7 ms·

> not stepping outside of your house for 5 months is way overboard Why? There's no magic number for risk. The more you isolate the fewer transmission events

> not stepping outside of your house for 5 months is way overboard Why? There's no magic number for risk. The more you isolate the fewer transmission events you see. The more people willing to do that, the faster the spread will stop. I mean... just look at the virus curves in the rest of the US. We're CLEARLY not staying home enough. We need more people "going overboard", not less. Stay home.

faitswulff 6y ago
We’re actually doing worse than ever before, so if you were isolating in April, you should definitely be isolating now.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  It really depends on where you live.
  - kingkawn 6y ago
    Not really. For example yes nyc has a low case incidence rate, but the virus is blowing up in many other parts of America. Even during this period of relatively low travel it’s safe to assume there are people coming into nyc from around the country every day. Testing is delayed by 8-17 days, so the public health data is dangerously out of date. To be safe right now means isolating.
    - speedgoose 6y ago
      Isolating is not necessarily more healthy, nor required everywhere right now. For example in Norway, you don't have to isolate. The numbers are relatively low, the clusters are well tracked, the few travelers from dangerous countries like USA have quarantines. You still have to be careful of course.
      - rhacker 6y ago
        I'm thinking he is (as am I) in the US. We sometimes forget there are countries outside of this one.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kingkawn 6y ago
        To compare the Norwegian response to the American response, and to presume any competence in America, seems quite irrational at this point to me. There are people out mixing in nyc in ways that will allow virus transfer when it gets back here one way or another. As time goes on more and more people are out. If there was no testing delay I would absolutely agree with you, but we are looking at a week minimum delay. The conditions bear more and more similarity to March. De Blasio (who deserves no respect on how he has handled any of the problems facing nyc currently) is trying to reopen the schools. Maybe only one of these things would be ok, but this is a disaster in the making.
      - antonvs 6y ago
        If all those things were being done in the US, then you wouldn't have to isolate. But they're not.
AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
Yeah, no. You don't get to boss around anybody at any location. If you want to stay home, stay home. Don't tell everyone else what to do when you are able to avoid the virus entirely by just taking your own advice.
- gilrain 6y ago
  Do you enjoy living in a civilization? Then you need to take pandemics seriously.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    I lived through this already, I already live in "civilization." You know what Manhattan looks like today because of how seriously we took this dumb pandemic? [0] Yeah, real civilized. Some people don't realize just how uncivilized NYC is without all the people walking around outside, making the grime, dysfunction, inefficiency, and disorder look acceptable and reasonable. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSuz1gJkZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSuz1gJkZg
- newacct583 6y ago
  > You don't get to boss around anybody at any location. Who's bossing around anyone? I responded to someone saying "you don't have to stay home" with "you should stay home". I'm just a random guy on the internet. So, to clarify: will you please stay home? > you are able to avoid the virus entirely by just taking your own advice. I'm trying. But no, I can't avoid all interaction like this guy did. Some people can't avoid interaction at all (i.e. they have "essential" jobs they need to be at in person). All of us need to help. Your attitude, frankly, is precisely why the US is, well, shitting the bed with this virus when almost literally everyone else in the developed world has it contained.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    > All of us need to help. I did help - by nearly dying. I had to receive emergency care for appendicitis and could not get anywhere in my region to perform the appendectomy because my city decided to shut down all elective surgeries. Why? So that 32,000 morbidly obese octogenarians could die with the best-possible PR spin, which spared the state and their hospital administration staff of any wrongdoing. I developed sepsis and nearly died as a result. I am a healthy 30 year old who went through a common medical emergency with a more than apparent, streamlined medical solution. I was denied basic care and decency, like many people were, because of all this garbage about there being a pandemic. I don't care what you say - any 30 year old's life is more valuable than your grandparent bound to a nursing home. So, no, fuck that - I will not stay home. I will fight for my ability to stay alive, thank you very much. If a pandemic can bring down a country simply by forcing people to stay home, we deserve to lose everything we've built towards. I posit instead, however, that things would be just fine - and just the way they are right now - if we completely ignored your ridiculously generalized request.
tdfx 6y ago
> The more people willing to do that, the faster the spread will stop. I've seen this line of thinking a few times, usually in reference to self-quarantine and/or wearing a mask, and it doesn't really make any sense to me. This particular virus being novel and so contagious means there's really no hope of stopping its spread, right? It seems the best we can hope for is to slow it down enough that our healthcare system is able to care for the acute cases properly while also concurrently tending the needs of other illnesses/injuries. I think the messaging around why we are quarantining and wearing masks has been very confusing and its leading people to hope for things that are literally not possible at this point and encouraging unsustainable behavior. You might be able to write off a year of staying in your home if you believe the following years will allow a return to normal, but is every high risk person prepared to spend the rest of their lives in their current housing? I'm finding way too many people who seem to think this is going to "be over soon" if the general public does a better job following the guidelines but that doesn't seem realistic. It seems much more likely we're going to see this thing continue for years (3+) to come.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > This particular virus being novel and so contagious means there's really no hope of stopping its spread, right? How do you explain the infection rates in Japan, Korea, or Germany, which were never high and remain very low. Or France, Italy or Spain, which were VERY high and have since been well contained? Yes, we can keep this under control. It takes discipline and care, and some amount of sacrifice. But it can be done. We're just doing it badly. But no, not "everyone" needs to literally stay home forever. Wear a mask. Stay 2m from other human beings. Stay outside. In particular avoid "static" indoor environments like restaurants (or bars, cruise ships, theaters, etc...) which have been the source of the bulk of local outbreaks. Work from home as much as possible. Don't write it off as impossible to contain when it's not. We can do much better, and there are tens (or maybe hundreds) of thousands of lives that can be preserved still.
  - tdfx 6y ago
    I think you're reading more than I said. We appear to be saying the same thing, that keeping it "under control" is the only possibility at this point. I think the cost/benefit ratio of masks clearly points to it being a good policy in confined spaces, keeping distance is the best way to keep yourself from being infected, and having crowded indoor spaces like bars, restaurants, or large events is really introducing unnecessary risk. That being said, there's a non-trivial amount of people, particularly vocal celebrities, who have posted things like "If you idiots wore masks this would be over already" (Seth MacFarlane). Then we've got the other commenters on this post who note they have only left their house twice in the past 6 months. Many of these people believe we are only a few "stubborn people being compliant" away from eliminating the threat, which is just patently untrue. It's here to stay.

faitswulff 6y ago

We’re actually doing worse than ever before, so if you were isolating in April, you should definitely be isolating now.

speedgoose 6y ago
It really depends on where you live.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  Not really. For example yes nyc has a low case incidence rate, but the virus is blowing up in many other parts of America. Even during this period of relatively low travel it’s safe to assume there are people coming into nyc from around the country every day. Testing is delayed by 8-17 days, so the public health data is dangerously out of date. To be safe right now means isolating.
  - speedgoose 6y ago
    Isolating is not necessarily more healthy, nor required everywhere right now. For example in Norway, you don't have to isolate. The numbers are relatively low, the clusters are well tracked, the few travelers from dangerous countries like USA have quarantines. You still have to be careful of course.
    - rhacker 6y ago
      I'm thinking he is (as am I) in the US. We sometimes forget there are countries outside of this one.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - kingkawn 6y ago
      To compare the Norwegian response to the American response, and to presume any competence in America, seems quite irrational at this point to me. There are people out mixing in nyc in ways that will allow virus transfer when it gets back here one way or another. As time goes on more and more people are out. If there was no testing delay I would absolutely agree with you, but we are looking at a week minimum delay. The conditions bear more and more similarity to March. De Blasio (who deserves no respect on how he has handled any of the problems facing nyc currently) is trying to reopen the schools. Maybe only one of these things would be ok, but this is a disaster in the making.
    - antonvs 6y ago
      If all those things were being done in the US, then you wouldn't have to isolate. But they're not.

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago

Yeah, no. You don't get to boss around anybody at any location. If you want to stay home, stay home. Don't tell everyone else what to do when you are able to avoid the virus entirely by just taking your own advice.

gilrain 6y ago
Do you enjoy living in a civilization? Then you need to take pandemics seriously.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  I lived through this already, I already live in "civilization." You know what Manhattan looks like today because of how seriously we took this dumb pandemic? [0] Yeah, real civilized. Some people don't realize just how uncivilized NYC is without all the people walking around outside, making the grime, dysfunction, inefficiency, and disorder look acceptable and reasonable. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSuz1gJkZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSuz1gJkZg
newacct583 6y ago
> You don't get to boss around anybody at any location. Who's bossing around anyone? I responded to someone saying "you don't have to stay home" with "you should stay home". I'm just a random guy on the internet. So, to clarify: will you please stay home? > you are able to avoid the virus entirely by just taking your own advice. I'm trying. But no, I can't avoid all interaction like this guy did. Some people can't avoid interaction at all (i.e. they have "essential" jobs they need to be at in person). All of us need to help. Your attitude, frankly, is precisely why the US is, well, shitting the bed with this virus when almost literally everyone else in the developed world has it contained.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  > All of us need to help. I did help - by nearly dying. I had to receive emergency care for appendicitis and could not get anywhere in my region to perform the appendectomy because my city decided to shut down all elective surgeries. Why? So that 32,000 morbidly obese octogenarians could die with the best-possible PR spin, which spared the state and their hospital administration staff of any wrongdoing. I developed sepsis and nearly died as a result. I am a healthy 30 year old who went through a common medical emergency with a more than apparent, streamlined medical solution. I was denied basic care and decency, like many people were, because of all this garbage about there being a pandemic. I don't care what you say - any 30 year old's life is more valuable than your grandparent bound to a nursing home. So, no, fuck that - I will not stay home. I will fight for my ability to stay alive, thank you very much. If a pandemic can bring down a country simply by forcing people to stay home, we deserve to lose everything we've built towards. I posit instead, however, that things would be just fine - and just the way they are right now - if we completely ignored your ridiculously generalized request.

tdfx 6y ago

> The more people willing to do that, the faster the spread will stop. I've seen this line of thinking a few times, usually in reference to self-quarantine and/or wearing a mask, and it doesn't really make any sense to me. This particular virus being novel and so contagious means there's really no hope of stopping its spread, right? It seems the best we can hope for is to slow it down enough that our healthcare system is able to care for the acute cases properly while also concurrently tending the needs of other illnesses/injuries. I think the messaging around why we are quarantining and wearing masks has been very confusing and its leading people to hope for things that are literally not possible at this point and encouraging unsustainable behavior. You might be able to write off a year of staying in your home if you believe the following years will allow a return to normal, but is every high risk person prepared to spend the rest of their lives in their current housing? I'm finding way too many people who seem to think this is going to "be over soon" if the general public does a better job following the guidelines but that doesn't seem realistic. It seems much more likely we're going to see this thing continue for years (3+) to come.

newacct583 6y ago
> This particular virus being novel and so contagious means there's really no hope of stopping its spread, right? How do you explain the infection rates in Japan, Korea, or Germany, which were never high and remain very low. Or France, Italy or Spain, which were VERY high and have since been well contained? Yes, we can keep this under control. It takes discipline and care, and some amount of sacrifice. But it can be done. We're just doing it badly. But no, not "everyone" needs to literally stay home forever. Wear a mask. Stay 2m from other human beings. Stay outside. In particular avoid "static" indoor environments like restaurants (or bars, cruise ships, theaters, etc...) which have been the source of the bulk of local outbreaks. Work from home as much as possible. Don't write it off as impossible to contain when it's not. We can do much better, and there are tens (or maybe hundreds) of thousands of lives that can be preserved still.
- tdfx 6y ago
  I think you're reading more than I said. We appear to be saying the same thing, that keeping it "under control" is the only possibility at this point. I think the cost/benefit ratio of masks clearly points to it being a good policy in confined spaces, keeping distance is the best way to keep yourself from being infected, and having crowded indoor spaces like bars, restaurants, or large events is really introducing unnecessary risk. That being said, there's a non-trivial amount of people, particularly vocal celebrities, who have posted things like "If you idiots wore masks this would be over already" (Seth MacFarlane). Then we've got the other commenters on this post who note they have only left their house twice in the past 6 months. Many of these people believe we are only a few "stubborn people being compliant" away from eliminating the threat, which is just patently untrue. It's here to stay.