside is socially irresponsible" isn't a scientific question with a quantifiable answer. Its a moral question that I don't think anyone, especially Strangers on a Train should be obligated to answer. We aren't in a position to judge you.

The decision on whether or not to join your neighbours in a happy 10ft-away-happy-hour is one that you yourself would have to make.
Yes, obviously it's a judgement call which is why I was looking for opinions. That's all I wanted was people's opinions on whether it was an acceptable activity.

You say, "If you want to go for a walk then the degree of risk increases." So Stranger is increasing his risk by going on a hike this weekend. Now imagine he was wondering if that increased risk was worth it, and he asked "OK or not OK" on a message board, and got a sanctimonious earful about how people don't care about society.

"Not worth it IMHO" would have sufficed. Nobody's getting paid by the word here.

Last edited by steronz; 03-27-2020 at 07:49 PM.
  #320  
Old 03-27-2020, 07:59 PM
SayTwo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
For many people, this is an impossible choice; they are on the front lines of the response, or they work a job that puts them in contact with the public, and they have the choice between exposure and paycheck, or isolation and going hungry or homeless.
Really? Is that the choice? If so, why are others vilified for wanting to make the same one?
  #321  
Old 03-27-2020, 08:26 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Yes, obviously it's a judgement call which is why I was looking for opinions. That's all I wanted was people's opinions on whether it was an acceptable activity.
...there are opinions and there is expert advice. The experts (well, the ones in my country at least ) are all on the same page and I've linked to what they have said already, and they pretty well overlap with what Stranger is echoing in this thread.

Quote:
You say, "If you want to go for a walk then the degree of risk increases." So Stranger is increasing his risk by going on a hike this weekend. Now imagine he was wondering if that increased risk was worth it, and he asked "OK or not OK" on a message board, and got a sanctimonious earful about how people don't care about society.
I'm only seeing a couple of mentions of society in this thread and none of them are from Stranger. So I suspect you are reading what Stranger wrote incorrectly. You shouldn't take what they said too personally: especially when Stranger clarified when he said this.

"I'm sorry if anyone feels personally attacked because that is absolutely not my intention, nor am I trying to lay any moral judgements on anyone, but what I am seeing, here and elsewhere, is that many people feel as if this epidemic is something that is only happening to other people or that they have no duty to do what they can to prevent the spread of the virus."

The reality is from the leadership at the Federal level to the leadership at the small town level I'm witnessing a catastrophic systems failure in America that is going to result in hundreds of thousands (at least) of deaths that didn't have to happen. The "50 state experiment", the insistence of tying healthcare to employment, the election of someone fundamentally incapable of providing sound judgement and empathy is going to devastate America over the next six months. I'm watching in real time the numbers rising, I'm watching reports at hospitals already overwhelmed, and I'm seeing you complaining about getting a "sanctimonious earful" from someone on a messageboard and I really think you need to get a sense of perspective.

The best you can do: in fact the only thing that most people will be physically capable of doing is listen to the scientific experts and hunker down and do your best to ride it out if you can. And nothing Stranger is saying conflicts with what (the majority) of experts are saying.

Quote:
"Not worth it IMHO" would have sufficed. Nobody's getting paid by the word here.
But it probably is worth it. The scientific consensus here is that you do need to go for walks, you do need to get out and about, but they need to be local and short.
  #322  
Old 03-27-2020, 09:05 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I'm sorry if anyone feels personally attacked because that is absolutely not my intention, nor am I trying to lay any moral judgements on anyone, but what I am seeing, here and elsewhere, is that many people feel as if this epidemic is something that is only happening to other people or that they have no duty to do what they can to prevent the spread of the virus. In general I would side upon the right of individuals to make their own choices without criticism, even if those are choices that harm themselves, because that is part of being an adult in a free society. But preventing the worst case scenario at this point isn't about individuals, or epidemiologists doing their jobs off in a lab somewhere, or Congress passing a law or stimulus package. It is about everyone, everywhere, making choices to alter their behavior to minimize the spread of the virus by reducing social contact to the minimum possible.

For many people, this is an impossible choice; they are on the front lines of the response, or they work a job that puts them in contact with the public, and they have the choice between exposure and paycheck, or isolation and going hungry or homeless. In that context, making the sacrifice to not have a backyard party seems, well, less dramatic. But people will make the choices they are going to make, and it is not as if we are getting the best example from many of our leaders across the spectrum.

Stranger
And I am sorry if you feel I am trying to "rules lawyer" a virus, or justify what I am going to do anyway. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that this isn't a short, sharp emergency. This is a way of life now, and it may well be a way of life for a couple years--they are talking about waves, and having to retreat back into shelter-in-place multiple times. I am a naturally very risk-adverse person, and a socially responsible person. I want to do the right thing. But if we are going to live like this, we need to be able to have actual conversations about the level of risk.

I've written about this a lot in threads about sexual harassment. Women get told, all the time, to drastically curtail their freedom because "it's not worth the risk", even when the risk is very, very small and the freedom is significant. It's sensitized me to the fact that it's very easy to suggest others make radical sacrifices to limit risk, but when you are the one making the sacrifice, the math feels different. Every time in my life I've been told that, say, driving cross country by myself or something was "too dangerous" for a woman, people have never wanted to discuss the risk. They've always just said "you have to be aware of the risk and use your own judgment". I'm open to the argument that some sort of risk-reward calculation is possible, but the reality is, they don't want to have a discussion: it's more magical thinking--just in case, we women should take every conceivable precaution, whatever the cost, because then if anything bad happens, it wasn't our fault.

It's good to be cautious and risk adverse, but it's not good to let that turn into it's own kind of magical thinking. This isn't a supernatural threat, it's not a monster. It's a virus, and while we don't understand everything about it, we do need to talk about it in rational, reasonable terms. If you want to explain why sitting 10 feet apart for an hour is significantly different than walking and staying 10 feet apart from others, I'm very open to hearing why. And you've expanded on that since, which is good. I honestly don't find the "adults won't abide by that rule" very convincing--I think I could remember to stay 10 ft away from a neighbor, if we each brought our own lawn chairs. I am open to the argument that the risk is very uncertain because we just don't know how water droplets behave in that sort of situation, and some discussion about why.

If we are in this in the long hall, we have to avoid "just in case" thinking as much as we avoid "it's probably okay, what the hell". Just in case thinking, magical thinking, will have us all wearing copper bands and waving essential oils because it can't hurt and we need to do this just in case it helps. It already has people killing themselves with inappropriate drugs and taking massive doses of Vitamin C, just in case. When people are belittled and humiliated for sincerely asking the question "To what degree, if any, does this increase my risk?", when that question is met with scorn, it encourages magical thinking.
  #323  
Old 03-27-2020, 09:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
Really glad to see some pushback developing against the insulting propaganda from the Surgeon General and others in government who have been claiming that masks "don't work" for the general public: https://medium.com/@thejanellemj/ple...k-71e0e3f4fe4a


Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
If we are in this in the long hall, we have to avoid "just in case" thinking as much as we avoid "it's probably okay, what the hell".

Very well said!


Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
CPAP machines are not a replacement for ventilators.
A little bit of a hijack, so spoilered:
SPOILER:
My machine is a ventilator, something that wasn't even available for home use until pretty recently. They started me on CPAP, but that was definitely not cutting it so they went to BiPAP. Which was good for a couple months, but then I turned out to be one of about one percent of BiPAP patients who develop a "central" (for central nervous system) apnea caused by the BiPAP! So they went to the ultimate (and very expensive) ventilator machine which actively detects my breathing and adjusts the pressure based on what I'm doing. When I look up my machine's model number online, it describes it as being for people with severe lung disorders--which I don't have (I am actually physically fit and play racquetball and tennis at a reasonably high level), but it works like a charm for my rare form of apnea.



Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Unfortunately we will be able to do similar comparisons in the US between cities/states with differing levels of mitigation.

Nate Cohn of the Upshot on the NYT is on it: https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status...51474258833408


Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Two days ago you were asking if you could have your housekeeper come in. Compared to that, this is incredibly low risk, if people are actually ten feet apart and bring their own chair and booze. I don't think yelling at him like he's an idiot to consider it is appropriate.

Cosigned. I don't know if I would be comfortable with it, personally; but I don't think it's an obviously absurd idea.

What I facepalmed was a photo in the NYT of people going to drive-in theaters now that indoor theatres are closed. Makes a lot of sense--if you stay in the car as I had assumed. But the photo showed people basically tailgating with lawn chairs in back of their cars--and there was so little gap between the people sitting behind one car and those sitting behind the next over, I couldn't even discern which people were part of which group!


Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
It's real simple. Would you have a 10ft away happy hour with the neighbors if the virus was Ebola?

I would be more likely if it were Ebola, because Ebola is much harder to catch.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I'm done responding for now because I've hit my limit of trying to maintain a patient, factual tone with people who continue to insist that they should be able to do as they please, epidemic be damned.

I have appreciated your posts up to now, and I think I tend to be on the strict side of most of these questions (my kids have not been outside, except on our balcony, in over a week, and the adults have not been out except for infrequent shopping trips for necessities, wearing masks when indoors). But this looks like a strawman. BYOB outside with neighbors on the lawn, maintaining ten feet of distance, is NOT doing "as they please, epidemic be damned". You act like this sort of gathering is the same as the idiot spring breakers who thronged on the beaches and declared "if I get Corona, I get Corona, but no one's going to stop me from partying".


Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
And just as important, do the immune-boosting benefits of walks compensate for whatever that "close to zero" risk is?

FYI, I used my health club very regularly until just a couple weeks ago (probably longer than I should have, but the last few times I was extremely careful and here in northern MN we got the virus later than most). I have discovered that I can actually get a very good workout by (1) doing vigorous jumping jacks barefoot on my carpet (and it doesn't seem like it's that loud for the downstairs neighbor) and (2) putting full liquor bottles (wrapped in towels so they don't break) in reusable shopping bags and using them as dumbbells. HTH
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #324  
Old 03-27-2020, 10:20 PM
SayTwo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
And I am sorry if you feel I am trying to "rules lawyer" a virus, or justify what I am going to do anyway. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that this isn't a short, sharp emergency. This is a way of life now, and it may well be a way of life for a couple years--they are talking about waves, and having to retreat back into shelter-in-place multiple times. I am a naturally very risk-adverse person, and a socially responsible person. I want to do the right thing. But if we are going to live like this, we need to be able to have actual conversations about the level of risk.

I've written about this a lot in threads about sexual harassment. Women get told, all the time, to drastically curtail their freedom because "it's not worth the risk", even when the risk is very, very small and the freedom is significant. It's sensitized me to the fact that it's very easy to suggest others make radical sacrifices to limit risk, but when you are the one making the sacrifice, the math feels different. Every time in my life I've been told that, say, driving cross country by myself or something was "too dangerous" for a woman, people have never wanted to discuss the risk. They've always just said "you have to be aware of the risk and use your own judgment". I'm open to the argument that some sort of risk-reward calculation is possible, but the reality is, they don't want to have a discussion: it's more magical thinking--just in case, we women should take every conceivable precaution, whatever the cost, because then if anything bad happens, it wasn't our fault.

It's good to be cautious and risk adverse, but it's not good to let that turn into it's own kind of magical thinking. This isn't a supernatural threat, it's not a monster. It's a virus, and while we don't understand everything about it, we do need to talk about it in rational, reasonable terms. If you want to explain why sitting 10 feet apart for an hour is significantly different than walking and staying 10 feet apart from others, I'm very open to hearing why. And you've expanded on that since, which is good. I honestly don't find the "adults won't abide by that rule" very convincing--I think I could remember to stay 10 ft away from a neighbor, if we each brought our own lawn chairs. I am open to the argument that the risk is very uncertain because we just don't know how water droplets behave in that sort of situation, and some discussion about why.

If we are in this in the long hall, we have to avoid "just in case" thinking as much as we avoid "it's probably okay, what the hell". Just in case thinking, magical thinking, will have us all wearing copper bands and waving essential oils because it can't hurt and we need to do this just in case it helps. It already has people killing themselves with inappropriate drugs and taking massive doses of Vitamin C, just in case. When people are belittled and humiliated for sincerely asking the question "To what degree, if any, does this increase my risk?", when that question is met with scorn, it encourages magical thinking.
Bravo! This one post stimulated more thought than anything else I've read in several days at least. Kudos to you for being courageous enough to say what I'm sure a fair many are thinking, and for stating it so well.

Regrettably, in the words of one Ian Brodie, the voice of reason is rhyming with treason today...
  #325  
Old 03-27-2020, 10:59 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
If we are in this in the long hall, we have to avoid "just in case" thinking as much as we avoid "it's probably okay, what the hell".
...with respect: "just in case thinking" and "it's probably okay, what the hell" are two very different paradigms. "Just in case" (in this context) thinking is backed up by expert opinion. The scientists and the doctors and all the advice (that we are getting here in NZ) says sitting 10 feet apart for an hour isn't recommended. Act as you are already infected. If you've got the virus would you really sit 10 feet apart from somebody else? If they had the virus would you sit 10 feet from them for an hour?

But if you want me to explain the science behind that I couldn't do it. All I know is that the question has come up so many times that we all (down here) know the answer, even if I can't provide the rationale. All I do know though is if I follow the advice, if I stay home, go out only when I absolutely have to (to restock groceries) then we all have a better chance of getting through this with as little loss of life as possible.

This is life or death. Its a pandemic. Its ripped through and destroyed the healthcare system in Italy, it is destroying it in Spain, and America doesn't have the infrastructure, the healthcare system, the will or the leadership to fight this the way it needs to be fought. America is in very big trouble.

Just for context:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
NOT. OKAY.

Have a Zoom Happy Hour instead.
You described ThelmaLou 's post as "yelling at him like he's an idiot", and I think that is grossly unfair. You then called the activity "incredibly low risk" and then when Stranger asked you to quantify that risk you shifted the conversation to "socially irresponsible behavior." I understand how scary this all is. But Stranger is not the enemy here. If you can't quantify that risk then you should withdraw that claim, not put the onus on others to tell you what is and isn't responsible behaviour.
  #326  
Old 03-27-2020, 11:34 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
But if you want me to explain the science behind that I couldn't do it. All I know is that the question has come up so many times that we all (down here) know the answer, even if I can't provide the rationale.
But iof you can't provide the rationale, you are not the person who should be responding to those of us who are asking about the rationale.
  #327  
Old 03-27-2020, 11:52 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
And I am sorry if you feel I am trying to "rules lawyer" a virus, or justify what I am going to do anyway. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that this isn't a short, sharp emergency. This is a way of life now, and it may well be a way of life for a couple years--they are talking about waves, and having to retreat back into shelter-in-place multiple times. I am a naturally very risk-adverse person, and a socially responsible person. I want to do the right thing. But if we are going to live like this, we need to be able to have actual conversations about the level of risk.
If I made the assumption that you made that this is going to be the way of life now, I might be more understanding of your position. People can't be asked not to go outside for years. But that's not how I'm seeing the situation.

I've seen several things that make me question that this is going to be a way of life now due to the coronavirus. The assumption that life will irrevocably change does change the complexion of the question, but I'm not accepting that assumption at this point.

I believe that if everyone does their part now, the life cycle of this will be shorter.

Here are some reasons I believe that. China is returning to normal after a few months of strict quarantine.


There is hope: All the reasons to be optimistic about the end of the coronavirus crisis


Quote:
The coronavirus crisis is coming to an end in China.
Even Italy appears to have stunted the momentum of the disease.
. . .
China has reported very few new domestic coronavirus cases since March 6. (Most cases have been reported among travelers arriving from elsewhere.)

Deaths from COVID-19, the illness caused by the virus, are down to fewer than 10 per day — a tiny number for a country of China's size.
. . . .
The time frame for 'getting through this' seems to be a little over 2 months

It may feel as if you're in prison right now, but the sentence is a short one. It ends.

Spring and summer will likely be helpful

There is some evidence that the virus prefers colder, wetter conditions. Many human diseases — like colds and the flu — wane in the sunnier months. Spring is upon us. Summer is around the corner. Things will likely get better.
This is just an opinion piece, so maybe not so scientific.

Here's something a bit more scientific from March 25, 2020. The coronavirus mutates slower than the flu, making a vaccine more long lasting than the flu vaccine. A vaccine could be developed as early as March 2021.

The coronavirus mutates more slowly than the flu — which means a vaccine will likely be effective long-term

Quote:
A glimmer of hope on the coronavirus front: Experts who have been tracking the virus' spread have concluded that it mutates at a slower rate than other respiratory viruses like the flu.

This slow mutation rate has two implications — both positive. It means the virus (whose official name is SARS-CoV-2) is stable in its current form and therefore unlikely to get even more dangerous as it continues to spread. That also means a vaccine could be effective in the long run; it'd act more like a measles or chickenpox vaccine than a seasonal flu shot.
. . .
More than 40 coronavirus vaccines are in the works. The biotech company Moderna has begun human trials already, but it's unlikely any vaccine will hit the mass market before March 2021.

Once a vaccine is created, though, it will most likely be effective in the body for a long time — years, according to Bedford.
If the vaccine hits the mass market in March 2021, that's less than a year away. In the meantime, people will be acquiring herd immunity.

In this video, Bill Gates is saying that he predicts the peak of the virus to be sometime in late April and then there may be another month until things can start to open up.

Edit: I forgot to add that also from the Bill Gates video, once the cases start to decline and mass testing has taken place, then the quarantines can be tracing the people who have it instead of a general quarantine.

Also in the meantime, there are treatments that are working to decrease the severity of the illness that will help the hospitals with the overwhelm they're facing now. That's just one of the treatments that people have been working on and have had some success with. Yes, people died from self-administering. That's probably not a good idea with any drug.

Given this information, I'm questioning that this is going to be the way of life now. From what I've seen of the comparisons I've seen between places where they've instituted strict shelter in place orders and less strict ones, the numbers appear to show that the stricter people adhere to the shelter in place rules, the less infection that happens and the quicker life returns to normal. If one makes the assumption that the strict shelter in place will be in place for a couple more months, it seems like a small sacrifice to be as strict as possible for a shorter time so the infection doesn't spread as much and make it more onerous on everyone.

Last edited by Heffalump and Roo; 03-27-2020 at 11:56 PM.
  #328  
Old 03-27-2020, 11:52 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
But iof you can't provide the rationale, you are not the person who should be responding to those of us who are asking about the rationale.
...the question was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
OK or Not OK: Happy hour with the neighbors in my front yard, 10 foot minimum distance, BYOB.
No rationale requested. As I cited in my original post: this isn't recommended by the experts (here.) It isn't recommended by the government, by the scientists, by the medical professionals. The answer is a simple "not OK." As to why its "not OK" I could speculate: but speculation has been met with scorn in this thread so why would I do that? The answer isn't going to change from "the experts do not recommend this behaviour" and ultimately that's all that really matters. I understand being skeptical of the experts: especially in the United States where the information is confusing and contradictory. But the stakes are incredibly high here. So I think that not having a happy hour "just in case" is almost certainly the right thing to do.

Thelmalou's answer was a simply NOT OK. Manda JO then accused Thelmalou of "yelling at steronz like an idiot", claimed that this behaviour was "incredibly low risk", Stranger asked Manda JO to quantify that low risk to which Manda JO refused, then it escalated from there.
  #329  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:19 AM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Right. There are edges to this. It needs to be possible to talk about those edges without getting attacked, or told you don't care about the future of humanity.

We can't just say "no, there are no edges, any risk is unacceptable". I mean, I still tuck my son in at night. I still sleep with my husband. I still go to the grocery store once a week. If we decide we have no edges to this thing, that any risk is unacceptable, I need to stop all that. I need to ration my food so we can make it last several monotonous months, I need to move into the guest room.
You also can't accept any mail or packages. Because they might be contaminated. No drive through anything. No possible way to get food, anything into your house because it might be contaminated. No open doors or windows ever. No AC, no circulating air. That still isn't 100% safe because an ant or fly could come in carrying a droplet.

Also no one else in your household can go outside ever, otherwise they are never to return.

People should do what they need to do within reason. The science is not exact, probably will never be exact, on transmission. So we can all concoct ways where transmission might take place. Even if there are zero transmissions of that type in the real world.

I would tend to disfavor the BYOB because it's too long and too much like the things we should not be doing right now, semi close quarters with strangers. At least it would be outside. Someone staying inside for 18 months to 2 years, might be too much for me. But I don't know the exact science. I do continue to go for walks, avoid people on them as much as possible. I think that's less risky than any prolonged presence with other people. But I have no exact numbers to back that up.
  #330  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:41 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,489
What’s the cite for experts saying people shouldn’t hang out 10 feet apart? I’m not saying I don’t believe it, but I read stuff about this all the time and I have never seen that recommendation.

I do have a nitpick with Heffalump’s cite that claims all the implications of a slowly mutating virus are positive. From what I have read, viruses tend to mutate toward being less lethal more often than being more lethal, so it’s not all positive that this one mutates slowly.
  #331  
Old 03-28-2020, 01:15 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What’s the cite for experts saying people shouldn’t hang out 10 feet apart? I’m not saying I don’t believe it, but I read stuff about this all the time and I have never seen that recommendation.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/covid-19/26...kdown-buddies/

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spinoff
Can I set up some deck chairs and chat in person to my neighbour over the fence at a safe distance?

Again, like the prime minister said: act as though you already have the virus. If this changes how you would conduct yourself, then think about whether it’s necessary. There are plenty of options available to talk to people via video calling, messaging and good old fashioned phonecalls.

Wiles says you can have a chat with your neighbour, but not a long one. “Keep it brief – just a few minutes – and maintain that two metre distance.”
...for context: the Spinoff is an independent media website that has been covering Convid-19 with comprehensive, educational content, and many of the animations created by Toby Morris have gone viral around the world. The "Wiles" referred to in the cite is Dr Siouxsie Wiles: Associate Professor and head of the Bioluminescent Superbugs Lab at the University of Auckland, and probably the go-to scientist contacted by the media here in NZ outside of the immediate team advising the government. The advice here mirrors the advice given by the government.

For more context: we are in complete lock-down here for four weeks. Small and large businesses have been paid out a subsidy to keep staff on the payroll, but otherwise have to close unless they qualify as an essential service. The advice and the messaging from the government here has been clear and open: the Prime Minister even popped onto Facebook Live to answer questions on the first day of the lockdown, and she answered candidly, informatively, just after putting her child to bed. And she just released another one just an hour ago, if you want to watch. I would encourage you to compare and contrast with the leadership in the United States, but also because what Ardern is saying is very educational. I can't tell you how fortunate I feel to be living here at the moment.

We aren't getting a wave of misinformation here. Right from the top they've been open and direct, they've lead with the science first, and that is really reassuring considering they have basically asked us to change our entire lives for at least the next four weeks. They've explained the chain of transmission and the goals of the lockdown, and what needs to happen for the lockdown to succeed. Every day we get updated on the stats. The number of infected keeps rising (83 new cases today), but we only have 12 in hospital, 2 in intensive care and only 1 on a ventilator. It all helps us to keep focused: we only have a single responsibility for (at least) the next four weeks: stay home.
  #332  
Old 03-28-2020, 02:03 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I do have a nitpick with Heffalump’s cite that claims all the implications of a slowly mutating virus are positive. From what I have read, viruses tend to mutate toward being less lethal more often than being more lethal, so it’s not all positive that this one mutates slowly.
Can I get a cite for that claim? I copied your words into a search engine and got this:

Diseases can rapidly evolve to become more—or less—virulent, according to songbird study

Quote:
Disease virulence is something of a paradox. In order to spread, viruses and bacteria have to reproduce in great numbers. But as their numbers increase inside a host's body, the host gets more and more ill. So a highly virulent disease runs the risk of killing or debilitating its hosts before they get a chance to pass the bug along. It finds the right balance through evolution, and the new study shows it can happen in just a few years.
. . .
"There's an expectation that a very virulent disease like this one will become milder over time, to improve its ability to spread. Otherwise, it just kills the host and that's the end of it for the organism," said André Dhondt, director of Bird Population Studies at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and a coauthor of the study. "House Finch eye disease gave us an opportunity to test this—and we were surprised to see it actually become worse rather than milder."
  #333  
Old 03-28-2020, 09:27 AM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 95
I guess one unintended consequence of recommending that people take no risks whatsoever is that some people still have to be out and about to keep our society functioning. If your default recommendation is "stay in your house, no matter what," and the person you are speaking to is a farmer, truck driver, policeman, doctor or nurse, and they listen to you, quit their job, hunker down... then what? Particularly if what you are recommending only eliminates theoretical cases of risk, none that have been proven to happen?

We can do what we are doing now, but I am aware that not literally everyone can stay in their homes at all times.
  #334  
Old 03-28-2020, 09:47 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the question was:



No rationale requested. As I cited in my original post: this isn't recommended by the experts (here.) It isn't recommended by the government, by the scientists, by the medical professionals. The answer is a simple "not OK." As to why its "not OK" I could speculate: but speculation has been met with scorn in this thread so why would I do that? The answer isn't going to change from "the experts do not recommend this behaviour" and ultimately that's all that really matters. I understand being skeptical of the experts: especially in the United States where the information is confusing and contradictory. But the stakes are incredibly high here. So I think that not having a happy hour "just in case" is almost certainly the right thing to do.

Thelmalou's answer was a simply NOT OK. Manda JO then accused Thelmalou of "yelling at steronz like an idiot", claimed that this behaviour was "incredibly low risk", Stranger asked Manda JO to quantify that low risk to which Manda JO refused, then it escalated from there.
I think this is the disconnect. NZ is presenting a much more consistent message than the United States. I am currently in a suburb that crosses two county lines: all three of those have some degree of "lock down" order, and none of them align. What you published--a specific answer to the question, can you talk to your neighbor from a distance of more than ten feet?--has never been said by anyone here, that I know of--and I am reading the news a lot. Our "advice" is much more vague--"avoid unnecessary contact" and "contact" seems to mean "six feet of distance". It wasn't just that Thelma yelled at him, but presented no real reason or discussion, but that Stranger did the same thing, only with more words, but no actual discussion of why. You have good information, from a government source. That's great. All Thelma offered was shouting, and Stranger just wanted to talk about how awful the disease it--which I totally get. But that's not the point. The point is whether or not 10 feet of distance outdoors is sufficient.

Some asked "Would you feel comfortable with ten feet of distance if they had Ebola? If you knew they had CORVID-19?" My reply is, I don't know. Because I don't know the science, and I'd like to understand. If the answer is "no one knows, but we know that airborne droplets in flu can lead to new infections outdoors at X feet, and 10 still seems too close", well, that would be good to know. If someone said "well, there was a cluster in some country linked a playdate in a park, so we know out of doors transmission can occur", well, that would be good to know. But "NO. NOT OK." and the accusation that steronz is being socially irresponsible for even considering it is cruel and not logic-based. The attitude "if you have to ask, it's not okay" leads to some really bad places.

We did this with AIDS. People didn't want to let HIV+ kids go to school, just in case. They wanted HIV+ people kept out of public restaurants, fired from workplaces, just in case. You know what? If my neighbor or friend had Ebola or CORVID-19 and there was a safe distance I could keep and still have contact, I'd want to do that. If it's really honestly perfectly safe for me to stand on the sidewalk and talk to them standing in the front door, I'd hate to think I left them alone because of irrational fear. If, on the other hand, I'm risking spreading infection, I wouldn't.

As far as my statement that "this is a way of life", I don't think this wave will last for years--I hope no more than 8 weeks. But I think there's likely going to be other waves. By then, we may have much better data on what is and isn't safe (lord knows we will have lots of different approaches and can compare effectiveness) and they will hopefully be much shorter, but I think it's naive to plan on this being a once-and-done shelter-in-place.
  #335  
Old 03-28-2020, 10:49 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
If you've got the virus would you really sit 10 feet apart from somebody else? If they had the virus would you sit 10 feet from them for an hour?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
We did this with AIDS. People didn't want to let HIV+ kids go to school, just in case. They wanted HIV+ people kept out of public restaurants, fired from workplaces, just in case. You know what? If my neighbor or friend had Ebola or CORVID-19 and there was a safe distance I could keep and still have contact, I'd want to do that. If it's really honestly perfectly safe for me to stand on the sidewalk and talk to them standing in the front door, I'd hate to think I left them alone because of irrational fear. If, on the other hand, I'm risking spreading infection, I wouldn't.
Right, this is exactly the example I was thinking of.

Questions like "If you've got the virus would you really sit 10 feet apart from somebody else? If they had the virus would you sit 10 feet from them for an hour?" are unhelpful, and possibly just scaremongering, without the context of how the virus is transmitted and what the risks are. Because, think about asking those questions where "the virus" is HIV.
  #336  
Old 03-28-2020, 11:22 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
Is it really so much to ask to be overly cautious at this point? We haven't really nailed down the transmission methods, so maybe wait a week or so before looking for loopholes so you can have that vital chat with your AIDS stricken neighbors?
  #337  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:28 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Is it really so much to ask to be overly cautious at this point? We haven't really nailed down the transmission methods, so maybe wait a week or so before looking for loopholes so you can have that vital chat with your AIDS stricken neighbors?
It's not going to be a week. It's going to be 8 weeks, then maybe another wave or two. And yes, I agree on erring far on the side of caution. But see what you are doing? You're accusing people who are even wondering where the line is of being frivolous, of looking for loopholes.

In another thread, I asked Stranger if he thought take out was an acceptable risk and he made a reasoned argument for why it seems reasonable for his circumstances and suggested some areas of potential concern vs. benefit. That's a discussion. What you are doing is the equivalnant of "Can't you just wait a week or two before you have that vital Big Mac? Is it really so important you cram your pie hole with 1000 empty calories every day?"

Again, there's no bottom here. We need to err on the side of caution, but even now, that doesn't mean we have to take literally ever precaution possible. You yourself agreed that walking around the neighborhood is probably safe. Why don't you respond with "Is it so vitally important that you take your daily constitutional? Would it be so horrible to stay inside? Are you that incapable of amusing yourself?"

The same goes for groceries--there is a lot of nuance about "it's okay to go out for groceries". Like, I think it's probably a bad idea--socially irresponsible--to go out every day or couple of days. And, if we really want to err on the side of caution, I could probably go a long time without going out: if we rationed a little, didn't worry about fresh fruit and vegetables, ate a lot of beans and rice and hummus and made bread, we'd be good for weeks. But I don't feel like I am socially obligated to do that-- I think my current policy of going once every 5 days or so it probably ethically acceptable. But if I ask it that's okay, are you going to respond with "is it really that vital you have fresh fruit? Can't you live on beans and rice for a few weeks before you start looking for ways to get out of it?" That is not useful.

I am not sure about any of the choices I am making, and I'd like to talk about it, about where the edges are, without being shamed for even asking. I am interested to see the specific guidelines Banquet Bear is repeating from NZ--because we don't have that here. I would like to learn reasons. I accept that there is a lot we don't know, but there are things we do know, and we will know more every day.
  #338  
Old 03-28-2020, 12:43 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
It is looking for loopholes. Why can't you just do facetime with your neighbors? Why is it important that you have a chat 6 1/2' apart over the fence?

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-28-2020 at 12:43 PM.
  #339  
Old 03-28-2020, 01:04 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,721
I worry that if we aren't careful, the soon-to-be sick will be targets of criticism and victim-blaming.

"Mmm, I saw him sitting on the porch with their neighbor last week. Serves him right to be sick with his fool self! No sympathy for me! We all make choices and he made the wrong one!"

I got angry at my mother last week for hunting around for TP when in my mind she should be self-isolating in her bedroom closet wrapped up in Lysol-soaked sheets. But I've been going for walks every day. Riding around in my scooter. I went to the store the other day because I've got a flat tire and I just had to replace it that same day. I went into the office on Friday because I "needed" to make an important phone call, not trusting my Skype. And of course I get my weekly take-out. So how am I gonna feel if I am the one who gets sick and needs a ventilator rather than my mother? I'm not gonna feel good at all.

So I am going to stop myself from thinking bad things about all the people who are taking chances and just focus on myself.
  #340  
Old 03-28-2020, 01:05 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It is looking for loopholes. Why can't you just do facetime with your neighbors? Why is it important that you have a chat 6 1/2' apart over the fence?
I don't even know my neighbor. I don't care about this particular case. However, I haven't seen my mom in 3 weeks already, and I'm actually really curious if at any point in this next 8 weeks it would be safe for me to sit in a lawn chair on the sidewalk outside of her house and her sit on her porch. It's a solid 25' setback. If that risks my mom's life, of course I don't want to do it--but if it's not, it sure would be nice. Especially as the weeks drag on.

Is it just bullshit looking for a loophole when people ask about take out and delivery?
Is it just bullshit looking for a loophole when people ask about walking alone, outside?
is it just bullshit looking for a loophole when people talk about going to the grocery store when they still have staples enough in the house?

I'm serious. Do you think that even considering any of those things is just bullshit looking for a loophole and people should be ashamed of themselves for even publicly wondering?
  #341  
Old 03-28-2020, 01:11 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It is looking for loopholes. Why can't you just do facetime with your neighbors? Why is it important that you have a chat 6 1/2' apart over the fence?
It isn't important to me personally and I have no intention of doing it. But when people are looking for understanding, and you accuse them of looking for loopholes, that's insulting.

Imagine if this were the dialogue:

Me: Don't talk on the phone.

You: Why not?

Me: You're leaving your germs on it, and the next person to use the phone could become infected by them.

You: But what if it's my own personal phone and no one else ever touches it?

Me: Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Is it really so much to ask to be overly cautious at this point? This is a matter of life and death. You're just looking for loopholes!


Because I feel like that's how this thread has been going.

If I tell you to stop using the phone, or stop eating cashews, or stop singing in the shower, and you ask me "Why?" you're not going to be satisfied with an answer like "Because you shouldn't take any risks," or an accusation that you're looking for loopholes.
  #342  
Old 03-28-2020, 01:34 PM
raspberry hunter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It is looking for loopholes. Why can't you just do facetime with your neighbors? Why is it important that you have a chat 6 1/2' apart over the fence?
Because human beings are built to need time with other human beings? I mean, our family are introverts and either on the spectrum or close enough that we find screens easier to deal with than people, but most people aren't like that.

(Manda JO, thank you for fighting the good fight on actually trying to have reasonable discussion about this that doesn't just devolve into "But why take any risk at all??")
  #343  
Old 03-28-2020, 03:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
I am not being frantic here or anything. I said above that I'm sure going for a walk or something is fine. I think unless someone has psychological problems, just don't frigging socialize in person for a couple weeks. Yes, it f this goes another month we can maybe break out the tape measures. For now, just avoid it.
  #344  
Old 03-28-2020, 04:16 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
I think you are absolutely fooling yourself if you think we will be any less locked down in 4 weeks. I don't feel confident we will have even peaked in 4 weeks. I do think there are some convincing arguments in this thread that even a 10 ft al fresco happy hour is a bad idea--it normalizes socializing, people will not follow the rules, 10 ft for several hours might be enough for virus to spread. But just "socializing bad!" is not an appropriate way to approach this. This is not a tornado, where we need to just throw ourselves in the basement and wait it out. This is a monsoon. We have to figure out how to live like this--and be prepared to repeat it.

As monstro alluded to, it's so easy to think of the risks we take as calculated and reasonable, but to decide that the risks others take are impetuous and immature. It's different when it's us. This cognitive bias seems pretty deeply woven into the human consciousness. We are all of us earnestly, sincerely trying to figure out how to live in this brave new world, and if people treat "can I talk to my neighbor 10 ft from me?" like "Can I snort coke off a hooker's ass at a spring break party?", that conversation can't happen.
  #345  
Old 03-28-2020, 05:41 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
Until we actually know how easily this spreads, RGHT NOW, "socializing is bad" should be how you approach it. I've been self isolated for 2 weeks already. I'm not fooling myself, I know I will be in for more.
  #346  
Old 03-28-2020, 05:45 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
If this follows the trajectory of the 1918 flu pandemic, the worst wave will be 8-12 weeks, and there's a good chance of a second wave once we let our guard down. Hopefully a vaccine and herd immunity will kick in toward the end of this year, but this could be an on/off problem for the next 12-18 months.
  #347  
Old 03-28-2020, 05:47 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Until we actually know how easily this spreads, RGHT NOW, "socializing is bad" should be how you approach it. I've been self isolated for 2 weeks already. I'm not fooling myself, I know I will be in for more.
I swear to God, if people today had been around during the Blitz, Germany might have had an easy win.

CMC fnord!
  #348  
Old 03-28-2020, 05:56 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If this follows the trajectory of the 1918 flu pandemic, the worst wave will be 8-12 weeks, and there's a good chance of a second wave once we let our guard down. Hopefully a vaccine and herd immunity will kick in toward the end of this year, but this could be an on/off problem for the next 12-18 months.
It wont because tens of thousands of men arent returning to America carrying the virus.
  #349  
Old 03-28-2020, 06:15 PM
Leaper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,836
I wonder if the reason there aren’t generally more direct “do not go outside for any reason other than necessity until this is over” orders is that politicians are afraid it’ll do more harm than good by provoking people to rebel?
  #350  
Old 03-28-2020, 06:19 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
It wont because tens of thousands of men arent returning to America carrying the virus.
How many people flew in from China, Italy and the UK in the last month?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017