The Covid19 thread

[Annoyed]

No. I am simply saying if everything shuts down, meaning, potentially even the ESSENTIAL businesses, do you and everyone else affected by these shut-downs, and potential virus exposures, have enough food and supplies stocked up on short notice in some sort of bomb shelter scenario, if you should not venture out of your home/yard because this virus bug just keeps going around in circles ...and passes on to new people further and further into time, who didn't get it before? Most people I know, don't even have enough supplies to last a month, with fresh produce/meats/dairy being among those items for storage (2 weeks maybe, max for those items).

THAT (I think), is what caused part of the panic-buying in the first place... People who did all that buying were expecting to get shut down at any moment. So, they wiped out the ESSENTIAL stores from certain products.



Very bad. World-wide collapse. In a 3 month shut-down, maybe some businesses will be able to bounce back. Remember what happened in 2001 with the WTC (domino effect hurt many businesses... I know that, because our company was watching the stats and it took six months to hurt our office's work levels), when businesses cut down their working staff nearly in half. This is similar, but 18-19 years ago, most places eventually were able to s-l-o-w-l-y bounce back.

Give this current, deteriorating health situation, a *massive* potential six month shut-down or even longer than *that*, and that might wipe out some businesses permanently. World-wide collapse would be inevitable. THAT is why this whole situation is bad.

It's also not just how much money is lost in retirement funds for people nearing retirement. A $72,000 fund 2 weeks ago, dropped $3,000 in 3 days. Keep that stat going downhill and nothing will be left. People are panicking and some tried to move the monies out into a safer place, but were told that they could not get their funds moved fast enough just yet... so they helplessly watch the rest of their accounts drop, until TPTB move it again.

Might as well hide in some already existing / prepped up bunker, but the only folks I know who can do that are people who already have such shelters (who stocked up steadily over many months with canning, etc. from months prior of steady planning and prepping), and the super wealthy... or people who have friends with such shelters. Even the best of preppers have discussed that those shelters aren't going to be safe enough, if the rest of the world discovers where those shelters are, because those places would be the 2nd line of targeting in the hit lists for raiding. Only the missile silos that got converted might have a better chance at survival, until an earthquake cracks their hidden abodes. Of course, those are the absolute worst case-scenarios, too.



Yep. Been hearing about some mental health issues, happening even now. So, it's already beginning. Some is related to those who have recovered, but now have lung problems to deal with... and potentially high costing health bills to deal with down the road, as time progresses forward.

I've said you have to keep essentials open, as we do now. Food, Pharmacies, Fuel and such. We're already doing that. We should continue on our current course for at least a couple of months, with these essential services operating with greatly reduced customer contact. Maybe self-service checkout lines in supermarkets, drive thru pharmacies, etc. Gasoline is already mostly self-serve these days anyway...

If we resume normal operations in a short period of time as some are suggesting, we will greatly increase the number of people infected with this, and with possible permanent lung damage, which you point out will be expensive to live with on a chronic basis that is something we must avoid. This virus almost seems as if it is designed to spread as easily as possible; it lives a long time on surfaces, has a long incubation period, etc. However, it seems to spread much more easily than others. The only way to slow or stop something like this is prolonged isolation.

If we go back to normal too soon, we are going to have a far worse problem to deal with as far as people's health and lives go.

On the other hand, the pressing force to open up soon is the stock market and such. Absolutely, a lot of money will be lost, and most of it by the small investor as he doesn't have the computer trading the rich players have and use to get their money out first. But to be blunt, the stock market has never been anything besides legalized gambling to begin with. If you gamble anywhere long enough, you will lose your shorts. And this particular game is rigged.

I'm more concerned with people dying and becoming permanently crippled with respiratory issues than with people who gambled their money and lost.

Yes, the economy will be damaged. But if we as a country have half the brains God promised a doorknob, we can recover quickly.

It should be becoming obvious that maybe we shouldn't be so dependent upon China for everything. What would be the economic effect of returning all the manufacturing that we've outsourced to China to the US? Maybe an economic boom even larger than the one we've enjoyed the past few years? Remember what WWII manufacturing did for the US economy back then.

If it does get to bomb shelter stage, I'm not worried about it at that point either. If it gets that far, it's game over anyway.

[Falcon Horus]

gr8 idea - all of you show up at your windows at same time & let the wind do the rest

How close do you think our windows are?

I can't even reach my sister's bedroom window, not even stretching out... unless I fancy a 2 meter fall to the pavement below.

I haven't read that, that's sad, especially if their lung capacity is severely reduced.

Lung damage always reduces capacity
Generally it'll heal on its own over a period of time, unless the damage is very severe which it can be in the case of Covid-19.

It's more sustainable than large numbers of people getting infected and dying or being left with crippled respiratory systems.

Or are you of the school that believes that the health of wall street is more important than the health of people?

And how badly would it damage the economy if everything just keep recurring because we won't shut down long enough for the virus to play itself out?

What he said...

Essential business won't shut down any time soon. Supplying them might be a bit tricky, especially if people continue to hoard, but they won't shut down. They didn't shut down during the war either.

It won't just be an economic crisis (and it won't just be the big shots on wall street affected) if you have a several month long lockdown, there will also be mental health crisis.
Even if there is a bit of a spike in cases after the initial lockdown ends, it shouldnt be as bad as the first time around.

Mental health, suicides, domestic abuse... all of that and more.

Wow it’s been 5 years since I last posted here. Anyway hope everyone is safe out there. Just checking to see who still posts here.

WOW!! Look who's back... ...and what a time to return.

[Briangate78]

WOW!! Look who's back... ...and what a time to return.

yeah have more free time and was going to start going on a Stargate re-watch binge. Lol. Hope all is well over there.

[VampyreWraith]

Lung damage always reduces capacity
Generally it'll heal on its own over a period of time, unless the damage is very severe which it can be in the case of Covid-19.



Mental health, suicides, domestic abuse... all of that and more.

I knew that lung damage reduces lung function, I just hadn't read anything on the topic of how this virus can affect the lung function of those that have recovered until MG mentioned it here and I went and read about it after.

I can just imagine all the suicides and suicide attempts from people who've lost their livelyhoods and possibly even family members because of this.

As for the several month lockdown idea, I still don't think it's necessary or viable. You can lockdown the people at high risk for several months, they can work from home or be on disability or something. Anyone with virus related anxiety can stay lockeddown as well and either work from home or get disability. All these people can get stuff delivered to them to minimize contact with others if they want, maybe provide masks for those that don't already have them or can't get them. Maybe have guidelines or rules for households that have high risk members to help minimize risk of infection. The high risk people could have their health monitored. Everyone else could go back to work and try to live normal lives again. There will be a risk of getting covid-19 if you haven't already gotten it, and some of those low-risk people may develop severe issues and die, but that's stuff we deal with everyday anyway. Sometimes normally healthy people die of the flu or of random bacterial infections. You can't lock healthy people up for months on end so that they can't try to make a living, cripple the economy (which affects more that just people gambling their money away on stocks), and cause a host of other issues in the process. Now, I'm not saying everything back to normal by Easter or anything, but I think several months of lockdown for everyone is excessive.

[Falcon Horus]

As for the several month lockdown idea, I still don't think it's necessary or viable.

The reason we are all in lockdown is to "flatten the curve" so that our hospitals can handle the number of patients.

I think Italy is a prime example of what happens when you don't flatten the curve and you have an overload on patients in hospitals. You can't treat them all and have to make the choice on who to save and who to make as comfortable as possible because dying of Covid-19 is not a pleasant way to go.

EDIT
In fact, I just read an article that Doctors in the USA are toying with the ethical idea of a universal DNR for corona patients.
End edit

You can also be infected, have no symptoms whatsoever but still spread it like a proper Typhoid Mary or Patient Zero.

if everyone could get tested, it might be possible to relax the lockdown rules but we have no way of doing that. There are simply not enough tests available and those that are should be kept for those who actually need them.

We're gonna have to suffer a bit to make it through the worst, and maybe if we do so, we'll be able to ward if off faster when it returns for a second wave.

I work for an HR company. I see what it does to companies which have to close and independent workers which have no income now... I see all of that up close and I worry about the economy. But I'd rather we face this **** head on right now, then have to suffer through ups and downs in the coming months -- I say get it over with and lets work together to make the best of it.

[VampyreWraith]

The reason we are all in lockdown is to "flatten the curve" so that our hospitals can handle the number of patients.

I think Italy is a prime example of what happens when you don't flatten the curve and you have an overload on patients in hospitals. You can't treat them all and have to make the choice on who to save and who to make as comfortable as possible because dying of Covid-19 is not a pleasant way to go.

EDIT
In fact, I just read an article that Doctors in the USA are toying with the ethical idea of a universal DNR for corona patients.
End edit

You can also be infected, have no symptoms whatsoever but still spread it like a proper Typhoid Mary or Patient Zero.

if everyone could get tested, it might be possible to relax the lockdown rules but we have no way of doing that. There are simply not enough tests available and those that are should be kept for those who actually need them.

We're gonna have to suffer a bit to make it through the worst, and maybe if we do so, we'll be able to ward if off faster when it returns for a second wave.

I work for an HR company. I see what it does to companies which have to close and independent workers which have no income now... I see all of that up close and I worry about the economy. But I'd rather we face this **** head on right now, then have to suffer through ups and downs in the coming months -- I say get it over with and lets work together to make the best of it.

I know that, I've said that in many of my posts on several threads. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a lockdown, just not one that lasts several months.

[Annoyed]

I knew that lung damage reduces lung function, I just hadn't read anything on the topic of how this virus can affect the lung function of those that have recovered until MG mentioned it here and I went and read about it after.

I can just imagine all the suicides and suicide attempts from people who've lost their livelyhoods and possibly even family members because of this.

As for the several month lockdown idea, I still don't think it's necessary or viable. You can lockdown the people at high risk for several months, they can work from home or be on disability or something. Anyone with virus related anxiety can stay lockeddown as well and either work from home or get disability. All these people can get stuff delivered to them to minimize contact with others if they want, maybe provide masks for those that don't already have them or can't get them. Maybe have guidelines or rules for households that have high risk members to help minimize risk of infection. The high risk people could have their health monitored. Everyone else could go back to work and try to live normal lives again. There will be a risk of getting covid-19 if you haven't already gotten it, and some of those low-risk people may develop severe issues and die, but that's stuff we deal with everyday anyway. Sometimes normally healthy people die of the flu or of random bacterial infections. You can't lock healthy people up for months on end so that they can't try to make a living, cripple the economy (which affects more that just people gambling their money away on stocks), and cause a host of other issues in the process. Now, I'm not saying everything back to normal by Easter or anything, but I think several months of lockdown for everyone is excessive.

Problem with the "voluntary lockdown" you advocate is that it won't protect workers. Suppose we do what you suggest. The govt. dictate for isolation is lifted. Next thing is business owners open back up and expect their workers to show up.

Any employees who have "virus related anxiety" and choose to continue to isolate themselves will be fired for not showing up to work. In our system, that's fired for cause. No unemployment or other assistance.

So, lifting the govt. decree doesn't leave the vast majority of workers a choice. Work whether it is safe to do so or not, or get fired and starve. The only folks for whom it's voluntary is the decision makers, not the people at large.

Of course, this is just a side argument; the main reason is still that we have to let the disease run its course before we open up or we will have a lot more people infected before the day is done.

[VampyreWraith]

Problem with the "voluntary lockdown" you advocate is that it won't protect workers. Suppose we do what you suggest. The govt. dictate for isolation is lifted. Next thing is business owners open back up and expect their workers to show up.

Any employees who have "virus related anxiety" and choose to continue to isolate themselves will be fired for not showing up to work. In our system, that's fired for cause. No unemployment or other assistance.

So, lifting the govt. decree doesn't leave the vast majority of workers a choice. Work whether it is safe to do so or not, or get fired and starve. The only folks for whom it's voluntary is the decision makers, not the people at large.

Of course, this is just a side argument; the main reason is still that we have to let the disease run its course before we open up or we will have a lot more people infected before the day is done.

I never said it would be voluntary that high risk people stay on lockdown. People go on disability for anxiety all the time. There could be a new category added specifically to deal with this and those people affected. Instead of all those healthy people on unemployment, you'd have high risk people or people with anxiety who are on lockdown on disability.

[Falcon Horus]

I know that, I've said that in many of my posts on several threads. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a lockdown, just not one that lasts several months.

I'd say 2 months tops... after which social distancing rules stay in place but people can go out again, keeping certain rules in place.

Also... social distance of one Tapir is a good distance. Or the wingspan of a Turkey Vulgure. Or 3 Armadillos or 4 Raccoons. Or 2 Crocodiles, or 1 Great Dane dog.

I never said it would be voluntary that high risk people stay on lockdown. People go on disability for anxiety all the time. There could be a new category added specifically to deal with this and those people affected. Instead of all those healthy people on unemployment, you'd have high risk people or people with anxiety who are on lockdown on disability.

I think -- and I live in a system with universal healthcare -- that there's no system which could sustain that model.

Besides, proving anxiety is a lot harder to do than proving a physical ailment.

[VampyreWraith]

I'd say 2 months tops... after which social distancing rules stay in place but people can go out again, keeping certain rules in place.

Also... social distance of one Tapir is a good distance. Or the wingspan of a Turkey Vulgure. Or 3 Armadillos or 4 Raccoons. Or 2 Crocodiles, or 1 Great Dane dog.



I think -- and I live in a system with universal healthcare -- that there's no system which could sustain that model.

Besides, proving anxiety is a lot harder to do than proving a physical ailment.

We already have a ton of people on unemployment because they aren't being allowed to work and a lot more trying to file. Most of the people 70+ are already retired and receiving social security and/or a pension, they wouldn't be getting disability because they aren't out of work because of this. The people getting disability would be people that fall into high risk catagories that can't work from home. Most people can get a doctors note if they have a respitory illness or heart disease or whatever and turn that into their employer if they still have a job but can't go in, and apply for disability or however the process works. Anxiexty is harder to prove if you're claiming disability, and if you are claiming that you can't work because you're afraid you'll catch something if you go out, that also means you can't go out to the bar or restaurant. Thresholds for proving you're at high risk or whatever can also be lowered depending on the situation. There would still be low risk people who's jobs are gone completely because their workplace closed permanently on unemployment, but at least all the jobless people who still are able to work aren't on unemployment or filing for unemployment because they don't work at someplace essential and their place if employment is temporarily closed. It should be less people being supported by the government financially overall and the economy may be able to start to recover a little. Having the high risk people quarantined/on lockdown/practicing social distancing, whatever you want to call it, should lessen the burnen on the Healthcare system too

To add: I'm saying something like this could be implemented if lockdowns are still necessary after around a month or so (maybe less) of being in one depending on the overall situation of the area.

[Annoyed]

We already have a ton of people on unemployment because they aren't being allowed to work and a lot more trying to file. Most of the people 70+ are already retired and receiving social security and/or a pension, they wouldn't be getting disability because they aren't out of work because of this. The people getting disability would be people that fall into high risk catagories that can't work from home. Most people can get a doctors note if they have a respitory illness or heart disease or whatever and turn that into their employer if they still have a job but can't go in, and apply for disability or however the process works. Anxiexty is harder to prove if you're claiming disability, and if you are claiming that you can't work because you're afraid you'll catch something if you go out, that also means you can't go out to the bar or restaurant. Thresholds for proving you're at high risk or whatever can also be lowered depending on the situation. There would still be low risk people who's jobs are gone completely because their workplace closed permanently on unemployment, but at least all the jobless people who still are able to work aren't on unemployment or filing for unemployment because they don't work at someplace essential and their place if employment is temporarily closed. It should be less people being supported by the government financially overall and the economy may be able to start to recover a little. Having the high risk people quarantined/on lockdown/practicing social distancing, whatever you want to call it, should lessen the burnen on the Healthcare system too

To add: I'm saying something like this could be implemented if lockdowns are still necessary after around a month or so (maybe less) of being in one depending on the overall situation of the area.

The minute they lift the govt. ordered restrictions on business being open, you're going to see many more people in the same boat these poor folks are in:

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus...any-angry.html

That is what is considered an "essential business", so the lockdown rules don't apply to it.

These folks are in a call center, doing customer service or tech support. There is no reason on the face of the earth that that job can't be done from home. I speak from experience, I used to to that job and I was a work at home.

Ever work in a call center? It's a cubicle farm, people working 8 hour shifts, sitting 3-4 feet from 4 or more other people in their cubicles. You cannot possibly practice "social distancing" in that environment. But the employees don't have a choice. If the employer is permitted to open, and he wants you to go to work, you go to work or get fired.

You suggest revamping our benefits system. You live in NY State, so I assume you know how frakked up this place is. Do you really trust NY state government to do that?

We ran into this yesterday; we can't discuss the political aspects here, but they are a major aspect of this whole situation. All I can really say is that we can't do anything besides do what we are doing for a few months, at least. Businesses won't let their people make their own choice, so if "Pause NY" or whatever Cuomo calls it (and he's pushing for re-opening already) is lifted prematurely, we will defeat the purpose of what has already been done and the virus will really begin spreading.

PS: I sent you a PM outlining a few aspects of NY state politics.

[VampyreWraith]

The minute they lift the govt. ordered restrictions on business being open, you're going to see many more people in the same boat these poor folks are in:

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus...any-angry.html

That is what is considered an "essential business", so the lockdown rules don't apply to it.

These folks are in a call center, doing customer service or tech support. There is no reason on the face of the earth that that job can't be done from home. I speak from experience, I used to to that job and I was a work at home.

Ever work in a call center? It's a cubicle farm, people working 8 hour shifts, sitting 3-4 feet from 4 or more other people in their cubicles. You cannot possibly practice "social distancing" in that environment. But the employees don't have a choice. If the employer is permitted to open, and he wants you to go to work, you go to work or get fired.

You suggest revamping our benefits system. You live in NY State, so I assume you know how frakked up this place is. Do you really trust NY state government to do that?

We ran into this yesterday; we can't discuss the political aspects here, but they are a major aspect of this whole situation. All I can really say is that we can't do anything besides do what we are doing for a few months, at least. Businesses won't let their people make their own choice, so if "Pause NY" or whatever Cuomo calls it (and he's pushing for re-opening already) is lifted prematurely, we will defeat the purpose of what has already been done and the virus will really begin spreading.

I agree that people that work in a call center should be allowed to work from home, so it was wrong of Spectrum or other companies to force people to report to a call center when it would be safer to work from home. At the end of the article it did say that they were allowing call center employees to work remotely now though.

The company I work for started having some people in corporate offices and such work remotely before NY went into this pause thing and we closed stores before we were required to. We've also been getting paid and will be getting paid for at least another week(regular store employees too). Upper management has been very nice and supportive (so far lol) checking in with store managers and store managers checking in with their store associates. Before we closed if anyone called out because they felt it was unsafe to come into work, no one was penalized for it, if they wanted to use sick days, they could use sick days, no questions asked. It was one of the things that came down from corporate, so it was a company-wide policy (hopefully it was listened to by individual managers). I'm sure other companies did/are doing the same. Everyplace isn't going to take advantage of their workers, though I'm sure some will try.

If the government issues a mandate that all high risk people are to remain practicing social distancing and not to return to work. There should be serious consequences for employers firing high risk workers for not being able to report to work.

I'm not suggesting revamping the entire thing. They can even keep getting unemployment or whatever they're getting now for being out of work, it doesn't have to disability, as long as people are getting the money they need to survive. I haven't really had bad experiences with the benefit system, so I can't really comment on that personally. Though I've read that it's getting almost impossible to apply for unemployment benefits online because the site keeps crashing and wait times on the phone impossiblely long and often times you get disconnected.

Last I read, he only breify brought up the idea of letting younger healthy people go back to work, and he didn't give a timetable for it. I don't think that's a bad idea.

[Annoyed]

The company I work for started having some people in corporate offices and such work remotely before NY went into this pause thing and we closed stores before we were required to. We've also been getting paid and will be getting paid for at least another week(regular store employees too). Upper management has been very nice and supportive (so far lol) checking in with store managers and store managers checking in with their store associates. Before we closed if anyone called out because they felt it was unsafe to come into work, no one was penalized for it, if they wanted to use sick days, they could use sick days, no questions asked. It was one of the things that came down from corporate, so it was a company-wide policy (hopefully it was listened to by individual managers). I'm sure other companies did/are doing the same. Everyplace isn't going to take advantage of their workers, though I'm sure some will try.

That's the point as far as this particular aspect of this is concerned. If you let 'em, many (most?) businesses will do the same thing the cable company did. So you can't let 'em. Unless you want to tell the employees of all those companies that they aren't worth squat.

[VampyreWraith]

That's the point as far as this particular aspect of this is concerned. If you let 'em, many (most?) businesses will do the same thing the cable company did. So you can't let 'em. Unless you want to tell the employees of all those companies that they aren't worth squat.

So don't let them. If you put out a set of rules/laws protecting workers, there should be steep penalties for breaking those rules.

[Annoyed]

So don't let them. If you put out a set of rules/laws protecting workers, there should be steep penalties for breaking those rules.

Companies can pay lawyers. Workers can't. Game over.