Jump to content

Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?


Recommended Posts

What I don't get is all these Republicans (who consistently try to push policy that makes the poor have even less in America) suddenly being so concerned about  the poverty lockdowns might contribute to -- even in Bangladesh and other third world countries!

I mean that's sweet and all, but....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*****ing *****ed up mother *****ers are *****ing the whole *****ing *****ed up ****sucking *****head *****s. And then some.

Cutting in with a rando side comment because I haven’t kept up - I’m tired of all the conspiracy theories behind it, and all the Americans on my feeds (note: I am also an American) pointing fingers at

One thing that really irritates me to no end is noticing some companies taking advantage of this virus..Mine being one of them.. They put everyone on furlough when it all first began and saying i

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What I don't get is all these Republicans (who consistently try to push policy that makes the poor have even less in America) suddenly being so concerned about  the poverty lockdowns might contribute to -- even in Bangladesh and other third world countries!

I mean that's sweet and all, but....

I'm not a Republican Luna...but I did come up with the idea of somehow separating the elderly from the younger.  However, what I really think is needed is to separate the high risk from the low risk.  In high risk, it needs to include those with pre-existing conditions plus other unique and special circumstances such as one I stated where those who take care of their elderly parents may need to go into something like an essential high risk home caregiver category and not go back to work.

This is only a foundational plan but still has many special and unique circumstances in it as we are not a cookie cutter world.  Low risk and high risk people can live together and this would need special circumstances to look into.  

But, what do some of you propose would work if not this.

I know we cannot get to herd immunity by co-mingling so what about separating high risk/low risk for say the next three to six months as we strive for a vaccine.  Does it sound plausible in any way?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:
17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What I don't get is all these Republicans (who consistently try to push policy that makes the poor have even less in America) suddenly being so concerned about  the poverty lockdowns might contribute to -- even in Bangladesh and other third world countries!

I mean that's sweet and all, but....

I'm not a Republican Luna...but I did come up with the idea of somehow separating the elderly from the younger.  However, what I really think is needed is to separate the high risk from the low risk.  In high risk, it needs to include those with pre-existing conditions plus other unique and special circumstances such as one I stated where those who take care of their elderly parents may need to go into something like an essential high risk home caregiver category and not go back to work.

This is only a foundational plan but still has many special and unique circumstances in it as we are not a cookie cutter world.  Low risk and high risk people can live together and this would need special circumstances to look into.  

But, what do some of you propose would work if not this.

I know we cannot get to herd immunity by co-mingling so what about separating high risk/low risk for say the next three to six months as we strive for a vaccine.  Does it sound plausible in any way? 

Sounds like a good idea, and I think we could do some separation according to risk.  But, quite often the elderly live among children (especially in the big cities, and in minority communities).  So, there's just no easy answer   :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

The easy answer was, have a functioning public heath system that is able to quickly and effectively track cases and isolate infected people before they can spread it all over the place. That opportunity passed three months ago when our valiant leaders decided the best course of action would be to pretend nothing was wrong and it would all go away in a few days. Then our leaders were Mayor Vaughn from Jaws. Now they're Captain Tupelov from The Hunt for Red October disabling the safeties on his torpedoes.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Sounds like a good idea, and I think we could do some separation according to risk.  But, quite often the elderly live among children (especially in the big cities, and in minority communities).  So, there's just no easy answer   :(

I know so those need to be put into special circumstances and probably be exempt and have monies provided to them and the kids will have to home school.  It's gonna take a lot of brilliant people to figure this out but meanwhile those in what is considered a low risk household could go back to work. 

Also, I see fear of the work place as people who should be exempt.  There are people who are fearful of going back to work and it's not a mental disorder; however, if a person is fearful to go back to work, a doctor should exempt them because having a nervous breakdown simply because you are in the low risk category is not the right thing to do.  So, I'm more or less saying some of this needs to be voluntary and there will be a lot of special circumstances people and that needs organizations to help those of special circumstances and needs to include the whole health care profession including those in the profession who are social workers, physiologists, psychiatrists, therapists, etc.  

However, in sending the workers back to work, we need to make it as safe as possible for them.  Plus, we need more buildings so schools can social distance.  We need in-home health nurses and close the nursing homes where possible.  

It's a lot of special circumstances but teams could be set up to evaluate. 

High risk, pre-existing condition risk, those with special  circumstances these all needs to be decided by the whole medical profession and all their team to figure out.  

There is no easy answer, I agree.

But, I never was nor never will be a Republican.   But, that is neither here nor there...I am not purposing this with politics in mind at all.  

But, we need to keep our workers safe who are providing our food, etc.  

EDIT:  Plus I am not Toyla.  I was making a joke as I thought the exact same plan earlier in the day without reading any resource about the idea at all prior.  So it was a co-incidence of ideas.  It was a plan I was working on but, again, never read anything about before Toyla published the report here on this forum.  

 

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

There is no easy answer, I agree.

But, I never was nor never will be a Republican.   But, that is neither here nor there...I am not purposing this with politics in mind at all.  

But, we need to keep our workers safe who are providing our food, etc. 

Yep, no easy answer.

But I don't think anybody who is a proponent of easing lockdowns is necessarily a Republican, or that they're absolutely wrong.

I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of many of the Republicans in power in the US at this time -- they never cared about the poor before, not here and most especially not in the 3rd world countries, so why do they now?  It suggests an ulterior motive for their concern.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

But, what do some of you propose would work if not this.

When times are scary and the enacted solutions don't appear to be working and the new ideas are running thin ... default to liberty not tyranny. Give people freedom and reduce government power. Let the cards fall.

As proven throughout history, we can make the worst group decisions when we are fearful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine what it must be like at some of these labs where they are working on the vaccine. I'm imagining stress, long hours, and demands / questioning coming from people who have absolutely no idea what is being worked on. The product of this process is going to be ... questionable.

This all sucks.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It does suck.  I feel like throwing and waving my arms up in the air and doing primal scream therapy.  I really do.  That's how I feel inside.  Like I need primal scream therapy. 

Yes I sometimes feel like that, like it's just all to much   :(

This reminds me of a therapist I knew, who was not a proponent of primal scream therapy or the kind where you do something like beat a bed with a tennis racket. Basically these types of therapy believe you can 'get out' your emotions and all will be well. But she said it just teaches people to scream loudly and beat up things with tennis rackets when they're upset..lol

* I laughed, and imagined being upset with someone and letting out a loud, intense primal scream to their surprise. Or during an argument taking some sort of 'tool' like a tennis racket and begin to beat up and dismantle a sofa.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

When times are scary and the enacted solutions don't appear to be working and the new ideas are running thin ... default to liberty not tyranny. Give people freedom and reduce government power. Let the cards fall.

As proven throughout history, we can make the worst group decisions when we are fearful.

true that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

But she said it just teaches people to scream loudly and beat up things with tennis rackets when they're upset..lol

Probably, but all I feel like doing is crying and screaming.  The crying is happening now; the screaming is not happening now, it's just how I feel inside.  

I dunno what to do anymore but the tears are definitely here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FairreLilette said:

Probably, but all I feel like doing is crying and screaming.  The crying is happening now; the screaming is not happening now, it's just how I feel inside.  

I dunno what to do anymore but the tears are definitely here.  

Our morning programmes on TV try to balance the heavy of the covid situation with things like this - hope you are able to see it where you are. Laughter is the best medicine.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Marigold Devin said:

Our morning programmes on TV try to balance the heavy of the covid situation with things like this - hope you are able to see it where you are. Laughter is the best medicine.

Can't stand those two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

all I feel like doing is crying and screaming.  The crying is happening now; the screaming is not happening now, it's just how I feel inside.  

I dunno what to do anymore but the tears are definitely here. 

I'm sorry you're feeling so bad    :(

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

But, what do some of you propose would work if not this.

I know we cannot get to herd immunity by co-mingling so what about separating high risk/low risk for say the next three to six months as we strive for a vaccine.  Does it sound plausible in any way?  

Personally, I think it would be best if the low risk people assumed they were just as vulnerable as high risk people. If we want to get the economy going again, we really need workers and workplaces to take every precaution, and take them seriously. People must absolutely without fail wear masks in every public situation. To make that happen, the president must be 100% on-board with this, wearing a mask at all times when he's visible to the public and stressing that all jurisdictions need to arrest and isolate anybody who fails to wear a mask in public.

Ideally we'd be much further along than this, so we could get by with merely aggressive contact tracing and testing, as in the (now numerous) countries that haven't merely flattened the curve but actually stopped new cases of the virus arising from community spread. That's where we should be by now, and where we could yet arrive even as the economy revitalizes, but only if we were to take seriously all the measures -- such as masks, distancing, plexiglas barriers, etc., etc. -- that can reduce R0 below 1. 

Speaking of testing: The more the virus is still spreading, the more tests it takes to achieve the same objectives. So it's completely bogus to compare the US's testing level, where community spread is still rampant, with that of South Korea, where there's no community spread at all now. Once you're at that point, there are simply fewer occasions where a test can be useful. It's also completely bogus to claim that we have all the tests we need because everybody who wants one can get one. People have no way of knowing that they should want a test when we're doing so little contact tracing that an outbreak can spread for weeks before anybody even notices. And, of course, workplaces should be requiring frequent testing of every employee, whether they want it or not.

But none of this is happening. The president hides his few moments of mask-wearing from the public, so many folks take away the message that it's somehow "patriotic" to do nothing to protect everyone else from your virus. In this as in so many other ways, the response is at best half-hearted, even when the steps to success are obvious, painless, and completely necessary to economic recovery.

We're still pretending the whole thing will just go away, all we have to do is believe. That's how we got so deep into this mess the first time, and how we're now in the process of throwing away what progress was made.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Personally, I think it would be best if the low risk people assumed they were just as vulnerable as high risk people.

They are, but *what if* the low risk people (meaning they will most likely survive the virus as one does a vicious cold or flu) are kept away from the high risk (those who may very likely die from COVID-19) group?   And, if a virus does break out in a certain area from a low risk person, then do contact tracing on that person.  That way the high risk group is more protected and a large deadly outbreak prevented.   

 

17 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

and where we could yet arrive even as the economy revitalizes, but only if we were to take seriously all the measures -- such as masks, distancing, plexiglas barriers, etc., etc. -- that can reduce R0 below 1. 

Yes, I agree 100%.  But, I'm still wondering about the high risk group and the outbreak of a deadly pandemic.  Do you think further mitigation is necessary along with the above in regards to preventing a deadly outbreak?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

They are, but *what if* the low risk people (meaning they will most likely survive the virus as one does a vicious cold or flu) are kept away from the high risk (those who may very likely die from COVID-19) group?   And, if a virus does break out in a certain area from a low risk person, then do contact tracing on that person.  That way the high risk group is more protected and a large deadly outbreak prevented.   

Unless I'm missing the point, that seems to be pretty much what the guidelines are (at least here in Ontario but I think it's the same elsewhere) in that seniors are especially admonished to minimize exposure to others, with special service hours in many businesses reserved for seniors only. And of course the same for other high-risk groups such as those with compromised immune systems. (We're not doing a good job of contact tracing anywhere, and that's key, but sort of independent of the risk segregation thing.)

If this kind of special caution for high-risk individuals is what you mean by "further mitigation" then absolutely it's necessary; I guess I was assuming it, as part of ongoing measures to contain spread even as the economy recovers.

Kind of a tangent and it's pretty well known so this is probably redundant with other posts in the thread, but anyway: a major contributor to spread of the virus in long term care facilities was the sharing of part-time staff among multiple facilities. This isn't necessarily a vector for disease spread but to prevent it, there must be an abundance of PPE and management expectation that staff change PPE and scrub thoroughly every time -- especially including custodial staff. That encouragement is not nearly common enough.

Another possible caution about "low risk" individuals: This is such a new virus we can't be confident anybody's risk really is low. I deleted a paragraph about this from my earlier post. Some folks who appear to recover and pass successive tests for the virus nonetheless come down with it again -- I don't think they're contracting a new case, but rather their original case went dormant. How much of this is happening with the really asymptomatic cases? How might the virus reemerge in a year -- or thirty? Think chickenpox virus re-emerging as shingles, but in this case in the renal, neurological, and/or cardiovascular systems where we've already seen COVID-19-related effects. (This very different from the recent but very rare emergence of "MIS-C" Kawasaki syndrome in very young CV19 patients.) We have no idea this will happen -- but recovery from this virus is not nice and tidy like a case of flu or a cold. Even having neutralizing antibodies for the virus is no guarantee it won't become a future problem. (That's not to discourage vaccination if we're so lucky as to get a vaccine, but there are unknowns there, too.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Unless I'm missing the point, that seems to be pretty much what the guidelines are (at least here in Ontario but I think it's the same elsewhere) in that seniors are especially admonished to minimize exposure to others, with special service hours in many businesses reserved for seniors only. And of course the same for other high-risk groups such as those with compromised immune systems. (We're not doing a good job of contact tracing anywhere, and that's key, but sort of independent of the risk segregation thing.)

If this kind of special caution for high-risk individuals is what you mean by "further mitigation" then absolutely it's necessary; I guess I was assuming it, as part of ongoing measures to contain spread even as the economy recovers.

No, we don't have any special shopping times for seniors only in the greater Los Angeles area, know as L.A. County, at least not the places I've been to for shopping.  

But to the rest of your post...wow!  It is so confusing with it being different everywhere.  I do know about Kawaski's Disease and the potential for this to be life-long yet there is nothing released that I can find about how those who have recovered are doing.  How are they feeling, etc?  Is there any website that doesn't need a subscription you can recommend for me to read?  

If you can, thanks in advance and thanks for your response.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

No, we don't have any special shopping times for seniors only in the greater Los Angeles area, know as L.A. County, at least not the places I've been to for shopping.  

Yes, you do. I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm just giving you information. 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-19/senior-shoppers-and-others-at-risk-of-coronavirus-get-special-times-at-these-stores

That is from several weeks ago, so this may have changed as restrictions have been loosened. I just checked Ralph's and Albertson's and both of them still state that they have special hours set aside for high risk populations. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lethality rate for all persons (including those with underlying health conditions) for Covid is under 0.5%.  For school age children, it is comparable to the lethality of measles (0.2%), which is also extremely communicable.  I'm reasonably certain that schools were open prior to a measles vaccine being available in the mid-60's.  Note, if anything the current lethality rate data for Covid is overstated, because, unlike measles, it is easy to have Covid and not be sure that's what it is (thus, many cases are not counted).

When the cure prescribed will kill more people than the illness, it's time to fire your doctor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

lethality

Nobody needs to die if we can help it. The government could fund businesses so they don't have to close and let go of employees -- like they do in other 1st world countries.

It appears raising the debt isn't so bad as we think it is. Here's a good program explaining it all, titled "Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Debt".  Wealthy public companies can, and are, actually lending money to the gov:

https://www.krugmantoday.com/

* you have to sign up to view this, but there is no cost.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...