4 ms·

> I don't understand this attitude. No, we will go back to normal. This cannot continue forever. We cannot live the rest of our lives in fear. This is not how w

> I don't understand this attitude. No, we will go back to normal. This cannot continue forever. We cannot live the rest of our lives in fear. This is not how we evolved and I'm honestly sick of it. It's not about living in fear, it's about not catching the virus. The facts are that COVID-19 is still out there actively infecting people, deaths are still climbing at more or less a steady rate, and it doesn't really care about how you or anyone else feels about it. Many a school has opened under the rationale of "we can't just hide from it forever", only to go into shutdown again because of the inevitable outbreak that occurs when a bunch of kids are packed like sardines into a hallway or classroom environment. > Mississippi, Florida and other states are starting to go back to normal without any increase in fatalities (and don't go on about cases, because there is no distinction between people who test positive and people who test positive because they've actually been sick). Fatalities are going down across the board. Exponential growth does not go on forever. It ends. Just because COVID-19 isn't immediately fatal doesn't make it harmless. What are the rates of reinfection, and how does that impact a patient? What are the chronic effects of being infected, if any? You may have a cavalier attitude about the virus's effects, but plenty others (including the elderly, infants, the immunocompromised, etc.) do not, and the virus doesn't discriminate between who cares about it and who doesn't. It is far better to be overly cautious than not cautious enough in such a case, even if it comes at the expense of inconvenience.

ryandrake 6y ago
It remains to be seen whether I'm right or djsumdog is right, but one thing is for sure: Nature doesn't care what we feel or think. The virus is not going to go away just because humanity is bored of it, or unhappy with it, or because we just have this desire to go back to some nostalgic definition of normal. Nature doesn't respond to a macho "I'm not afraid" attitude. We see this again and again with the re-openings (and then the inevitable follow-up re-closings). When the re-openings happen based on clear, measurable criteria being met, they have been more successful, but still not 100% successful. When they are based on this vague feeling of "well, we have to get back to normal some time so why not now?" then hospitalizations go up, deaths go up, and everyone goes "surprised pikachu" and businesses have to close again. When we look back, the proof will be in the pudding, and I believe we will find that the outbreak spikes are strongly correlated with repeated efforts to re-open too soon.
ardy42 6y ago
Also, who's getting infected? I don't recall exactly where I read it (some NY Times article, probably), but a lot of the summer cases have been in younger, less vulnerable populations that don't tend to die from it. However, there are signs that cases in elderly populations are now increasing, which, if true, foreshadows a future increase in deaths.
orangecat 6y ago
The facts are that COVID-19 is still out there actively infecting people As are many other viruses. Many a school has opened under the rationale of "we can't just hide from it forever", only to go into shutdown again because of the inevitable outbreak that occurs when a bunch of kids are packed like sardines into a hallway or classroom environment. It's now well established that schools are not significant drivers of infections. Which is actually rather surprising; it's a reasonable hypothesis that lots of kids would get infected and then pass it to vulnerable family members. But the results from schools around the world show that that's not happening to any significant degree. It is far better to be overly cautious than not cautious enough in such a case, even if it comes at the expense of inconvenience. You can't make that general statement without quantifying the harms on both sides. Denying education and socialization to children, throwing millions of people out of work, and telling people they can't visit family or friends for an indefinite duration goes well beyond "inconvenience".

ryandrake 6y ago

It remains to be seen whether I'm right or djsumdog is right, but one thing is for sure: Nature doesn't care what we feel or think. The virus is not going to go away just because humanity is bored of it, or unhappy with it, or because we just have this desire to go back to some nostalgic definition of normal. Nature doesn't respond to a macho "I'm not afraid" attitude. We see this again and again with the re-openings (and then the inevitable follow-up re-closings). When the re-openings happen based on clear, measurable criteria being met, they have been more successful, but still not 100% successful. When they are based on this vague feeling of "well, we have to get back to normal some time so why not now?" then hospitalizations go up, deaths go up, and everyone goes "surprised pikachu" and businesses have to close again. When we look back, the proof will be in the pudding, and I believe we will find that the outbreak spikes are strongly correlated with repeated efforts to re-open too soon.

ardy42 6y ago

Also, who's getting infected? I don't recall exactly where I read it (some NY Times article, probably), but a lot of the summer cases have been in younger, less vulnerable populations that don't tend to die from it. However, there are signs that cases in elderly populations are now increasing, which, if true, foreshadows a future increase in deaths.

orangecat 6y ago

The facts are that COVID-19 is still out there actively infecting people As are many other viruses. Many a school has opened under the rationale of "we can't just hide from it forever", only to go into shutdown again because of the inevitable outbreak that occurs when a bunch of kids are packed like sardines into a hallway or classroom environment. It's now well established that schools are not significant drivers of infections. Which is actually rather surprising; it's a reasonable hypothesis that lots of kids would get infected and then pass it to vulnerable family members. But the results from schools around the world show that that's not happening to any significant degree. It is far better to be overly cautious than not cautious enough in such a case, even if it comes at the expense of inconvenience. You can't make that general statement without quantifying the harms on both sides. Denying education and socialization to children, throwing millions of people out of work, and telling people they can't visit family or friends for an indefinite duration goes well beyond "inconvenience".