How long should the lock down last?

[deleted109597]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was addressing this statement that by opening up everything now we will hit herd immunity by winter. We don't know that will happen. I favor a gradual opening soon, like a lot of other people have. Elective surgeries should 100% be restarted, those patients will be in a hospital where they can be tested and monitored. Beyond that, I don't know...

So, I didn't say we would hit herd immunity by winter. All I said was that we would have more in winter than if people catch it now.
GV mentioned that our surge capacity will probably not be there in the winter like it is now.

 

[deleted109597]

But I've heard the Federal Government promise multiple times that we have the best testing program in the world and that anyone who wants a test can get a test. Was the government also being sarcastic about these statements?

Define government? Trump?
No, he just can't shut his mouth ever.
The rest of the government?
Pardon me for not being essentially Taiwan or South Korea. No country can test all their citizens. None have.

 

[Lawpy]

Everyone says we were slow to react, but I feel like the lockdown was a knee-jerk reaction without a real plan or exit strategy.

Well interesting that the allo forums and elsewhere on SDN continue to defend the lockdowns and even argue for them to be permanent until the vaccine's out with little regard to the massive, devastating economic and social consequences. We're heading to the worst economic depression in history on top of covid 19 still existing.

 

[Siggy]

Define government? Trump?
No, he just can't shut his mouth ever.
The rest of the government?
Pardon me for not being essentially Taiwan or South Korea. No country can test all their citizens. None have.

Trump... the man who tells it like it is.

 

[Birdstrike]

Well interesting that the allo forums and elsewhere on SDN continue to defend the lockdowns and even argue for them to be permanent until the vaccine's out with little regard to the massive, devastating economic and social consequences. We're heading to the worst economic depression in history on top of covid 19 still existing.

It’s 100% selfish and elitist. They’re risk averse doctors with jobs. If they were unemployed like the “unwashed masses” and couldn’t pay their McMansion payment they’d be crying “Reopen!” and squealing baby pigs and louder than anyone else.

 

[thegenius]

I think eventually there's going to be a massive uproar and things will just get opened. What we are doing right now is ridiculous. What's going to happen when the economy is completely destroyed, everyone starts losing their jobs, resources become limited, and covid is still around? This is something we will have to live with.

Watch the movie Contagion.

They tried living with it. Caused major social upheaval.

(Not quite a great analogy because that virus had a CFR of like 20%)

 

[anonperson]

Well interesting that the allo forums and elsewhere on SDN continue to defend the lockdowns and even argue for them to be permanent until the vaccine's out with little regard to the massive, devastating economic and social consequences. We're heading to the worst economic depression in history on top of covid 19 still existing.

The long term economic impact is something else. It's brought Disneyland/Disneyworld to a grinding halt for weeks. Not even 9/11 did that.

Any vaccine is at least a year out. And that's if a vaccine can even be developed. We are going to be living with this virus for awhile. We can't lockdown that long. It's time to slowly open things back up taking into account local resources.

There will be surges of cases but that is the new reality. Continue to test and isolate as needed and get the country running.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

Flattening the Coronavirus Curve

One chart explains why slowing the spread of the infection is nearly as important as stopping it.

www.nytimes.com

Flattening the curve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is why we closed down to flatten the curve. Not to overwhelm hospital resources because there was an argument that you should let a lot of people get infected at once to get over it since the area under the curve does not change, which is false. Flattening the curve saves lives period.


But does mass quarantine mean flattening the curve? Hand washing, wearing masks, being spaced further from other humans flattens the curve. Washing your hands and frequently using disinfectant flattens the curve. Killing the economy can rapidly flatten the curve but you don't have to shut down if your health system isn't overwhelmed and it should be overwhelmed less due to masks and people not hand shaking and not being together.

We should also be raising the line which is not what were are doing. Why are we needing to wait till testing becomes mass produced even when it doesn't make much of a difference in outcomes? Might as well just have everyone recording their pulse ox and go to an ER when it gets below 94.

Wouldn't mass testing freak people out and make them more eager to go to the ED which would not flatten to curve? We are going to contact trace so more people will go to the ER?

No one also talks about how we are lowering the line across the country.

 

[Birdstrike]

A must read from Daniel G. Murphy, MD, chairman of Emergency Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx, hard hit by COVID-19.

“‪I've worked the coronavirus front line — and I say it's time to start opening up”

I’ve worked the coronavirus front line — and I say it’s time to start opening up

I’m an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx. I have been in the ER every day these last few weeks, either supervising or providing direct care. I contracted a COVID-19 infectio…

nypost.com

 

[d2305]

Sweden seems to have survived the virus without a lock down.

 

[Birdstrike]

Sweden seems to have survived the virus without a lock down.

They’ve certainly done as well or better than some countries with strict lockdowns.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

N.Y.C. Deaths Reach 6 Times the Normal Level, Far More Than Coronavirus Count Suggests (Published 2020)

There have been some 20,000 more deaths than would be expected over all, and thousands more than have been captured in the city’s official coronavirus statistics.

www.nytimes.com

Way more people are dying than what COVID 19 would have caused which is likely due to quarentine culture of not wanting to overbear the medical system with their complaints.

 

[Torsion]

Sweden seems to have survived the virus without a lock down.

They've survived it with a 12% CFR and 2.5 x the number of confirmed cases as their next door neighbor with a CFR of 2.7% based on confirmed cases. They are clearly worse off due to their policy choices compared to their peers.

 

[Birdstrike]

They've survived it with a 12% CFR and 2.5 x the number of confirmed cases as their next door neighbor with a CFR of 2.7% based on confirmed cases. They are clearly worse off due to their policy choices compared to their peers.

Sweden seems to have survived the virus without a lock down.

I was initially intrigued by Sweden as well. But the fact that 40% of their households are people living alone, means you can't really claim they're "doing no worse" than some other country that's social distancing, when they sort of already are social distancing by their demographics, regardless of whether it's been mandated or not. Also, you also can't really say they're doing super great with COVID-19 since although they're far from worst in the world, their deaths per million of 233 is higher than many countries including ours (173), and many of their close neighbors.

If you're being honest about this, I don't think you can argue "Sweden is doing great with COVID" at this point. They're not. They're right in the middle of it all and have a worse deaths/capita than a huge number of countries. On the other hand, you can try to argue that the benefits of not having destroyed their economy with a nationwide shutdown was worth the choice, since there are other countries worse of in COVID-19 deaths and economic fallout. But to claim they're doing well with it, misses the last few weeks of their rising deaths there.

 

[Lawpy]

Flattening the Coronavirus Curve

One chart explains why slowing the spread of the infection is nearly as important as stopping it.

www.nytimes.com

Flattening the curve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is why we closed down to flatten the curve. Not to overwhelm hospital resources because there was an argument that you should let a lot of people get infected at once to get over it since the area under the curve does not change, which is false. Flattening the curve saves lives period.


But does mass quarantine mean flattening the curve? Hand washing, wearing masks, being spaced further from other humans flattens the curve. Washing your hands and frequently using disinfectant flattens the curve. Killing the economy can rapidly flatten the curve but you don't have to shut down if your health system isn't overwhelmed and it should be overwhelmed less due to masks and people not hand shaking and not being together.

We should also be raising the line which is not what were are doing. Why are we needing to wait till testing becomes mass produced even when it doesn't make much of a difference in outcomes? Might as well just have everyone recording their pulse ox and go to an ER when it gets below 94.

Wouldn't mass testing freak people out and make them more eager to go to the ED which would not flatten to curve? We are going to contact trace so more people will go to the ER?

No one also talks about how we are lowering the line across the country.

How does flattening the curve work in cases where hospitals are already overwhelmed even with lockdown/social distancing measures in place? Because thousands are still dying daily.

 

[Birdstrike]

How does flattening the curve work in cases where hospitals are already overwhelmed even with lockdown/social distancing measures in place? Because thousands are still dying daily.

What hospitals are still being overwhelmed?

The director of an ER in the hardest hit part of the country (NYC, Bronx) says even he feels we should start opening up. If even those slammed hardest are giving the green light for us to start peaking out of hiding, carefully, then why aren't we? Not arguing, honestly just asking.


"I’ve worked the coronavirus front line — and I say it’s time to start opening up
By Daniel G. Murphy M.D."

I’ve worked the coronavirus front line — and I say it’s time to start opening up

I’m an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx. I have been in the ER every day these last few weeks, either supervising or providing direct care. I contracted a COVID-19 infectio…

nypost.com

 

[Torsion]

How does flattening the curve work in cases where hospitals are already overwhelmed even with lockdown/social distancing measures in place? Because thousands are still dying daily.

Which hospitals are currently overwhelmed? My understanding is that hospitals currently have adequate capacity even in the hardest hit areas. There is no shortage of ventilators or ICU beds. Flattening the curve does not mean that thousands will not die per day from this virus. We are a nation of 330 million + people.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

How does flattening the curve work in cases where hospitals are already overwhelmed even with lockdown/social distancing measures in place? Because thousands are still dying daily.

By increasing the line recruiting other doctors to work and filling up and converting convention center space into a hospital. Also mass testing and mass isolation of infected coronavirus patience.

Also people can be transferred out as well for all the people who are dying So rapidly that they can’t be transferred. it’s unlikely that I see you ICU care would make much of a difference

 

[sunshinefl]

I was initially intrigued by Sweden as well. But the fact that 40% of their households are people living alone, means you can't really claim they're "doing no worse" than some other country that's social distancing, when they sort of already are social distancing by their demographics, regardless of whether it's been mandated or not. Also, you also can't really say they're doing super great with COVID-19 since although they're far from worst in the world, their deaths per million of 233 is higher than many countries including ours (173), and many of their close neighbors.

If you're being honest about this, I don't think you can argue "Sweden is doing great with COVID" at this point. They're not. They're right in the middle of it all and have a worse deaths/capita than a huge number of countries. On the other hand, you can try to argue that the benefits of not having destroyed their economy with a nationwide shutdown was worth the choice, since there are other countries worse of in COVID-19 deaths and economic fallout. But to claim they're doing well with it, misses the last few weeks of their rising deaths there.

Yeah but, maybe they’re just “getting them all out of the way” now, rather than being spread out over forever. So by frontloading cases and fatalities, it looks worse now, but won’t at the end. (Not saying this is true, just saying it could be the case thinking about it).

 

[pkwraith]

Sweden seems to have survived the virus without a lock down.

Yep, the country with 10x the death rate of their neighboring countries, clearly the shining beacon of success.

 

[bravotwozero]

I was initially intrigued by Sweden as well. But the fact that 40% of their households are people living alone, means you can't really claim they're "doing no worse" than some other country that's social distancing, when they sort of already are social distancing by their demographics, regardless of whether it's been mandated or not. Also, you also can't really say they're doing super great with COVID-19 since although they're far from worst in the world, their deaths per million of 233 is higher than many countries including ours (173), and many of their close neighbors.

If you're being honest about this, I don't think you can argue "Sweden is doing great with COVID" at this point. They're not. They're right in the middle of it all and have a worse deaths/capita than a huge number of countries. On the other hand, you can try to argue that the benefits of not having destroyed their economy with a nationwide shutdown was worth the choice, since there are other countries worse of in COVID-19 deaths and economic fallout. But to claim they're doing well with it, misses the last few weeks of their rising deaths there.

Yeah, I think time will tell. If they genuinely reach 'herd immunity' by mid May as the Swedes seem to think they will (not sure how they know this), then they would have gambled and won. If they don't reach it, or it takes a very long time, could be a disaster that will eventually overwhelm their hospitals.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Schools are the hard part. I feel bad for my kids. Increased spread is inevitable once schools open again. Keeping them home for years until we get a vaccine that might or might not work is not an option. Societies since time immemorial have prioritized the young and continuation of the species. In Singapore it is common for older adults to forgo end of life care so as not to deplete their HSA accounts so they have more to pass on to their children. Not so much what happens here.

Our state's governor is such a dip****. "We can't risk a 2nd wave." There's going to be a 2nd wave aka increase in cases regardless of whether you open now or in winter.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yep, the country with 10x the death rate of their neighboring countries, clearly the shining beacon of success.

Is their death rate per infected person worse than everyone else's?

 

[GeneralVeers]

The media is whipping up hysteria as usual:

Dying for cute toes? I hate to say it, Georgia, but on this one, we're as dumb as we look.

We still don’t know who is spreading this awful virus, how many cases we really have, or what will happen as the state reopens in earnest. It's scary.

www.usatoday.com

So basically if you live in Georgia, you are going to die from Corona because people are getting their nails done!

I'm still astonished that the media and epidemiologists have been able to induce mass panic on a level we've never before seen.

 

[Lawpy]

What hospitals are still being overwhelmed?

The director of an ER in the hardest hit part of the country (NYC, Bronx) says even he feels we should start opening up. If even those slammed hardest are giving the green light for us to start peaking out of hiding, carefully, then why aren't we? Not arguing, honestly just asking.


"I’ve worked the coronavirus front line — and I say it’s time to start opening up
By Daniel G. Murphy M.D."

I’ve worked the coronavirus front line — and I say it’s time to start opening up

I’m an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx. I have been in the ER every day these last few weeks, either supervising or providing direct care. I contracted a COVID-19 infectio…

nypost.com

Which hospitals are currently overwhelmed? My understanding is that hospitals currently have adequate capacity even in the hardest hit areas. There is no shortage of ventilators or ICU beds. Flattening the curve does not mean that thousands will not die per day from this virus. We are a nation of 330 million + people.

By increasing the line recruiting other doctors to work and filling up and converting convention center space into a hospital. Also mass testing and mass isolation of infected coronavirus patience.

Also people can be transferred out as well for all the people who are dying So rapidly that they can’t be transferred. it’s unlikely that I see you ICU care would make much of a difference

Sorry was talking generally based on: IHME | COVID-19 Projections

There's still a shortage of ICU beds. But the thing is i don't know if it's right to assume that flattening the curve means getting the cases below the maximum hospital capacity. Because NY exceeded hospital capacity even after imposing lockdown measures, and that confuses me regarding whether the curve was flattened.

 

[Birdstrike]

Our state's governor is such a dip****. "We can't risk a 2nd wave." There's going to be a 2nd wave aka increase in cases regardless of whether you open now or in winter.

Agree.

 

[Birdstrike]

Schools are the hard part. I feel bad for my kids. Increased spread is inevitable once schools open again. Keeping them home for years until we get a vaccine that might or might not work is not an option. Societies since time immemorial have prioritized the young and continuation of the species. In Singapore it is common for older adults to forgo end of life care so as not to deplete their HSA accounts so they have more to pass on to their children. Not so much what happens here.

I was hoping my kids would go back to school ASAP since their risk of dying from COVID-19 is so infinitesimally low as to be essentially zero. But a few lunch ladies with the ongoing lunches for the poor program got the virus and that ended that. I'm going to be hammering my governor and two state congressmen all summer to make sure they start in person school as planned, this fall.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

Sorry was talking generally based on: IHME | COVID-19 Projections

There's still a shortage of ICU beds. But the thing is i don't know if it's right to assume that flattening the curve means getting the cases below the maximum hospital capacity. Because NY exceeded hospital capacity even after imposing lockdown measures, and that confuses me regarding whether the curve was flattened.

New Yorks cases have gone down by 70% but even then it is still higher than a state like Georgia.

We raise the line also New York’s cases and deaths have been decreasing what you do For the virus will not show up until two weeks.

Also they just recently started requiring wearing masks and in addition to social distancing Those numbers will not go back up to what they were.

 

[Birdstrike]

The media is whipping up hysteria as usual:

1-The media exaggerates & distorts for ratings and profit, as a rule.
2-Experts are frequently wrong, often disastrously so.

Although you can't do the work of the media, or know as much about everything as so called 'experts,' the importance of having a good bull$hit detector so you can tell when #1 and #2 are happening, cannot be overestimated.

 

[Birdstrike]

There's still a shortage of ICU beds.

What hospital and where is your proof?

 

[Birdstrike]

Here we prolong everyone's life even if they are on the verge of death with absolutely no chance of recovery.

Because of lawyers and the people that pay them to sue.

 

[GeneralVeers]

1-The media exaggerates & distorts for ratings and profit, as a rule.
2-Experts are frequently wrong, often disastrously so.

Although you can't do the work of the media, or know as much about everything as so called 'experts,' the importance of having a good bull$hit detector so you can tell when #1 and #2 are happening, cannot be overestimated.

I'm hoping in retrospect, in a few years when all the numbers are in, we can call this for what it is: the biggest failure by "experts" in modern history. We can debate the models and their actual numbers, but their initial forecasts, especially death rates proved disastrously wrong.

Rather than admit they were wrong, and things aren't near as bad as was predicted, these experts are still on TV saying everything should be shut down until we have "adequate testing" as if that will somehow scare off the virus and make us safer. They are using positive reinforcement as a psychological tool to keep the public mollified "Everyone did a GREAT JOB of social distance, and we FLATTENED THE CURVE, so keep it up!"

 

[Lawpy]

What hospital and where is your proof?

Same link

It's apparently projected so it's probably a lot lower than what's seen here.

 

[greatnt249]

I'm still astonished that the media and epidemiologists have been able to induce mass panic on a level we've never before seen.

I believe that's what's referred to as an "availability cascade." Being in the age of 24-hour "news" cycles and social media, it's easier than ever for "facts" to become whatever is repeated often and loud enough. I would even argue the idea of "mass panic" being something of an overstatement; I've not seen anyone truly "panicking" since weeks ago when toilet paper was nowhere to be found.

That being said, I imagine the reason some governments are sticking to their guns about maintaining lockdown is that no one wants to be the first to step into the unknown. If cases go back up, they catch hell from the public for opening too soon AND will be criticized for sending mixed messages to the public, which is harder for them to control their narrative rather than maintaining status quo.

 

[Birdstrike]

Rather than admit they were wrong, and things aren't near as bad as was predicted, these experts are still on TV saying everything should be shut down until we have "adequate testing" as if that will somehow scare off the virus and make us safer.

Yes, the same geniuses that were saying a few weeks ago not to test the majority of people with COVID, now want everyone tested. "Testing doesn't help us at all in mild cases which is 95% of people," now has become, "Testing is critically important for everyone."

I constantly try to teach my kids how important it is to question, remain skeptical and think for themselves. It's so important.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

Especially when 2 million became 50,000 and we recently added things like everyone wearing masks which will decrease the amount of people who get infected. Seriously why are we quarantine everyone and people wear masks because people mass gather at the hospital all the time.

 

[Birdstrike]

Same link

View attachment 304324

It's apparently projected so it's probably a lot lower than what's seen here.

That is not proof of anything and it's verifiably wrong. It's a "projection" and its even wildly wrong on past, publicly available data it can simply look up online.

NY has had a net decrease in intubations and hospitalizations for 14+ days. NY has been improving and clearing people out for two weeks. See the slide show in this article from Governor Cuomo's update today. The only talk of "ICU bed capacity" is the goal of making sure it stays under 70% full.

 

[Lawpy]

That is not proof of anything and it's verifiably wrong. It's a "projection" and its even wildly wrong on past, publicly available data it can simply look up online.

NY has had a net decrease in intubations and hospitalizations for 14+ days. NY has been improving and clearing people out for two weeks. See the slide show in this article from Governor Cuomo's update today. The only talk of "ICU bed capacity" is the goal of making sure it stays under 70% full.

Welp i got misled by the initial link and read it wrong. Thanks for these resources.

 

[TJRock]

Yes, the same geniuses that were saying a few weeks ago not to test the majority of people with COVID, now want everyone tested. "Testing doesn't help us at all in mild cases which is 95% of people," now has become, "Testing is critically important for everyone."

As a non-medical person, I'm curious. What is adequate testing? Are we talking everyone in the U.S.? Seems to me that a test is only a snap shot of that moment in time since one could be infected on the way home from the testing center. So, I would assume that we would need to re-test, but the question would then be how often? Once a week per person? Twice a week? Once a month? Seems to me that this can't possibly be the basis for opening up again.

 

[lp430]

As a non-medical person, I'm curious. What is adequate testing? Are we talking everyone in the U.S.? Seems to me that a test is only a snap shot of that moment in time since one could be infected on the way home from the testing center. So, I would assume that we would need to re-test, but the question would then be how often? Once a week per person? Twice a week? Once a month? Seems to me that this can't possibly be the basis for opening up again.

I've been trying to understand this question as well. There is no guarantee that someone who tests negative today will still be negative in 2-3 days. In a disease where asymptomatic spread is huge, do we do a rapid test on everyone, each day they show up to work? I feel like "widespread testing" is a buzzword being used so politicians can kick the can down the road.

Can and should testing be faster/more accessible? Sure. Do we test everyone? I don't think so.

 

[Birdstrike]

As a non-medical person, I'm curious. What is adequate testing? Are we talking everyone in the U.S.? Seems to me that a test is only a snap shot of that moment in time since one could be infected on the way home from the testing center. So, I would assume that we would need to re-test, but the question would then be how often? Once a week per person? Twice a week? Once a month? Seems to me that this can't possibly be the basis for opening up again.

These are all valid questions and I don't think the "experts" claiming we need more testing before opening up, have any better answers to them than you or I do. Those that are in power want to create the perception they were the most cautious so any spike in deaths after reopening get blamed on someone else. Those not in power feel the greater our economy is in shambles come Nov 3rd, the more likely they are to get elected. In this way, and delay tactics benefit both sides in some way.

From a purely medical standpoint, the value of testing hinges on whether the result will change your treatment, which it only does in people who need treatment, i.e., the sick and admitted. You don't need a test to clinically diagnose someone with mild COVID-19 and tell them to quarantine, unless they need it for persuasive value to actually follow through. There's also value to testing for epidemiologic purposes to track down people spreading the disease, but once you reach a point that it's too many to track, a point we passed long ago, it no longer has that value.

For what it's worth, that's my opinion.

 

[Rekt]

They've survived it with a 12% CFR and 2.5 x the number of confirmed cases as their next door neighbor with a CFR of 2.7% based on confirmed cases. They are clearly worse off due to their policy choices compared to their peers.

I was initially intrigued by Sweden as well. But the fact that 40% of their households are people living alone, means you can't really claim they're "doing no worse" than some other country that's social distancing, when they sort of already are social distancing by their demographics, regardless of whether it's been mandated or not. Also, you also can't really say they're doing super great with COVID-19 since although they're far from worst in the world, their deaths per million of 233 is higher than many countries including ours (173), and many of their close neighbors.

If you're being honest about this, I don't think you can argue "Sweden is doing great with COVID" at this point. They're not. They're right in the middle of it all and have a worse deaths/capita than a huge number of countries. On the other hand, you can try to argue that the benefits of not having destroyed their economy with a nationwide shutdown was worth the choice, since there are other countries worse of in COVID-19 deaths and economic fallout. But to claim they're doing well with it, misses the last few weeks of their rising deaths there.

Sweden will have "done better" because they won't really have a second wave. Everywhere is going to have a second wave regardless of any silly lockdown or not. People are still forgetting that quarantine/lockdown/flattening the curve does not affect your ability to be killed by the virus. There is not going to be a cure for it and a vaccine is incredibly unlikely and still years away at best.

I believe that's what's referred to as an "availability cascade." Being in the age of 24-hour "news" cycles and social media, it's easier than ever for "facts" to become whatever is repeated often and loud enough. I would even argue the idea of "mass panic" being something of an overstatement; I've not seen anyone truly "panicking" since weeks ago when toilet paper was nowhere to be found.

That being said, I imagine the reason some governments are sticking to their guns about maintaining lockdown is that no one wants to be the first to step into the unknown. If cases go back up, they catch hell from the public for opening too soon AND will be criticized for sending mixed messages to the public, which is harder for them to control their narrative rather than maintaining status quo.

The problem is the general public is quite intellectually deficient. There's going to be an uptick in cases no matter how careful any state opens. Testing is ramping up across the country and we'll be catching cases that don't have anything to do with loosening restrictions on top of the up tick from easing them as well. They don't have the ability to understand that we have to open, not even just for economic reasons, but because it's the only way to build potential immunity. The obese, the old, the chronically ill, and the immunocompromised still need to self-quarantine.

 

[turkeyjerky]

I was hoping my kids would go back to school ASAP since their risk of dying from COVID-19 is so infinitesimally low as to be essentially zero. But a few lunch ladies with the ongoing lunches for the poor program got the virus and that ended that. I'm going to be hammering my governor and two state congressmen all summer to make sure they start in person school as planned, this fall.

I'm sure you understand that keeping your children out of school is not to keep them safe. It's to keep your neighbor's mother in law (who lives in a nursing home) alive.

Again, I'm sure you understand this. I only mention this for the benefit of others who may read your comment.

Yes, the same geniuses that were saying a few weeks ago not to test the majority of people with COVID, now want everyone tested. "Testing doesn't help us at all in mild cases which is 95% of people," now has become, "Testing is critically important for everyone."

I constantly try to teach my kids how important it is to question, remain skeptical and think for themselves. It's so important.

Who are these geniuses you're referring to?

Again, I'm sure you understand this, but I'll throw it out there for our less erudite lurkers:

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is a public health measure. The test result doesn't inform clinical management. The test result doesn't "help" patients. The test is a public health measure, and its utility will change as a function of time. For instance, theoretically performing the test 1 year ago would be a ridiculous waste of resources. If we could go back in time to Nov, 2019 and screen every single person in Wuhan daily, that would be of amazing value.

Performing the test during the initial stages of the epidemic was potentially useful in order to allow containment. Unfortunately, we f'ed that up. Performing the test at the peak of a wave (even a severely attenuated one, of which we are now likely on the downslope) is of very little utility--if you're sick you can assume you're infected and act accordingly. The utility of testing now is in order to get a sense of when the prevelence is low enough to allow the economy to reopen safely. So yes, right now testing is critically important for everyone. (Well, still not me personally). It's more important for the random guy on the street walking to work than it is for the average ER patient walking through the door.

 

[Rekt]

I'm sure you understand that keeping your children out of school is not to keep them safe. It's to keep your neighbor's mother in law (who lives in a nursing home) alive.

Again, I'm sure you understand this. I only mention this for the benefit of others who may read your comment.

I'm sorry, but this is not an appropriate reason to close schools. Those at high risk should be distancing themselves and taking their own responsibility of keeping safe. Judging by your response, you likely don't have any children. Them being out of school is incredibly detrimental to their education for literally no reason what-so-ever.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm sorry, but this is not an appropriate reason to close schools. Those at high risk should be distancing themselves and taking their own responsibility of keeping safe. Judging by your response, you likely don't have any children. Them being out of school is incredibly detrimental to their education for literally no reason what-so-ever.

Literally no reason what-so-ever?

Not even close. Children are notoriously good vectors for disease. Closing schools when this all started made perfect sense just like reopening them in the fall, barring major changes in how this is all going, also makes sense.

 

[Rekt]

Literally no reason what-so-ever?

Not even close. Children are notoriously good vectors for disease. Closing schools when this all started made perfect sense just like reopening them in the fall, barring major changes in how this is all going, also makes sense.

Yes. No reason. With the amount of asymptomatic carriers it does not make any sense. If idiot parents are taking their kids to visit Grandma that's on them.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yes. No reason. With the amount of asymptomatic carriers it does not make any sense. If idiot parents are taking their kids to visit Grandma that's on them.

The amount of asymptomatic carriers?

We have no idea how many of those there are.

And what about teachers? Cafeteria workers? Janitors? Bus drivers? You get the idea. It's not just the kids and grandma.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

Have school workers wear masks and antibody testing also decrease class size

 

[nimbus]

They've survived it with a 12% CFR and 2.5 x the number of confirmed cases as their next door neighbor with a CFR of 2.7% based on confirmed cases. They are clearly worse off due to their policy choices compared to their peers.

They also closed all schools from middle school to university level. Elementary schools are the only schools still open. And they encouraged everybody who can work from home to do so.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Have school workers wear masks and antibody testing also decrease class size

So which kids get kicked out of school to make that happen?