The Coronavirus Chronicles -Three Strikes You're Out

[Stichill_imp]

The thing that confuses me about testing if you are not showing any symptoms is.. so you are not showing any symptoms, but you are over 65 (among the group they recommend testing). You go in and get tested and the test results come back negative. Great. A week or two later you go to the grocery, or hardware store and come in contact with someone who has the virus (the clerk?).... and become infected then. So how often do you need to get tested? I can't see this being a one and done deal. People that were among the first tested weeks ago could certainly be infected today. Right?

I've been thinking the same thing, ferret! I know a bunch of people who are out of sorts and complaining about the lack of testing and blaming this or that company or politician etc. The testing is just a snapshot in time. You're healthy today but infected tomorrow, so what have we learned unless we test everyone every day? Measuring the size of the problem doesn't have any impact on the problem itself.

I think the key number to watch is hospitalizations. In New York, I heard they are taking apart the emergency hospital set up in the Javits Center due to lack of patients. The US Navy hospital ship Comfort, with 1000 beds, is largely going unused. That's good news, but is further indication that the experts may have blown this thing out of all proportion. It's starting to look like the world may have destroyed the global economy ill-advisedly.

I hope instead that this is an indicator of how well social distancing has worked and that if we keep up the good effort we will save many lives. It's a bit like a hurricane coming toward Texas... they make a big deal out of the potential devastation to come so folks take it seriously and either prep well or get out of town in time to save themselves. Do we then say that it wasn't so serious because hardly anyone died? Do we blame the messenger for an advance warning? Even if that storm turns out to sea and does no damage, the warning must go out based on what information the messenger has at the time.
The bottom line with this virus is that no one knew/knows how serious it will be because it's new. So as a public health official, do you prepare for the worst or just downplay it until the @~*^e hits the fan? Is the economy a consideration in that calculation? Perhaps. But rather than see the empty emergency hospitals as a sign of failed policy or over reaction, I see them as a marker of the success of efforts to control/limit the virus' spread. Prepare for the worst and work for the best.

It has to be. "The economy" is not an abstraction...it's millions of people's lives, livelihoods, and life's work being destroyed. There are so many small and medium businesses that will never again open their doors, and the entrepreneurs are ruined.

There has to be a balance between risk and a life worth living. As motorcyclists, I think we all innately understand that calculus.

The other troublesome outcome is the vast growth of state autocracy and intrusion on personal liberty. What's going on in Michigan under the banner of "flattening the curve" shocks the conscience of a free people.

Quote:Stichill Wrote:
It's starting to look like the world may have destroyed the global economy ill-advisedly.
Tell that to the 27,000 Americans who have already died. 129,000 Worldwide.

Without the measures put in place that number would be way higher. Sometimes thoughtful prevention can be painful but it doesn't make it any less necessary.

I'm not sure that's a practical recommendation.

Quote:Stichill Wrote:
It's starting to look like the world may have destroyed the global economy ill-advisedly.
Tell that to the 27,000 Americans who have already died. 129,000 Worldwide.

Without the measures put in place that number would be way higher. Sometimes thoughtful prevention can be painful but it doesn't make it any less necessary.

That can't be proven, any more than it can be proven that removing restrictions would not result in an exponential increase.