…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! :smack:
I would be more likely if it were Ebola, because Ebola is much harder to catch.
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”. :dubious: 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”.
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
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…
…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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?