Did you catch it ?

Since I'm late to the soapbox I'll leave my 2 cents here. I'll be 60 next month (that's a miracle in itself) and will be in the demographic these pharma hyped experts are so concerned about. Interesting enough nobody in position of authority have thought to ask said demographic what we think of crashing our economy in name of keeping us old farts 'safe'. With that said, based on the available data I find resuming my day to day activities are 'acceptable risk' for me and that does not include wearing a mask. Acceptable risk. What is it? We use it every day in making critical decisions where the negative consequence of a poor decision bare weight. Covid-19 is no different.
 
Since I'm late to the soapbox I'll leave my 2 cents here. I'll be 60 next month (that's a miracle in itself) and will be in the demographic these pharma hyped experts are so concerned about. Interesting enough nobody in position of authority have thought to ask said demographic what we think of crashing our economy in name of keeping us old farts 'safe'. With that said, based on the available data I find resuming my day to day activities are 'acceptable risk' for me and that does not include wearing a mask. Acceptable risk. What is it? We use it every day in making critical decisions where the negative consequence of a poor decision bare weight. Covid-19 is no different.

As I've said before, I wear a mask, despite my doubts as to whether it does any good, because it's no hardship, it might do some good, and it's not a hill I care to die for.

The bigger question about masks has two parts: If they're effective, then why can't we go back to work; and if they're not effective, then why are they required?

Rich
 
I've noticed that people's risk tolerance regarding Covid (and probably other things) doesn't really depend on their age. We had a Zoom with volunteer gardeners today, and one with volunteer sailing crew the day before. One of them who is 80 is eager to get back to work, as am I (I'm 63). Some of the younger people were talking about being cautious and safe. Some of the others in their 60s say that they haven't been out of the house except for walks around the neighborhood, and use delivery for everything. I buy from Amazon about as much as I ever did, but go to the grocery and other local stores myself. I was being a little more cautious than I might have been if I lived in a single family home, because the couple across the hall are in their 80s, and I didn't want to bring it into the building. But the other day I saw the husband come home in his car with a load of groceries. I'm sure his daughter doesn't approve.
 
I've noticed that people's risk tolerance regarding Covid (and probably other things) doesn't really depend on their age. We had a Zoom with volunteer gardeners today, and one with volunteer sailing crew the day before. One of them who is 80 is eager to get back to work, as am I (I'm 63). Some of the younger people were talking about being cautious and safe. Some of the others in their 60s say that they haven't been out of the house except for walks around the neighborhood, and use delivery for everything. I buy from Amazon about as much as I ever did, but go to the grocery and other local stores myself. I was being a little more cautious than I might have been if I lived in a single family home, because the couple across the hall are in their 80s, and I didn't want to bring it into the building. But the other day I saw the husband come home in his car with a load of groceries. I'm sure his daughter doesn't approve.

I think some people look at viruses as if they were demon-possession or something, rather than pathogens that most people can avoid with the diligent application of common sense.

I see people driving their cars on lonely rural highways, all alone in their cars, wearing masks. I do hope that they just forgot to take them off because I feel bad for them if they're really that afraid.

Rich
 
Right.

Forgive me for not remembering the simple, common lawyers at Lexington and Concord who bravely faced the British Redcoats, handing out subpoenas to them. Known as "The gavel heard around the world," that was the start of the American Litigation War that brought lawsuits against King George and ended his tyranny, giving us the independent nation we have today.
Reverse cherry-picking.
 
because the couple across the hall are in their 80s, and I didn't want to bring it into the building. But the other day I saw the husband come home in his car with a load of groceries. I'm sure his daughter doesn't approve.

I think there are more than a few 80-somethings that are of the thinking that they may not have that much time left on the planet anyway, and spending a year of their life stuck in their house/apartment doesn't conform to their personal risk/reward calculation at this point in their life.
 
I think it has more to do with people who’ve actually considered their own mortality, and those who haven’t.

Some people just aren’t ready to be dead and that’s fine. Others have faced that possibility more often and came to terms with it long ago.

Even growing up poor will tend a person toward the faced it side of things. If you ever TRULY wondered about the next meal, you’ve tasted it a little.

I also realized after writing the above, why stop at Docs and Nurses? Make all non-essentials wait in line for everything, and essentials skip the lines. This stay home and not take your own chances thing for the healthy and young is over with in a week.

The majority with money who are lecturing everyone who wants to take their own chances magically goes away when they never make it inside the Costco or THEY have to go during the early morning hours and hope stuff isn’t sold out to the much more important essentials by noon.

Heh. I’m evil. Do it.

Businesses should the non-essentials in non-risk groups they get in line behind all their essentials providing them their stuff. All day long.

Or just wait for a nice essential to deliver that pizza. Delivery also goes to essentials first. You can wait on your dinner.

It’s only “fair” right? You’re cool waiting, right?

:) :) :)

Heck. Instead of discounts for essentials, can businesses charge more for serving non-essentials?

Why not? Adding risk for serving a non-essential... why would anybody not expect a higher price for that?

:) :) :)

Skin in the actual game. Less service for the non-essentials who have paychecks. Would fix it.

Won’t happen but it’s fun as a thought. Wouldn’t see a group start whining so fast you thought an air raid siren went off. LOL
 
Right.

Forgive me for not remembering the simple, common lawyers at Lexington and Concord who bravely faced the British Redcoats, handing out subpoenas to them. Known as "The gavel heard around the world," that was the start of the American Litigation War that brought lawsuits against King George and ended his tyranny, giving us the independent nation we have today.

I don't care who you are; now, that there is funny!
 
Interesting enough nobody in position of authority have thought to ask said demographic what we think of crashing our economy in name of keeping us old farts 'safe'.

I volunteer for an organization, of which the majority of members are 70+, they run a thrift store and bingo to raise funds to help the community. I'm only 39, I help them move furniture or pick up heavier donations. Those people were stubborn, didn't want to close or stop holding there meetings. I think they actually still had there monthly meeting, they just didn't have the potluck dinner to keep contact down.

I've got a long family history of people dying in their late 60's, some earlier, some a little later. Strokes and heart attacks. We can go like hell for 60 years, be active and seem healthy, then just drop. I THINK that if I were at that age, I'd be pretty ****ed about being ordered to stop living and tanking the economy. I know my grandfather would have raised a rebellion, that man wouldn't have given up anything.
 
I've got a long family history of people dying in their late 60's, some earlier, some a little later. Strokes and heart attacks. We can go like hell for 60 years, be active and seem healthy, then just drop. I THINK that if I were at that age, I'd be pretty ****ed about being ordered to stop living and tanking the economy. I know my grandfather would have raised a rebellion, that man wouldn't have given up anything.
You hit the exact reason I retired at 56. I have seen my peers drop in their 60's, just wanting to hang on at work just a little longer. I left to enjoy what life had to offer other than punching the clock so to speak. Come July it will be 4 years now. Glad I left when I did. Like the stock market, we'll bounce back but my demographic doesn't have much time to rejoice lol..
 
I see people driving their cars on lonely rural highways, all alone in their cars, wearing masks. I do hope that they just forgot to take them off because I feel bad for them if they're really that afraid.

I keep mine on when driving home from the store so as not to handle the thing until I'm ready to soap it up. If I haven't been inside an establishment, I'm not wearing it.

Just a data point.
 
Crakers! 571 posts.
It all boils down to this:
(1) You cannot ask John & Mary Q Public to shelter and isolate at home if J&M P are about to lose their home. Remember BankOfAmerica wants their money on the first of the month no matter what.
(2) Since proof that coercive shutdowns work/don't work would require a bunch or randomiszed prosepective trials, I don't think we'll be doing that.
(3) Since the data for 1918-20 do support shutdowns (of varying lengths) we want to go as long as we medically can short of making life impossible for John & Mary Q public. Ya gotta eat.

So, the political leadership is left to do what they do: hedge.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be too hard on lawyers. Yeah, there are far too many ambulance-chasing shysters. But there are also lawyers who love the Constitution and defend the freedoms it guarantees with as much courage and passion as did the citizen soldiers who fought at Lexington and Concord.

Rich
I know two of those types. One quit the profession, because too many others were not like that. Eliminate contingency cases with percentages, eliminate class actions, and have a 'losing party pays' system, and all will be well.
 
I can only add my opinion as a 40 year old healthy person. I do t think we can realistically keep the country shut down. With plenty of evidence pointing toward this thing not going away, my take is that things open, and go back to new normal. At risk people will have to be more cautious...people are going to get sick, and sadly people are going to die...but until it runs it’s course, we won’t be rid of it, no matter what. Everyone get back to work. A dead economy will do far more damage than this virus, for far more people, for far longer.
 
(1) You cannot ask John & Mary Q Public to shelter and isolate at home if J&M WP are about to lose their home. Remember BankOfAmerica wants their money on the first of the month no matter what.
While your other points are very valid, its at least as likely as not J&M are not about to lose their home. Many banks are offering to defer mortgage payments right now. The absolute last thing banks want to do right now or ever is have to start the foreclosure process on a bunch of their loan holders.
 
Many banks are offering to defer mortgage payments right now.
Interestingly, while not applicable to home mortgages, one of the issues being discussed on the latest increase of covid hospitalizations of stay-at-homers is that those who rented and lost their jobs are moving back with family. So while mom and dad may not lose their home their kids did and brought home their wares and sars. It seems to be mostly an urban issue, but it's just another querk to had to the list.
 
Crakers! 571 posts.
It all boils down to this:
(1) You cannot ask John & Mary Q Public to shelter and isolate at home if J&M WP are about to lose their home. Remember BankOfAmerica wants their money on the first of the month no matter what.
(2) Since proof that coercive shutdowns work/don't work would require a bunch or randomiszed prosepective trials, I don't think we'll be doing that.
(3) Since the data for 1918-20 do support shutdowns (of varying lengths) we want to go as long as we medically can short of making life impossible for John & Mary Q public. Ya gotta eat.

So, the political leadership is left to do what they do: hedge.

We'll have some evidence to work with about a year from now when we see what the data shows for Sweden's more voluntary approach:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...million?tab=chart&country=FRA+ITA+SWE+GBR+USA

The spikes are scary now; but over the course of a full year, I suspect that Sweden's infection rates will be lower than most other nations' because they're allowing herd immunity to develop, which in the end is the only way any pandemic ends. We, on the other hand, are effectively outlawing it.

Unless a vaccine or a wildly-effective therapeutic is made available soon, I predict that the fall of 2020 will bring about the same crap that we're going through now, except worse due to the financial damage we've already done and continue to do. Even people who prudently saved for a rainy day can't endure downpours of Noahic proportions forever.

But I also believe that Sweden will do just fine so long as they're careful with their borders. The virus will already have burned itself out there.

Rich
 
I'm trying, quite unsuccessfully, to identify some other discipline in science, medicine, or technology that so tenaciously insists on doing things exactly like they did 102 years ago.

Rich

I don't know why you're saying "exactly," but "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" would seem to apply, and as I understand it, 102 years ago is the last time we had a pandemic with a comparable number of deaths in this short a time.
 
Interestingly, while not applicable to home mortgages, one of the issues being discussed on the latest increase of covid hospitalizations of stay-at-homers is that those who rented and lost their jobs are moving back with family. So while mom and dad may not lose their home their kids did and brought home their wares and sars. It seems to be mostly an urban issue, but it's just another querk to had to the list.

The whole thing is mostly an urban issue. If there's anything at all that this pandemic should make obvious, it's that cramming more and more people into cities that are already unhealthily overpopulated is bad social policy, for all sorts of reasons of which the spread of diseases is only one. Even rats have the good sense to become aggressive toward each other and force dispersion when their populations reach unhealthful densities. Humans do the opposite.

Rich
 
I don't know why you're saying "exactly," but "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" would seem to apply, and as I understand it, 102 years ago is the last time we had a pandemic with a comparable number of deaths in a short time.

Which seems to suggest at least the possibility that there was room for improvement in the mitigation, does it not?

Why copy an approach that failed, based solely on faith in the unproven hypothesis that it could have been worse? Trying to do it better seems to be the trend in every other area of human endeavor.

Rich
 
Which seems to suggest at least the possibility that there was room for improvement in the mitigation, does it not?

Why copy an approach that failed, based solely on faith in the unproven hypothesis that it could have been worse? Trying to do it better seems to be the trend in every other area of human endeavor.

Rich
I don't disagree, but I don't see what that has to do with the conclusions of the study.
 
I don't disagree, but I don't see what that has to do with the conclusions of the study.

It may have nothing to do with the conclusions in the context of the 1918 pandemic.

The problem is using those conclusions as the basis for an even more draconian version, for a different virus, in a different time, all based on faith in 102-year-old science that didn't even work out all that well in 1918; while simultaneously discouraging (and in some cases outlawing) the use of therapeutics that show strong promise of working until there are sufficient randomized, double-blind studies -- while all the while, people are dying.

That's where the problems arise. Government is placing blind faith in unproven extrapolations of 102-year-old science that are causing enormous iatrogenic damage to people's lives and careers, while demanding incontrovertible evidence of the effectiveness of medications that might actually save the lives of patients who will die within a few days until those medications are validated by studies that typically take years to complete.

Is there any stretch of logical reasoning by which that makes any sense?

The 1918 measures didn't include quarantining the healthy or completely shutting down industries. Those measures were added this time around based on... what, exactly? Certainly it wasn't empirical data. Yet we've killed countless businesses and jobs and increased our unemployment rate to its highest point since the Great Depression based on nothing more than something akin to, "Yeah, let's see how this works." There's no evidence to support it. It's just a hunch.

Yet at the same time, physicians who want to try various therapeutics that they believe, based on their own training and experience, might work -- also basically hunches, albeit those of people much more educated than the politicians calling the shots -- are forbidden from trying those medications because of lack of evidence, even if the patient is terminal and has literally nothing to lose.

It all gets down to the same thing in the end: control. Everything about the management of this pandemic is about control. From the lockdowns, to decisions that rightfully should be left between a doctor and a patient without the interposition of Big Brother's nose.

The fact that it's an election year just makes it all that much worse as we see the truly bizarre emerge. Things like the potential effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, for example, wind up becoming partisan political issues; and those who favor strict lockdowns actually publicly express hope that more Swedes will die so "their side" will be proven right.

Since this pandemic began, I have deactivated and reactivated my Twitter account five times because some of the **** that people say makes me downright nauseous. People cheering a study because a drug didn't seem to work? How sick is that? How ****ing depraved does one have to be to celebrate the apparent failure of a medication trial against a deadly disease?

Can you blame someone like me for suspecting that some people just want to drag this out as long as possible for their own political purposes?

And then there's the binary nature of it all: One either wants to lock down the economy until there's nothing left of it, or you want to kill grandma. There's nothing in between, it would seem, listening to the politicians. There's no room to aggressively protect and support the vulnerable while allowing the rest to use common sense and reasonable precautions. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL!!!

I'm a political independent with libertarian leanings. I'm also an "essential" small business owner whose income has actually gone up considerably due to the pandemic. I have no vested interest in ending the lockdown. It would be better for me (or more accurately, better for the charities to whom I am donating the excess) if it dragged on for months. If I thought for a moment that it made the slightest bit of difference in the number of deaths, I would support it.

But I don't. I think it's beyond obvious that it's politically-motivated and control-motivated. And that sickens me. We could do so much better.

Rich
 
Last edited:
I guess my question in all of this is....what if we knew about it sooner? Would we then have shut down sooner? Tanked our economy sooner? Severely disturbed the mental health of every American? For what? To NOT stop the virus sooner? I’ve come to a point where I kinda think it’s nature’s way, and you will never stop that. They talk about herd immunity....I say it’s nature thinning the herd.
 
It may have nothing to do with the conclusions in the context of the 1918 pandemic.

The problem is using those conclusions as the basis for an even more draconian version, for a different virus, in a different time, all based on faith in 102-year-old science that didn't even work out all that well in 1918; while simultaneously discouraging (and in some cases outlawing) the use of therapeutics that show strong promise of working until there are sufficient randomized, double-blind studies -- while all the while, people are dying.

That's where the problems arise. Government is placing blind faith in unproven extrapolations of 102-year-old science that are causing enormous iatrogenic damage to people's lives and careers, while demanding incontrovertible evidence of the effectiveness of medications that might actually save the lives of patients who will die within a few days until those medications are validated by studies that typically take years to complete.

Is there any stretch of logical reasoning by which that makes any sense?

The 1918 measures didn't include quarantining the healthy or completely shutting down industries. Those measures were added this time around based on... what, exactly? Certainly it wasn't empirical data. Yet we've killed countless businesses and jobs and increased our unemployment rate to its highest point since the Great Depression based on nothing more than something akin to, "Yeah, let's see how this works." There's no evidence to support it. It's just a hunch.

Yet at the same time, physicians who want to try various therapeutics that they believe, based on their own training and experience, might work -- also basically hunches, albeit those of people much more educated than the politicians calling the shots -- are forbidden from trying those medications because of lack of evidence, even if the patient is terminal and has literally nothing to lose.

It all gets down to the same thing in the end: control. Everything about the management of this pandemic is about control. From the lockdowns, to decisions that rightfully should be left between a doctor and a patient without the interposition of Big Brother's nose.

The fact that it's an election year just makes it all that much worse as we see the truly bizarre emerge. Things like the potential effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, for example, wind up becoming partisan political issues; and those who favor strict lockdowns actually publicly express hope that more Swedes will die so "their side" will be proven right.

Since this pandemic began, I have deactivated and reactivated my Twitter account five times because some of the **** that people say makes me downright nauseous. People cheering a study because a drug didn't seem to work? How sick is that? How ****ing depraved does one have to be to celebrate the apparent failure of a medication trial against a deadly disease?

Can you blame someone like me for suspecting that some people just want to drag this out as long as possible for their own political purposes?

And then there's the binary nature of it all: One either wants to lock down the economy until there's nothing left of it, or you want to kill grandma. There's nothing in between, it would seem, listening to the politicians. There's no room to aggressively protect and support the vulnerable while allowing the rest to use common sense and reasonable precautions. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL!!!

I'm a political independent with libertarian leanings. I'm also an "essential" small business owner whose income has actually gone up considerably due to the pandemic. I have no vested interest in ending the lockdown. It would be better for me (or more accurately, better for the charities to whom I am donating the excess) if it dragged on for months. If I thought for a moment that it made the slightest bit of difference in the number of deaths, I would support it.

But I don't. I think it's beyond obvious that it's politically-motivated and control-motivated. And that sickens me. We could do so much better.

Rich
Out-of-the-park. Home run. Wish I had written that. A simple "Like" button is woefully inadequate for that post.
 
The whole thing is mostly an urban issue. If there's anything at all that this pandemic should make obvious, it's that cramming more and more people into cities that are already unhealthily overpopulated is bad social policy, for all sorts of reasons of which the spread of diseases is only one. Even rats have the good sense to become aggressive toward each other and force dispersion when their populations reach unhealthful densities. Humans do the opposite.

Rich

Be Careful Rich...start talking facts, logic, and evidence and you will be labeled prejudice.

I couldn't agree with you more on this one.
 
Out-of-the-park. Home run. Wish I had written that. A simple "Like" button is woefully inadequate for that post.

Be Careful Rich...start talking facts, logic, and evidence and you will be labeled prejudice.

I couldn't agree with you more on this one.

Thanks. Sometimes I surprise myself.

Rich
 

Looks like pretty much normal measures, not arresting surfers.

We are talking a decade before penicillin and another decade before Jonas Salk defeated Polio ... and a press threatened with closure if they even do much as mentioned the thing due to WWI news restrictions.

(It’s called the Spanish Flu because Spain didn’t have a press blackout on it.)

Comparing it to today is quite a stretch.

You’ll have a real hard time finding cited sources for the things claimed in the article. More importantly almost nobody from that era would know about any decree by mostly ignored agencies very far away.

The newspapers didn’t deliver to farmhouses.

The city folk would know if something was shut down in their town, but that’s about it. My dad’s side of the family didn’t even have a telephone at that point.

The article seems to want to portray a particular picture that modern folk would assume meant something. Like a four letter agency suggesting something and anybody really noticing... back then. :)
 
I put off posting a link to that study because I wasn't sure how much weight to give to its conclusions. Now that I have looked up what measures were taken back then, I see enough differences from what has been done this year to cast doubt on the applicability of their conclusions to today's economy.
 
I put off posting a link to that study because I wasn't sure how much weight to give to its conclusions. Now that I have looked up what measures were taken back then, I see enough differences from what has been done this year to cast doubt on the applicability of their conclusions to today's economy.

Don’t know about the flu pandemic, but I do know anytime the government closed the one room schoolhouse the kids just came to grandma’s place, since she was the teacher.

She said it was a good thing, too... otherwise a couple would have gone hungry.

I’m really amazed when folks talk “history” that isn’t past two generations ago that they don’t make the connection that their grandparents were there, or incorporate any of what they told them into casting a skeptical eye on anything written today about it.

We were chatting with Karen’s mom about polio and what she remembered. Karen’s grandma had no idea what to do so she’d tell the kids to take an extra nap after washing up after school.

Apparently in some weird way she thought extra sleep would make them stronger and more resistant.

There’s very little that applies from even two generations ago. That guy owned a Model T.

The Wrights had only flown their kite 10 years prior.

We have people who can’t even think about owning a vehicle without 22 airbags. Not so much amongst pilots, but check out car buying forums sometime.

There’s always at least one buyer more than willing to risk personal bankruptcy for a car with a good crash rating.

My grandfather drove trucks in the 50s. He recounted that if you came upon a bad accident at night any distance from a town, your role was pretty much to take the dying words of the driver to their family. The steering column was probably run through their chest.

Not that long ago. And yeah I know a lot of folks didn’t know their grandparents — I just wonder where the other half disappears to when they read stuff like that article and don’t say, “Ummm, nobody knew who that agency was back then. Heck nobody knows who it was now! That was three decades before income taxes. Nothing was very big in government back then.”

LOL History is interesting that way how it gets rewritten over time. Doesn’t seem to take even getting past the generation who knew people from the one being discussed.
 
The whole thing is mostly an urban issue. If there's anything at all that this pandemic should make obvious, it's that cramming more and more people into cities that are already unhealthily overpopulated is bad social policy, for all sorts of reasons of which the spread of diseases is only one. Even rats have the good sense to become aggressive toward each other and force dispersion when their populations reach unhealthful densities. Humans do the opposite.

Rich

Technically the majority of the thirty or forty food plants that have gone down are rural.

The rural areas with large plants that employ the majority of the town, or in one case here, where the prison is located and everyone works for the prison... and everybody needs the job... and they’re “essential”... those rural towns also all eventually go down.

And by down we mean the whole town gets sick, the plant closes, a few die, everything gets disinfected, and everybody goes back to work. With no guarantee of immunity. But re-outbreaks in tight facilities like that will tell the take before the labs know. By the time we hear of second and third plant or prison outbreaks, it’ll be September.

So far when it isn’t in a nursing home, or as one guy today put it, the “old folks home, because nursing sounds nicer but isn’t the majority”, the infected to dead ratio is about the same at the small town plants as the big city outbreaks.

Which continues evidence that it’s going to kill whomever it’s going to kill. It’ll maim a whole bunch too. Low O2 levels don’t do various body parts much good.

I am wondering if the era of the half million dollar “starter house” in this area is finally over with. LOL. That wasn’t sustainable before 1/5 of the country went unemployed.

Saw an article that banks are slashing their made up “credit scores” like crazy. First thought was, “Duh.” With those silly things tied to all sorts of products, including housing and insurance, the secondary effects will be harsh and impressive. In a bad way.
 
Don’t know about the flu pandemic, but I do know anytime the government closed the one room schoolhouse the kids just came to grandma’s place, since she was the teacher.

She said it was a good thing, too... otherwise a couple would have gone hungry.

I’m really amazed when folks talk “history” that isn’t past two generations ago that they don’t make the connection that their grandparents were there, or incorporate any of what they told them into casting a skeptical eye on anything written today about it.

We were chatting with Karen’s mom about polio and what she remembered. Karen’s grandma had no idea what to do so she’d tell the kids to take an extra nap after washing up after school.

Apparently in some weird way she thought extra sleep would make them stronger and more resistant.

There’s very little that applies from even two generations ago. That guy owned a Model T.

The Wrights had only flown their kite 10 years prior.

We have people who can’t even think about owning a vehicle without 22 airbags. Not so much amongst pilots, but check out car buying forums sometime.

There’s always at least one buyer more than willing to risk personal bankruptcy for a car with a good crash rating.

My grandfather drove trucks in the 50s. He recounted that if you came upon a bad accident at night any distance from a town, your role was pretty much to take the dying words of the driver to their family. The steering column was probably run through their chest.

Not that long ago. And yeah I know a lot of folks didn’t know their grandparents — I just wonder where the other half disappears to when they read stuff like that article and don’t say, “Ummm, nobody knew who that agency was back then. Heck nobody knows who it was now! That was three decades before income taxes. Nothing was very big in government back then.”

LOL History is interesting that way how it gets rewritten over time. Doesn’t seem to take even getting past the generation who knew people from the one being discussed.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, I've been casually comparing it to others I've lived through. When all is said and done and more complete data is available, I'll probably do some more serious comparisons; but for now, it's more of a morbid type of reminiscing.

When I was a kid, polio was still somewhere between rare and unusual, depending on where one lived. I lived in New York City (Brooklyn, specifically), so it was unusual. Most kids had been vaccinated, but the Salk vaccine was less-than-perfect. Given the population density and the sheer number of people -- the borough of Brooklyn alone was the fourth-largest city in America at the time and one of the most densely-populated -- there were enough cases that most of us knew at least a few people who got it by the time more-effective vaccines came out in the 1970's and we were all re-vaccinated.

I also lived through the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968. By the time that pandemic ran its course, we all knew quite a few people who had gotten it, as well as a few who died from it. Most were elderly people whom we knew well enough to know who they were when we learned of their deaths; but there were a few kids, too. If they were Catholic, the school would drag us all to their funerals, just in case the nuns themselves and their yardsticks and pointers didn't inspire sufficient terror in us on a daily basis.

The one thing my little clique of kids noticed even then was that the kids who died were always the kids who "never came out and played." We knew them from school, but we never had any contact with them outside of school. Back then we called them "sissies" or "mama's boys" because their mothers used to pick them up from school and walk them home every day. That was unusual for kids older than five back then.

The rest of us would play baseball or football in glass-strewn sandlots, build forts out of shipping pallets and throw balls of dirt at each other, explore the abandoned (save for the rats and a few bums) tunnels under Brooklyn that dated back to WWI and WWII, hang out in fallout shelters, pee (and occasionally ****) in alleys, drink from public water fountains, and swim naked in the East River. But we never got sick. The kids who got sick were always the ones who disappeared into their apartments after school and didn't reappear until the next morning.

That has always led me to wonder if the hyper-hygienic habits of modern people (and especially of parents toward their children) have contributed to decreased competency of their immune systems. Even before this pandemic, I couldn't help but notice how often so many people broke out hand their tubes and bottles of hand sanitizer and wiped down their hands and faces and those of their children, for no apparent reason, with a frequency that bordered on OCD behavior.

When I was a very young child, our parents encouraged us to sit in mud puddles and play. It would "make us strong," they said. I never understood why that would be the case, but I was happy to play in the mud. Maybe they were right, though. Maybe the soil contained enough ancestral pathogens of generations past to put our immune systems into decathlon-training mode.

Technically the majority of the thirty or forty food plants that have gone down are rural.

The rural areas with large plants that employ the majority of the town, or in one case here, where the prison is located and everyone works for the prison... and everybody needs the job... and they’re “essential”... those rural towns also all eventually go down.

And by down we mean the whole town gets sick, the plant closes, a few die, everything gets disinfected, and everybody goes back to work. With no guarantee of immunity. But re-outbreaks in tight facilities like that will tell the take before the labs know. By the time we hear of second and third plant or prison outbreaks, it’ll be September.

So far when it isn’t in a nursing home, or as one guy today put it, the “old folks home, because nursing sounds nicer but isn’t the majority”, the infected to dead ratio is about the same at the small town plants as the big city outbreaks.

Which continues evidence that it’s going to kill whomever it’s going to kill. It’ll maim a whole bunch too. Low O2 levels don’t do various body parts much good.

I am wondering if the era of the half million dollar “starter house” in this area is finally over with. LOL. That wasn’t sustainable before 1/5 of the country went unemployed.

Saw an article that banks are slashing their made up “credit scores” like crazy. First thought was, “Duh.” With those silly things tied to all sorts of products, including housing and insurance, the secondary effects will be harsh and impressive. In a bad way.

Well, jails and prisons can be considered "urban" no matter what surrounds them. But they're hardly closed societies. Both visitors and staff are vectors of whatever is getting passed around inside the prisons to the general public (and vice-versa).

Food plants are a tougher call. The better ones are cleaner than some operating rooms I've been in. The worst ones are places that make you not want to eat for a while.

I was a pest control operator in college and for quite some time afterward until I migrated into IT. I can tell you first-hand that food plants range from hell holes employing mainly illegal aliens who can't afford to raise a stink over the conditions, to places I couldn't enter without going through a ritual as thorough as surgeons do when preparing for surgery.

Even the better plants, however, didn't pay very well. I could tell by the jalopies parked in the employee parking lots and the number of employees who crammed themselves into those jalopies and "car-pooled" to work, although I tend to think of that term as referring to something one does voluntarily rather than out of necessity. Suffice it to say that the employees looked pretty poor to me.

So how do these employees live at home? Do they chip in and pack themselves into rented houses, apartments, and trailers, sharing even the same beds in shifts? I really don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do; and if they do, they're effectively creating little pockets of urban contagion within rural areas.

In one way, it doesn't matter where they got infected. The idea is to keep the pathogen out of the plant. But in another way, it does matter. If they're being infected at home because of economic factors, then that in itself becomes a public health issue that needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, the debate would be too politically-polarizing for any good solution to emerge.

Rich
 
Which continues evidence that it’s going to kill whomever it’s going to kill.
True statement. If an effective treatment and/or vaccine can be found, it will then kill less. If the health care system gets overwhelmed before that, it'll kill more. We are far from overwhelming the healthcare system at the moment and that's a good thing. Hopefully that will continue to be the case as people get ansy and states ease restrictions.
 
It’s one thing to have people locked down over the winter when people are far more willing to stay indoors. Enter the nice days and vacation season and try and keep 300 million people locked away and watch real chaos. It’s just not sustainable, on any level. I wish it weren’t a thing, I wish people wouldn’t get sick...but I also wish we would just let it do what it’s gonna do and be done with it too. I have to believe we can both be “safe” and actually live some sort of life too.
 
It’s one thing to have people locked down over the winter when people are far more willing to stay indoors. Enter the nice days and vacation season and try and keep 300 million people locked away and watch real chaos. It’s just not sustainable, on any level. I wish it weren’t a thing, I wish people wouldn’t get sick...but I also wish we would just let it do what it’s gonna do and be done with it too. I have to believe we can both be “safe” and actually live some sort of life too.
Sometimes you have to make a choice. Do we go out and live normally, and kill Grams in the nursing home? Do we isolate our oldsters?
 
Sometimes you have to make a choice. Do we go out and live normally, and kill Grams in the nursing home? Do we isolate our oldsters?

One thing that seems to be missing from the discussion is giving old folks a choice in the matter. Maybe some of them would rather take their chances and be able to hug their grandchildren, than sit alone all day watching TV and waiting for meals. If someone actually asked, maybe they could be sorted out into separate facilities according to their preferences.

The same goes for old folks living at home. Nothing in my advocacy of aggressively protecting and supporting them should be construed as meaning to force it upon them. Maybe some old people have better things to do with their remaining years than hide under their beds. That should be their decision, not Big Brother's.

Rich
 
One thing that seems to be missing from the discussion is giving old folks a choice in the matter. Maybe some of them would rather take their chances and be able to hug their grandchildren, than sit alone all day watching TV and waiting for meals. If someone actually asked, maybe they could be sorted out into separate facilities according to their preferences.

The same goes for old folks living at home. Nothing in my advocacy of aggressively protecting and supporting them should be construed as meaning to force it upon them. Maybe some old people have better things to do with their remaining years than hide under their beds. That should be their decision, not Big Brother's.

Rich

agreed, they should have a choice...as should all Americans. I have seen polls where “most Americans support staying quarantined” but honestly I think those polls are a bit suspect.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top