How long should the lock down last?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted836128
  • Start date Start date
Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Members don't see this ad.
turkeyjerky said:
I’ve changed my thinking on school closures, fwiw. In March I thought it was an obvious move and necessary (not to save the children, but to decrease the rate of transmission). Now, it really does strike me that children seem to not be a major driver. The kowasaki like syndrome will be a driver of panic, but rational people should be able to look at the rates if that and agree it’s too rare to make major policy decisions over.
Click to expand...
And we didn't know all of that back in March, so it made since at the time.

Now it no longer does.
 
xaelia said:
I'm gonna say 2-6 weeks from onset of symptoms, with deaths fairly evenly distributed across that timeframe.

So, I'd say, once hospitalizations tick up reliably, maybe 2-3 weeks later that 7-day moving average for deaths will reliably be ticking up. Looking at the TMC med/surg data, they exceeded their baseline/peak from April around 6/6, so this next week ought to be about when we start seeing increased deaths.

We're also, unfortunately, probably looking at a NYC-style all-cause mortality increase – exceeding ICU beds due to COVID means fewer beds for everything else. We all know how important a specialty center is for those rural hospitals to get tough vascular, neuro, etc. cases out the door. This is a whole-state problem, not just a Houston problem.
Click to expand...
Okay, thank you. 2-6 weeks is a number I can work with. In my state, the daily case increased a full 4 weeks ago and still no rise in daily deaths above baseline. If that's the range you should expect to see something by now. Maybe it's just doing to take a little longer to show up. Or maybe something has changed. I don't know.

Someone asked earlier, "What's your agenda?" Here's my agenda: I don't want the deaths to eventually follow the rise in cases, in my state or anywhere, because in my state the rise in cases is over 400%. I'll give it another two weeks. I'm holding out hope that hopefully "something has changed," and the deaths don't increase, and if they do, not by 400%. If the range of symptoms-to-death is 2-6 weeks, we're halfway into that by now (4 weeks) and so far we're not seeing it. Hopefully, "something has changed," be it a younger/healthier skew to the cases, better treatment, weakening viral mutations, or something. I don't know. But we'll know, soon enough.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
And we didn't know all of that back in March, so it made since at the time.

Now it no longer does.
Click to expand...
We didn't know about transmission from kids in March. But weren't all indications the death rate for kids was near zero in kids, back in March or earlier?
 
Last edited:
(Reply deleted due to initial post not being worthy of a reply)
 
Last edited:
My question remains unanswered: how are we going to convince poorly-paid staff to return to schools?

NYC REALLY did not want to close schools. Then a pregnant teacher died, and staff basically refused to show up. What's the solution?
 
miacomet said:
My question remains unanswered: how are we going to convince poorly-paid staff to return to schools?

NYC REALLY did not want to close schools. Then a pregnant teacher died, and staff basically refused to show up. What's the solution?
Click to expand...

You mean the same unionized staff who will get the same pay staying at home? It will be hard. While there are tons of great teachers, who love to teach, there's a good percentage who are lazy, and happy to use the pandemic excuse to collect a check while not doing much work. I suspect union leadership is made up more of the latter kind.
 
miacomet said:
My question remains unanswered: how are we going to convince poorly-paid staff to return to schools?
Click to expand...
You convince poorly paid staff to return to work at schools the same way to convince anyone to return to work. You tell them, "Return to work and get paid. Don't return, don't get paid." No one has to return to work, ever.

What you don't do, is tell them, "You can stay home while children do your jobs and still get paid."

miacomet said:
NYC REALLY did not want to close schools. Then a pregnant teacher died, and staff basically refused to show up. What's the solution?
Click to expand...
A nurse in my office just tested positive for COVID. I'm confident and hope, she will recover and do well. But if she doesn't, should I skip work on Monday and demand my whole company shut down for a year until there's a COVID vaccine? I could have skipped work everyday the past 3 months including today, but I went in, COVID risk and all, including today as cases surge 400% in my county. I also don't expect I'll get paid for not doing work.

Anyone has the right any day to refuse to show up to work, for any reason. Rational employers also don't continue to pay their employees who skip work. I'll bet you NY kept paying them, for not working like the typical NY-liberal union mind-set would require. Did they continue to get paid for not working? I need to know that before giving a well though out answer to your question.
 
Birdstrike said:
You convince poorly paid staff to return to work at schools the same way to convince anyone to return to work. You tell them, "Return to work and get paid. Don't return, don't get paid." No one has to return to work, ever.
Click to expand...

I think the compromise we'll end up with is the worst of both worlds, at least in my area and many like it. Teachers and staff WILL return to work, with classrooms 1/3 full, all children masked, and no extracurriculars. This is apparently the price the district and the state are willing to pay. It's going to suck for the students. My problem is with the fundamental assumptions: these guidelines are in place because of the fantasy that schools can reopen "safely" with no risk of infection. Why else these draconian measures? Which means, the first positive case or cluster of cases and we'll throw up our hands and say the approach failed and we need to shut down again. And then, how will we ever open schools again? Schools should open because they're essential, despite the risk, not because it's risk-free. Schools should stay open, even if the virus returns, because school is important. When did we lose the ability to assess cost/benefit in public health?
 
I think the point is that many are going to refuse to return to work unless they feel safe; you can shake a stick, but many will refuse, pay or no pay. And unfortunately I don't think your stick will work. Non-unionized areas pay so poorly I think many staff will refuse to show up, and in unionized areas staff will not show up because the union will demand higher levels of safety. And schools may not want to shoulder the liability of poor infection protocols and staff illness.

You may be right. I may be right. The point is that we don't know, and that schools reopening is contingent on staff showing up, which they may not feel comfortable doing. The best way to ensure this is to make sure staff feels safe and is safe, and that school systems judge the liability to be tolerable; why aren't we focusing on this, which appears to be the biggest stumbling block?
 
MHYDE said:
And of course I see the inconsistency here - that bringing kids in for a few days per week on weird staggered schedules, in order to ensure distancing for the children, when the staff are there all week, is only hurting the kids and not actually helping the staff! Argh!
Click to expand...

Welcome to our insane, stupid, panicky country!
 
MHYDE said:
I think the compromise we'll end up with is the worst of both worlds, at least in my area and many like it. Teachers and staff WILL return to work, with classrooms 1/3 full, all children masked, and no extracurriculars. This is apparently the price the district and the state are willing to pay. It's going to suck for the students. My problem is with the fundamental assumptions: these guidelines are in place because of the fantasy that schools can reopen "safely" with no risk of infection. Why else these draconian measures? Which means, the first positive case or cluster of cases and we'll throw up our hands and say the approach failed and we need to shut down again. And then, how will we ever open schools again? Schools should open because they're essential, despite the risk, not because it's risk-free. Schools should stay open, even if the virus returns, because school is important. When did we lose the ability to assess cost/benefit in public health?
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. COVID-19 is a risk to us all, no matter what we do and least so to children. None of us can reduce our risk to zero. And life must go on.

There are two rational pathways, as I see it.

Pathway 1- For people that want to return to full life and accept some COVID risk (reduced by masks/sanitation/meds/future-vaccine).

Pathway 2- For people that are willing to accept no risk, who choose to stay home and not participate in society.


I think anything in between is pointless, in that you're not reducing your risk meaningfully with unproven emotionally-driven measures, yet you're not allowing people to gain the benefits of returning to life.
 
miacomet said:
I think the point is that many are going to refuse to return to work unless they feel safe; you can shake a stick, but many will refuse, pay or no pay. And unfortunately I don't think your stick will work. Non-unionized areas pay so poorly I think many staff will refuse to show up, and in unionized areas staff will not show up because the union will demand higher levels of safety. And schools may not want to shoulder the liability of poor infection protocols and staff illness.

You may be right. I may be right. The point is that we don't know, and that schools reopening is contingent on staff showing up, which they may not feel comfortable doing. The best way to ensure this is to make sure staff feels safe and is safe, and that school systems judge the liability to be tolerable; why aren't we focusing on this, which appears to be the biggest stumbling block?
Click to expand...
Liability needs to be addressed, you're correct. But at the end of the day, COVID's here to stay, and life goes on for 99% of us. So it's up to us to choose what "life going on" looks like.

We can choose,

1- A half-baked, miserable, fear-dominated existence with COVID among us, or

2- We can move on with a full, confident life, with COVID among us.

I choose #2.
 
Birdstrike said:
We didn't know about transmission from kids in March. But weren't all indications the death rate for kids was near zero in kids, back in March or earlier?
Click to expand...
Sure, but historically for viruses kids are amazingly effective vectors. Covid is actually unusual in that they don't seem to spread this that much.

You're a parent, I'm sure you can remember when your kids were very young and you caught everything they had. I certainly did.

I remember one or two years ago several schools in the middle part of our state had to close for a week or so when a solid 33% of the student body ended up with a norovirus at the same time.
 
Birdstrike said:
Liability needs to be addressed, you're correct. But at the end of the day, COVID's here to stay, and life goes on for 99% of us. So it's up to us to choose what "life going on" looks like.

We can choose,

1- A half-baked, miserable, fear-dominated existence with COVID among us, or

2- We can move on with a full, confident life, with COVID among us.

I choose #2.
Click to expand...

Sure. But others may not. You can't dictate what others can do; neither can I. So it seems prudent to encourage school systems to focus on risk mitigation for staff, as they have in other countries with decent success. It's not about your risk tolerance, but the staffs'; for this to work, we have to respond to that.
 
miacomet said:
Sure. But others may not. You can't dictate what others can do; neither can I. So it seems prudent to encourage school systems to focus on risk mitigation for staff, as they have in other countries with decent success. It's not about your risk tolerance, but the staffs'; for this to work, we have to respond to that.
Click to expand...

But what if the concerns are irrational or not supported by evidence? As I stated the teachers have a motive to inflate the risk so they get to stay home with pay. If this is the "new normal" as the media keeps suggesting, then teachers have to decide if they go back to teaching and accept the tiny risks, or quit the profession altogether.
 
My point is that I think many may well quit, and we already have a teacher shortage. You may disagree. We don't know. But teachers have already expressed concern and reluctance (the local essential worker daycare in my very red state closed due to staff shortages).

So, whether or not this is irrational, it probably needs to be addressed. Or we can take our chances, and teachers may (or may not) show up to school.
 
GeneralVeers said:
But what if the concerns are irrational or not supported by evidence? As I stated the teachers have a motive to inflate the risk so they get to stay home with pay. If this is the "new normal" as the media keeps suggesting, then teachers have to decide if they go back to teaching and accept the tiny risks, or quit the profession altogether.
Click to expand...
Yes! Why is a special “shutdown” school even being remotely consider to “protect teachers” when the rest of America is told
“—ck off and get back to work”?

Are they sending us back to work to die or is their fear of work-risk overblown BS so they can stay at home and get paid?

I think I’d love it quite nicely if so could get paid to do home-doctoring from my bead while logged in to the Internet for six months, if all I had to do was say “It’s for the children.”
 
miacomet said:
So, whether or not this is irrational, it probably needs to be addressed. Or we can take our chances, and teachers may (or may not) show up to school.
Click to expand...
That’s caving to extortion. They’re asking the rest of the country to go to work to supposedly risk their lives and give them a special exemption to work from bed. I call bull—-t. Either we all stay home, or they show up to work like the rest of America. No extortion BS.

They know if they can get their local government to write the check, they’re home free. But to the rest of working America, they’re saying “screw you, go to work and die from corona.”
 
Some teachers have died; it's not as thought the risk is zero and plenty of people are not going back to work, voluntarily or otherwise. Plenty of companies are allowing people to work from home. Most workers who interact with other people are demanding PPE; it doesn't seem unreasonable to make this available. Many of the fatalities have been among essential workers and others who work in crowded conditions. Why shouldn't teachers receive adequate protection? Don't we want that as clinicians and frontline workers ourselves? We want our concerns addressed; theirs are valid.

Why not take a reasonable, compassionate approach? It seems like it would be more effective on many levels.

The rest of America is not showing up to work...many of them are working from home.
 
miacomet said:
Some teachers have died; it's not as thought the risk is zero and plenty of people are not going back to work, voluntarily or otherwise. Plenty of companies are allowing people to work from home. Most workers who interact with other people are demanding PPE; it doesn't seem unreasonable to make this available. Many of the fatalities have been among essential workers and others who work in crowded conditions. Why shouldn't teachers receive adequate protection? Don't we want that as clinicians and frontline workers ourselves? We want our concerns addressed; theirs are valid.

Why not take a reasonable, compassionate approach? It seems like it would be more effective on many levels.

The rest of America is not showing up to work...many of them are working from home.
Click to expand...
Persuasively stated presentation of your argument.
 
This has been a question for a while I’ve seen little data on. I know NYC public school employees died, as did NYPD employees, as did lots and lots of other New Yorkers of all professions (including many who were sheltering at home!).

Outside of major hotspots like New York, is there evidence that other essential workers were especially hard hit during the lockdown? All the grocery clerks, truck drivers, healthcare workers, cops? I know they/we got sick but was it more so than the general “non-essential” population? The only example I can think of is meatpacking, which seems uniquely conducive to Covid transmission. So is there any reason to think teachers should be special in that regard?
 
Many of the NYers who got sick sheltering at home lived with essential workers; I'll try and find the article. There aren't great stats, but the mortality rate of grocery workers and transit workers appeared pretty high. Most teachers weren't working during the pandemic, so I don't know what kind of stats we really have.

I live somewhere that thought it would avoid this, and now we are a hotspot and it's a mess.
 
miacomet said:
Many of the NYers who got sick sheltering at home lived with essential workers; I'll try and find the article. There aren't great stats, but the mortality rate of grocery workers and transit workers appeared pretty high. Most teachers weren't working during the pandemic, so I don't know what kind of stats we really have.

I live somewhere that thought it would avoid this, and now we are a hotspot and it's a mess.
Click to expand...

Are you hoping for zero people to be dying of covid? Like what do you expect? People are going to be dying from Covid from now on. Teachers. Grocery workers. Physicians. Nurses. Whatever.

It doesn't matter how many times you open and close the economy. You're just prolonging the inevitable.
 
Rekt said:
Are you hoping for zero people to be dying of covid? Like what do you expect? People are going to be dying from Covid from now on. Teachers. Grocery workers. Physicians. Nurses. Whatever.

It doesn't matter how many times you open and close the economy. You're just prolonging the inevitable.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention "closing the economy" and it's unclear what you are reacting to, but I do think it would be reasonable to try and institute hygiene and protection measures so we don't overwhelm the health system, can work on treatments (or a vaccine), and protect people as best we can. It would help if people would mask and wash their hands, and be supportive of physical distancing. The countries with the most success and most robust economies have instituted all these things. Why we can't do them here is beyond me.

The economy will not do well if people become ill or are too scared (rightfully or wrongfully) to work.
 
Rekt said:
Are you hoping for zero people to be dying of covid? Like what do you expect? People are going to be dying from Covid from now on. Teachers. Grocery workers. Physicians. Nurses. Whatever.

It doesn't matter how many times you open and close the economy. You're just prolonging the inevitable.
Click to expand...

NY state has a deaths per capita of >1,600/M (NYC even higher), which is 10x Florida and 20x Texas. (Florida 157/M, Texas 82/M).

I just about spit out my coffee in laughter today, when I read someone online bragging about how “New York sure showed those redneck states Florida and Texas how it’s done!”

How, by letting 10-20x more NY residents die?
 
New York City has a terrible hospital system, or systems.
I personally did not mention NYC as a model for anything; I was simply explaining why so many nonworking people became ill there under lockdown.

Texas has a much better hospital system than NYC, particularly Houston, and it will be interesting to see how that changes the mortality rate. Florida has all manner of old people and the less said about their medical care the better. Once again, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree that a respiratory virus is hard to control, and we don't really have a great endgame here. It should be noted they are early in their surge.

It's a shame people can't take common-sense measures to make both the economy and the healthcare system run more smoothly.

As to the economy, wealthy folks seem to have really slowed down spending, which is hurting all manner of things; I'm not sure how to reactivate that, but my guess is people (rightly or wrongly) won't be opening their pocketbooks to go on cruises, airplanes, and out to fancy restaurants until they feel safe, which involves investing in whatever PPE and retrofitting makes people safe, and feel safe. I bet the airlines would be happy if Americans were welcome in Europe, but that's a no go until we meet their requirements.
 
Last edited:
This isn’t panic porn, so you probably weren’t aware this came out Thursday.

American Academy of Pediatrics:

”the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.“

1593296919517.jpeg
 
COVID Tracking Project:

“Though we are setting records for *confirmed cases* — there were almost certainly more total infections at the spring peak than there are right now.”
 
Birdstrike said:
This isn’t panic porn, so you probably weren’t aware this came out Thursday.

American Academy of Pediatrics:

”the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.“

View attachment 311236
Click to expand...

Wait...it's important to be there in person? Maybe I shouldn't have spent so much time smoking out behind the kiln.

The more important bit of information gleaned from that statement (which makes a much more persuasive play into your current argument) would be:
Screenshot_20200627-162944.png
 
Can anyone explain to me why the non-lockdown states (IA, ND, SD, AS, SC) have similar or less COVD deaths/million than the lockdown states of MN, WI, MO
 
I don't think anyone thinks schools shouldn't try extremely hard to open. It's that there are a lot of legitimate barriers regarding staffing and transportation that have to be addressed. The most productive thing is probably not to state schools should open, which is a common, worldwide goal, but look at the barriers and concerns presented by staff and school systems and try and address those. For example, the UFT wants the HEROES Act passed, and is insisting on it before teachers return to school. So parents in UFT areas might find it productive to lobby their representatives to pass that. There are different barriers in other areas (school buses are a big one), so families could be productive by helping schools address those.
 
GeneralVeers said:
Can anyone explain to me why the non-lockdown states (IA, ND, SD, AS, SC) have similar or less COVD deaths/million than the lockdown states of MN, WI, MO
Click to expand...

Population density so lower R0? Other than SC those three states are pretty low on the population per sq mile list.

And AS (America Samoa) has been on full island style lockdown. Unless you didn't mean Samoa. Which if you did, bravo for including them.
 
miacomet said:
I don't think anyone thinks schools shouldn't try extremely hard to open. It's that there are a lot of legitimate barriers regarding staffing and transportation that have to be addressed. The most productive thing is probably not to state schools should open, which is a common, worldwide goal, but look at the barriers and concerns presented by staff and school systems and try and address those. For example, the UFT wants the HEROES Act passed, and is insisting on it before teachers return to school. So parents in UFT areas might find it productive to lobby their representatives to pass that. There are different barriers in other areas (school buses are a big one), so families could be productive by helping schools address those.
Click to expand...

Waaaaiiitt.... suggest solutions instead of pointing out problems?! Heresy.
 
Yeah, I mean, no one is saying schools opening isn't important. People are saying it might be a challenge, but they are focusing on the safety of the children, which does not appear to be the main issue. The statements from AAP and Sick Children's are important in reassuring parents, but many, perhaps most parents want their kids back in school yesterday. The pediatric organizations don't address the concerns of teachers, school boards, cafeteria workers, librarians, and bus drivers, which are a bigger roadblock in my research and experience. Their concerns, such as those from the UFT, need to be addressed for school reopening to be effective; it would perhaps be more productive to post and address their concerns rather than reassurances from pediatricians.
 
I hope you are right, Birdstrike. I'm not sure how well we are tracking deaths, and I worry about Florida.
 
miacomet said:
I hope you are right, Birdstrike.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? I'm just posting past numbers, not making predictions of future numbers. I don't know what the daily deaths are going to be in the future and I'm not implying I do. I hope they keep trending down, and I can venture a guess, but I can't predict the future.
 
Rekt said:
Yeah but the CASES. Didn't you hear about the CASES? The CASES are exploding!
Click to expand...
Yep. I've heard. And heard, and heard, heard, heard and heard again. 🙂

It's almost as if the media exaggerates negatives for ratings and cash while ignoring positives? Nah...

There's an old saying about the media that goes like this, "If it bleeds, it leads."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

alpinism
Resident ITE scores have plummeted 25% in the last 5 years
2
Replies
94
Views
6K
HemorrhagicShock
HemorrhagicShock
Bro Jenkins
How was the job market in 08 recession
Replies
15
Views
2K
gamerEMdoc
gamerEMdoc
miamidoc101
  • Question Question
How much do yall work?
2 3
Replies
144
Views
8K
doitalldoc
D
T
Should I Quit?
2 3
Replies
128
Views
15K
Old_Mil
Old_Mil
W
Dogs in the ED
Replies
15
Views
1K
WorkNoteEmergency
W
Top