Cure worse than the problem?

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

Post Reply
TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Thu May 07, 2020 10:09 pm

The conspiracy theories are rampant right now. Even the most obvious shams are gaining traction.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 07, 2020 11:20 pm

TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm
allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.
Yes but regular flu deaths are down, Influenza deaths are down, heart disease deaths down and for a stretch cancer deaths were down. Not sure that’s the case still. So everyone has theories but it appears that Covid deaths are being credited when its likely there were underlying issues such as cancer, heart disease, influenza, etc.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 07, 2020 11:24 pm

TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 10:09 pm
The conspiracy theories are rampant right now. Even the most obvious shams are gaining traction.
Totally agree. And given the political landscape of our country I’m more worried about these situations than the virus. People will disregard facts and common sense if it means going against their political party. It’s scary.

I may have my opinions on this entire pandemic, and could be wrong on a lot of it, but none of those have anything to do with politics or conspiracy theories.



TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Thu May 07, 2020 11:35 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:20 pm
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm
allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.
Yes but regular flu deaths are down, Influenza deaths are down, heart disease deaths down and for a stretch cancer deaths were down. Not sure that’s the case still. So everyone has theories but it appears that Covid deaths are being credited when its likely there were underlying issues such as cancer, heart disease, influenza, etc.
When we social distance for C19 we also social distance for the flu and everything else. So there’s some collateral benefit there. Social distancing has kept all contagious diseases from spreading, including c19. C19 deaths would be considerably higher and flu deaths around their norm without social distancing.

If you have cancer, but then catch C19 or any other disease and die sooner than you would have, your cause of death is C19. Same as if you have cancer and then die from flu or any other diseases. This is a good thing to do to keep things statistically consistent.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

User avatar
allcat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7963
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by allcat » Fri May 08, 2020 4:16 am

TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:35 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:20 pm
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm
allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.
Yes but regular flu deaths are down, Influenza deaths are down, heart disease deaths down and for a stretch cancer deaths were down. Not sure that’s the case still. So everyone has theories but it appears that Covid deaths are being credited when its likely there were underlying issues such as cancer, heart disease, influenza, etc.
When we social distance for C19 we also social distance for the flu and everything else. So there’s some collateral benefit there. Social distancing has kept all contagious diseases from spreading, including c19. C19 deaths would be considerably higher and flu deaths around their norm without social distancing.

If you have cancer, but then catch C19 or any other disease and die sooner than you would have, your cause of death is C19. Same as if you have cancer and then die from flu or any other diseases. This is a good thing to do to keep things statistically consistent.
What I was saying was that counting covid was already built into the bailouts. Plus Birx admitted that they count it as covid if they tested positive but died of a heart attack. Every nation is counting their covid by what they want politically.


Now sorry for caring about Cat/griz too much. I've been properly chastised by the coach of the other team. :-^

91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7130
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by 91catAlum » Fri May 08, 2020 5:59 am

TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm
allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.
There is some bailout money, but it's not enough to make them whole.

"
The federal stimulus packages that have passed will provide about $175 billion, or about 35% of the revenue lost to the health care industry in the first quarter of 2020, Shulkin said.

"The rest will need to come from hard decisions that hospitals are going to need to make," Shulkin said.
"
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news ... ial-crisis


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Fri May 08, 2020 6:48 am

allcat wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 4:16 am
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:35 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:20 pm
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm
allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.
Yes but regular flu deaths are down, Influenza deaths are down, heart disease deaths down and for a stretch cancer deaths were down. Not sure that’s the case still. So everyone has theories but it appears that Covid deaths are being credited when its likely there were underlying issues such as cancer, heart disease, influenza, etc.
When we social distance for C19 we also social distance for the flu and everything else. So there’s some collateral benefit there. Social distancing has kept all contagious diseases from spreading, including c19. C19 deaths would be considerably higher and flu deaths around their norm without social distancing.

If you have cancer, but then catch C19 or any other disease and die sooner than you would have, your cause of death is C19. Same as if you have cancer and then die from flu or any other diseases. This is a good thing to do to keep things statistically consistent.
What I was saying was that counting covid was already built into the bailouts. Plus Birx admitted that they count it as covid if they tested positive but died of a heart attack. Every nation is counting their covid by what they want politically.
That’s not what she said. This link explains her statement and the over/under counting well.

medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85925


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Fri May 08, 2020 6:50 am

91catAlum wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 5:59 am
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:48 pm
allcat wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:09 pm
If you were a hospital administrator and the hospital is going bankrupt, what would you do. If they are a covid patient and your gonna get 40,000 to put them on a ventilator vs 10,000 to just treat them. The relief bills incentivized the cover diagnosis.
I’d just wait for a bail out, wouldn’t you? Even people who didn’t need money got stimulus money. A lot of people didn’t spend it. No job programs despite all the infrastructure work this country needs. The people that really needed it have already spent it and it wasn’t near enough.

Wel-mart-share gave back $12.6 million it got by accident. Of course that was just a drop in the bucket compared to what it gets annually to support its payroll. Walmart is such a huge benefactor of the stimulus program that it’s actually giving out a ton of bonuses - half a $billion - along with hiring additional staff out of need because their stores are so flooded.

As for counting C19 deaths, they’re almost certainly way undercounted, especially amongst the elderly. Either that or there’s another disease going through the country that they aren’t telling us about. We know because the death rate is up despite the C19 deaths. But if hospitals struggle, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll get bailed out. No need to lie.
There is some bailout money, but it's not enough to make them whole.

"
The federal stimulus packages that have passed will provide about $175 billion, or about 35% of the revenue lost to the health care industry in the first quarter of 2020, Shulkin said.

"The rest will need to come from hard decisions that hospitals are going to need to make," Shulkin said.
"
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news ... ial-crisis
They’ll get more is what I’m saying. I can’t think of a scenario where the government would just let hospitals go broke and close their doors leaving the public without health care.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Fri May 08, 2020 6:58 am

The cdc website gives the details on how it directs organizations to count deaths. I encourage everyone to use it as a resource. There is a ton of misinformation going around that can easily be cleared up via that site.

There is also a lot of other information there about death counts like when they expect to have a more accurate count that includes all deaths related to c19.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Fri May 08, 2020 11:15 pm

TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:35 pm
If you have cancer, but then catch C19 or any other disease and die sooner than you would have, your cause of death is C19. Same as if you have cancer and then die from flu or any other diseases. This is a good thing to do to keep things statistically consistent.
In my personal experience this isn’t true but I’m always interested in learning more about this.

If what you suggest is true I’d be curious where they decide to draw the line. CV19 is being scrutinized this way because of how they sensationalize it. Regardless how anyone feels about the virus, a 24/7 death count serves no purpose but fear. If it was for educational purposes for the public they’d do it all the time for all causes of death. It’s just a talking point.

The example I was given is that if I have leukemia and I do a bunch of blow and overdose, my cause of death is overdose. If I have corona and do a bunch of blow and overdose, my cause of death is corona.

This is just my opinion based on one relative in one hospital. Maybe not like that everywhere.



User avatar
RickRund
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4602
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Post Falls ID

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by RickRund » Fri May 08, 2020 11:23 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 11:15 pm
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:35 pm
If you have cancer, but then catch C19 or any other disease and die sooner than you would have, your cause of death is C19. Same as if you have cancer and then die from flu or any other diseases. This is a good thing to do to keep things statistically consistent.
In my personal experience this isn’t true but I’m always interested in learning more about this.

If what you suggest is true I’d be curious where they decide to draw the line. CV19 is being scrutinized this way because of how they sensationalize it. Regardless how anyone feels about the virus, a 24/7 death count serves no purpose but fear. If it was for educational purposes for the public they’d do it all the time for all causes of death. It’s just a talking point.

The example I was given is that if I have leukemia and I do a bunch of blow and overdose, my cause of death is overdose. If I have corona and do a bunch of blow and overdose, my cause of death is corona.

This is just my opinion based on one relative in one hospital. Maybe not like that everywhere.
This is what I have been hearing on talk radio, people calling to say that friends, family, etc have died and regardless of the cause the verdict was covid...



TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Sat May 09, 2020 8:18 am

RickRund wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 11:23 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 11:15 pm
TomCat88 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:35 pm
If you have cancer, but then catch C19 or any other disease and die sooner than you would have, your cause of death is C19. Same as if you have cancer and then die from flu or any other diseases. This is a good thing to do to keep things statistically consistent.
In my personal experience this isn’t true but I’m always interested in learning more about this.

If what you suggest is true I’d be curious where they decide to draw the line. CV19 is being scrutinized this way because of how they sensationalize it. Regardless how anyone feels about the virus, a 24/7 death count serves no purpose but fear. If it was for educational purposes for the public they’d do it all the time for all causes of death. It’s just a talking point.

The example I was given is that if I have leukemia and I do a bunch of blow and overdose, my cause of death is overdose. If I have corona and do a bunch of blow and overdose, my cause of death is corona.

This is just my opinion based on one relative in one hospital. Maybe not like that everywhere.
This is what I have been hearing on talk radio, people calling to say that friends, family, etc have died and regardless of the cause the verdict was covid...
I can’t tell you that doesn’t happen. I can say that it isn’t logical to think that is happens enough to skew the data. The reason being is that it’s widely accepted that the c19 deaths are undercounted. For example, NYC was way over its normal death rate. Even when recorded deaths were subtracted out, they were still around 4,000 over for one period. That is one of the reasons why the CDC issued the following statement:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

“...compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.”

Despite the CDC instructions data is still showing it to be undercounted.

There are reliable sources for this kind of information and I encourage everyone to use them.

Based on what I see from these sources and the anecdotal information I’ve heard, I don’t think the concerns of c19 deaths being over counted should be taken too seriously at this point. If you can point me to a reliable source with strong evidence I’d like to read what it has to say.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 14, 2020 10:06 am

A couple of questions I've been pondering the last couple days that maybe some of you could humor me.

We were told the whole goal of the extreme shelter in place guidelines and business closures was to flatten the curve. These measures were never intended to last until there was a cure. At least not that I'm aware of. It appears that in about 98% of the country we have done just that. Even in the hotspots we seem to be getting a handle of things. Why are we still being so slow getting back to normal?

In Montana especially, why are we dragging our feet so to speak. We're almost 2 weeks from being able to open and we still have next to no cases in the entire state. Even at our "peak" it was a blip on the radar. If we want to give 100% of the credit of this fact to "social distancing" that's fine, but it sure appears even with bars and restaurants open there was very little threat here. Why are we acting so slowly here. And what is the end goal? Seems to me they could force these measures on us for a very long time as there will always be a threat of the virus returning.

We were also told this isn't just about the deaths. This was the point consistently mentioned when those of us said that way more people will die of other ailments than they will this virus. It's NOT about the deaths...it's about our hospitals being overwhelmed. Ok. Tough to debunk that early on. Especially when they were scaring the crap out of everyone predicting millions of American deaths. But then that never came to fruition either. About 99.5% of our hospitals were never overwhelmed. Beds unused. Ventilators unused. Which brings me to my next big question. Wouldn't it make way more sense to just crank up production and preparation for hospitals while they work on a vaccine? Obviously we all know a vaccine is the ultimate goal. But if the main issue is hospitals being overwhelmed, why don't we make hospitals NOT being overwhelmed our #1 priority?

Finally, are we close to the point yet where those that are still very fearful can continue with all the restrictions and those not fearful can get on with things? That has remained a headscratcher for me. Would LOVE answers to that one! :wink:



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5559
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Thu May 14, 2020 11:15 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 10:06 am
A couple of questions I've been pondering the last couple days that maybe some of you could humor me.

We were told the whole goal of the extreme shelter in place guidelines and business closures was to flatten the curve. (Yes, flatten the curve and prevent out of control deaths, ICU numbers, long term disability.) These measures were never intended to last until there was a cure (and they haven't). At least not that I'm aware of (many places have eased restrictions; only MASS and CONN haven't). It appears that in about 98% of the country we have done just that. Even in the hotspots we seem to be getting a handle of things (take out NY/NJ and the numbers have gone up). Why are we still being so slow getting back to normal (that's a relative term. Most experts (Fauci, Bright) don't think that's the case)?

In Montana especially, why are we dragging our feet so to speak (again, relative term; it seems like we're taking the appropriate steps to me). We're almost 2 weeks from being able to open (I'd say we're more open than we are closed) and we still have next to no cases in the entire state. Even at our "peak" it was a blip on the radar. If we want to give 100% of the credit of this fact to "social distancing" that's fine, but it sure appears even with bars and restaurants open there was very little threat here (the threat was as big here as it was in ND/SD, which by comparison aren't doing nearly as well as Montana). Why are we acting so slowly here (again, relative term, seems appropriate to me, not slow). And what is the end goal? Seems to me they could force these measures on us for a very long time as there will always be a threat of the virus returning (it doesn't seem like that's what they're doing, seems like they're opening up in an appropriate fashion).

We were also told this isn't just about the deaths. This was the point consistently mentioned when those of us said that way more people will die of other ailments than they will this virus. It's NOT about the deaths...it's about our hospitals being overwhelmed. Ok. Tough to debunk that early on. Especially when they were scaring the crap out of everyone predicting millions of American deaths (those estimates are still correct considering the assumptions). But then that never came to fruition either (the estimates were also lower than what they are, so again, depending on what is input into the model). About 99.5% of our hospitals were never overwhelmed. Beds unused. Ventilators unused. Which brings me to my next big question. Wouldn't it make way more sense to just crank up production and preparation for hospitals while they work on a vaccine? Obviously we all know a vaccine is the ultimate goal. But if the main issue is hospitals being overwhelmed, why don't we make hospitals NOT being overwhelmed our #1 priority?

Finally, are we close to the point yet where those that are still very fearful can continue with all the restrictions and those not fearful can get on with things? those that aren't fearful can spread it to both fearful and non-fearful, so I'm not sure what bearing that variable has on anything.) That has remained a headscratcher for me. Would LOVE answers to that one! :wink:



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 14, 2020 11:29 am

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 11:15 am

Finally, are we close to the point yet where those that are still very fearful can continue with all the restrictions and those not fearful can get on with things? those that aren't fearful can spread it to both fearful and non-fearful, so I'm not sure what bearing that variable has on anything.) That has remained a headscratcher for me. Would LOVE answers to that one! :wink:
[/quote]
Been curious about this one. How is that possible. If those that feel they are in danger of the virus and worried they could contract it, can't they just continue sheltering in place? If I go to a football game and then about my business the rest of the week, I shouldn't be in contact with anyone who is sheltering in place? Otherwise, what was this all for?



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5559
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by iaafan » Thu May 14, 2020 11:45 am

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 11:29 am
iaafan wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 11:15 am

Finally, are we close to the point yet where those that are still very fearful can continue with all the restrictions and those not fearful can get on with things? those that aren't fearful can spread it to both fearful and non-fearful, so I'm not sure what bearing that variable has on anything.) That has remained a headscratcher for me. Would LOVE answers to that one! :wink:
Been curious about this one. How is that possible. If those that feel they are in danger of the virus and worried they could contract it, can't they just continue sheltering in place? If I go to a football game and then about my business the rest of the week, I shouldn't be in contact with anyone who is sheltering in place? Otherwise, what was this all for?
[/quote]

I guess I read that wrong. I guess that's what the fearful are doing right now. Back to your question: we are at that point right now. The fearful are staying home and the non-fearful and not so-fearful are going out. I've gone to quite a few bars and restaurants already, haven't you? None have been very busy, no lines outside, etc.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 14, 2020 12:12 pm

iaafan wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 11:45 am
Back to your question: we are at that point right now. The fearful are staying home and the non-fearful and not so-fearful are going out. I've gone to quite a few bars and restaurants already, haven't you? None have been very busy, no lines outside, etc.
I have gone out a decent amount in the last week. Been to a couple places just dead but I've been to two places where we had to wait outside for about 20 minutes until they could see us. Great for the business I suppose when they are only allowed 1/2 capacity.

I guess that was my point. Half capacity I guess in theory seems way less scary. But please. I've been around way more people at Walmart, Costco and at work than I'd be if local restaurants we're allowed to seat their tables. And if they were allowed to actually seat their tables, and not just half of them at max, wouldn't I just be sitting next to other people ok with sitting next to me?

And at what point do we get past these little precautions made to make people less scared. How many cases do we have in the ENTIRE state? How many hospitalizations? So for those of you (not you necessarily) fearful of businesses being allowed to run normally, what numbers could we possibly be looking for?! Are we comfortable with these conditions for the next 3-5 months? The rest of the year? How long do we endure these crazy precautions while our numbers remain the lowest in the nation?



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4706
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by ilovethecats » Thu May 14, 2020 1:47 pm

Wonder if we'll start seeing more and more of this kind of thing the longer this goes on. I have no issues with it but could get scary as the crazier people start stepping in.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/businesses-c ... 24076.html



91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7130
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by 91catAlum » Thu May 14, 2020 2:17 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 10:06 am
A couple of questions I've been pondering the last couple days that maybe some of you could humor me.

We were told the whole goal of the extreme shelter in place guidelines and business closures was to flatten the curve. These measures were never intended to last until there was a cure. At least not that I'm aware of. It appears that in about 98% of the country we have done just that. Even in the hotspots we seem to be getting a handle of things. Why are we still being so slow getting back to normal?

In Montana especially, why are we dragging our feet so to speak. We're almost 2 weeks from being able to open and we still have next to no cases in the entire state. Even at our "peak" it was a blip on the radar. If we want to give 100% of the credit of this fact to "social distancing" that's fine, but it sure appears even with bars and restaurants open there was very little threat here. Why are we acting so slowly here. And what is the end goal? Seems to me they could force these measures on us for a very long time as there will always be a threat of the virus returning.

We were also told this isn't just about the deaths. This was the point consistently mentioned when those of us said that way more people will die of other ailments than they will this virus. It's NOT about the deaths...it's about our hospitals being overwhelmed. Ok. Tough to debunk that early on. Especially when they were scaring the crap out of everyone predicting millions of American deaths. But then that never came to fruition either. About 99.5% of our hospitals were never overwhelmed. Beds unused. Ventilators unused. Which brings me to my next big question. Wouldn't it make way more sense to just crank up production and preparation for hospitals while they work on a vaccine? Obviously we all know a vaccine is the ultimate goal. But if the main issue is hospitals being overwhelmed, why don't we make hospitals NOT being overwhelmed our #1 priority?

Finally, are we close to the point yet where those that are still very fearful can continue with all the restrictions and those not fearful can get on with things? That has remained a headscratcher for me. Would LOVE answers to that one! :wink:
This is such a great question and great point. The goalposts certainly seem to be moving now that we're on the backside of the "curve". The LA mayor said something to the effect of "we're staying shut down until there's a cure".
Cure?? First - that was never the goal here. It was only to flatten the curve to keep hospitals from being overrun. Second - there will probably NEVER be a cure. How many viruses have we ever found a cure for? My guess would be zero, but I honestly do not know. Maybe he meant to say "vaccine" rather than cure - but even that is no guarantee. We might find a somewhat effective vaccine, but that could take a long long time for mass distribution, and even that won't be 100% just like all other vaccines, flu shots etc.

I think the phased reopening approach is the best way to go, as long as we keep progressing forward with the reopenings.


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 14292
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: Cure worse than the problem?

Post by TomCat88 » Thu May 14, 2020 5:42 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 1:47 pm
Wonder if we'll start seeing more and more of this kind of thing the longer this goes on. I have no issues with it but could get scary as the crazier people start stepping in.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/businesses-c ... 24076.html
It's 2020. It's the United States. It's what we've, as Montanans, been seeing from afar. It's what I think we'll continue seeing from afar. I expect better from Montanans. People from more populous states seem to blend in, but in Montana folks from both sides of the aisle seem to be able to talk people like that into cooling their jets. As you can tell, I'm kind of proud of how Montanans have handled this. We seem to be biting our lip and making sacrifices whether or not we agree with exactly how it's being handled. That's the Montanan and American way. Everyone doing what's best for the better good.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

Post Reply