Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Can someone explain to me De Blasio’s decision to keep NYC schools open? It can’t just be that nurses and first responders need daycare given that Chicago, DC, LA, Boston are all shutting down for multiple weeks

I haven't really seen any systematic response offered by those cities in terms of what they're going to do about childcare for everyone in the system, not just first responders. They just seem to think of two bad options, it's the least worst. That being said, all of those closures are going to be extended, if they do them; it seems certain that in four weeks we'll have far more spread of the virus than we do now.

It’s stunning how evident it is that no organization or community ever bothered to consider how to deal with an event that has been so obviously coming that we’ve made five thousand history channel series about how it might look.

Seattle public schools may be shut down, but for now they’re asking food insecure families to go to a small handful of centers to pick up food for their kids. Everything about that doesn’t work. Everything.

I dunno, they are doing that here and so far feedback has been positive. Nearly all distribution is done hub and spoke, so until we have drones the can deliver house to house, having food insecure families travel to designated locations seems reasonable.

But having NYC kids in school, a large percentage of which not only rely on public transport but have multigenerational households where elderly people are vulnerable will be exposed to those kids does not seem wise.


Edit: maybe they are taking the U.K. approach and just saying ‘get it over with’

there is a town in northern italy where the newspaper in mid-Feb had 1 page dedicated to obituaries, and now 4 weeks later there are 10 pages of obituaries

What is the best thing to do in this scenario?

You're a hospital nurse. Your kids' school has been cancelled for the next two weeks. A neighbor volunteers to watch your kid so you can go to work. Do you decline since that will increase the number of people coming into contact with your family? Or do you accept, knowing that every healthcare worker that stays home reduces each hospitals' capacity, making it that much harder to flatten the curve?

Does anybody have a succinct article and/or graph that illustrates why this is so different from a normal flu? Im tired of arguing with people.

Simple Torture wrote:Some rumblings that Massachusetts might have a curfew or even more severe restrictions soon.

I had heard this from a few people that I trusted, but the governor has since shot it down. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a bar/restaurant ban soon, though.

We found out today that my son's ABA program is going to be open this week, but we are going to keep him out for the time being.

Self wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Some rumblings that Massachusetts might have a curfew or even more severe restrictions soon.

Yeah, did you see how many idiots crowded the bars in Boston last night?

Same thing in Chicago:

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... sonal-flu/

“Globally about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-19 cases have died,” Tedros explained. “By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected.”

How easily the viruses spread is another way in which COVID-19 and seasonal influenza appear to differ. A basic reproduction number, or R0, is a measure scientists use to estimate the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person. For the flu, this number is reportedly around 1.3, but in preliminary studies of COVID-19, R0 is estimated between 2 and 3, similar to that of SARS.

Anders wrote:https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... sonal-flu/

“Globally about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-19 cases have died,” Tedros explained. “By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected.”

How easily the viruses spread is another way in which COVID-19 and seasonal influenza appear to differ. A basic reproduction number, or R0, is a measure scientists use to estimate the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person. For the flu, this number is reportedly around 1.3, but in preliminary studies of COVID-19, R0 is estimated between 2 and 3, similar to that of SARS.

Thanks, anders.

NYC getting closer to lockdown

So far 61 people have died in the US and 3100 have tested positive. I see reports that hundred of thousands of people probably have it. The Governor of Ohio said 100,000 prob have it in his state alone. Does that mean there are a bunch of people that died from it and we have no idea? That enough time hasn't gone by for people to get deathly ill? Or the mortality rate is way lower than we think?

so yeah, our temporary apartment looks right at this...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ero-128720

bada wrote:So far 61 people have died in the US and 3100 have tested positive. I see reports that hundred of thousands of people probably have it. The Governor of Ohio said 100,000 prob have it in his state alone. Does that mean there are a bunch of people that died from it and we have no idea? That enough time hasn't gone by for people to get deathly ill? Or the mortality rate is way lower than we think?

Probably all of those things. Scientists don’t know yet and don’t know if it could mutate again, so better safe than sorry.

RIP doug

wease wrote:RIP doug

Eat the rich has never sounded truer.

doug rr wrote:so yeah, our temporary apartment looks right at this...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ero-128720

Any good looting going on?

A Japanese man got the virus, then tested negative after being sick, and now has the virus again.

Good stuff on why isolating is crucial right now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... simulator/

Bi_3 wrote:

bada wrote:So far 61 people have died in the US and 3100 have tested positive. I see reports that hundred of thousands of people probably have it. The Governor of Ohio said 100,000 prob have it in his state alone. Does that mean there are a bunch of people that died from it and we have no idea? That enough time hasn't gone by for people to get deathly ill? Or the mortality rate is way lower than we think?

Probably all of those things. Scientists don’t know yet and don’t know if it could mutate again, so better safe than sorry.

It means thousands of people are probably walking a round asymptomatic, they are carriers or they have really mild symptoms or the virus is still incubating but they are still contagious. It doesn't mean people have died from it unaccounted for.

Bi_3 wrote:Good stuff on why isolating is crucial right now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... simulator/

Great visualisations