The necessity of lockdowns during the pandemic

[Redhead14]

8 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Keep your hopes in check. The trials were on monkeys and although they indicate success it's quite often that what works on an animal does not work on human beings. Wait and see.

I have absolutely no hopes whatsoever about Oxford's vaccine possibility.  I'm questioning the ability to offer such a "miracle" so soon.

[FMW]

We should always keep our expectations in check.  On the other hand, this is an unprecedented (in modern history) situation and so unprecedented measures are being tried.  Regular approval of vaccines go through extended and repeated testing.  Fast tracking that process will possibly present more risks than our normal vaccines, people will just have to decide if they are willing to take that risk.  

I choose to stay hopeful.  But in the meantime, we deal with where we are at the moment.   

[chillii]

l think some sort of vaccine is much much closer than we think , it might even save the day if we're lucky. They've been trialing quite a few wks now all over the world some on real covid patience already

[Redhead14]

1 minute ago, chillii said:

l think some sort of vaccine is much much closer than we think , it might even save the day if we're lucky. They've been trialing quite a few wks now all over the world some on real covid patience already

Chili,

The information put out by WHO, NIH said that we were 18 months away from a vaccine.  Anyone who starts touting some kind of miracle vaccine that is ready so much sooner is to be questioned heavily  . . .

The testing and observation process takes months, not weeks and then it needs to go through the approval process for release to the general public.  Even if they offer this vaccine in September, I'm not going for it.  I'll let others be the guinea pigs and sit back and observe for quite some time.  I'm already used to living like a recluse and was prepared for 18 months of this because I'm high risk.  So, sitting back and observing won't be a big deal.

 

[preraph]

There are about 100 vaccines in the works but testing does take a long time because it takes a long time to see if it prevents people from getting the virus or not, because the results will always be mixed.  It's not happening anytime soon.  

[chillii]

 

But when they find something close it'll be fast tracked speed of light nothing will be the norm.

[Belle23]

13 hours ago, Redhead14 said:

Yeah, I get it.  Which is why I'm concerned for the people who are high-risk having to go back to work!  People who are high-risk should be given some kind of long-term assistance.  They shouldn't be forced to go back to work and expose themselves to something that would likely kill them.  And, no one I know wants the restrictions eased right now.  Everyone I know wants to the restrictions for at least a couple more weeks.  Not necessarily months.  I didn't say anything about partying, but trust me, people will abuse the "easing".  The past month and a half or so will have been a complete waste of effort.  But OK.  Fine.  Have at it. 

If people who are at high risk don’t feel comfortable enough to go back right now then do be it. Don’t. Some government assistance for those individuals who are considered high risk should be ok for a limited time.

Here it is 50/50 as to people wanting restrictions eased. It’s simple, though. If you’re concerned, don’t go out. These days you can have everything delivered so people have no reason to leave the house at all. 

[Redhead14]

1 minute ago, Belle23 said:

If people who are at high risk don’t feel comfortable enough to go back right now then do be it. Don’t. Some government assistance for those individuals who are considered high risk should be ok for a limited time.

 

Limited time needs to mean about 18 months.  I have seen nothing yet that says the people who are high risk and need to work will be given financial protection beyond what's being offered now and expires on June 30 for most people.  If a company wants to bring you back to work and you are high risk and you refuse because of that, what will happen?  Will the government continue to provide financial aid?  How will they survive for 18 months until a vaccine is developed?

 

 

[Belle23]

12 hours ago, basil67 said:

But others here are saying that the unemployed are being given too much financial support off the government.  Sounds to me like they do have income.

 

You said that "cases are not increasing that much".  A low increase is still an increase.  But even if it's steady, 1:1000 is still too high considering that when you come out of restrictions there will be a spike.   When you are down to having minimal new infections, then it will be safer to reopen.  

After tough restrictions NZ has zero new cases.  And so do a number of Australian states.   So your assertion that there's never going to be zero new cases is false.  It can be done.

They’re getting too much financial support?? Right. I don’t know what planet you’re living on. You sound too unreasonable enough to even have further discussions with about it.

[Redhead14]

12 minutes ago, Belle23 said:

Here it is 50/50 as to people wanting restrictions eased. It’s simple, though. If you’re concerned, don’t go out. These days you can have everything delivered so people have no reason to leave the house at all. 

Yet another poster who is entirely cavalier about the lives of high-risk/older people and the restricted living we will be forced to endure for way beyond the time when things are "relaxed" and suggesting that we and our lives are disposable.  We will be sacrificing a significant piece of our chronological real estate and ability to spend time with our family and friends,and perform usual routines, etc.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Redhead14

[gaius]

I wouldn't necessarily be against maybe paying people in their 50's and 60's early social security benefits until a vaccine came on the market. Depending on their particular risk factors.

People have to realize though that it's not guaranteed the government is going to be able to keep your full salary going for the duration, that you'll never be forced to face any risk, or that there will even be a job to go back to immediately.

So it would be exceptionally smart to right now rearrange your life a bit. If you have an expensive car payment and got laid off trade that in for something more reasonable. Save as much of the unemployment money as you can. And most importantly, since the highest risk factor for serious complications is obesity, start shedding some pounds if you're in that category.

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by gaius

[Redhead14]

8 minutes ago, gaius said:

 And most importantly, since the highest risk factor for serious complications is obesity, start shedding some pounds if you're in that category.

 

That is not true.  People with existing respiratory issues, heart problems, diabetes are.  Obesity by itself is not the biggest issue.  Not everyone with respiratory problems , heart problems or diabetes are obese.  I am not obese but I do have AFib and am 61 years old.  My daughter has Type 1 (which is not the result of an unhealthy lifestyle which is Type 2) and an autoimmune disease call Von Willebrand.  She is not obese and she doesn't smoke.  She is also only 31 years old . . .

Edited April 29, 2020 by Redhead14

[sothereiwas]

35 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

Yet another poster who is entirely cavalier about the lives of high-risk/older people and the restricted living we will be forced to endure ....

Accusing someone of being cavalier simply because they are pragmatically assessing the likely reality of a situation not of their making and then coming to a sensible conclusion is an unwarranted leap in my opinion, and could be construed as a sort of veiled personal attack. I know when some have said that of me in this forum in the past I felt personally attacked. 

The reality is that this bug is probably going to be around for a very long time, and it or a derivative will likely become a seasonal affliction. People who need to be careful now should have always been careful and will likely continue to need to be careful. That's part of becoming frail. I don't ride motorcycles any more, as I don't feel like I will bounce quite as well as I used to. It's a bitter pill to swallow but it's a hard fact. Maybe there will be a vaccine, maybe soon, maybe later, maybe never. The cold is caused (apparently) by a Corona virus and we don't have an effective vaccine for that, which raises another worry about mutation and year over year vaccine effectiveness. Treatments will likely improve. This is life. Whining about it won't actually solve much. 

[Redhead14]

4 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Accusing someone of being cavalier simply because they are pragmatically assessing the likely reality of a situation not of their making and then coming to a sensible conclusion is an unwarranted leap in my opinion, and could be construed as a sort of veiled personal attack. I know when some have said that of me in this forum in the past I felt personally attacked. 

The reality is that this bug is probably going to be around for a very long time, and it or a derivative will likely become a seasonal affliction. People who need to be careful now should have always been careful and will likely continue to need to be careful. That's part of becoming frail. I don't ride motorcycles any more, as I don't feel like I will bounce quite as well as I used to. It's a bitter pill to swallow but it's a hard fact. Maybe there will be a vaccine, maybe soon, maybe later, maybe never. The cold is caused (apparently) by a Corona virus and we don't have an effective vaccine for that, which raises another worry about mutation and year over year vaccine effectiveness. Treatments will likely improve. This is life. Whining about it won't actually solve much. 

Point proven.  Thanks very much.  And, since it's going to be here for so long, I suppose you will be fine with giving up everything you enjoy and looked forward to in your later years and/or if you develop a condition which will require you to drop out of society for the most part.  Enjoy. 

"I felt personally attacked" -- oh boo hoo.  That sentiment goes both ways because that's what you are basically telling me about my situation. 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Redhead14

[sothereiwas]

4 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

Point proven.  Thanks very much. 

You don't know me, for all you know I may also be a vulnerable person.

[gaius]

4 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

That is not true.  People with existing respiratory issues, heart problems, diabetes are.  Obesity by itself is not the biggest issue.  Not everyone with respiratory problems , heart problems or diabetes are obese.  I am not obese but I do have AFib and am 61 years old.  My daughter has Type 1 (which is not the result of an unhealthy lifestyle which is Type 2) and an autoimmune disease call Von Willebrand.  She is not obese and she doesn't smoke.  She is also only 31 years old . . .

Most of the time those conditions are linked to Obesity. But if you're not obese, in your 60's, have a condition that puts you at high risk, then yes, we should be coming up with a plan to reduce your risk of catching this over the long term. 

But that would require thinking and planning. Which seem to be in short supply in this country at the moment.

[Redhead14]

9 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

You don't know me, for all you know I may also be a vulnerable person.

I didn't accuse you of being cavalier . . .  Even if you are vulnerable, you don't have any trouble defending people who clearly don't give a crap about you. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Redhead14

[Redhead14]

4 minutes ago, gaius said:

Most of the time those conditions are linked to Obesity. But if you're not obese, in your 60's, have a condition that puts you at high risk, then yes, we should be coming up with a plan to reduce your risk of catching this over the long term. 

But that would require thinking and planning. Which seem to be in short supply in this country at the moment.

 Yes, oftentimes they go hand in hand.  But, just as often, some conditions are simply a product of aging and we can't do anything about that and there are millions of people in that boat. 

And, like I said, my daughter has Type 1 diabetes and an autoimmune disease and she's only 31 years old.  Special provisions need to be looked into/made at some point. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Redhead14

[preraph]

In Dallas, we are losing nearly as many people in their 40s as elderly for some reason.  

[Redhead14]

3 minutes ago, preraph said:

In Dallas, we are losing nearly as many people in their 40s as elderly for some reason.  

If those people in their 40s have a heart condition, asthma, emphysema, etc., they would be dying too.  We need more info about their overall health prior to contracting corona.  There are lots of younger people dying. 

[sothereiwas]

14 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

I didn't accuse you of being cavalier . . .  Even if you are vulnerable, you don't have any trouble defending people who don't give a crap about you. 

True, I think technically you accused me of being complicit in a plan to decimate vulnerable citizens. Also not a super nice thing to accuse someone of for simply analyzing the situation and making a rational suggestion. Just in my opinion. I myself have a very slim COVID footprint and live in a rural, nearly COVID free area, but my child really misses his grandparents and my parents miss seeing their kids and grandkids, so I/we are not unaffected by this.

Simply rational. 

We were never getting rid of this thing. We need to learn to deal with it as well as possible. 

 

[Minneloa]

1 hour ago, Redhead14 said:

Yet another poster who is entirely cavalier about the lives of high-risk/older people and the restricted living we will be forced to endure for way beyond the time when things are "relaxed" and suggesting that we and our lives are disposable.  We will be sacrificing a significant piece of our chronological real estate and ability to spend time with our family and friends,and perform usual routines, etc.

Who suggested that these people are “disposable”? What is the reasonable alternative to vulnerable individuals being more cautious? Lockdown must eventually end (and we can certainly debate the timetable on that), and I am not understanding how the act of lifting restrictions is a personal affront to/attack on higher-risk groups. 

[Redhead14]

2 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

True, I think technically you accused me of being complicit in a plan to decimate vulnerable citizens.

 

I never said anything of the sort.  And, I accused you of nothing.  If it hits close to home, so be it.  What I am saying is that a lot of people simply don't give a crap about the people who don't have a choice but to drop out of society and basically give up the lives they worked so hard for.  I think that, at the very least, people should have respect and concern and some empathy for them instead of saying "get over it".   We are entirely entitled to lament that.  We are not crying over someone taking away our shuffleboard court. 

[preraph]

Seems like common sense to me.  The less careful all the infectious people are, the more infectious people there will be and it's on surfaces everywhere and there will be no safe place for the vulnerable.  Thing is people who feel they're healthy aren't any more afraid of it than a cold, but it will kill a large number of older people.  

[Redhead14]

2 minutes ago, Minneloa said:

Who suggested that these people are “disposable”? What is the reasonable alternative to vulnerable individuals being more cautious? Lockdown must eventually end (and we can certainly debate the timetable on that), and I am not understanding how the act of lifting restrictions is a personal affront to/attack on higher-risk groups. 

It is not the act of lifting restrictions.   It's about the comments and attitudes of some that say that we need to just get over it and accept our fate.  There is no respect, concern, empathy, etc.