4 ms·

It's not reasonable. You can't quarantine vulnerable people completely. If everyone gets it, every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID and an enor

It's not reasonable. You can't quarantine vulnerable people completely. If everyone gets it, every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID and an enormous number of quarantined people will die. You can't tell who's going to die from it. You can't have everyone getting sick at once. The death rate will go up tremendously if nobody can get treatment when they have treatable symptoms. This is what "flattening the curve" means. We don't have enough protective equipment, medical supplies, hospital beds, healthcare workers, or even morgue space. The only tool left is staying inside, and so that's what we're doing now. "Herd immunity" uses the word "herd" because we don't normally use it to describe actions taken toward human beings. Sweden absolutely bungled their response and have 10x the number of deaths from this as compared to their neighbors who shut shit down.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>You can't quarantine vulnerable people completely. If everyone gets it, every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID and an enormous number of quarantined people will die Yes you absolutely can. The workers interacting with the quarantined subset of the population could use PPE to avoid transmitting it to them. Packaging on groceries, as well as the grocery bag, can easily be disinfected before being transferred to the quarantined individual.
- SerLava 6y ago
  1. We can't even get PPE. We won't have PPE for a long time. Not even doctors have enough. 2. We're not going to train minimum wage workers and quarantined vulnerable individuals to follow sanitary procedures to any adequate degree. 3. We don't even have enough trained medical workers to treat dying people, so no they aren't going to make the deliveries. This problem will only get worse if you go all "herd immunity" because a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable" The only option the US has is quarantine, because it is a failed state.
  - totony 6y ago
    Instead of testing people who already have symptoms, maybe we could use those tests to ensure sick people don't come into contact with their groceries? Of course quarantining part of the population is hard, but I fail to see how it is harder than quarantining the whole population
    - SerLava 6y ago
      We can't test people doing deliveries because we don't even have tests. Even if we did have tests, at some point nearly everyone is going to have the virus- especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries. Quarantining the population is easier for us because the majority of us have dwellings already. We do not have tests or ppe.
      - totony 6y ago
        We don't have unlimited testing, but we have enough tests to secure a few distributions channels to at-risk population There are also other ways to sanitize these distributions channels, e.g. we know the virus can only last so long on cardboard etc. I disagree strongly that securing a fraction of our population against a disease is less feasible or practical than what we currently are doing >especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries. Will have had
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    If the US really doesn't have enough PPE for safe deliveries, then the health authorities can improvise, and have delivery workers leave packages at the door. I don't see why training delivery workers to follow sanitary procedures would be infeasible either. Whatever costs/challenges in ensuring no disease transmission from the majority to the quarantined minority pales in comparison to the challenges posed by completely collapsing the economy by requiring everyone to be quarantined. >>a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable" The chances of a person infected with the coronavirus ending up in critical condition or dead from COVID19 are vastly smaller if they're under 45.
thelean12 6y ago
For how long? You can't keep society inside for a long period of time. It just won't work. Couple weeks? Sure. 3 months? Barely, it seems. 1 year? No. It just won't work. (I don't think we'll get to that point, but I think that the point stands: quarantine is a short term fix.)
- SerLava 6y ago
  Without doing a real bailout of normal people, no we can't go more than a few months. If we're going to demand grocery store workers get buried in the ground for the sake of keeping things running, we can afford to radically shift the distribution of wealth toward the people we're literally condeming.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    You're using quite inflammatory language here that's distracting from your points. Calling the US a failed state, saying we're demanding workers be buried in the ground, etc. If you want to discuss actual policy, then do so. I'm not interested in following platitudes.
    - SerLava 6y ago
      Inflammatory language is appropriate to describe an ongoing attempt to end the lives of millions of people. It's necessary to point out that we live in a failed state because some of the solutions being presented are assuming some kind of capability which we have not come close to demonstrating. It looks like we're going to have to kill quite a few poor people is fundamentally inflammatory, even when you act like you're discussing the best fruit flavor. These are people being killed, right now, all around you, for no fucking reason. These are people whose lives have marginally MORE value than yours, we're talking about snuffing them out.
      - ogre_magi 6y ago
        Wait why are their lives more valuable than others?
perl4ever 6y ago
"every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID" Just as a random factoid, somewhere I was just reading that someone was doing testing of surfaces in a hospital, and on average they found maybe 80% contaminated with the virus, but the floor of the pharmacy was 100% even though no patients had been in there...
- SerLava 6y ago
  That's terrifying.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  Well, CDC doesn't believe surface transfer to be a significant factor soo.. There's that.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Asking in good faith (I believe you!) if you could dig out your source, I would find that interesting to read as well.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    "as medical staff walk around the ward, the virus can be tracked all over the floor, as indicated by the 100% rate of positivity from the floor in the pharmacy, where there were no patients. Furthermore, half of the samples from the soles of the ICU medical staff shoes tested positive" Other objects were not as high as I recalled, but computer mice in the ICU were 75%. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article Also see table: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885-t1 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885-t1

CryptoPunk 6y ago

>>You can't quarantine vulnerable people completely. If everyone gets it, every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID and an enormous number of quarantined people will die Yes you absolutely can. The workers interacting with the quarantined subset of the population could use PPE to avoid transmitting it to them. Packaging on groceries, as well as the grocery bag, can easily be disinfected before being transferred to the quarantined individual.

SerLava 6y ago
1. We can't even get PPE. We won't have PPE for a long time. Not even doctors have enough. 2. We're not going to train minimum wage workers and quarantined vulnerable individuals to follow sanitary procedures to any adequate degree. 3. We don't even have enough trained medical workers to treat dying people, so no they aren't going to make the deliveries. This problem will only get worse if you go all "herd immunity" because a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable" The only option the US has is quarantine, because it is a failed state.
- totony 6y ago
  Instead of testing people who already have symptoms, maybe we could use those tests to ensure sick people don't come into contact with their groceries? Of course quarantining part of the population is hard, but I fail to see how it is harder than quarantining the whole population
  - SerLava 6y ago
    We can't test people doing deliveries because we don't even have tests. Even if we did have tests, at some point nearly everyone is going to have the virus- especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries. Quarantining the population is easier for us because the majority of us have dwellings already. We do not have tests or ppe.
    - totony 6y ago
      We don't have unlimited testing, but we have enough tests to secure a few distributions channels to at-risk population There are also other ways to sanitize these distributions channels, e.g. we know the virus can only last so long on cardboard etc. I disagree strongly that securing a fraction of our population against a disease is less feasible or practical than what we currently are doing >especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries. Will have had
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  If the US really doesn't have enough PPE for safe deliveries, then the health authorities can improvise, and have delivery workers leave packages at the door. I don't see why training delivery workers to follow sanitary procedures would be infeasible either. Whatever costs/challenges in ensuring no disease transmission from the majority to the quarantined minority pales in comparison to the challenges posed by completely collapsing the economy by requiring everyone to be quarantined. >>a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable" The chances of a person infected with the coronavirus ending up in critical condition or dead from COVID19 are vastly smaller if they're under 45.

thelean12 6y ago

For how long? You can't keep society inside for a long period of time. It just won't work. Couple weeks? Sure. 3 months? Barely, it seems. 1 year? No. It just won't work. (I don't think we'll get to that point, but I think that the point stands: quarantine is a short term fix.)

SerLava 6y ago
Without doing a real bailout of normal people, no we can't go more than a few months. If we're going to demand grocery store workers get buried in the ground for the sake of keeping things running, we can afford to radically shift the distribution of wealth toward the people we're literally condeming.
- thelean12 6y ago
  You're using quite inflammatory language here that's distracting from your points. Calling the US a failed state, saying we're demanding workers be buried in the ground, etc. If you want to discuss actual policy, then do so. I'm not interested in following platitudes.
  - SerLava 6y ago
    Inflammatory language is appropriate to describe an ongoing attempt to end the lives of millions of people. It's necessary to point out that we live in a failed state because some of the solutions being presented are assuming some kind of capability which we have not come close to demonstrating. It looks like we're going to have to kill quite a few poor people is fundamentally inflammatory, even when you act like you're discussing the best fruit flavor. These are people being killed, right now, all around you, for no fucking reason. These are people whose lives have marginally MORE value than yours, we're talking about snuffing them out.
    - ogre_magi 6y ago
      Wait why are their lives more valuable than others?

perl4ever 6y ago

"every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID" Just as a random factoid, somewhere I was just reading that someone was doing testing of surfaces in a hospital, and on average they found maybe 80% contaminated with the virus, but the floor of the pharmacy was 100% even though no patients had been in there...

SerLava 6y ago
That's terrifying.
Rapzid 6y ago
Well, CDC doesn't believe surface transfer to be a significant factor soo.. There's that.
gorgoiler 6y ago
Asking in good faith (I believe you!) if you could dig out your source, I would find that interesting to read as well.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  "as medical staff walk around the ward, the virus can be tracked all over the floor, as indicated by the 100% rate of positivity from the floor in the pharmacy, where there were no patients. Furthermore, half of the samples from the soles of the ICU medical staff shoes tested positive" Other objects were not as high as I recalled, but computer mice in the ICU were 75%. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article Also see table: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885-t1 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885-t1