Coronavirus pandemic

[vdeane]

I definitely remember thinking before the pandemic that infectious diseases were only a threat in undeveloped third world countries and that one could never possibly threaten the Western world.  Even past pandemics were not talked about as much - as far as I knew, the Western world hadn't seen one since Spanish Flu, which until recently was treated as a historical footnote, and other major diseases was made to sound like just a normal part of pre-vaccine life with the exception of the Black Death.  So yeah, the current crises would be very unprecedented for someone my age.

Not to mention the widespread bare shelves in grocery stores and the full-blown meat shortage.  Food has never been so hard to find in my life.

Unprecedented in the life of anyone currently younger than retirement age, yes.  In terms of the broad sweep of history, no.

I was wondering if this might be the answer.

Pandemic with total lockdown may be unprecedented thing.

  Maybe it's the panic that's unprecedented...

The degree of mass hysteria and media driven panic is a relatively new phenomenon.  That's one of the biggest problems with having so much access to information.  People were spun up about all this months ago.  Having everyone stirred up from the get go definitely plays a bigger factor in why restrictions ended up as harsh they did and why a lot of places aren't starting to ease up at all. 

But then again, there panic usually about whatever is negative in the news cycle.  Not exactly usually to this degree, but it is there. 

I would think the internet is another reason for the restrictions.  I imagine there would be a lot less support for them if people couldn't work from home, order things online, Zoom chat their friends, and binge watch Tiger King throughout the lockdown.

[qguy]

I definitely remember thinking before the pandemic that infectious diseases were only a threat in undeveloped third world countries and that one could never possibly threaten the Western world.  Even past pandemics were not talked about as much - as far as I knew, the Western world hadn't seen one since Spanish Flu, which until recently was treated as a historical footnote, and other major diseases was made to sound like just a normal part of pre-vaccine life with the exception of the Black Death.  So yeah, the current crises would be very unprecedented for someone my age.

Not to mention the widespread bare shelves in grocery stores and the full-blown meat shortage.  Food has never been so hard to find in my life.

Unprecedented in the life of anyone currently younger than retirement age, yes.  In terms of the broad sweep of history, no.

I was wondering if this might be the answer.

Pandemic with total lockdown may be unprecedented thing.

  Maybe it's the panic that's unprecedented...

The degree of mass hysteria and media driven panic is a relatively new phenomenon.  That's one of the biggest problems with having so much access to information.  People were spun up about all this months ago.  Having everyone stirred up from the get go definitely plays a bigger factor in why restrictions ended up as harsh they did and why a lot of places aren't starting to ease up at all. 

But then again, there panic usually about whatever is negative in the news cycle.  Not exactly usually to this degree, but it is there. 

I would think the internet is another reason for the restrictions.  I imagine there would be a lot less support for them if people couldn't work from home, order things online, Zoom chat their friends, and binge watch Tiger King throughout the lockdown.

There's becoming less and less support for the restrictions as time goes by. Partly, I think, because so many (most?) can't work from home and risk losing their livelihoods from loss of their businesses or the jobs from the lost businesses.

[jeffandnicole]

I definitely remember thinking before the pandemic that infectious diseases were only a threat in undeveloped third world countries and that one could never possibly threaten the Western world.  Even past pandemics were not talked about as much - as far as I knew, the Western world hadn't seen one since Spanish Flu, which until recently was treated as a historical footnote, and other major diseases was made to sound like just a normal part of pre-vaccine life with the exception of the Black Death.  So yeah, the current crises would be very unprecedented for someone my age.

Not to mention the widespread bare shelves in grocery stores and the full-blown meat shortage.  Food has never been so hard to find in my life.

Unprecedented in the life of anyone currently younger than retirement age, yes.  In terms of the broad sweep of history, no.

I was wondering if this might be the answer.

Pandemic with total lockdown may be unprecedented thing.

  Maybe it's the panic that's unprecedented...

The degree of mass hysteria and media driven panic is a relatively new phenomenon.  That's one of the biggest problems with having so much access to information.  People were spun up about all this months ago.  Having everyone stirred up from the get go definitely plays a bigger factor in why restrictions ended up as harsh they did and why a lot of places aren't starting to ease up at all. 

But then again, there panic usually about whatever is negative in the news cycle.  Not exactly usually to this degree, but it is there. 

I would think the internet is another reason for the restrictions.  I imagine there would be a lot less support for them if people couldn't work from home, order things online, Zoom chat their friends, and binge watch Tiger King throughout the lockdown.

There's becoming less and less support for the restrictions as time goes by. Partly, I think, because so many (most?) can't work from home and risk losing their livelihoods from loss of their businesses or the jobs from the lost businesses.

And...the weather is getting nicer out.

[Sctvhound]

I definitely remember thinking before the pandemic that infectious diseases were only a threat in undeveloped third world countries and that one could never possibly threaten the Western world.  Even past pandemics were not talked about as much - as far as I knew, the Western world hadn't seen one since Spanish Flu, which until recently was treated as a historical footnote, and other major diseases was made to sound like just a normal part of pre-vaccine life with the exception of the Black Death.  So yeah, the current crises would be very unprecedented for someone my age.

Not to mention the widespread bare shelves in grocery stores and the full-blown meat shortage.  Food has never been so hard to find in my life.

Unprecedented in the life of anyone currently younger than retirement age, yes.  In terms of the broad sweep of history, no.

I was wondering if this might be the answer.

Pandemic with total lockdown may be unprecedented thing.

  Maybe it's the panic that's unprecedented...

The degree of mass hysteria and media driven panic is a relatively new phenomenon.  That's one of the biggest problems with having so much access to information.  People were spun up about all this months ago.  Having everyone stirred up from the get go definitely plays a bigger factor in why restrictions ended up as harsh they did and why a lot of places aren't starting to ease up at all. 

But then again, there panic usually about whatever is negative in the news cycle.  Not exactly usually to this degree, but it is there. 

I would think the internet is another reason for the restrictions.  I imagine there would be a lot less support for them if people couldn't work from home, order things online, Zoom chat their friends, and binge watch Tiger King throughout the lockdown.

If this happened in 2005... or even 2010, things would be much different in this country. Sure, you'd have a different president handling things, but the economic shutdown would have been way worse.

Heck, broadband internet didn't even pass dial-up until 2005. Social media has also helped us as we can see how we are doing compared to other nations.

[Duke87]

Not all blocks have sidewalks, and I used to be annoyed when people would walk along the curb on the right-hand side, thus aiming themselves right at me, instead of walking on the left side facing traffic, as people are supposed to do when they walk in the street.  However, I've come to realize these people are gone a lot faster than the ones who actually walk on the correct side and thus take forever to pass.

I find this idea that one is "supposed to" walk on the left side of the street facing traffic intriguing. This is sound advice when you find yourself walking on a busy road with no sidewalk, but
1) I am not aware of there being any law to this effect around here, certainly not one that is ever enforced, and
2) I don't see the principle really being applicable when dealing with quiet residential side streets.

My walkings on sidewalkless streets are almost entirely of the "quiet residential side streets" variety. In these cases I don't consistently walk down one side versus the other. In order to avoid coming close to other people walking I may switch sides, or just temporarily walk in the middle (which is fine so long as there isn't a car coming).

Relatedly though, sometimes it is necessary for one person on a sidewalk to step out into a normally busy street in order to pass someone walking the other way at sufficient distance. Preferably it is the person walking towards oncoming traffic who does this for visibility reasons, though I have found myself doing it when walking with traffic in cases where the oncoming pedestrian is unwilling to depart the sidewalk.

Regarding a "pandemic passport"  I know that's just likely wishful thinking.  Either way it would be nice to know if my wife and I had it just for peace of mind.  My Cousin caught COVID in course of her job at work already earlier on in the pandemic, I would be curious to find out if she has taken an antibody test.

With currently available tests you can't know, as they are not accurate enough for clinical use. They are only accurate enough for epidemiological use, where the ~5% error rate can be smoothed away by aggregating data from enough people.

If this happened in 2005... or even 2010, things would be much different in this country. Sure, you'd have a different president handling things, but the economic shutdown would have been way worse.

I think it's more likely that if this happened in 2005, the technology available at the time would have forced the response to be different. The shutdowns ordered would have been less comprehensive, but the instructions to cover faces may have come sooner.

[jeffandnicole]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Yes, it's good to maintain social distance while walking outside. No need to go overboard with it though when the encounter will last all of 1.5 seconds, usually with no conversation or contact which are the primary cause of virus transfers.

[kalvado]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Yes, it's good to maintain social distance while walking outside. No need to go overboard with it though when the encounter will last all of 1.5 seconds, usually with no conversation or contact which are the primary cause of virus transfers.

Sure - assuming both parties have their masks on.

[Max Rockatansky]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Yes, it's good to maintain social distance while walking outside. No need to go overboard with it though when the encounter will last all of 1.5 seconds, usually with no conversation or contact which are the primary cause of virus transfers.

It's not that I really feel the need, it's more that others have a deer in the headlights look.  That being the case I'm usually the one who takes the initiative to move reasonably.  The store doesn't bother me all that much, it's rare seeing anyone without at least a basic mask anymore mandated or not.

[jeffandnicole]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Yes, it's good to maintain social distance while walking outside. No need to go overboard with it though when the encounter will last all of 1.5 seconds, usually with no conversation or contact which are the primary cause of virus transfers.

Sure - assuming both parties have their masks on.

You missed the point about the mask. If you're not talking to each other, and you quickly pass by, the mask has no effect on each other. The 6 feet of social distance came about BEFORE the requirement to have a mask. The mask was an additional requirement WHILE INSIDE due to the fact that social distancing often csnt be fully maintained.

As parks reopen, masks generally are suggested but not required, and people are often going to be passing within 6 feet of each other.  A sidewalk is no different, except for the width being more narrow. Again, it's fine to move apart for a moment while passing each other. Feeling the need to walk in the middle of the street swings too far in the opposite direction, and puts you in more danger if you haphazardly do it without looking. And no matter how often people say they always look, our accident rate would be 0 if that was true.

[LM117]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

[Max Rockatansky]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.  So maybe it doesn't make much different walking but it definitely does have less of an impact during exercise. 

[Roadgeekteen]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.

Many side streets don't have shoulders.

[Max Rockatansky]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.

Many side streets don't have shoulders.

Many streets here don't have shoulders or sidewalks.  I refer to the detail I went into above about facing traffic while running. 

[kalvado]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Yes, it's good to maintain social distance while walking outside. No need to go overboard with it though when the encounter will last all of 1.5 seconds, usually with no conversation or contact which are the primary cause of virus transfers.

Sure - assuming both parties have their masks on.

You missed the point about the mask. If you're not talking to each other, and you quickly pass by, the mask has no effect on each other. The 6 feet of social distance came about BEFORE the requirement to have a mask. The mask was an additional requirement WHILE INSIDE due to the fact that social distancing often csnt be fully maintained.

As parks reopen, masks generally are suggested but not required, and people are often going to be passing within 6 feet of each other.  A sidewalk is no different, except for the width being more narrow. Again, it's fine to move apart for a moment while passing each other. Feeling the need to walk in the middle of the street swings too far in the opposite direction, and puts you in more danger if you haphazardly do it without looking. And no matter how often people say they always look, our accident rate would be 0 if that was true.

Yes it is all about probability. And we're arguing if the glass is half empty or half full.
Quickly passing without a mask has very low transmission probability - lets say 0.1%. Now you multiply that by number of such encounters and probability of stranger carrying a hidden infection. Opening parks increases number of encounters - hence transmissions. You may argue it is a very odd chance and the number of transmissions is minimal; I am saying this  is yet another straw. Straws add up - and we know what the last straw can do.

[AlexandriaVA]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.

Many side streets don't have shoulders.

Many streets here don't have shoulders or sidewalks.  I refer to the detail I went into above about facing traffic while running.

I always found this baffling, particularly in residential areas in urban or suburban areas. Where are people expected to go when they need to walk somewhere (my guess is that these are parts of the country where people don't walk).

[Tonytone]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.  So maybe it doesn't make much different walking but it definitely does have less of an impact during exercise.

Philly would hate you bro [emoji1787]. They hate the asphalt runners & dont believe ashphalt is softer then the sidewalk.

The runners are usually older gentlemen who run in the middle of the street & hold up traffic for blocks


iPhone

[Tonytone]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.

Many side streets don't have shoulders.

Many streets here don't have shoulders or sidewalks.  I refer to the detail I went into above about facing traffic while running.

I always found this baffling, particularly in residential areas in urban or suburban areas. Where are people expected to go when they need to walk somewhere (my guess is that these are parts of the country where people don't walk).

Blame this on developers who deliberately cut sidewalks & proper draining in neighborhoods in order to save money.

Here in Delaware/Delco area many many many neighborhoods & streets are missing sidewalks because of this.

Developers are now required to add sidewalks in every construction project they do along with the Dot helping on road improvements.

This could have been solved years ago if they wouldnt have had this loophole in construction.


iPhone

[J N Winkler]

I always found this [nonprovision of sidewalks] baffling, particularly in residential areas in urban or suburban areas. Where are people expected to go when they need to walk somewhere (my guess is that these are parts of the country where people don't walk).

In this very auto-dependent city, some people do walk for exercise, and house lots are routinely platted with a sidewalk easement.  I've long suspected that whether a physical sidewalk is actually built (otherwise than as driveway crossings) comes down to how willing planners are to keep their feet on house builders' and developers' necks.  Locally, that seems to have reached an apogee in the 1970's and 1980's (most houses from that period that I see in my subdivision do have sidewalks in front).  Older postwar houses, from the 1950's and 1960's, tend not to have sidewalks, and in some subdivisions did not even have paved streets in front (another concession the planners should never have made--paving with curbs and enclosed drainage takes a paving petition, which essentially requires unanimity from the abutters, though some of these streets now have a thin layer of asphalt for dust suppression).  Subdivisions from the 1980's onward, which tend to be built out faster so that the developers can unload Clean Water Act responsibilities onto the residents ASAP, also tend not to have sidewalks.

I find this idea that one is "supposed to" walk on the left side of the street facing traffic intriguing. This is sound advice when you find yourself walking on a busy road with no sidewalk, but 1) I am not aware of there being any law to this effect around here, certainly not one that is ever enforced, and 2) I don't see the principle really being applicable when dealing with quiet residential side streets.

I haven't yet dug into the law for either Kansas or New York.  In California it is a requirement statewide outside what are called "business or residential districts" (per CVC 21956), and municipalities have the ability to enact ordinances requiring people to walk facing traffic everywhere within their jurisdictions where a sidewalk is absent.  There is actually caselaw on this that comes back in a quick Google search because failure to walk facing traffic is a pretext that police in California use for what are called "wall stops."

[kalvado]

I always found this [nonprovision of sidewalks] baffling, particularly in residential areas in urban or suburban areas. Where are people expected to go when they need to walk somewhere (my guess is that these are parts of the country where people don't walk).

In this very auto-dependent city, some people do walk for exercise, and house lots are routinely platted with a sidewalk easement.  I've long suspected that whether a physical sidewalk is actually built (otherwise than as driveway crossings) comes down to how willing planners are to keep their feet on house builders' and developers' necks.  Locally, that seems to have reached an apogee in the 1970's and 1980's (most houses from that period that I see in my subdivision do have sidewalks in front).  Older postwar houses, from the 1950's and 1960's, tend not to have sidewalks, and in some subdivisions did not even have paved streets in front (another concession the planners should never have made--paving with curbs and enclosed drainage takes a paving petition, which essentially requires unanimity from the abutters, though some of these streets now have a thin layer of asphalt for dust suppression).  Subdivisions from the 1980's onward, which tend to be built out faster so that the developers can unload Clean Water Act responsibilities onto the residents ASAP, also tend not to have sidewalks.

One thing which makes homeowners oppose sidewalk construction is requirement to clear snow (shich can be a pain in this climate) and in some areas maintain sidewalks on their expense (or, better, city bills for maintenance).
Our home is on cul-de-sac of a side street with about 10 homes, making sidewalk moot. The idea that I may have to clean our pretty long street front would easily shave off 10% of property value. 
There were some horror stories of people facing 10-20+ thousand bills for city sidewalk projects (not in our town, though).

[Max Rockatansky]

For those that feel the need to walk in the street to keep 6 feet away...what do you do in the supermarket when passing by someone in the aisle? Climb over the shelving?

Hey now, don't knock it till you try it.

Also, something that I forgot to mention in the context of running.  Asphalt is way softer of a running surface as opposed to concrete.  I tend to prefer to run on the shoulder whenever possible over a sidewalk.

Many side streets don't have shoulders.

Many streets here don't have shoulders or sidewalks.  I refer to the detail I went into above about facing traffic while running.

I always found this baffling, particularly in residential areas in urban or suburban areas. Where are people expected to go when they need to walk somewhere (my guess is that these are parts of the country where people don't walk).

In the context of Fresno it has annexed a lot of areas that were once part of unincorporated Fresno County.  The County doesn't have the same rules that the City does on pedestrian access so it encourages developers to do things on the cheap.  The City doesn't have the budget to quickly install side walks in areas they annex so usually they just make new developments install them.  Given the huge empty tracts of land or older neighborhoods it doesn't lead to much consistently with side walk access.  For what it is worth overwhelming most people drive here.  There is a bus service but it isn't the best. 

J.N.; I was surprised to see anyone mention a "pretext stop" besides me.  I have the hardest time explaining what those are to anyone who hasn't lived around some sort of Law Enforcement environment.

[Tonytone]

Maga protesters in Delaware.


iPhone

[ozarkman417]

Regardless it seems like the variations between is and isn't essential are far from uniform across the board. 

Then there are the nonsensical ones.  Take Illinois, where now only two people can go on a boat for recreation.  So a family of three or more, living in the same house, can't go on the same boat? 

Often times, families are generally exempt from social distancing rules (or should be, at the very least), as they are within six feet apart in their own house anyways.

[Max Rockatansky]

Regardless it seems like the variations between is and isn't essential are far from uniform across the board. 

Then there are the nonsensical ones.  Take Illinois, where now only two people can go on a boat for recreation.  So a family of three or more, living in the same house, can't go on the same boat? 

Often times, families are generally exempt from social distancing rules (or should be, at the very least), as they are within six feet apart in their own house anyways.

Exactly, how is a large family who lives in the same house at any more risk because they piled into a vehicle?  As long as nobody else tags along it's hard to see how policies like that are legit. 

[kalvado]

Regardless it seems like the variations between is and isn't essential are far from uniform across the board. 

Then there are the nonsensical ones.  Take Illinois, where now only two people can go on a boat for recreation.  So a family of three or more, living in the same house, can't go on the same boat? 

Often times, families are generally exempt from social distancing rules (or should be, at the very least), as they are within six feet apart in their own house anyways.

Exactly, how is a large family who lives in the same house at any more risk because they piled into a vehicle?  As long as nobody else tags along it's hard to see how policies like that are legit.

If there was a bit more time to discuss and formulate things, then yes. A lot of these emergency policies are issued in a "first rough draft" conditions, though - and I find it hard to blame policymakers for that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Regardless it seems like the variations between is and isn't essential are far from uniform across the board. 

Then there are the nonsensical ones.  Take Illinois, where now only two people can go on a boat for recreation.  So a family of three or more, living in the same house, can't go on the same boat? 

Often times, families are generally exempt from social distancing rules (or should be, at the very least), as they are within six feet apart in their own house anyways.

Exactly, how is a large family who lives in the same house at any more risk because they piled into a vehicle?  As long as nobody else tags along it's hard to see how policies like that are legit.

If there was a bit more time to discuss and formulate things, then yes. A lot of these emergency policies are issued in a "first rough draft" conditions, though - and I find it hard to blame policymakers for that.

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of these policies are made on the fly.  The bigger problem is that when there are glaring errors like this there is often little motivation to get them clarified or adjusted.