The necessity of lockdowns during the pandemic

[Fresh_Start]

12 hours ago, Redhead14 said:

The governments of the ENTIRE WORLD, less a couple, opted to do this, not just the United States.  And, the US kinda cut it short compared to China and Italy.  And, just because those measures actually worked  so that now it feels like it wasn't such a big deal, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. 

I noticed that you chose to respond to the half of a sentence that doesn't conform to your personal (or political) beliefs about the lockdown, but I'm curious to see what you have to say in response to the rest of what I said.  There is academic research, albeit outdated and therefore not completely reliable, which suggests that for every 1% the unemployment rate increases, 37,000 people die.  Our unemployment rate increased by 13%, which means that the lockdown could theoretically cause 480,000 deaths that have nothing to do with the virus and everything to due with the distressed economy.  That study is from 1981 so even if we assume that current research would cut that number in half, we're still looking at 240,500 deaths from stress, heart attacks, deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol and drug overdose), violent crimes, etc.  The latter is more than double the current number of COVID-19 deaths (in America) and the former is more than four times that number.  

Even if we dismiss that altogether as conjecture due to outdated research, the fact remains that 44 million Americans lost their jobs, ~200,000 businesses were forced to permanently close, and the "house arrest" conditions in which we lived created a national mental health crisis that spiked the number of suicides as well as drug and alcohol related deaths.  There was a story I read about a father of two young children who lost his job because of the lockdown, couldn't provide for his family, and killed himself.  Was his life any less important than those who died from COVID-19?  Was it less important than you potentially getting sick for a few days?  And what of the business owners who saw the fruits of their labor, their life's ambitions, their blood, sweat, and tears irrevocably destroyed?  Are you 100% certain there was no other option? 

Going back to my grocery store example and some of the alternative solutions I mentioned: is it possible that implementing rules and restrictions like that could have allowed us to coexist with COVID-19 without all of the collateral damage?  The grocery store is probably one of the worst places to be in the middle of a pandemic when you consider the sheer volume of people coming and going on a daily basis, touching carts, touching items on the shelves, brushing past one another in the aisles or in the checkout line, touching pin number keypads, etc. and yet it was allowed to remain open for the entirety of the lockdown.  Somehow, despite that, the COVID-19 cases declined.  Why, then, would other businesses with far less traffic and potential exchange of germs have to close until they laid off all of their employees or went bankrupt?  With some creative thinking and strategic planning, using even just the handful of examples from my previous post (and there are plenty more that creative minds could come up with), we could have ended up creating jobs for some of those who lost them as well as preventing millions of people from having to lose them in the first place.  

As some final food for thought: in 1957-58 we coexisted with the Asian flu, which killed 116,000 Americans and more than a million people worldwide without a single school closure, business closure, or stay at home order.  In 1968 we coexisted with the Hong Kong flu, which resulted in a similar death toll.  No lockdowns, no school closures, no business closures, and we even had Woodstock -- where more than 400,000 people were gathered in close proximity to one another for 3 days.   

Edited June 11, 2020 by Fresh_Start

[Redhead14]

26 minutes ago, Fresh_Start said:

Are you 100% certain there was no other option? 
 

So how do you explain that the governments of the entire world opted to lock down and trash their economies, etc. for this particular virus?  Are you saying that every government is completely stupid, didn't weigh options based on what they knew and understood about the virus at the time and based on experts in the fields of virology and pandemics and didn't bother to review other ways of handling it as a whole????  Are you saying that every country in the world knew that this virus wasn't any worse than others that have been dealt with as a pandemic in the past and opted to just do it this way as some kind of power trip?  It may be a case of hindsight, but erring on the side of caution is usually the best bet when there are so many unknowns. If they didn't do what they did and this thing ran rampant and did what they anticipated it would do, we would have been in even worse shape all the way around AND the people would be bitching that the government didn't do enough. 

Now that it appears the majority of people don't seem to give a crap about anyone but themselves and we are spitting in the wind as to containing it and it's likely that we may need more lock downs, I think, perhaps future lock downs would be imposed on those who are sick/showing symptoms or test positive and the people who are most at risk and hopefully the government will provide additional aid for those people instead of locking down the entire population each time.  I for one am high-risk through no fault of my own, and usually active as 61 year old woman, but have to live as a virtual prisoner in my own home for a very long time and keep distance from my children and grandchildren so it doesn't really matter what happens out there now to me anyway.  I can't travel in my retirement the way I'd hoped either.  But no one gives a crap about people in my boat either.  So have at it.  Let it rip and F the rest of us.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[QuietRiot]

2 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

So how do you explain that the governments of the entire world opted to lock down and trash their economies, etc. for this particular virus?  Are you saying that every government is completely stupid, didn't weigh options based on what they knew and understood about the virus at the time and based on experts in the fields of virology and pandemics and didn't bother to review other ways of handling it as a whole????  Are you saying that every country in the world knew that this virus wasn't any worse than others that have been dealt with as a pandemic in the past and opted to just do it this way as some kind of power trip?  It may be a case of hindsight, but erring on the side of caution is usually the best bet when there are so many unknowns. 

Now that it appears the majority of people don't seem to give a crap about anyone but themselves and we are spitting in the wind as to containing it and it's likely that we may need more lock downs, I think, perhaps future lock downs would be imposed on those who are sick/showing symptoms or test positive and the people who are most at risk and hopefully the government will provide additional aid for those people instead of locking down the entire population each time.  I for one am high-risk through no fault of my own, and usually active as 61 year old woman, but have to live as a virtual prisoner in my own home for a very long time and keep distance from my children and grandchildren so it doesn't really matter what happens out there now to me anyway.  I can't travel in my retirement the way I'd hoped either.  But no one gives a crap about people in my boat either.  So have at it.  Let it rip and F the rest of us.

Yep...it seems the naysayers have a hard time coming back with a reason as to why just about the entire friggin world has done this, with the exception of Sweden.

[schlumpy]

I would point to fear as a reason. That and the fact that the leadership who doesn't know much more then you or I wanted to show that they were in charge and that we had nothing to fear.

Management 101 says that when in doubt make a decision, even if its wrong one.

[QuietRiot]

1 hour ago, Fresh_Start said:

I noticed that you chose to respond to the half of a sentence that doesn't conform to your personal (or political) beliefs about the lockdown, but I'm curious to see what you have to say in response to the rest of what I said.  There is academic research, albeit outdated and therefore not completely reliable, which suggests that for every 1% the unemployment rate increases, 37,000 people die.  Our unemployment rate increased by 13%, which means that the lockdown could theoretically cause 480,000 deaths that have nothing to do with the virus and everything to due with the distressed economy.  That study is from 1981 so even if we assume that current research would cut that number in half, we're still looking at 240,500 deaths from stress, heart attacks, deaths of despair (suicide, alcohol and drug overdose), violent crimes, etc.  The latter is more than double the current number of COVID-19 deaths (in America) and the former is more than four times that number.  

Even if we dismiss that altogether as conjecture due to outdated research, the fact remains that 44 million Americans lost their jobs, ~200,000 businesses were forced to permanently close, and the "house arrest" conditions in which we lived created a national mental health crisis that spiked the number of suicides as well as drug and alcohol related deaths.  There was a story I read about a father of two young children who lost his job because of the lockdown, couldn't provide for his family, and killed himself.  Was his life any less important than those who died from COVID-19?  Was it less important than you potentially getting sick for a few days?  And what of the business owners who saw the fruits of their labor, their life's ambitions, their blood, sweat, and tears irrevocably destroyed?  Are you 100% certain there was no other option? 

Going back to my grocery store example and some of the alternative solutions I mentioned: is it possible that implementing rules and restrictions like that could have allowed us to coexist with COVID-19 without all of the collateral damage?  The grocery store is probably one of the worst places to be in the middle of a pandemic when you consider the sheer volume of people coming and going on a daily basis, touching carts, touching items on the shelves, brushing past one another in the aisles or in the checkout line, touching pin number keypads, etc. and yet it was allowed to remain open for the entirety of the lockdown.  Somehow, despite that, the COVID-19 cases declined.  Why, then, would other businesses with far less traffic and potential exchange of germs have to close until they laid off all of their employees or went bankrupt?  With some creative thinking and strategic planning, using even just the handful of examples from my previous post (and there are plenty more that creative minds could come up with), we could have ended up creating jobs for some of those who lost them as well as preventing millions of people from having to lose them in the first place.  

As some final food for thought: in 1957-58 we coexisted with the Asian flu, which killed 116,000 Americans and more than a million people worldwide without a single school closure, business closure, or stay at home order.  In 1968 we coexisted with the Hong Kong flu, which resulted in a similar death toll.  No lockdowns, no school closures, no business closures, and we even had Woodstock -- where more than 400,000 people were gathered in close proximity to one another for 3 days.   

Apples and oranges my friend when it comes to groceries stores as it's an essential place to keep open, plus...they mostly have social distancing rules at them.  One woman was escorted out of a grocery store for refusing to wear her mask...apparently someone saw her take her mask off...and had it dangling over he neck.  A lot of incidences where non-mask wearers weren't allowed into the stores because it's "unconstitutional"

There's a video going around of one person at a Staten Island grocery store where 5 people wearing masks ganged up (didn't hurt her) and were just yelling at her for not wearing a mask.

[Fresh_Start]

50 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

1) So how do you explain that the governments of the entire world opted to lock down and trash their economies, etc. for this particular virus?  Are you saying that every government is completely stupid, didn't weigh options based on what they knew and understood about the virus at the time and based on experts in the fields of virology and pandemics and didn't bother to review other ways of handling it as a whole???? 

2) Are you saying that every country in the world knew that this virus wasn't any worse than others that have been dealt with as a pandemic in the past and opted to just do it this way as some kind of power trip?  It may be a case of hindsight, but erring on the side of caution is usually the best bet when there are so many unknowns. If they didn't do what they did and this thing ran rampant and did what they anticipated it would do, we would have been in even worse shape all the way around AND the people would be bitching that the government didn't do enough. 

3) Now that it appears the majority of people don't seem to give a crap about anyone but themselves

4) and we are spitting in the wind as to containing it and it's likely that we may need more lock downs, I think, perhaps future lock downs would be imposed on those who are sick/showing symptoms or test positive and the people who are most at risk and hopefully the government will provide additional aid for those people instead of locking down the entire population each time. 

5) I for one am high-risk through no fault of my own, and usually active as 61 year old woman, but have to live as a virtual prisoner in my own home for a very long time and keep distance from my children and grandchildren so it doesn't really matter what happens out there now to me anyway.  I can't travel in my retirement the way I'd hoped either.  But no one gives a crap about people in my boat either.  So have at it.  Let it rip and F the rest of us.

I'm having a hard time trying to divide your post into multiple quotes that I can then address individually so I numbered each of the points I intend to address as well as putting what I consider to be a very hypocritical statement in bold.

1) Groupthink, fearmongering, panic, and a lack of common sense and creativity among other things.  There is always more than one way to solve a problem and the way you do things or want them to be done isn't always the only way or the best way.  Recall that I am not opposed to wearing masks and gloves in public nor observing some form of social distancing.  Doing that in conjunction with proper hygiene habits such as thoroughly washing your hands and disinfecting various surfaces along with some of the other solutions I mentioned is an effective way of helping to prevent the spread of the virus that could have significantly mitigated the catastrophic damage inflicted by the prolonged lockdown if not outright prevented it.

2) Did we really "err on the side of caution"?  This lockdown killed people and ruined lives.  I had a virtual visit with my doctor (as a routine follow up "visit") during the lockdown.  He is a medical professional and an elderly gentleman on top of that so he knows a thing or two about viruses and susceptibility.  His own words with regards to the lockdown were (paraphrased): "This lockdown is not only going to create a mental health crisis that ends up causing deaths, but if it continues for too long it will end up causing other deaths and eventually that death toll will eclipse the COVID-19 death toll."

3) How are you any different?  You are only caring about yourself as an elderly woman (no offense intended) with a pre-existing medical condition.  You are not bothering to think about the majority of people: the ones who have lost their jobs, their businesses, their relationships, and even their lives because of the lockdown.  

4) It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.  COVID-19 isn't going anywhere any time soon and it is unlikely that we will see a vaccine until sometime in the first quarter of 2021 if not longer.  Meanwhile, businesses are reopening, stay at home orders have been lifted, and now we are going to be doing what we could have done from the start: coexisting with the pandemic while taking reasonable precautions.  Just like the grocery store being opened this whole time, other businesses (the ones that weren't a casualty of the lockdown, at any rate) are joining the party.  It is almost a mathematical certainty that the daily number of cases will start increasing and a second wave is highly likely.  My recommendation: give us the freedom to chose how we deal with it from this point onward.  Those of you who are too afraid to leave your homes because of the .03% of our population that has died from the virus can stay there.  Nobody will force you to go out in public if you don't want to.  A second lockdown is not a valid option and could have consequences that we don't recover from.  

5) You're demonizing those of us who don't share your views while failing to take a look at the entire picture.  I doubt there is anyone on this forum who would say, "I don't give a crap about whether you live or die, Redhead14."  People die every day.  It's a part of life.  How many of the 62,000 people who died from the flu last year did you give a crap about? 

[Redhead14]

Okie dokie.  You're right.  Be safe. 

[BaileyB]

Well, we are very fortunate in my neck of the woods... we have had 300 confirmed infections but most were travel related or close contacts. We were able to reopen the economy several weeks ago and we now have restaurants, hair salons, nail salons, gyms, etc... open at reduced capacity, respecting social distancing, yada yada... and we have not really had any new infections. The only infections we’ve had in the last several weeks have been imported (related to long distance trucking and quickly identified and localized). No sign of community transmission for several weeks. We also had a little luck in that we have avoided infection in long term care homes and food processing plants. We are currently enjoying a beautiful summer with lots of precautions, but more freedom than many... and for that, I’m very thankful. I don’t know that this could have happened without “lockdown.” 

I read an interesting article Recently on Dr Bonnie Henry, public health in British Columbia. She said her goal was to develop a strategy that would be sustainable long term - because she’s looking at this with a one-two year timeline. In doing that, they needed to manage the risk and reopen the economy/health care services. She also said that now that the restrictions are being lifted, their goal is to balance the unintended negative health consequences with the risk of Covid infection to public health. Very insightful, but can only be done if the “lockdown” did what it was intended to do to bring down the number of infections and allow for testing/contract tracing to hopefully prevent widespread infection in the future. 

[QuietRiot]

19 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

Well, we are very fortunate in my neck of the woods... we have had 300 confirmed infections but most were travel related or close contacts. We were able to reopen the economy several weeks ago and we now have restaurants, hair salons, nail salons, gyms, etc... open at reduced capacity, respecting social distancing, yada yada... and we have not really had any new infections. The only infections we’ve had in the last several weeks have been imported (related to long distance trucking and quickly identified and localized). No sign of community transmission for several weeks. We also had a little luck in that we have avoided infection in long term care homes and food processing plants. We are currently enjoying a beautiful summer with lots of precautions, but more freedom than many... and for that, I’m very thankful. I don’t know that this could have happened without “lockdown.” 

I read an interesting article Recently on Dr Bonnie Henry, public health in British Columbia. She said her goal was to develop a strategy that would be sustainable long term - because she’s looking at this with a one-two year timeline. In doing that, they needed to manage the risk and reopen the economy/health care services. She also said that now that the restrictions are being lifted, their goal is to balance the unintended negative health consequences with the risk of Covid infection to public health. Very insightful, but can only be done if the “lockdown” did what it was intended to do to bring down the number of infections and allow for testing/contract tracing to hopefully prevent widespread infection in the future. 

Just curious...since ya'll are enjoying the summer, how many are gathering enmass at swimming areas and lakes and such in heavy crowds? Here in Florida, I'm seeing a lot of that, no masks either. No social distancing.

[CaliforniaGirl]

3 hours ago, schlumpy said:

I would point to fear as a reason. That and the fact that the leadership who doesn't know much more then you or I wanted to show that they were in charge and that we had nothing to fear.

Management 101 says that when in doubt make a decision, even if its wrong one.

Just fear would never convince country after country to potentially trash its own economy, as a just-in-case precaution.

Edited June 11, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl
Grammar

[sothereiwas]

The madness of crowds. 

[Redhead14]

3 hours ago, Fresh_Start said:

You're demonizing those of us who don't share your views while failing to take a look at the entire picture.  I doubt there is anyone on this forum who would say, "I don't give a crap about whether you live or die, Redhead14."  People die every day.  It's a part of life.  How many of the 62,000 people who died from the flu last year did you give a crap about? 

For the record, I don't have a problem with opening things up and having people try to get back on with their lives.  I want that for my family as well and I am willing to stay home so that they can do that. What I have a problem with is the ones who are whining about wearing masks and distancing and not doing that.  They can't be bothered with the very minimal attempts to make it a little bit safer for those at risk to try to take a little more risk.  They aren't being asked to wear hazmat suits and decontaminate at the end of the day.

On top of that, as much as it is my right and responsibility to myself and my loved ones to try to be safe and choose to wear and mask and distance as much as possible, we are mocked and disrespected for it. I have already had one delivery person fired for not wearing a mask when making my delivery and not following the rules of the store owner, who is also high risk.   I specifically asked for contactless delivery and if masks were worn by delivery men/women.  I was assured that was the case.  I paid for the order over the phone to avoid that exchange and put the tip on there too.  The person knocked on my door and stood right there instead of stepping back and putting the order down so that when I opened the door they were in my face with no mask.  I was wearing a mask at least.  I reminded them about it and I got attitude.    If I didn't get attitude, I wouldn't have made the call.  I take this very seriously.  It's not like I'm losing my mind over someone letting their dog poop on my lawn. 

I have the absolute right to be safe around my home and to make myself feel as comfortable as possible anywhere else and there are people who don't respect that.  I have a growing network of family and friends who report back when they are out and about about whether a business is observing guidelines or not and we don't patronize them.  There are other places to go for lots of things who are following guidelines.  

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[Redhead14]

6 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

The madness of crowds. 

The "crowds" didn't decide to lock down.  The governments of the world did.  No one is answering why the governments of the entire world made the decision they did if all this was not necessary.  Why did they do it? 

[amaysngrace]

5 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

  No one is answering why the governments of the entire world made the decision they did if all this was not necessary.  Why did they do it? 

Social experiment?

[Redhead14]

35 minutes ago, amaysngrace said:

Social experiment?

Seriously?  Trash economies around the world as a social experiment?  What's the goal of the experiment?  Do you subscribe to the NWO theory?  And,  are you putting that in the context of Revelations, MOB, etc.?  When the nuke sirens went off in Hawaii and all those people were scared out of their minds and ran for cover, do you think that was an experiment too which could be in concert with the pandemic in terms of observing the masses in order to set them up for something bigger? Some did.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[sothereiwas]

43 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

The "crowds" didn't decide to lock down.  The governments of the world did

Looked like the governments were responding to the panic of the crowd while individual politicians were mostly concerned with covering their own backside. 

[amaysngrace]

4 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

Seriously?  Trash economies around the world as a social experiment?  What's the goal of the experiment?  

Economies bounce back, they’re fluid that way.  Besides the people with the true wealth weren’t hurt badly just like always.

I’m not sure what the goal was, I’m not even sure it was a social experiment.  It’s why I put the question mark after.  

But can you prove that it wasn’t?

[Redhead14]

4 minutes ago, amaysngrace said:

Economies bounce back, they’re fluid that way.  Besides the people with the true wealth weren’t hurt badly just like always.

I’m not sure what the goal was, I’m not even sure it was a social experiment.  It’s why I put the question mark after.  

But can you prove that it wasn’t?

No I can't prove it wasn't just like you can't prove it was.  It's just theory but I don't think it's likely though.  I could see it being a test of some sort if it were only in a certain area.  Not on such a grand scale.    I was just asking if you had a theory as to what the goal of the experiment would be if it were an experiment.  I did think for a while that it was a population control experiment for the Chinese government that went wrong.  That's still a possibility.  They operate in very inhumane and devious ways regarding population control, i.e. births, etc., so not a far stretch, IMO.  Not outside of their "wheelhouse" so to speak.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Redhead14

[amaysngrace]

Just now, Redhead14 said:

No I can't it wasn't.  I don't think it's likely though.  I could see it being a test of some sort if it were only in a certain area.  Not on such a grand scale.    I was just asking if you had a theory as to what the goal of the experiment would be if it were an experiment.

Population control.  That would require a global observation.

[Redhead14]

2 minutes ago, amaysngrace said:

Population control.  That would require a global observation.

you didn't read the rest of my response . . .  "I did think for a while that it was a population control experiment for the Chinese government that went wrong.  That's still a possibility.  They operate in very inhumane and devious ways regarding population control, i.e. births, etc., so not a far stretch, IMO.  Not outside of their "wheelhouse" so to speak."  But, I'm not convinced about that either.  Even if it were an experiment gone wrong, we are dealing with it and it's real unfortunately.  Since we don't know anything for sure, we have to treat it like it's serious and protect ourselves at least for some time. 

 

 

[Philosopher]

 

1 hour ago, Redhead14 said:

The "crowds" didn't decide to lock down.  The governments of the world did.  No one is answering why the governments of the entire world made the decision they did if all this was not necessary.  Why did they do it? 

A hypothetical question, if this pandemic did not start in China, let’s say somewhere in Southeast Asia instead, do you think most countries would have responded in the same way? My thinking is that as China has a pretty authoritarian government, it was probably a lot more inclined to go down the lockdown route that other countries. Given the lockdown in Wuhan seemed to worked, other governments saw this as the way to control the pandemic.

If the pandemic had started elsewhere I think there would have been social distancing measures, however they would have been limited to stuff like school closures and banning large gatherings. Forcing people to stay at home would have been seen as a step too far.

[BaileyB]

4 hours ago, QuietRiot said:

Just curious...since ya'll are enjoying the summer, how many are gathering enmass at swimming areas and lakes and such in heavy crowds? Here in Florida, I'm seeing a lot of that, no masks either. No social distancing.

Well I’m in Canada. I was thinking after the fact, we also owe our good fortune to the fact that we are not a tourist destination in the winter ;), we shut down before the school spring break (although we had lots of travellers and snow birds come home with the virus), and we are not an international hub for our airport. That played a factor, without doubt. 

Social distancing is strictly adhered to here. We have previously been limited to groups of 50 outdoors, just today they say 50 indoors and 100 outdoors by the end of June. That seems like a lot to me!! I don’t know many people who are comfortable gathering in this way... Churches are still not gathering in person. I know there are some retirement parties that are happening this spring in parks or backyards. I just got a baby shower invite and was asked to rsvp because they are limiting the people invited and will invite someone else if we are not able to attend. I just went grocery shopping, there are lineups outside many stores as they are restricting the number of people in the store. The aisles have one way signs to keep people moving in the same directions. People are definitely socially distancing. There are a surprising number of people wearing masks, the ones not as likely to wear masks are the younger people. I have work meetings going ahead at schools next week and they are holding them outside and have already said we will be socially distancing. Our kids are still home, with only those going back who are having difficulty with online learning. It hasn’t been warm enough to go to the beach yet, but there have been a lot of people in the parks and on the bike trails. People gather in small groups and there is distance between the groups. We have a group of men who play cricket on the field behind my house every night. Sports like baseball/softball are starting again but participants have to bring their own helmet and bat. Contact sports like football, soccer, or even ultimate frisbee are not happening this summer. The splash pads opened this past week. I don’t know about pools, I know some things like gyms and pools have taken longer because they are harder to ensure that people socially distance. For example, gyms are now bringing people in by appointment only and limiting their time. They have increased cleaning and are limiting certain activities. Patios are open but they are serving on disposable paper plates. Restaurants just opened at half capacity. I don’t know many people who are rushing to go to a restaurant - patios, some. Many are still doing takeout. Campgrounds are open but they are at half capacity to ensure social distancing between sites. It’s definitely a thing here... There were a few fines handed out last week to businesses who were not following the rules. But people have generally followed the rules - my hairstylist and yoga studio closed before they were required because it was the “socially appropriate thing to do.” I don’t feel like there are many who are not following the rules. It’s definitely not life as normal. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by BaileyB

[Ellener]

Our numbers have gone up since the lockdown eased, it's difficult to get a feel for things with the tone of media reporting though, a headline I saw today said 'Multiple restaurants close again' but when I read it, it was about ten restaurants, in our city of about 12 000 eateries.

Same with the graphs, got to look at the overall context and remember the numbers will bounce up and down for months probably:

'During the post-peak period, pandemic disease levels in most countries with adequate surveillance will have dropped below peak observed levels. The post-peak period signifies that pandemic activity appears to be decreasing; however, it is uncertain if additional waves will occur and countries will need to be prepared for a second wave.

Previous pandemics have been characterized by waves of activity spread over months. Once the level of disease activity drops, a critical communications task will be to balance this information with the possibility of another wave. Pandemic waves can be separated by months and an immediate “at-ease” signal may be premature.

In the post-pandemic period, influenza disease activity will have returned to levels normally seen for seasonal influenza. It is expected that the pandemic virus will behave as a seasonal influenza A virus. At this stage, it is important to maintain surveillance and update pandemic preparedness and response plans accordingly. An intensive phase of recovery and evaluation may be required.'

 

[BaileyB]

I forgot to say all staff at grocery stores, Walmart, pharmacies, and hairstylists are wearing masks. Those are the only places I’ve been in the past three months.   The malls have just opened but I’ve heard they are ghost towns, with many stores closed and some closed forever. Maybe that will change as more stores open. The stores must have a different exit and entrance. People are not allowed to try on clothing but return policies have been extended. Many stores have also installed hand sanitizer stations or staff at the front door to give you hand sanitizer.

I work in a health facility and we have temperature checks by nurses and other screening questions every morning. We are allowed to work at our desks, but not allowed to sit together for lunch and not allowed to walk through the building to go to areas that are not your worksite - no congregating to gossip or have coffee. I like to joke now that going to work is no fun anymore...  They even make us wipe down any takeout food and put it into other containers brought from home if we get something at lunch - most people have stopped doing that because it’s too much work...

I just heard on the news that they are allowing our little kids amusement park to open this summer at half capacity. That’s super awesome - I have taken my little people there every year for the past ten years and we literally have pictures of them growing up at that place! They have said to me that they are sad they wouldn’t be able to go this summer - and now maybe we can. That would be fantastic! It’s the one place that I would probably take the risk... just because it’s such a special place for us. No mention of the water slide park though, I would assume that is not able to open.

Edited June 11, 2020 by BaileyB

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

I forgot to say all staff at grocery stores, Walmart, pharmacies, and hairstylists are wearing masks.

Costco and the other local grocery store I go to have all staff wearing masks, and Costco requires all shoppers do the same. Amazon delivers everything else.