Would you wear a mask every time you were outside your cabin?

[RonOhio]

7 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

Or we could put everyone in one of those plastic balls. Would be much safer for everyone. Lol

Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that children raised by germaphobe or merely over-zealous parents in a hospital clean environment have a significantly more health problems.Putting an otherwise healthy person in a bubble would almost ensure that their immune system would become unable to deal with everyday pathogens.  

[2wheelin]

4 minutes ago, RonOhio said:

Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that children raised by germaphobe or merely over-zealous parents in a hospital clean environment have a significantly more health problems.Putting an otherwise healthy person in a bubble would almost ensure that their immune system would become unable to deal with everyday pathogens.  

Well, we weren’t planning to let anyone out were we?? 🤣😂

I have always said kids don’t eat enough dirt these days. Same thing for all these food allergies because babies aren’t fed certain foods when young.

[pacruise804]

3 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

I am a US citizen but not a KBE .Not every person who is a Knight was designated as such by the Queen of England.

 

My apologies for the assumption.  I'm glad you are still getting out for walks 🙂 

 

[slidergirl]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

Doesn’t rise to immoral- which suggests awareness and conscious decision - just simply amoral.

I have to save my popcorn for "special occasions" lately.  If I made popcorn every time this stuff pops up, I'd be parked in front of my microwave permanently. (don't judge - I do microwave popcorn).  I've got a few barnburners over on FaceBook, too.  So, it's not immoral or amoral,  just judicious behavior.   

[RonOhio]

2 hours ago, mom says said:

Ah, so your knighthood is not a British one, since only the Queen can award this honor. (Although it can be presented by one of her representatives). If it was a British knighthood, then it is purely honorary, not substantive, since you are not a Commonwealth citizen. As such you would not be entitled to be called Sir XYZ; only to the use of the initials after your name.

When I was much younger I received my captaincy by cutting out a form from a box of Cap'n Crunch cereal. However, I often allow friends to address me without my title in informal settings.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, ColeThornton said:

 

 

I believe you have the wrong version of "Knight" there.  🙂

I googled it, and was going to say no I'm right. But, you are correct I do have the wrong version. But still I like mine better.

[clo]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

Doesn’t rise to immoral- which suggests awareness and conscious decision - just simply amoral.

You are correct. 100% correct.

[RonOhio]

22 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

So you have no problem with making millions of the uninfected follow these protocols when they pose no risk to others? 

Do you think the devastating effects of these protocols on the economy is justified in protecting the very few who are most vulnerable? 

Would it not have been better to lock down the nursing homes where the highest percentages of illness and deaths did occur rather than locking down the economy? (Or, simply avoiding the shipment of thousands of infected patients to those nursing homes?)

If only 3% of people who use narcotics become addicted, I have no problems with forcing the other 97% of the population have restricted access to narcotics. We elected officials who are in charge of, among other things, public health issues, some are buffoons, some are grandstanders, many are careerists and some are conscientious. They had to make decisions with incomplete information in the light of conflicting scientific opinions. When it's all over, we'll be able to compare the various strategies - did Norway do better than Texas, did Vietnam do better than Kenya - and probably come up with the which worked better in a given situation.

Do I, me personally, think the economic effect was worth the lives saved. Well, if it's closing your business to save a 93 yo in a long term care facility who will die next week of COPD anyway, then no but cutting the hours of a waiter to save a 29 yo mother of two with no pre-existing health conditions, yeah, I'd do that. Remember, roughly half of the deaths are healthy people under 65.   

[lenquixote66]

2 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Sorry for your confinement, hopefully as we open up your fellow humans will make the necessary sacrifices to make them lower risk transmitters.

I hope so

[lenquixote66]

1 hour ago, pacruise804 said:

 

My apologies for the assumption.  I'm glad you are still getting out for walks 🙂 

 

No apologies necessary.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, RonOhio said:

Do I, me personally, think the economic effect was worth the lives saved. Well, if it's closing your business to save a 93 yo in a long term care facility who will die next week of COPD anyway, then no but cutting the hours of a waiter to save a 29 yo mother of two with no pre-existing health conditions, yeah, I'd do that. Remember, roughly half of the deaths are healthy people under 65.   

As reported in the Wall Street Journal:  "About 80% of Americans who have died of Covid-19 are older than 65, and the median age is 80. A review by Stanford medical professor John Ioannidis last month found that individuals under age 65 accounted for 4.8% to 9.3% of all Covid-19 deaths in 10 European countries and 7.8% to 23.9% in 12 U.S. locations."  

And: "For most people under the age of 65, the study found, the risk of dying from Covid-19 isn’t much higher than from getting in a car accident driving to work. In California and Florida, the fatality risk for the under-65 crowd is about equal to driving 16 to 17 miles per day. While higher in hot spots like New York (668 miles) and New Jersey (572 miles), the death risk is still lower than the public perceives."

 

So that 29 year old mother of two stands as much a chance of being killed in a car accident on her way to work as she does from the virus.  Should we make her walk to work?  "If it saves one life" and all that.

[wowzz]

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

As reported in the Wall Street Journal:  "About 80% of Americans who have died of Covid-19 are older than 65, and the median age is 80. A review by Stanford medical professor John Ioannidis last month found that individuals under age 65 accounted for 4.8% to 9.3% of all Covid-19 deaths in 10 European countries and 7.8% to 23.9% in 12 U.S. locations."  

And: "For most people under the age of 65, the study found, the risk of dying from Covid-19 isn’t much higher than from getting in a car accident driving to work. In California and Florida, the fatality risk for the under-65 crowd is about equal to driving 16 to 17 miles per day. While higher in hot spots like New York (668 miles) and New Jersey (572 miles), the death risk is still lower than the public perceives."

 

So that 29 year old mother of two stands as much a chance of being killed in a car accident on her way to work as she does from the virus.  Should we make her walk to work?  "If it saves one life" and all that.

Excellent post, and one that mirrors much of what is being said in Europe.  Yes, CV19 is serious,  and initially it was important that actions were taken to ensure that medical facilities were available to treat a sudden influx of patients and to reduce transmission of the virus. 

However, now more data is available,  it is evident that the  vast majority of healthy individuals will not be adversely affected by CV19. But,  for the elderly, the situation  is different - the terrible fatalities in the UK are very much due to our government's culpability in protecting old age nursing homes.

In Europe at least, the rules are being relaxed on a daily basis, because stringent steps were taken early on. (For example, I haven't physically seen my 93 year old mother for 16 weeks).

In my eyes, the US response has been  at best, sporadic,  and if a national lock down had been  implemented by mutual agreement between the White House and the states, the US would have avoided such a devastating death toll. 

Why the White House  decided upon a confrontational approach to anti -CV19 actions is beyond me.

 

[clo]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

So that 29 year old

But she could pass it to others.

[clo]

1 hour ago, wowzz said:

Why the White House  decided upon a confrontational approach to anti -CV19 actions is beyond me.

 

People generally stay true to what they've always done/been 😞 

[ldubs]

23 hours ago, pris993 said:

 I will be doing what I have been doing all long. when out side walking will put mask on if I see someone coming my direction,  I put mask on when I go into a building.   When driving I do not wear a mask, fogs my glasses.     We are opening up for folks to eat outside, hair dressers may be open next week, so think that is what this is all about.  Nothing really different here.  Newsom put out stuff like this almost daily. 

 

Agree.  At least my county sounds very similar to yours.  I would say practically everyone already wears masks inside or where distancing isn't possible.  The mandate isn't really going to change much.  I suspect there will be some high profile arrests but for the most part law enforcement isn't going to push this.  Politicians will push it one way or the other for political purposes but what else is new.  

 

And, before we get the village contrarian's response, yes there are always outliers.  

[ldubs]

23 hours ago, slidergirl said:

don't be so quick to say that it's just the old and infirm who should be locked up?    Right now, Florida posted their highest number of people who tested positive.  You say - well, Florida is full of old folks who moved from the North to retire.  Well, the median age of the positive tests was 37.  So, f you want to either lock up the old folks or just let them die to protect the economy, you had better lock up all the people over 35, also.  

 

The number of positive cases has always been heaviest on the lower age groups.  I think it is hospitalizations and, sadly, deaths that are hitting the aged more.  

[chipmaster]

8 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

This! Then there are those righteous individuals out there wearing improper masks in improper ways so that even what tiny bit of protection they would afford others is lost. But they are wearing a mask to protect us!

To be any use at all the CDC says masks need to be multi-layered and tight fitting. Can’t begin to count the people wearing a little single layer stretchy thing, or wearing something below the nose or totally open on the sides or bottom. Who do they think they are fooling?

If I wear a mask it is to protect me, which is all our responsibility. Multi layered made from properly tightly woven material with a nose piece and an extra filter.

 

You have seen what most are wearing in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore and China?   They are dense packed cities, mass transport and seem to have it all under control with 100% compliance on masks... hmm is their some causality or just correlation?

 

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, Dwight1 said:

In Virginia just today it was released that 62% of all deaths were in long term care facilities. The vast majority of the others were age over 70 usually with pre conditions. This is how it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Yup sad most that dying are somebodies mom/dad grandma/grandpa, lived a long life and gone earlier than expected.   

 

The young and carefree get out spread and recovery.

 

But there is a silver lining the social security liability and care for seniors is considerably reduced.  China had a ticking time bomb as does most developing countries with the burden of caring for the elder, fixed.  

Edited June 20, 2020 by chipmaster

[ldubs]

8 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

I am a US citizen but not a KBE .Not every person who is a Knight was designated as such by the Queen of England.

 

8 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Are you by any chance a Knight in White Satin, a member of the Moody Blues?

 

 

Only on Tuuuessday Afternoon! 😄

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, RonOhio said:

Remember, roughly half of the deaths are healthy people under 65.   

 

 Is that Ohio's experience?  Certainly not what the data shows for the pandemic in general.  

[clo]

21 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

The young and carefree get out spread and recovery.

 

This.

[ilikeanswers]

8 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

So, why should we ruin an economy when we have no real idea of the effects of this virus?

Isn't that a definition of an 'over-reaction'?

 

I would say that is the definition of caution which is the logical response to something you know causes harm but don't know to what degree the harm is. Economies are nothing but the collective behaviour of human beings. We can revive an economy at will. We have done so in the past but you can't reverse death and there are too many disabilities that we can't cure. 

[RocketMan275]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

Excellent post, and one that mirrors much of what is being said in Europe.  Yes, CV19 is serious,  and initially it was important that actions were taken to ensure that medical facilities were available to treat a sudden influx of patients and to reduce transmission of the virus. 

However, now more data is available,  it is evident that the  vast majority of healthy individuals will not be adversely affected by CV19. But,  for the elderly, the situation  is different - the terrible fatalities in the UK are very much due to our government's culpability in protecting old age nursing homes.

In Europe at least, the rules are being relaxed on a daily basis, because stringent steps were taken early on. (For example, I haven't physically seen my 93 year old mother for 16 weeks).

In my eyes, the US response has been  at best, sporadic,  and if a national lock down had been  implemented by mutual agreement between the White House and the states, the US would have avoided such a devastating death toll. 

Why the White House  decided upon a confrontational approach to anti -CV19 actions is beyond me.

 

Actually, the White House approach has been anything but confrontational.  Our system of government places the responsibility for public health on the individual states and their governors.  Our "White House" has criticised where appropriate but allowed those states to choose their own path forward.  Our country is simply to big for a 'one size fits all' approach.

[RocketMan275]

1 minute ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I would say that is the definition of caution which is the logical response to something you know causes harm but don't know to what degree the harm is. Economies are nothing but the collective behaviour of human beings. We can revive an economy at will. We have done so in the past but you can't reverse death and there are too many disabilities that we can't cure. 

Perhaps but you shouldn't ignore the consequences these protocols have had on people.  It isn't evident that we can shut down and revive an economy at will.  

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, clo said:

But she could pass it to others.

I was raised that only myself was responsible for my well being.  If I were truly as afraid of catching this virus as some appear to be, then I would take charge of my own health.  I would get myself some of those N95 masks, the ones that are truly effective at preventing infections.  I would not go out except for emergencies.  My groceries would be delivered.  My restaurant meals would be delivered.  I certainly would not be going out to eat.  I simply would not allow myself to be in a place where I was dependent on others for my protection.