planoaggie123 said:

---

So I am not 100% anti-quarantine. I think it wouldnt be terrible if people were allowed to work from home or even maybe keep their kids home from school if they so choose.

Seems like if you do 100% quarantine and things slow / stop here....great....but what happens when that one plane arrives with a sick passenger and he coughs on a flight attendent and we are back to square one.

Do we stop all international travel?

I just struggle to see how this thing is stopped with the # of cases (known and unknown)

---

But we wouldn't be back to square one. Because there would be people who have immunity from prior exposure at that point. This makes the spread incrementally slower as more are exposed.

That is what makes a novel pathogen more dangerous at it's onset and why we have to take such drastic measure to slow the spread.

mitigate =/= stop

agracer said:

---

I'm supposed to be headed out of the country on vacation for spring break.

I'm not panicking, but I'm concerned that some crazy quarantine will be put in place when I return, or worse we'll get stuck and not be able to get home b/c the feds will limit or even stop intl. travel. Going to Mexico BTW.

Should I just cancel this trip?

Again, not concerned about the virus as much as I am about the panic coming from the government or other 'officials'.

---

FWIW, our ISD just asked parents going out of the country for vacation to fill out a survey to best gauge how to handle potential health issues. And if they your kids have/will travel to a Level 3 country (china, italy, etc) to self-quarantine for 14 days.

Question....Have they figured out if this thing can pass by aerosol transmission? I thought the answer was no, it was just in droplets, but the Infectious disease doctor that was interviewed by Joe Rogan was saying that you could get it just by being in a room with someone breathing.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

PearlJammin said:

---

Alta said:

---

The reaction to this is the oddest thing I've ever seen in my life. I don't think there is ever a way to measure it but my guess is that with all the panicking and what that will do to the global economy you will have more affected by that (suicide, lost jobs, economic collapse, etc.) than the actual virus. I keep reading about people telling us on this thread to stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the 70+ crowd. Valid point but decisions can't be made in a vacuum. The panic and halting of society has real negative effects as well.

---

This is how I see things.

---

Completely agree, the economic impact from all the cancellation stupidity is going to have the greatest impact. I'd rather be sick for a week than lose my job or half my money.

---

Is the avoidance of a recession more important than the lives of 1% to 2% of our elderly population?

Whiskey Jacket said:

---

mitigate =/= stop

---

But mitigating it allows the health care system not to collapse.

So saying "what's the point of quarantining", is in a word, dumb.

I mean, at what point do some of those with their heels dug in decide that maybe the people at the CDC, White House and WHO maybe know a little bit more about the severity of this?

You are welcome to read it however you want. But we live in reality and not a fictional fairytale land. The state of the economy which has a direct effect on people's financial and personal well being is very real. Shutting down society at the cost of everything else has consequences. Those consequences are immeasurable with the statistics everybody likes to read but they are certainly there.

ccaggie05 said:

---

As I mentioned above, you also have to consider the various other medical issues that require ICU care (heart attacks, strokes, traumas, various major surgeries etc..) that are unrelated to this virus. Being at overcapacity means hospitals will have a hard time treating these folks as well, and those fatalities will likely not be reported as part of this whole situation.

---

You also have to consider that we aren't Europe. Our population isn't going to sit by calmly and go along with just wheeling their mom/grandad into a hallway and letting them die if it comes to triage.

Alta said:

---

You are welcome to read it however you want. But we live in reality and not a fictional fairytale land. The state of the economy which has a direct effect on people's financial and personal well being is very real. Shutting down society at the cost of everything else has consequences. Those consequences are immeasurable with the statistics everybody likes to read but they are certainly there.

---

So how many elderly deaths are acceptable? 50,000? 100,00?

jury is still out, but the consensus is that this is primarily droplet spread and contracted from surfaces or being near people shedding the virus actively

if its aerosol, that doesn't seem like the primary vector or the attack rate is lower

Alta said:

---

You are welcome to read it however you want. But we live in reality and not a fictional fairytale land. The state of the economy which has a direct effect on people's financial and personal well being is very real. Shutting down society at the cost of everything else has consequences. Those consequences are immeasurable with the statistics everybody likes to read but they are certainly there.

---

Except that's not the either/or being presented here.

It's not: Quarantine and tank the economy so that we go into a recession/depression but maybe only lose 1-2% of the population.

Instead it's: Quarantine and tank the economy so that we don't end up losing 10% and go into an even longer depression.


I could be wrong, you guys follow politics and economy better than I do, but it sure seems like the White House held off as long as they can making a big deal out of this in hopes of keeping the economy stable... So if they are now acknowledging there are going to be major things occurring, doesn't it seem like they must feel it's pretty darn serious?

Drifter. said:

---

Question....Have they figured out if this thing can pass by aerosol transmission? I thought the answer was no, it was just in droplets, but the Infectious disease doctor that was interviewed by Joe Rogan was saying that you could get it just by being in a room with someone breathing.

---

All I've seen is droplets and surfaces.

Drifter. said:

---

Question....Have they figured out if this thing can pass by aerosol transmission? I thought the answer was no, it was just in droplets, but the Infectious disease doctor that was interviewed by Joe Rogan was saying that you could get it just by being in a room with someone breathing.

---

There is a specific example from China of transmission on a bus from up to 4.5 meters away. I don't know about the just "breathing" but definitely coughing.

No deaths are acceptable. But again we live in reality and not a fairy-tale land. People, especially the elderly, die of illnesses. How many deaths due to consequences of halting daily life due to the virus are acceptable? How do you balance those two concerns. It's easy to try to make decisions in a vacuum but we don't live in a vacuum.

Okay I'm officially tired of hearing about coronavirus. Just a day without mention would be terrific.

I wake up and it's on the news, online, Texags. It's at work all day. Meetings about coronavirus, emails, trying to find alternatives. Everything's cancelled. Go home. More coronavirus. At the stores everyone is stockpiling.

We are going to have coronavirus fatigue on a few weeks. And **** will be hitting the fan. Being quarantined and not having to listen to people btalk about coronavirus is looking better and better.

it's like the people still having the virus after two negative tests

are those people even shedding? what is the peak time for people to be infectious and what is the primary method of transmission?

you can't worry about the tail risk if you're younger. i would worry about everything if i was 60+ until they got the treatment protocols nailed down.

Alta said:

---

You are welcome to read it however you want. But we live in reality and not a fictional fairytale land. The state of the economy which has a direct effect on people's financial and personal well being is very real. Shutting down society at the cost of everything else has consequences. Those consequences are immeasurable with the statistics everybody likes to read but they are certainly there.

---

I think most people are aware of reality. That cuts both ways. Brutal pragmatism can be expressed by saying "we accept 3% GDP growth in exchange for additional 3% case fatality rate of this disease" just as much as it can be expressed by saying "we accept 3% GDP loss in exchange for 3% decrease in case fatality rate."

Just depends on what is more valuable to you.

There's cost to action and cost to inaction. There's direct and indirect consequences here no matter which way you turn.

Alta said:

---

No deaths are acceptable. But again we live in reality and not a fairy-tale land. People, especially the elderly, die of illnesses. How many deaths due to consequences of halting daily life due to the virus are acceptable? How do you balance those two concerns. It's easy to try to make decisions in a vacuum but we don't live in a vacuum.

---

Human lives in the order of 10's of thousands are always more important to me than the economy. Maybe you think differently.

No I'm living in the fantasy land of people being able to make informed decisions without halting daily life. Admittedly that is a fantasy land. If you are a high risk person then change your daily life if you feel appropriate. Self quarantine, avoid gatherings, etc. The same thing that might eventually be mandated. If you are a low risk person then continue with your daily life, go to work, etc. Maybe don't go visit your grandma in a nursing home though and give her a call instead.

dragmagpuff said:

---

Drifter. said:

---

Question....Have they figured out if this thing can pass by aerosol transmission? I thought the answer was no, it was just in droplets, but the Infectious disease doctor that was interviewed by Joe Rogan was saying that you could get it just by being in a room with someone breathing.

---

There is a specific example from China of transmission on a bus from up to 4.5 meters away. I don't know about the just "breathing" but definitely coughing.

---

That chinese example is bunk. Just as easily could have spread from touching the hand rails or seats or door going onto and off of the bus.

PJYoung said:

---

Irish_Man said:

---

How many have died in Italy?

---

---

Another 196 today

Drifter. said:

---

Question....Have they figured out if this thing can pass by aerosol transmission? I thought the answer was no, it was just in droplets, but the Infectious disease doctor that was interviewed by Joe Rogan was saying that you could get it just by being in a room with someone breathing.

---

We barely understand the breakdown of influenza transmission between aerosol, droplets, and fomite. I don't think anyone has any real clue about this disease yet.

Zemira said:

---

Okay I'm officially tired of hearing about coronavirus. Just a day without mention would be terrific.

I wake up and it's on the news, online, Texags. It's at work all day. Meetings about coronavirus, emails, trying to find alternatives. Everything's cancelled. Go home. More coronavirus. At the stores everyone is stockpiling.

We are going to have coronavirus fatigue on a few weeks. And **** will be hitting the fan. Being quarantined and not having to listen to people btalk about coronavirus is looking better and better.

---

This

Bo Darville said:

---

Alta said:

---

No deaths are acceptable. But again we live in reality and not a fairy-tale land. People, especially the elderly, die of illnesses. How many deaths due to consequences of halting daily life due to the virus are acceptable? How do you balance those two concerns. It's easy to try to make decisions in a vacuum but we don't live in a vacuum.

---

Human lives in the order of 10's of thousands are always more important to me than the economy. Maybe you think differently.

---

So why do you drive daily? Should we shut down the auto industry because it kills?

Bo Darville said:

---

Alta said:

---

No deaths are acceptable. But again we live in reality and not a fairy-tale land. People, especially the elderly, die of illnesses. How many deaths due to consequences of halting daily life due to the virus are acceptable? How do you balance those two concerns. It's easy to try to make decisions in a vacuum but we don't live in a vacuum.

---

Human lives in the order of 10's of thousands are always more important to me than the economy. Maybe you think differently.

---

Happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR, but for some reason this year they feel the need to shut down every school, event, workplace etc.

I stated there are consequences to the economy that include loss of life. You can choose to act like that doesn't matter but I disagree.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Alta said:

---

The reaction to this is the oddest thing I've ever seen in my life. I don't think there is ever a way to measure it but my guess is that with all the panicking and what that will do to the global economy you will have more affected by that (suicide, lost jobs, economic collapse, etc.) than the actual virus. I keep reading about people telling us on this thread to stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the 70+ crowd. Valid point but decisions can't be made in a vacuum. The panic and halting of society has real negative effects as well.

---

Hard not to read this as - economic output is more important than lives of the elderly.

---

Economic output aside we could get to the point where it's purely a healthcare triage decision equivalent to wartime. That's where Italy is and they are having to make tough choices about who lives and dies due to resources.

That is awful but things going from bad to worse can cause those kinds of decisions to be made. In other words, it may come down to that and economic output becomes irrelevant. All else being equal societies are going to pick younger people who have more long-term, theoretical benefits contributable to overall society than an 80 yr old with multiple underlying health issues already on their last legs. From a purely, statistical viewpoint, that's an easy decision to make.

From a moral and ethics viewpoint, it's fairly frightening.

Any new information on how serious this can be to a kid with asthma?

Unfortunately I cannot star your post as many times as it deserves.

The Lost said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

Alta said:

---

No deaths are acceptable. But again we live in reality and not a fairy-tale land. People, especially the elderly, die of illnesses. How many deaths due to consequences of halting daily life due to the virus are acceptable? How do you balance those two concerns. It's easy to try to make decisions in a vacuum but we don't live in a vacuum.

---

Human lives in the order of 10's of thousands are always more important to me than the economy. Maybe you think differently.

---

So why do you drive daily? Should we shut down the auto industry because it kills?

---

If we could shut down the auto industry for 1 to 2 weeks and save 100,000 lives I'd be okay with it.

likewise, they are studies showing the familial attack rate was pretty low (<15%) and that the air in patient rooms (after they were cleared) was not contaminated even before disinfection

so something is up. i think the true answer is you kinda want to maintain 6 feet distance, regardless and twice that if that are actively coughing or visibly ill.

there's also some thoughts regarding severity and viral load - like if you get a lighter load (i.e. pick your nose after getting some virus from touching an elevator button), then your symptoms may be less than if you got a cough directly into your mouth/trachea.

Bo Darville said:

---

Alta said:

---

You are welcome to read it however you want. But we live in reality and not a fictional fairytale land. The state of the economy which has a direct effect on people's financial and personal well being is very real. Shutting down society at the cost of everything else has consequences. Those consequences are immeasurable with the statistics everybody likes to read but they are certainly there.

---

So how many elderly deaths are acceptable? 50,000? 100,00?

---

How many are inevitable?

The US Budget Office assumes a human life value of $7 million-$9 million (which is way way high by most measures) but lets use $10 million for ease of numbers. That means 100,000 lives is worth about $1 trillion. We've lost a lot more in the stock market already.