4 ms·

Quarantine, voluntary or otherwise, the elderly and at-risk then. In the Bay Area, anyone who had children in daycare had already gotten Covid and recovered fro

by kleton 2y ago

Quarantine, voluntary or otherwise, the elderly and at-risk then. In the Bay Area, anyone who had children in daycare had already gotten Covid and recovered from it before the lockdowns began. A rational policy needed to recognize natural immunity.

bfdm 2y ago
That is impossible, their lives depend on complex care networks of family and staff that would also need to isolate, but cannot for need to interact with other parts of the world. It is a fantasy to consider your suggestion as a solution. Even if it were possible, you're condemning those people to a life of isolation and slowly dying alone. If we instead set & raised indoor air quality standards and established social norms of staying home when sick or masking when that's not possible, then life could go on mostly as normal. But fuck me for asking people for small inconveniences to help others. I would say it's reasonable to suggest vulnerable folks avoid indoor public dining, but not to remain alone indefinitely. Anyways, bring on the downvotes.
- kleton 2y ago
  If you lock down everyone, or just lock down the elderly, what is the difference to the elderly person locked down? Either way they are isolated.
  - bfdm 2y ago
    I'm not suggesting "lockdowns" here. I'm advocating for indoor air quality regulation: maximum CO2, minimum fresh air ACH, deploying upper room UVGI ~everywhere. Universal masking (N95+) in healthcare settings. Acute and specific things we could do to mitigate H5N1 right now, in particular, are deploying the vaccine we have to all poultry and dairy workers to reduce animal to human crossovers.
    - kleton 2y ago
      You literally said "isolate". Now you have retreated to the motte of common sense hygiene that nobody ever objected to.
      - bfdm 2y ago
        I was responding to your flippant suggestion to "Quarantine, voluntary or otherwise, the elderly and at-risk then." Which I pointed out is not possible, because those people depend on many other healthy people to care for them. Either those people also need to join the "at risk" bubble (not feasible since they have jobs, school etc) or you don't really have the at risk population isolated as you suggest. If you don't understand this then you have no idea how care networks function, with duties spread across facility staff, families, volunteers, visiting caregivers etc. Suggesting you cut off one or more legs of those support networks isn't practical or humane. It would mean people without adequate support for basic needs like feeding, toileting & bathing, leaving aside mental/physical exercise and socialization.

by kleton 2y ago

bfdm 2y ago

That is impossible, their lives depend on complex care networks of family and staff that would also need to isolate, but cannot for need to interact with other parts of the world. It is a fantasy to consider your suggestion as a solution. Even if it were possible, you're condemning those people to a life of isolation and slowly dying alone. If we instead set & raised indoor air quality standards and established social norms of staying home when sick or masking when that's not possible, then life could go on mostly as normal. But fuck me for asking people for small inconveniences to help others. I would say it's reasonable to suggest vulnerable folks avoid indoor public dining, but not to remain alone indefinitely. Anyways, bring on the downvotes.

kleton 2y ago
If you lock down everyone, or just lock down the elderly, what is the difference to the elderly person locked down? Either way they are isolated.
- bfdm 2y ago
  I'm not suggesting "lockdowns" here. I'm advocating for indoor air quality regulation: maximum CO2, minimum fresh air ACH, deploying upper room UVGI ~everywhere. Universal masking (N95+) in healthcare settings. Acute and specific things we could do to mitigate H5N1 right now, in particular, are deploying the vaccine we have to all poultry and dairy workers to reduce animal to human crossovers.
  - kleton 2y ago
    You literally said "isolate". Now you have retreated to the motte of common sense hygiene that nobody ever objected to.
    - bfdm 2y ago
      I was responding to your flippant suggestion to "Quarantine, voluntary or otherwise, the elderly and at-risk then." Which I pointed out is not possible, because those people depend on many other healthy people to care for them. Either those people also need to join the "at risk" bubble (not feasible since they have jobs, school etc) or you don't really have the at risk population isolated as you suggest. If you don't understand this then you have no idea how care networks function, with duties spread across facility staff, families, volunteers, visiting caregivers etc. Suggesting you cut off one or more legs of those support networks isn't practical or humane. It would mean people without adequate support for basic needs like feeding, toileting & bathing, leaving aside mental/physical exercise and socialization.