The COVID-19 Thread - Discussion & Cancellations

[LMSANS]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Going to PM you instead of dragging this out.  I've killed enough threads (here and on another forum) and am going to take a little self-imposed vacation.

Just want to say to the mods ... I realize these are niche forums.  But you have built a community.  You did a good job.  You brought together a group of people who respect each other and want to socialize, interact, and discuss their worlds.  I disagree with canning discussion that isn't directly about wearing gear and interpreting rules, but I understand what you are trying to accomplish.

See you sometime ... 

 

And in the right context, the discussion is fine. This topic in this area is ideally suited for a good dialogue. Overtaking an "Ask the Umpire" topic is out of bounds.

[beerguy55]

23 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

How can you say that "normal is the problem that led us here?" Is it normal that a novel virus spread around the world? No. Is it normal that goverments shut down much of commerce? No. What does the eff that statement even mean? People have a right to protest, even if it is something contrary to what you believe.

It's simple...our social behavior is how this virus spread, and spread so quickly.

We have two choices, as a society, change our behavior, not only for this virus, but for the ones that will come (whether it's another 100 years or ten)...or maintain the status quo and just deal with the body bags.

And for many people (not all) their spending habits led them to be on the brink of disaster by simply missing a paycheck or two.

There are also solutions to offer protection to everyone, and yourself, if shutdowns are required, so people can survive a few months without working - they range from more taxes to the government to offer a safety net...to making better personal choices to give your self a safety net (yes, I know, the younger you or your business is the more difficult this is)...But the vast majority of people aren't 21, and the vast majority of businesses aren't startups...if you're 40 something or higher (outside a really SH*#ty set of circumstances that blew your life up) if you don't have enough savings or equity to survive six months without a job, you've probably made too many decisions about living in the moment and not enough saving for a rainy day.

So, going back to normal will just ensure this happens again, where we will once again be in the situation of choosing between our livelihoods and our lives.

[Kevin_K]

13 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I'm not sure either. I have one son at SDSU and the other at Miramar JC. Looks like they may go back to regular classes in the fall, but who knows. Right now, the college distance learning is not going too stellar. LOL! They have some bugs to work out still. Not sure if it's my kids, the schools, or a combination of both!   My wife works for San Diego Unified School District and they are making plans for K-12 to get back in the classrooms by July or August, but there are still working out the logistics.

I think at this point our best bet is maybe getting back on the field by the end of summer. We may be able to pick up some LL or travel games here, but that is in flux. If we get lucky, maybe some SDSU intersquad games in the fall.

It's entirely possible we won't see any games until HS season next year. It's going to be a loooong offseason. On the plus side, my Jeep build is coming along nicely! Hope they open up the desert by next season so I can use it!

@JonnyCat.. Since I am on the other coast and have no understanding of California's education system, is students in the classroom in July and August a typical thing? In this section of the country schools are usually not in session until right around the Labor Day weekend. Sometimes before, sometimes after, depending on the calendar.

As I suspect will happen here, new normals may make it necessary to go to things like split sessions and/or a hybrid of in person and online learning. If things like that happen, school districts and their teachers will need to come to modifications in labor agreements. I know that if I need to work double sessions in person and through online portals, my workload will change significantly in order to maintain the same level of competency among the students.

Whatever comes, those who can adapt will thrive and those who cannot may wither, and that applies to all members of the school community.

[JonnyCat]

2 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

@JonnyCat.. Since I am on the other coast and have no understanding of California's education system, is students in the classroom in July and August a typical thing? In this section of the country schools are usually not in session until right around the Labor Day weekend. Sometimes before, sometimes after, depending on the calendar.

As I suspect will happen here, new normals may make it necessary to go to things like split sessions and/or a hybrid of in person and online learning. If things like that happen, school districts and their teachers will need to come to modifications in labor agreements. I know that if I need to work double sessions in person and through online portals, my workload will change significantly in order to maintain the same level of competency among the students.

Whatever comes, those who can adapt will thrive and those who cannot may wither, and that applies to all members of the school community.

@Kevin_K . We used to go back right after Labor day every year for as long as I could remember. That changed a number of years ago to the kids going back about a week before Labor day. I guess they needed a littel more time for instruction, plus some more days off before Thanksgiving. Kids used to have to attend the 3 days before Thanksgiving, now they get the whole week off. Some schools are traditional schedule, and others year round, but for SDUSD (San Diego Unified School District), they start at the same time. Some other school districts in our area actually start earlier. Those districts also typically get 2 weeks for spring break, while SDUSD gets only a week. Parochial schools have a different schedule, too. SDUSD traditional track usually gets out around the first or second week in June, year round gets out a little later sometime in July. 

The teachers and office staff usually come back a week or two before the start date to get things ready. My wife is part of the office staff, so her report back date if it was a normal schedule would be the 17th of August, with the Kids returning on the 31st. So right now, they are shooting for that date, but we'll see what happens as we get closer.

It's going to be tough to have kids in the classroom and do some form of Covid19 mitigation. I feel for all the teachers, staff, and students. It's going to be a tough road depending on your states rules and guidelines.

[umpstu]

1 hour ago, JonnyCat said:

@Kevin_K . We used to go back right after Labor day every year for as long as I could remember. That changed a number of years ago to the kids going back about a week before Labor day. I guess they needed a littel more time for instruction, plus some more days off before Thanksgiving. Kids used to have to attend the 3 days before Thanksgiving, now they get the whole week off. Some schools are traditional schedule, and others year round, but for SDUSD (San Diego Unified School District), they start at the same time. Some other school districts in our area actually start earlier. Those districts also typically get 2 weeks for spring break, while SDUSD gets only a week. Parochial schools have a different schedule, too. SDUSD traditional track usually gets out around the first or second week in June, year round gets out a little later sometime in July. 

The teachers and office staff usually come back a week or two before the start date to get things ready. My wife is part of the office staff, so her report back date if it was a normal schedule would be the 17th of August, with the Kids returning on the 31st. So right now, they are shooting for that date, but we'll see what happens as we get closer.

It's going to be tough to have kids in the classroom and do some form of Covid19 mitigation. I feel for all the teachers, staff, and students. It's going to be a tough road depending on your states rules and guidelines.

I'm thinking that they are currently developing a plan for how to social distance the kids.  That's going to be a tricky one.

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Protesting is an absolute right and should be defended whether you agree with the protest or not. Doesn't matter what their interests are. Our constututional rights are some of the most important rights we have as a free society. In order to maintain that freedom, we must protect them at all costs. I worry about how the governments are passing mandates and orders restricting our rights, in clear violation of the constitution and other state laws.

No right is absolute - every right ends where another right is infringed.

My right to swing my fist ends at your face.  Yelling "fire" in a theater, and all that.

There are many ways to assemble and protest without endangering yourself and others - no one's saying they can't protest...even if you argue that those protesting in crowds know what they're signing up for, and submitted to the risk voluntarily, anyone they come in contact with after did not.   Or if the result of the protest ends with all them filling up hospital beds, that impacts those who were following the rules and now can't get the medical attention they need...and simply had a heart attack at home.

People confuse the right to do something, with the right to do that thing in any fashion they see fit, anywhere anytime anyhow.   

My right to vote doesn't mean I can vote 50 times...unless it's American Idol.

I'd argue that if the government provided every new born American with a shiny new musket that they have met the obligation of the right to bear arms.

In the end the real question is how many Americans are you willing to kill to protect your freedom "at all costs"?

Hey, the mayor of Las Vegas offered up her entire city to be guinea pigs, and/or the placebo, in any tests.  Are you making that same proclamation, for yourself, your friends, your family, and the millions of people you've never met?

[aaluck]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

In the end the real question is how many Americans are you willing to kill to protect your freedom "at all costs"?

Although I don't disagree with most of your comments I do here.  In fairness to you many folks on here are talking about us killing each other.

No one is killing anyone. By definition, folks that may be asymptomatic have no idea they can spread it. If they unknowingly spread it to 50 people ONE MAY die. On and on and on, as it spreads.  If I accidentally gave someone the regular old flu (don't we pray for those days) and he died I did not kill him.

As far as rights, your position seems to be that the 90% of Americans that want to go to work, etc (while practicing social distance etc., or not) should not because the other 10% of us COULD get sick.  With all due respect the answer is NOT to confine the 90% to protect the 10%--the answer is to protect YOURSELF.  Wear a N95 mask and gloves, wash hands after a "visit" etc.  Heck, if you fall into the 10% and don't want to catch it there is simple plan that does not infringe upon the majority's (90%) rights...stay at home until this is over.  Plain and simple. No one can force you to leave your house, or take whatever precautions you deem necessary. You will NOT get this if you wear a N95 mask, gloves, wash your hands and stay 6 feet from folks. End of story. You will certainly not get it if you never leave your home.

If YOU choose to interact with others that may, or may not, have it THEY are not infringing on YOUR rights.  If I choose to go to a bar that allows smoking I cannot go in and complain that it is smoky and I may get cancer.  If I choose to drive my car at 120mph and crash I cannot blame Ram and say you shouldn't make a truck that can go that fast.  Don't go anywhere they are allowing large gatherings.  If someone you associate with is not being responsible stay away from him--don't blame him if you contract it from him and say he infringed on your rights and killed you.  This is all about personal responsibility, not individual rights.

Again, I know that things will never be the same and I'm fine with that. I, myself, NEVER go into a store without gloves and my N95 mask. I immediately use hand sanitizer when I take the gloves off--before I remove the mask.  

My wife is a nurse.  If i get it from her and die she did not kill me. That being said, if she shows symptoms we will get her a hotel room until tested--again personal responsibility.

I refuse to live my life in fear, but I do take all precautions to extend my life (go to the dr., run, workout, watch my weight) and this Covid has not changed that, I've just added a couple of things to the list.

[Replacematt]

11 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Although I don't disagree with most of your comments I do here.  In fairness to you many folks on here are talking about us killing each other.

No one is killing anyone. By definition, folks that may be asymptomatic have no idea they can spread it. If they unknowingly spread it to 50 people ONE MAY die. On and on and on, as it spreads.  If I accidentally gave someone the regular old flu (don't we pray for those days) and he died I did not kill him.

As far as rights, your position seems to be that the 90% of Americans that want to go to work, etc (while practicing social distance etc., or not) should not because the other 10% of us COULD get sick. 

1. Unintentionally causing someone's death is still killing them.

2. I think you far overestimate the number of people that want restrictions loosened.

[aaluck]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

1. Unintentionally causing someone's death is still killing them.

I don't agree with that BUT... You cannot be unintentionally killed by anyone if YOU stay away from me or others.

Again, whether YOU get infected or not is up to YOU, not me.

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, aaluck said:

I don't agree with that BUT... You cannot be unintentionally killed by anyone if YOU stay away from me or others.

Again, whether YOU get infected or not is up to YOU, not me.

No, it's not. That's not how outbreaks work.

[JonnyCat]

3 hours ago, umpstu said:

I'm thinking that they are currently developing a plan for how to social distance the kids.  That's going to be a tricky one.

Yeah, my wife and I have been discussing that one, and it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible. 

If you're going to try and social distance, that means less kids per classroom. That requires more classrooms per school site. Most don't have any rooms to spare, and it takes time to set up portable classrooms, and that also means the site needs space. All of this is a huge problem and not likely solved in a couple of months or so.

Along with smaller class sizes, you will need additional teachers. Can't really use subs around here as there is a major shortage. Not sure if the teachers union would sign off on that one. If you do hire additional full time teachers, now you have a two-fold problem. Additional funding will be very costly to an already strained budget. California is really going to be hurting budget wise for a long time. We have much less revenue now and for the forseeable future, and sprialing costs that keep going up.

And then what do you do with all the additional teachers and classrooms once social distancing is over?  Keep them and continue with smaller classes? That's been tried here and it never seems to work and is extremely costly. Lay off the teachers and move the classrooms out? IDK.

And even if you do all of this, how do you effectively keep the kids away from each other? I just don't think there is any way to social distance with kids at schools. And we're not just talking the classroom. What about the playgrounds and cafeteria?

In all reality, I think our best bet and really the only way to effectively deal with this is to practice good hygiene. About the only things we can effectively do IMO are the following:

1. Wear masks and or gloves whenever possible. Hard to do with kids.

2. Wash your hands often. Keep hand sanitizer with you or in you car.

3. Stay home when you're sick.

4. Try to stay away from others.

Honestly, numbers 2 and 3 should already be a matter of practice. We should have always done these.

At some point people are just going to have to decide for themselves what risks they are willing to take. I only say that because it is going to be very hard to continue this way for a long time, and I'm not sure there is anymore effective way to deal with this. People need to work, government needs revenue, and kids need to go to school.

And we need to umpire! LOL!

[Kevin_K]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

My right to vote doesn't mean I can vote 50 times...unless it's American Idol.

You aren't from NJ where the mantra in many locales is, "Vote early, vote often "

[beerguy55]

24 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Wear a N95 mask and gloves, wash hands after a "visit" etc. 

You should know more than anyone this isn't 100%.   By the way...wearing gloves is pointless if you just do the same things with your hands - ie. if you are wearing gloves and touch your face with infected gloves you're still going to get infected.  If the PPE was 100% you wouldn't need to worry about your wife getting infected or infecting you.  The more people who ignore the protocols, the more patients your wife will meet.  The more patients she meets, the more likely she is to get infected.

I frankly find it hard to believe you're married to a nurse - I know several nurses...and their husbands/wives....none of them approach your ho-hum attitude towards this.  If you really are, then good for you.

Yes, taking all the precautions greatly reduces your risk, but you know SH*# happens.   I could be following all the rules, and without my knowledge someone is suddenly is standing in my space breathing down my neck.  That wasn't my choice.   My only choice was to leave the house and restock groceries.

Regardless, I'm not so much worried about myself...I just don't want to pass it on to someone else.  So, I'm going to reduce the risk as much as feasible, recognizing I'll never get it to zero - what I'm not going to do is throw caution to the wind.

 

26 minutes ago, aaluck said:

No one is killing anyone. By definition, folks that may be asymptomatic have no idea they can spread it. If they unknowingly spread it to 50 people ONE MAY die. On and on and on, as it spreads.  If I accidentally gave someone the regular old flu (don't we pray for those days) and he died I did not kill him.

First, yes, you did.  In most cases you would be absolved, legally morally and ethically.   However, if you choose to ignore the precautions, and think you're only hurting yourself - like all those idiots were doing during spring break - and take no precautions, then, yes, you are killing people.  Indifference and gross negligence or no better than intent.

All those essential workers - delivery, medical, grocery, etc - have little choice to avoid you.  The least you can do is reduce their risk by reducing yours.

31 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Heck, if you fall into the 10% and don't want to catch it there is simple plan that does not infringe upon the majority's (90%) rights...stay at home until this is over.  Plain and simple. No one can force you to leave your house, or take whatever precautions you deem necessary. You will NOT get this if you wear a N95 mask, gloves, wash your hands and stay 6 feet from folks. End of story. You will certainly not get it if you never leave your home.

If YOU choose to interact with others that may, or may not, have it THEY are not infringing on YOUR rights

So, because you choose to do nothing, my only recourse is to never leave my house...and if I decide I need to leave my house to get groceries, I am "choosing" to interact with you?  Really?  Is that how it works?

Most of the protesters aren't social distancing...they're not taking any precautions...they are blatantly ignoring ALL the precautions.

The point of the "flattening the curve" is to keep the health system operational.  So, even if I do never leave my home, if all the clowns out there get sick, end up in hospitals, and overwhelm the health care system...then I can't get treatment for any emergency ailment not related to COVID at all.

 

 

[aaluck]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

No, it's not. That's not how outbreaks work.

This is the last I will say about it....no need to go back and forth and Ill try to use an analogy with our profession/hobby.

As an umpire you, through your gear, are responsible for your personal protection. You can purchase any gear you want. If you choose not to purchase a throat protector to protect yourself and get hit in the throat with a foul tip and die, yes the kid at bat killed you, but its your fault.  So who's really to blame?  You didn't have to leave the house and accept that game. You could have properly protected yourself.

We ALL can protect ourselves however we see fit.  From no chance of contracting it--by locking ourselves in our home alone, or shaking hands with everyone and immediately licking our fingers.  Regardless of the spectrum if we contract and die, yes someone killed us, but its not their fault.

And yes my wife is a nurse. However, we have to go on with life--with the new guidelines and safely. 

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

You will certainly not get it if you never leave your home.

Almost every one of those who died in nursing homes didn't leave the confines of the building.

[aaluck]

1 minute ago, yawetag said:

Almost every one of those who died in nursing homes didn't leave the confines of the building.

Valid point, I didn't think about that. However, these folks rely upon others and as such must interact with others, as they have no choice. But this is my point, the nurses or caregivers who had to be there to take care of them cannot be said to have killed them.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, aaluck said:

This is the last I will say about it....no need to go back and forth and Ill try to use an analogy with our profession/hobby.

As an umpire you, through your gear, are responsible for your personal protection. You can purchase any gear you want. If you choose not to purchase a throat protector to protect yourself and get hit in the throat with a foul tip and die, yes the kid at bat killed you, but its your fault.  So who's really to blame?  You didn't have to leave the house and accept that game. You could have properly protected yourself.

We ALL can protect ourselves however we see fit.  From no chance of contracting it--by locking ourselves in our home alone, or shaking hands with everyone and immediately licking our fingers.  Regardless of the spectrum if we contract and die, yes someone killed us, but its not their fault.

And yes my wife is a nurse. However, we have to go on with life--with the new guidelines and safely. 

Baseball is not life and death. I have a choice not to do games. I do not have a choice not to come into primary or secondhand contact with people who may be carriers. You seem to think that there is a choice where there isn't. 

[yawetag]

14 hours ago, aaluck said:

However, these folks rely upon others and as such must interact with others, as they have no choice.

When you go to a restaurant or get your hair cut or attend a sporting event, you rely upon others to do the things needed to make that experience happen.

You see, for those who think opening the country today - whether it's for their own job or for their own entertainment - requires others to also work. And while you insist people have a choice to go out or not, the reality is that many of the employees don't.

[The Short Umpire]

Just food for thought here, if we want to blame everyone who wants to go back to work for every incidental death that occurs from an asymptomatic transmission of the virus then moral consistency says that we must also blame every person who insists on keeping the economy closed for every suicide that results from a family not being able to pay bills and take care of their family. 

I don’t really think that either of those statements are true. Pointing fingers and pushing blame is useless. But now you’re all gonna jump on me because you don’t like being called killers either. We get that we don’t want to keep spreading the virus but some people really do just want to get back to work so they can provide for their family and would like to do so without being called a killer. So to everyone on here please stop pointing fingers, it doesn’t help anything. 

I get that we have to be careful, that’s why I haven’t been able to see my grandmother since the middle of March. You think that I’ll feel bad if I accidentally spread the virus to her if I visit while Asymptomatic; well I say I will feel even worse if she spends the last months of her life alone which is a reality at 95, when any day could be her last. 

[scrounge]

This is an uncomfortable thought, and one people try not to admit but implicitly accept all the time, but at some point, some level of risk - and yes, death - has to be acceptable. People recoil at the mention - but if we really held that even one life was worth saving, then speed limits would be 10 mph and cars would be tanks. Drunk driving deaths are way down right now - is that an argument to stay like this? Of course not, it's absurd. It's equally absurd to take that argument to its absurd limits and open things up willy nilly without the proper testing, tracing, and localized isolation infrastructure in place. But at some point - a relatively soon point - a slow, gradual, and measured reopening has to occur, because global economic depression is pretty deadly too. Flattening the curve can't mean eliminating the curve, because that hopelessly naive and ignores the very real other costs in terms of depression, abuse, economic despair, suicide, avoidance of needed health care, etc.

At some point, life has to go on. Way down on that hierarchy of need lies youth sports and umpiring...but even that will come back too. Maybe not this year, but permanent hermit-tude is not life. We bought time, we saved the health care system, we need to watch that like a hawk to prevent overrun but it's time to begin the slow march back. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, scrounge said:

This is an uncomfortable thought, and one people try not to admit but implicitly accept all the time, but at some point, some level of risk - and yes, death - has to be acceptable. People recoil at the mention - but if we really held that even one life was worth saving, then speed limits would be 10 mph and cars would be tanks. Drunk driving deaths are way down right now - is that an argument to stay like this? Of course not, it's absurd. It's equally absurd to take that argument to its absurd limits and open things up willy nilly without the proper testing, tracing, and localized isolation infrastructure in place. But at some point - a relatively soon point - a slow, gradual, and measured reopening has to occur, because global economic depression is pretty deadly too. Flattening the curve can't mean eliminating the curve, because that hopelessly naive and ignores the very real other costs in terms of depression, abuse, economic despair, suicide, avoidance of needed health care, etc.

At some point, life has to go on. Way down on that hierarchy of need lies youth sports and umpiring...but even that will come back too. Maybe not this year, but permanent hermit-tude is not life. We bought time, we saved the health care system, we need to watch that like a hawk to prevent overrun but it's time to begin the slow march back. 

We haven't saved it yet. There has to be a clear downward trajectory in new cases to even approach that subject. 

[JonnyCat]

38 minutes ago, Matt said:

We haven't saved it yet. There has to be a clear downward trajectory in new cases to even approach that subject. 

Since I'm bored and have too much time on my hands, I'd like to take this discussion in a different direction if I may. There are some strong opinions on this forum and I think that's great. To be able to discuss these types of things with so many diverse people is one of the great benefits of the internet and electronic age. The reason why I want to do this is two fold.

1. We're not likely to change anyone's mind here. While I respect everyone's opnion and the right to express it, I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine. We're too far past that point in this discussion. It is also sometimes hard for people to express their thoughts in a cogent fashion on forums for various reason. Also, it is hard to infer tone from words on a screen, and often they can be misinterpreted. IMO, politics is always best discussed in person. I am fascinated on the hard line for or against re-opening that many of you have taken.

2. I consider myself a bit of a political scientist as I have a BA in Poli-Sci and have done some graduate work in that same field (a long time ago). I studied mostly political behavior of voters and interest groups. What I'm curious is your background, current status, work history, etc, that would have you formulate the position you have on this outbreak. I'm not really interested as to what your position is, but rather why do you have that particular stance, and where it stems from. What I'm trying to do is a little bit of very un-scientific research. LOL!

I just want it to be a fun excercise and something off topic to occupy our time. If anyone feels it is inappropriate, tell me and we'll end it and I won't be offended in the least. It is in no way intended to back someone in a corner, or get any information to use against you. Some of you might remember my blog about pro-school that was featured daily here on UE in 2015. It was all positive stories and experiences about a 50 year old guy in umpire school. It gives you a bit of insight to my disposition and personality. I'm not intending to offend or jamb anyone up.

Soooooooo, I'm going to pick on you first Matt. Largely because you are a long time contributor, but also your posts about this subject are articulate and passionate. Plus, you were the last post before this one! You, and others, have a hard line on not re-opening too soon. Others want to get to re-opening as soon as possible. I'm just curious why.

So the question is for Matt and everyone that would like to answer: Why do you have the position you do? What is you current situation? Are you home, working, retired, in school, furloughed, what part of the country are you in? What have you seen in your area, what is it like for your family members or friends/neighbors? Things like that. Just a short response is all that I'm looking for. Not looking for detailed information, keep it general. Things like: "I work in XYZ, or my background is in XYZ, and I've seen or been affected by XYZ." Or I'm working/not working/retired and want to stay at home/get back to work/play, because of XYZ." Explain some external factors that make you feel the way you do about staying closed/re-opening.

Again, not looking for how someone feels about the crisis, I think we all know that by now from most of you, but rather what are the influencing factors that make you arrive at your stance or opinion. Please don't pontificate on how the world is going to end if we don't stay closed/re-open. Not interested.

Again, just for fun, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Please be polite and respectful as you all normally are. We're not here to change minds, I just want to know where you're coming from and maybe we can all learn a little bit more about each other.

[dumbdumb]

I just want, that everday, 360 million people have the exact same amount of ROE (risk of exposure) all day and night, everyday,  and that no one gets a pass, due to that club Warren Buffett mentions from time to time in any way shape or form.

[scrounge]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

We haven't saved it yet. There has to be a clear downward trajectory in new cases to even approach that subject. 

Outside of NYC and Detroit and a couple other localized places, it never really was threatened. Quite the opposite actually, elective surgeries and diagnostic procedures have to be one of the first things reinstated, immediately. Not only are a LOT of people going without needed care and missing needed things, but also for the financial health of hospitals and health systems. How will they be there for a potential 2nd wave if bankrupt or forced to lay staff (as has already happened in places)?

And really, # of cases is a fairly useless metric at this point given the shocking lack of testing. Of course that will go up as testing increases, but that is just a function of measurement, not virulence. # of hospitalizations and ICU utilization are the more dependable metrics.

[yawetag]

20 hours ago, The Short Umpire said:

Just food for thought here, if we want to blame everyone who wants to go back to work for every incidental death that occurs from an asymptomatic transmission of the virus then moral consistency says that we must also blame every person who insists on keeping the economy closed for every suicide that results from a family not being able to pay bills and take care of their family.

If you can show 70,000 people so far have committed suicide since the outbreak, then I'll agree we're on the same moral high-ground.

We could easily move this discussion to one where we have a society and government that takes care of its people, so that losing a job doesn't lead someone to think suicide is the only answer. You know, free mental health (OH NO!) or temporary unemployment that actually keeps someone afloat (THE NERVE!), or maybe even a social policy that allows someone the means to keep their family healthy, fed, and housed while they can't work (COMMUNISM!!!).

There's no irony that the vast majority of the "OPEN OUR STATES!" people are the same ones that think any of those three are bad ideas.