5 ms·

>>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 quara

>>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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.

SerLava 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.