Coronavirus pandemic

[NWI_Irish96]

The fact is...more people are going to die because of this than before this existed, including people who have higher risk factors (known and unknown).  The fact that we're going to all die someday hasn't changed, it just has changed the potential timeframe.  The opinion is, in some people who are staunchly asserting their rights, it sounds asympathetic and self-absorbed, whether it's intended or not.  But some of the social shaming is going too far in the other direction.

The fact is...we didn't know much about this in Feb, and by March, the level of information and trusted information and misinformation were confusing.  The opinion is...the reaction of what occurred in Italy prompted a reaction that probably saved lives but caused a ton of other issues.

The opinion is...the worst thing we can do is pick an answer that is one extreme (total lockdown) or the other (total wide-open "back-to-normal a/k/a pre-COVID-19" lifestyle).  But how to manage that?  Particularly in a society where if you give an inch, people take a mile?  The ol' question of where do you draw the line?  Of which you can't ever possibly please everyone?   

There's a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking of what "should have been done" through today...too late to change that.  And I wouldn't want to be a governor wrestling with this...it's a no win.  But what to do going forward isn't clear cut, either.  It's a question of balance...of which there isn't a perfect one.

My only wish is that there's some empathy in the fact that bad shit is going to occur no matter what.  And some comments, both sides, seem to miss that.

I have a bit of a different perspective on this being married to a respiratory therapist. She's experiencing the worst of this every day. It baffles me that people wouldn't do whatever is necessary to reduce the death rate and get this thing over with as soon as possible.

The suggestion that if you go out when you don't need to, you're causing someone to die, is a bit overblown, but perhaps necessarily so in a society where we are so focused on ourselves and our individual rights and have little regard for the collective.

For every x personal contacts made, another person will die from this. That's an irrefutable fact. We don't know the exact value of x because of the lack of testing, and x certainly varies by area based on current infection rates and population density, but every time you go out, you get us to x more quickly.

Everybody is complaining about the government suppressing people's liberties, but the government shouldn't even have to be doing it. It ought to be common sense that we all just do this for the good of everybody.

I understand, but we can't understate the mental effect of this, as Bandit has stated.

There are a lot of ways people could have/can mitigate the mental/emotional impact of being locked down.  I have a cousin who lives by himself and he and another single friend decided to go stay with a 3rd friend for the past two months.  It's better for them emotionally plus it helps as now only one of them has to go out for groceries, etc.

If actually staying somewhere away from home isn't feasible because of having to care for your home and/or pets, other people have formed "lockdown groups" where a few households have banded together and visited only each other during this time.  It's technically violating stay at home orders but doing so in a way that limits risk exposure as nobody from the group was going out to be in contact with other people.  Think of it as just merging a few households into one big one and still isolating that household from others.

There are plenty of hobbies that can be adjusted to the circumstances.  I like to play poker.  Casinos are closed, but a lot of the online poker sites support private games, so I've been playing poker 4-5 nights per week with friends.  A lot of people connect socially by chatting on zoom while watching the same TV shows.

I'm not going to speak to any one person's circumstances, but a lot of people let a bunch of garbage posted on Facebook affect their emotional state way too much and getting all upset rather than trying to find a way to deal with it.

[kphoger]

There's a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking of what "should have been done" through today...too late to change that.

Actually, I personally haven't been hearing a whole terrible lot of back-and-forth about what should have been done in the past, and that's been refreshing.  Almost all the back-and-forth I hear has been about what to do moving forward.  I think most people understand that decisions were, by and large, made "in the dark", so to speak, and they understand the governing authorities' decisions even if they don't agree with them.

Everybody is complaining about the government suppressing people's liberties, but the government shouldn't even have to be doing it. It ought to be common sense that we all just do this for the good of everybody.

Yes, this is true.  I'd even add that it ought to be common sense for businesses to do it as well.  It's just that the definition of the "it" people should be doing isn't universally agreed upon.  But you are correct that people should not flaunt their political views by putting others at risk.

There are a lot of ways people could have/can mitigate the mental/emotional impact of being locked down.  I have a cousin who lives by himself and he and another single friend decided to go stay with a 3rd friend for the past two months.  It's better for them emotionally plus it helps as now only one of them has to go out for groceries, etc.

If actually staying somewhere away from home isn't feasible because of having to care for your home and/or pets, other people have formed "lockdown groups" where a few households have banded together and visited only each other during this time.  It's technically violating stay at home orders but doing so in a way that limits risk exposure as nobody from the group was going out to be in contact with other people.  Think of it as just merging a few households into one big one and still isolating that household from others.

There are plenty of hobbies that can be adjusted to the circumstances.  I like to play poker.  Casinos are closed, but a lot of the online poker sites support private games, so I've been playing poker 4-5 nights per week with friends.  A lot of people connect socially by chatting on zoom while watching the same TV shows.

I'm not going to speak to any one person's circumstances, but a lot of people let a bunch of garbage posted on Facebook affect their emotional state way too much and getting all upset rather than trying to find a way to deal with it.

The fact that there are ways to mitigate the problem doesn't negate the fact that people are being affected.  It's just one step away from saying it's their own fault if they're not coping well, because they should be doing x-y-z.

[NWI_Irish96]

There are a lot of ways people could have/can mitigate the mental/emotional impact of being locked down.  I have a cousin who lives by himself and he and another single friend decided to go stay with a 3rd friend for the past two months.  It's better for them emotionally plus it helps as now only one of them has to go out for groceries, etc.

If actually staying somewhere away from home isn't feasible because of having to care for your home and/or pets, other people have formed "lockdown groups" where a few households have banded together and visited only each other during this time.  It's technically violating stay at home orders but doing so in a way that limits risk exposure as nobody from the group was going out to be in contact with other people.  Think of it as just merging a few households into one big one and still isolating that household from others.

There are plenty of hobbies that can be adjusted to the circumstances.  I like to play poker.  Casinos are closed, but a lot of the online poker sites support private games, so I've been playing poker 4-5 nights per week with friends.  A lot of people connect socially by chatting on zoom while watching the same TV shows.

I'm not going to speak to any one person's circumstances, but a lot of people let a bunch of garbage posted on Facebook affect their emotional state way too much and getting all upset rather than trying to find a way to deal with it.

The fact that there are ways to mitigate the problem doesn't negate the fact that people are being affected.  It's just one step away from saying it's their own fault if they're not coping well, because they should be doing x-y-z.

As I noted, everybody's circumstances are different, but a lot of what I'm seeing is people demanding that lockdowns be lifted because it's affecting them negatively as opposed to trying to find a different way of dealing with it. To a certain extent it is your fault if you aren't willing to try something outside your normal routine in order to mitigate your emotional state.  Also, to a certain extent it's the responsibility of all of us to try to help friends and family members who are struggling.  I only know my cousin went to stay with a friend because I called him to check on him, knowing that he lived alone and is an extrovert.  On the other hand I have a sister who lives alone but is an extreme introvert and I don't have to worry about her because she's having the time of her life not having to be around anybody.

[kphoger]

On the other hand I have a sister who lives alone but is an extreme introvert and I don't have to worry about her because she's having the time of her life not having to be around anybody.

The danger is an introvert who is nonetheless not doing well.  I worry there are those who are struggling but hesitant to reach out and confess that to anyone.

Without seeing people in person and chatting, it's very easy right now to forget–not to forget about everyone else, but to forget about someone else.  You know, people "falling through the cracks".  That happens as part of our normal life routine but, when there's nobody else around you mentioning someone's name for weeks at a time, it's easy to forget they even exist.

[kalvado]

There are a lot of ways people could have/can mitigate the mental/emotional impact of being locked down.  I have a cousin who lives by himself and he and another single friend decided to go stay with a 3rd friend for the past two months.  It's better for them emotionally plus it helps as now only one of them has to go out for groceries, etc.

If actually staying somewhere away from home isn't feasible because of having to care for your home and/or pets, other people have formed "lockdown groups" where a few households have banded together and visited only each other during this time.  It's technically violating stay at home orders but doing so in a way that limits risk exposure as nobody from the group was going out to be in contact with other people.  Think of it as just merging a few households into one big one and still isolating that household from others.

There are plenty of hobbies that can be adjusted to the circumstances.  I like to play poker.  Casinos are closed, but a lot of the online poker sites support private games, so I've been playing poker 4-5 nights per week with friends.  A lot of people connect socially by chatting on zoom while watching the same TV shows.

I'm not going to speak to any one person's circumstances, but a lot of people let a bunch of garbage posted on Facebook affect their emotional state way too much and getting all upset rather than trying to find a way to deal with it.

The fact that there are ways to mitigate the problem doesn't negate the fact that people are being affected.  It's just one step away from saying it's their own fault if they're not coping well, because they should be doing x-y-z.

As I noted, everybody's circumstances are different, but a lot of what I'm seeing is people demanding that lockdowns be lifted because it's affecting them negatively as opposed to trying to find a different way of dealing with it. To a certain extent it is your fault if you aren't willing to try something outside your normal routine in order to mitigate your emotional state.  Also, to a certain extent it's the responsibility of all of us to try to help friends and family members who are struggling.  I only know my cousin went to stay with a friend because I called him to check on him, knowing that he lived alone and is an extrovert.  On the other hand I have a sister who lives alone but is an extreme introvert and I don't have to worry about her because she's having the time of her life not having to be around anybody.

It is pretty hard to manage the uncertainty of job and income loss.
I, for one, is also very concerned about the future of the country and the entire world. Keeping myself busy with remote work (only that efficient for my job) and home maintenance goes only that far when I am waiting for things to turn to the worse.

[ftballfan]

California has been plateauing despite the virus hitting a huge hot spot in Los Angeles County.  Take that one county out of the picture and trends become far more positive.  San Francisco and the Bay Area are barely even registering any new cases.  That's a large reason why so many counties here are splitting from the Governor and doing their own thing with phased reopening.  The issue for many is 1/4 of the state population in a relatively small area has been driving healthy policy state wide.  Granted the entire top 5 counties with cases are all from SoCal now.

The bolded part could also apply to a few other states, such as Illinois (91% of cases in Chicagoland) and Michigan (74% of cases in the Detroit metro area; the Upper Peninsula has less than 100 total cases (and four counties with zero cases) and the counties with the highest caseloads in northern Lower Michigan have had nursing home outbreaks)

[hbelkins]

Of course, I have an allergy to heavy-handed government overreach, so that's my medical condition that will preclude my wearing a mask in public.

If that's the excuse you give to the cops when you're driving 80 mph in a 25 mph residential zone while snorting crack cocaine off a naked hooker in a convertible, then maybe that's reasonable.  But if you're just have opinions about it, then that's not an illness, and it takes away from those that do have true issues.

If your employer has said that you can work from home, have you protested saying that the government is overreaching and you demand to go into the office every day?

+1 & funny


iPhone

When the idea of telecommuting was first floated, I said I didn't mind continuing to go in to the office every day. But there are advantages to working from home. I'm saving on gas and wear & tear on my car. Plus saving on water since I don't have to shower or do laundry as often. And the biggest advantage is being able to get up at 7:55 to go on the clock at 8, and not having to get up a lot earlier to shower and undertake a 45-minute drive. 6:30 wakeups are going to be hard to get used to when we resume a normal schedule.

[Max Rockatansky]

California has been plateauing despite the virus hitting a huge hot spot in Los Angeles County.  Take that one county out of the picture and trends become far more positive.  San Francisco and the Bay Area are barely even registering any new cases.  That's a large reason why so many counties here are splitting from the Governor and doing their own thing with phased reopening.  The issue for many is 1/4 of the state population in a relatively small area has been driving healthy policy state wide.  Granted the entire top 5 counties with cases are all from SoCal now.

The bolded part could also apply to a few other states, such as Illinois (91% of cases in Chicagoland) and Michigan (74% of cases in the Detroit metro area; the Upper Peninsula has less than 100 total cases (and four counties with zero cases) and the counties with the highest caseloads in northern Lower Michigan have had nursing home outbreaks)

As a former resident of Michigan I don't understand why rules for the Lower Peninsula (especially Metro Detroit) would be universal to the Upper Peninsula.  Similar to California there is a massive geographic break which also happens to be far from the population centers.  I haven't kept up on everything that has been going in Michigan but what I have seen regarding how aggressive the protests have been is kind of surprising.  Granted I know things like Union Strikes and picket rallies have always been common in Michigan...and really most of the Blue Collar Midwest.  The guys with long guns in Lansing was something of a surprise, I thought most of those Michigan-Militia types went the way of the Dodo by now. 

[kphoger]

California has been plateauing despite the virus hitting a huge hot spot in Los Angeles County.  Take that one county out of the picture and trends become far more positive.  San Francisco and the Bay Area are barely even registering any new cases.  That's a large reason why so many counties here are splitting from the Governor and doing their own thing with phased reopening.  The issue for many is 1/4 of the state population in a relatively small area has been driving healthy policy state wide.  Granted the entire top 5 counties with cases are all from SoCal now.

The bolded part could also apply to a few other states, such as Illinois (91% of cases in Chicagoland) and Michigan (74% of cases in the Detroit metro area; the Upper Peninsula has less than 100 total cases (and four counties with zero cases) and the counties with the highest caseloads in northern Lower Michigan have had nursing home outbreaks)

I believe this is why the Kansas governor put off a statewide order for as long as she did.  She was leaving things up to the individual counties for as long as reasonable.

And the biggest advantage is being able to get up at 7:55 to go on the clock at 8

I made this .gif two weeks ago.

[Max Rockatansky]

What is interesting with California is the local governments were the ones dictating the lock downs first.  The six Bay Area Counties locked up before the state and several cities (including Fresno) followed suit.  Interestingly a lot of those early counties and locales are still enacting some of the strictest polices despite evidence they can proceed with beginning the reopening process. 

What's frustrating locally is the City of Fresno has been far stricter than neighboring Clovis or even Fresno County.  Fresno County and Clovis essentially deferred to the State to enforce order, the latter just rescinded their local order.  As of today Fresno has put a policy regarding masks in public places into effect that is vaguely worded.  The mayor even went out of his way to keep it purposely vague and stated that it wouldn't "be enforced"  on streets or sidewalks.  So essentially the way I take that is that even I'm out and about in the process of exercise at 4:30 AM in the City Limits I'm supposed to "wear"  a mask.  But if I go 800 feet from front door into unincorporated Fresno County I can yank that thing off since the State doesn't have such a mask order.  And people wonder why we go to Sanger to do all our shopping as of late...

[hbelkins]

2. The same issues that have plagued Iowa and SD meat plants have happened in southern Minnesota as well.
The state expected case numbers o go up.

One thing I heard many moons ago that after some vigorous DHS raid on undocumented immigrants, Tyson approached the government with the message that sure, DHS is within their rights - but once chicken price doubles, the government would have to deal with that as well.
I suspect that things didn't quite change...

Meanwhile, we still had Kentucky counties with double-digit unemployment rates even before all this started. There are plenty of American citizens who are available to work. I still don't understand the need to import workers, especially illegal aliens, when there are citizens who'd love to have a job.

The problem is that most Americans who have an established footprint in the work force don't want to work at Meat Processing facilities, Harvesting Facilities, farms, or even ranches for what those jobs pay.  I suspect that even the current pandemic has done little to change that mindset towards pay in those industries.  If the wages of the work force increased the costs just get pushed down the roads to consumers who will complain. 

Interestingly given that there is a such a large agricultural foot print here in Central California it seems to be the primary reason this part of the State has been so active.  Pretty all those ranches and farms were deemed essential from the get-go. Much of the yields are being wasted right now because there isn't enough restaurant demand which led to an over supply.  I've found it easier through much of the pandemic just to order groceries from places like Denny's over going to the grocery store.  Driving around the sticks looking for fruit and vegetable stands has been also practical.

I've always contended that we make it too easy for people not to work. Tobacco is not really an economic engine for Kentucky anymore, but 20 years ago it was. Every year in the fall, there would be an influx of migrant workers into tobacco-growing counties in central Kentucky. And the horse industry (racing, breeding, etc.) is dependent on migrant workers. I hesitate to say "illegal aliens," but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the majority of them aren't here legally.

Magoffin County is a 90-minute drive from Lexington, at the end of the Mountain Parkway. It consistently has the highest unemployment rate in the state. Yet somehow it's easier for people there to draw UI benefits than it is for them to go to work. I've always said that instead of allowing so many in Magoffin to draw unemployment -- which we pay for through tax dollars and employer contributions that would otherwise go into employees' paychecks -- they should run vans every day from Salyersville to the horse farms around Lexington. If you're able to work and don't take one of those available jobs, you don't get to draw UI.

A news story made the rounds a couple of weeks ago about the business owner who got one of the Paycheck Protection loans to keep on paying her employees, and she became a pariah to her employees because they were able to make more on unemployment (including the extra $600 per week) than they would if they were working. That just doesn't seem right.

I was surprised to read a few years ago of an ICE raid at a business; I think it may have been a meat processing plant; in NE Tennessee near Kingsport. Kingsport is a regional hub of an area that extends as far north as Pikeville, Ky. The stories of coal's decline are widespread. East Tennessee doesn't mine a lot of coal, but southwestern Virginia and southeastern Kentucky used to.  Yet that facility had to employ illegal aliens because area residents would rather not work and draw UI benefits.

[MikieTimT]

California has been plateauing despite the virus hitting a huge hot spot in Los Angeles County.  Take that one county out of the picture and trends become far more positive.  San Francisco and the Bay Area are barely even registering any new cases.  That's a large reason why so many counties here are splitting from the Governor and doing their own thing with phased reopening.  The issue for many is 1/4 of the state population in a relatively small area has been driving healthy policy state wide.  Granted the entire top 5 counties with cases are all from SoCal now.

The bolded part could also apply to a few other states, such as Illinois (91% of cases in Chicagoland) and Michigan (74% of cases in the Detroit metro area; the Upper Peninsula has less than 100 total cases (and four counties with zero cases) and the counties with the highest caseloads in northern Lower Michigan have had nursing home outbreaks)

I believe this is why the Kansas governor put off a statewide order for as long as she did.  She was leaving things up to the individual counties for as long as reasonable.

That's also why I'm glad we DON'T have a nationwide direction on any of this like some of the talking heads online like to bash our federal govt. for. What makes sense for one area is totally ludicrous for another in terms of lockdown.  It's different for different states, and even within a state, it's different from the urban areas than it should for the rural ones.  It's all about reducing the number of contact points between folks, and that's the status quo anyway for some rural areas.

[kphoger]

What is interesting with California is the local governments were the ones dictating the lock downs first.  The six Bay Area Counties locked up before the state and several cities (including Fresno) followed suit.  Interestingly a lot of those early counties and locales are still enacting some of the strictest polices despite evidence they can proceed with beginning the reopening process. 

In general, this makes sense to me.  The earliest and hardest-hit areas would naturally be the first to issue orders, and the state would naturally want to give other areas with far less impact the freedom to enforce less stringent measures.  Then, it would be natural for the hardest hit areas to be the most skeptical about a green light to re-open.

Perfectly normal, if you ask me.

[kphoger]

I was thinking about this today.  Other than while I was hitchhiking, I can only think of two times I've had interaction with any police officer while I was a pedestrian.  The first was when a Glen Ellyn (IL) officer accosted me for walking across Roosevelt Road while the red hand was flashing.  I had sat down on a bench to wait for my bus, and he pulled into the parking lot behind me to chew me out.  The second was the day after it had snowed a large amount in Wheaton (IL), and I was walking down President Street with a suitcase toward the Metra station, about a mile away from it at that point.  The officer stopped and offered me a ride to the station.  Other than that, the police have always just ignored me as a pedestrian (unless also hitchhiking).

I haven't yet dug into the law for either Kansas or New York. 

It's pretty standard for the Vehicle Code to require walking on the left side.

S 11-506-Pedestrians on highways

(a) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

(b) Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on the shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.

(c) Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

8-1537. Same; use of roadways.

(a) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

(b) Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.

(c) Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

§ 1156. Pedestrians on roadways.

(a) Where sidewalks are provided and they may be used with safety it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

(b) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.  Upon the approach of any vehicle from the opposite direction, such pedestrian shall move as far to the left as is practicable.

[catch22]

That's not what I'm hearing from our church (United Methodist).  Both our Michigan Bishop and the Wisconsin Bishop have similar reopening plans.

You start slowly - first only 10 people.  This would be your pastor, worship leaders, key musicians, probably a tech person, etc.  This mean you go from streaming mostly recorded services to streaming live services (for those churches that have an online presence).

Then 50 people, then 100.  This is where it gets sticky - how do you determine which group of 50 or 100 members can come any given Sunday?

It's for that reason that our church leadership has decided on a later re-opening date rather than an earlier one.  Here in Kansas, the restrictions will relax to be no more than 90 in attendance.  Our church just doesn't see how to re-open for worship and still keep under that threshold, so we'll simply wait until the limitation of 90 also elapses.  I suppose one solution would be to go to two services instead of one service, but–at least for our congregation–that would require a HECK of a lot of re-organization of staff, and we likely wouldn't even have enough people willing and able to fill the spots.

Here in Michigan, our church is working out what to do.  One proposal is to begin at some future date, as safety and state edicts allow, having our small groups gather in one place to watch our online service and have fellowship time afterwards, with the eventual goal of gradually having larger and larger groups meeting until such time as it's safe to all meet in the same building as before.

We did the math, and there's no way to get more than 75 people in our worship space following social distance guidelines. We normally have two services and each has an attendance somewhere around 185 to 200.  Even going to three services won't work, even without considering the staffing and logistic issues.  And, what to do with the children's program?  No way to social distance that.  That's still being worked on.

[kphoger]

That's not what I'm hearing from our church (United Methodist).  Both our Michigan Bishop and the Wisconsin Bishop have similar reopening plans.

You start slowly - first only 10 people.  This would be your pastor, worship leaders, key musicians, probably a tech person, etc.  This mean you go from streaming mostly recorded services to streaming live services (for those churches that have an online presence).

Then 50 people, then 100.  This is where it gets sticky - how do you determine which group of 50 or 100 members can come any given Sunday?

It's for that reason that our church leadership has decided on a later re-opening date rather than an earlier one.  Here in Kansas, the restrictions will relax to be no more than 90 in attendance.  Our church just doesn't see how to re-open for worship and still keep under that threshold, so we'll simply wait until the limitation of 90 also elapses.  I suppose one solution would be to go to two services instead of one service, but–at least for our congregation–that would require a HECK of a lot of re-organization of staff, and we likely wouldn't even have enough people willing and able to fill the spots.

Here in Michigan, our church is working out what to do.  One proposal is to begin at some future date, as safety and state edicts allow, having our small groups gather in one place to watch our online service and have fellowship time afterwards, with the eventual goal of gradually having larger and larger groups meeting until such time as it's safe to all meet in the same building as before.

We did the math, and there's no way to get more than 75 people in our worship space following social distance guidelines. We normally have two services and each has an attendance somewhere around 185 to 200.  Even going to three services won't work, even without considering the staffing and logistic issues.  And, what to do with the children's program?  No way to social distance that.  That's still being worked on.

I haven't heard yet what the plan is for small groups, but I assume they'll get the green light as soon as the ten-person group limit order is lifted.  The small group my wife and I are personally a part of had considered disobeying the order and resuming to meet again already.  One member suggested it, I could go either way, but the other family has been very cautious and wouldn't go for it.

[bandit957]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

[Rothman]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has had a higher death rate than the U.S.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-sweden-different-coronavirus-approaches-both-could-cause-deaths-2020-5

[bandit957]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has had a higher death rate than the U.S.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-sweden-different-coronavirus-approaches-both-could-cause-deaths-2020-5

Sweden automatically counts nursing home deaths as coronavirus deaths.

[Rothman]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has had a higher death rate than the U.S.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-sweden-different-coronavirus-approaches-both-could-cause-deaths-2020-5

Sweden automatically counts nursing home deaths as coronavirus deaths.

Says who?

[kphoger]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has had a higher death rate than the U.S.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-sweden-different-coronavirus-approaches-both-could-cause-deaths-2020-5

Sweden automatically counts nursing home deaths as coronavirus deaths.

Says who?

Even if that's not quite true, a very large portion of Sweden's outbreaks have been in nursing homes.  I'm not really sure how much lockdowns would have prevented that.

[Rothman]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has had a higher death rate than the U.S.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-sweden-different-coronavirus-approaches-both-could-cause-deaths-2020-5

Sweden automatically counts nursing home deaths as coronavirus deaths.

Says who?

Even if that's not quite true, a very large portion of Sweden's outbreaks have been in nursing homes.  I'm not really sure how much lockdowns would have prevented that.

Well, visitors staying home rather than bringing the virus into the nursing home would have helped.

[Scott5114]

Apparently I still have $116 dollars in my wallet left over from when I got home from Mexico.  I don't think that I've had that much money in my wallet for that long (a little over two months) my entire life. 

I have the opposite experience. I usually get $100 out of my check in $10 bills to spend on smaller purchases or whenever I visit small businesses so they don't have to incur credit card fees. Since mid-March, however, it's been all plastic all the time (mostly online, but for groceries too). I even went ahead and rolled up the contents of my change jar and deposited it, since it wasn't doing me any good just sitting at home.

Once things get back to normal, I'll go back to using cash, but if I had it right now, it'd be sitting around like your $116.

[Max Rockatansky]

Apparently I still have $116 dollars in my wallet left over from when I got home from Mexico.  I don't think that I've had that much money in my wallet for that long (a little over two months) my entire life. 

I have the opposite experience. I usually get $100 out of my check in $10 bills to spend on smaller purchases or whenever I visit small businesses so they don't have to incur credit card fees. Since mid-March, however, it's been all plastic all the time (mostly online, but for groceries too). I even went ahead and rolled up the contents of my change jar and deposited it, since it wasn't doing me any good just sitting at home.

Once things get back to normal, I'll go back to using cash, but if I had it right now, it'd be sitting around like your $116.

I would have burned through it awhile back paying cash at small gas stations and food stands on day trips.  Even before the lock down stuff happened I was just packing my own lunch for the day and it just sat there.  Now pretty much the only business I frequent that wants cash still is a local car wash/detailer.

[kphoger]

I would have burned through it awhile back paying cash at small gas stations and food stands on day trips.  Even before the lock down stuff happened I was just packing my own lunch for the day and it just sat there.  Now pretty much the only business I frequent that wants cash still is a local car wash/detailer.

There are basically only two times we spend cash these days.

First, tipping carhops at Sonic.  My usual rule is that I only tip them if they have to make a second trip to the car.  But, these days, I tip them no matter what, because I value their service more and I'm sure they're really glad to even have a job right now.

Second, buying avocados at the local Mexican grocery store.  It's a small operation that probably has a very slim profit margin.  They have a minimum limit on credit/debit card transactions, but I pay cash no matter what because, even if I'm over the limit, it isn't by much.