[lex24]

That’s the latest estimate of US inhabitants that have had the virus.  Meaning about 10 times the number of those we know had it, had it and didn’t know it.  

Perhaps that is “good” news as it drops the case morbidity rate to .0063. And suggests that a very high percentage have little or no symptoms.  The case mortality rate is still significantly higher than flu ‘18-19 was about .00093.  (Although ‘19-20 had some indications of being worse) But not as bad as indicated in earlier reports. 

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. Hospitization rate rising, which to me is biggest concern. Still, at least in Calif we are well below crisis level when it comes to hospital beds. But it also appears that the surge is in large part with those that are younger. And far less susceptible to serious illness. 

I try to find some positives. For sanity purposes. 

Hard as it is, we may need to simply ride this out.  (While still not going to the level of mass gatherings) 

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

Maybe the uptick now also reduces the second wave possibility in the winter.  When we are also in flu season.

[lex24]

That’s the latest estimate of US inhabitants that have had the virus.  Meaning about 10 times the number of those we know had it, had it and didn’t know it.  

Perhaps that is “good” news as it drops the case morbidity rate to .0063. And suggests that a very high percentage have little or no symptoms.  The case mortality rate is still significantly higher than flu ‘18-19 was about .00093.  (Although ‘19-20 had some indications of being worse) But not as bad as indicated in earlier reports. 

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. Hospitization rate rising, which to me is biggest concern. Still, at least in Calif we are well below crisis level when it comes to hospital beds. But it also appears that the surge is in large part with those that are younger. And far less susceptible to serious illness. 

I try to find some positives. For sanity purposes. 

Hard as it is, we may need to simply ride this out.  (While still not going to the level of mass gatherings) 

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

Maybe the uptick now also reduces the second wave possibility in the winter.  When we are also in flu season.

[oregontim]

I try to find some positives. For sanity purposes. 

Hard as it is, we may need to simply ride this out.  (While still not going to the level of mass gatherings) 

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary Heath issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

Maybe the uptick now also reduces the second wave possibility in the winter.  When we are also in flu season.

I agree with this one 100%. It's a good summary. Nice reflection piece. Yes, this is where we are now.

To me it's a great companion piece to OF's summary, (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...pid=284068) posted in "Won't this be great" just a few minutes earlier. Two reflections on the same reality. He does cause, you do effect. You do a great job of laying out the reality without assigning blame. Masterful restraint, and 100% not political.

I'd like to edit yours and OF's together, cause and effect. A complete reflection between the two of them.

I don't know about your reaction to the OF post ...

Purely political post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.

... I agree with him 100% too. It's an interesting take on political vs. non-political in this forum.

[oregontim]

I try to find some positives. For sanity purposes. 

Hard as it is, we may need to simply ride this out.  (While still not going to the level of mass gatherings) 

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary Heath issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

Maybe the uptick now also reduces the second wave possibility in the winter.  When we are also in flu season.

I agree with this one 100%. It's a good summary. Nice reflection piece. Yes, this is where we are now.

To me it's a great companion piece to OF's summary, (https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...pid=284068) posted in "Won't this be great" just a few minutes earlier. Two reflections on the same reality. He does cause, you do effect. You do a great job of laying out the reality without assigning blame. Masterful restraint, and 100% not political.

I'd like to edit yours and OF's together, cause and effect. A complete reflection between the two of them.

I don't know about your reaction to the OF post ...

Purely political post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.

... I agree with him 100% too. It's an interesting take on political vs. non-political in this forum.

[BostonCard]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

[BostonCard]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

[fullmetal]

CFR has been a red herring since it was determined that SARS-CoV-2 was not as deadly as the original SARS virus. However, when the extremely infectious nature of SARS-CoV-2 was determined, I'm pretty sure that outweighed any "low mortality" statement now and forever.  Our almost-just-in-time healthcare system isn't really ready to sustain the fight against this virus without some public policy or public health aid.

Hospitalizations vs. hospital beds (and ICU beds) available should be the primary metric of this pandemic right now.  PPE supplies per hospital should be another.  Staffing availability should be another.  The more we burden the healthcare system, the more deaths we risk from non-covid patients and exposure of frontline healthcare staff to covid.  

Let me rephrase: if we do not control this disease from the public policy side, we are directly playing Russian roulette with frontline healthcare staff.  We are literally putting a covid gun to the heads of these staff, spinning the chamber, and pulling the trigger if we don't work to reduce the number of patients coming in through hospital doors.

Masks and distancing could have been a good-enough solution a few weeks ago, but the politicization of masks and the weak enforcement of public health directives by politicians of certain political alignments allowed citizens to flout common sense and spark another wave of illness.  Not coincidentally, many of these citizens were led to believe, by the same political alignments, that masks and distancing were an infringement on their personhood and autonomy.

Saddle up.  It's gonna be a long ride.  (The Black Plague ran around Europe in infrequent waves from the mid-1300s til the early 1800s, so hey, at least it's not that bad.  We should have a vaccine way before 450 years from now.)

[fullmetal]

CFR has been a red herring since it was determined that SARS-CoV-2 was not as deadly as the original SARS virus. However, when the extremely infectious nature of SARS-CoV-2 was determined, I'm pretty sure that outweighed any "low mortality" statement now and forever.  Our almost-just-in-time healthcare system isn't really ready to sustain the fight against this virus without some public policy or public health aid.

Hospitalizations vs. hospital beds (and ICU beds) available should be the primary metric of this pandemic right now.  PPE supplies per hospital should be another.  Staffing availability should be another.  The more we burden the healthcare system, the more deaths we risk from non-covid patients and exposure of frontline healthcare staff to covid.  

Let me rephrase: if we do not control this disease from the public policy side, we are directly playing Russian roulette with frontline healthcare staff.  We are literally putting a covid gun to the heads of these staff, spinning the chamber, and pulling the trigger if we don't work to reduce the number of patients coming in through hospital doors.

Masks and distancing could have been a good-enough solution a few weeks ago, but the politicization of masks and the weak enforcement of public health directives by politicians of certain political alignments allowed citizens to flout common sense and spark another wave of illness.  Not coincidentally, many of these citizens were led to believe, by the same political alignments, that masks and distancing were an infringement on their personhood and autonomy.

Saddle up.  It's gonna be a long ride.  (The Black Plague ran around Europe in infrequent waves from the mid-1300s til the early 1800s, so hey, at least it's not that bad.  We should have a vaccine way before 450 years from now.)

[M T]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

[M T]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

[terry]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

Why do you think the new infections are mostly in young people? Maybe old people are being more careful?

[terry]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

Why do you think the new infections are mostly in young people? Maybe old people are being more careful?

[BostonCard]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

Why do you think the new infections are mostly in young people? Maybe old people are being more careful?

That would be my leading theory.  As states and cities have opened up, the people who have been most likely to take advantage of their newfound freedom are probably younger, sensing lower risk to themselves if they were to get infected.  Older people, at higher risk of hospitalization or death are appropriately being more cautious.

But it's just a theory.

BC

[BostonCard]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

Why do you think the new infections are mostly in young people? Maybe old people are being more careful?

That would be my leading theory.  As states and cities have opened up, the people who have been most likely to take advantage of their newfound freedom are probably younger, sensing lower risk to themselves if they were to get infected.  Older people, at higher risk of hospitalization or death are appropriately being more cautious.

But it's just a theory.

BC

[Goose]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

Why do you think the new infections are mostly in young people? Maybe old people are being more careful?

That would be my leading theory.  As states and cities have opened up, the people who have been most likely to take advantage of their newfound freedom are probably younger, sensing lower risk to themselves if they were to get infected.  Older people, at higher risk of hospitalization or death are appropriately being more cautious.

But it's just a theory.

BC

Anecdotally i would agree with you. Unfortunately I have been seeing in the Bay Area quite a few people who aren't socially distancing and aren't wearing masks. Proportionally, they tend to be younger, but there is no lack of older people (50 and above) doing the same.

[Goose]

If you are looking for another silver lining, it appears the people most affected in this surge of cases are younger, and we know that there is a strong age gradient in terms of the severity of COVID-19.

BC

Why do you think the new infections are mostly in young people? Maybe old people are being more careful?

That would be my leading theory.  As states and cities have opened up, the people who have been most likely to take advantage of their newfound freedom are probably younger, sensing lower risk to themselves if they were to get infected.  Older people, at higher risk of hospitalization or death are appropriately being more cautious.

But it's just a theory.

BC

Anecdotally i would agree with you. Unfortunately I have been seeing in the Bay Area quite a few people who aren't socially distancing and aren't wearing masks. Proportionally, they tend to be younger, but there is no lack of older people (50 and above) doing the same.

[lex24]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

The well-being of people obviously comes first.  But the equation in figuring out the right formula for protecting that well being is not as simplistic as “SIP good” “opening up - bad”.  From an economic standpoint people with money are the ones that can shelter in place the easiest and the longest. Particular people with money who are either retired or can work from home. 

Those people who aren’t quite that fortunate sufferred much heavier consequences as a result of the shelter in place and the economy shutting down. And if it happens again, the impact on them will be even worse. For them “economic well-being“ wont be how well their 401(k) is doing.  It will be whether they can put food on the table.   

Socially - it’s not just getting together with the buddies for brews to watch the ball game. Human beings are social animals that need social interaction. The mental health consequences of the virus and the shelter in place were very very negative. As shown by the fact that there was a significant uptick in calls to suicide prevention centers etc. I believe that’s particularly true for people who live alone. And also for those with economic issues. 

 And then there is the impact on education. Kids having to school from home over a long period of time will, in my opinion, be disastrous.  Those kids who are fortunate enough to have parents that value education and the economic wherewithal to have the tools available to them will do just fine. On the other hand, those kids that do not live in such households will suffer. Tremendously. Thus the education gap we already have grows. Significantly. Which is why I think it’s very important to get kids back to school. Figure out a way to do it safely. Or as safely as possible.

 So the narrative that those who support the shelter in place are selfless folks that are all about “saving lives”; while those who want to see the economy moving forward are a bunch of self-centered cretins that don’t care if people die is not just overly simplistic, it’s a false narrative. 

 Figuring out how to manage this pandemic while keeping portions of the economy going as much as possible is a tricky balancing test. I get that.  But shutting things down as we did in March is not the answer.

[lex24]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

The well-being of people obviously comes first.  But the equation in figuring out the right formula for protecting that well being is not as simplistic as “SIP good” “opening up - bad”.  From an economic standpoint people with money are the ones that can shelter in place the easiest and the longest. Particular people with money who are either retired or can work from home. 

Those people who aren’t quite that fortunate sufferred much heavier consequences as a result of the shelter in place and the economy shutting down. And if it happens again, the impact on them will be even worse. For them “economic well-being“ wont be how well their 401(k) is doing.  It will be whether they can put food on the table.   

Socially - it’s not just getting together with the buddies for brews to watch the ball game. Human beings are social animals that need social interaction. The mental health consequences of the virus and the shelter in place were very very negative. As shown by the fact that there was a significant uptick in calls to suicide prevention centers etc. I believe that’s particularly true for people who live alone. And also for those with economic issues. 

 And then there is the impact on education. Kids having to school from home over a long period of time will, in my opinion, be disastrous.  Those kids who are fortunate enough to have parents that value education and the economic wherewithal to have the tools available to them will do just fine. On the other hand, those kids that do not live in such households will suffer. Tremendously. Thus the education gap we already have grows. Significantly. Which is why I think it’s very important to get kids back to school. Figure out a way to do it safely. Or as safely as possible.

 So the narrative that those who support the shelter in place are selfless folks that are all about “saving lives”; while those who want to see the economy moving forward are a bunch of self-centered cretins that don’t care if people die is not just overly simplistic, it’s a false narrative. 

 Figuring out how to manage this pandemic while keeping portions of the economy going as much as possible is a tricky balancing test. I get that.  But shutting things down as we did in March is not the answer.

[chrisk]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

The well-being of people obviously comes first.  But the equation in figuring out the right formula for protecting that well being is not as simplistic as “SIP good” “opening up - bad”.  From an economic standpoint people with money are the ones that can shelter in place the easiest and the longest. Particular people with money who are either retired or can work from home. 

Those people who aren’t  quite that fortunate sufferred much heavier consequences as a result of the shelter in place and the economy shutting down. And if it happens again, the impact on them will be even worse. For them “economic well-being“ wont be how well their 401(k) is doing.  It will be whether they can put food on the table.   

Socially - it’s not just getting together with the buddies for brews to watch the ball game. Human beings are social animals that need social interaction. The mental health consequences of the virus and the shelter in place were very very negative. As shown by the fact that there was a significant uptick in calls to suicide prevention centers etc. I believe that’s particularly true for people who live alone. And also for those with economic issues. 

 And then there is the impact on education. Kids having to school from home over a long period of time will, in my opinion, be disastrous.  Those kids who are fortunate enough to have parents that value education and the economic wherewithal to have the tools available to them will do just fine. On the other hand, those kids that do not live in such households will suffer. Tremendously. Thus the education gap we already have grows. Significantly. Which is why I think it’s very important to get kids back to school. Figure out a way to do it safely. Or as safely as possible.

 So  the narrative that those who support the shelter in place are selfless folks that are all about “saving lives”; while those who want to see the economy moving forward are a bunch of self-centered cretins that don’t care if people die is not just overly simplistic, it’s a false narrative. 

 Figuring out how to manage this pandemic while keeping portions of the economy going as much as possible is a tricky balancing test. I get that.  But shutting things down as we did in March is not the answer.

Americans continue to miss the point. Shelter-in-Place is not the end game. It was a time to get prepared, which Americans largely squandered. The key issue is responsible behavior. Many Americans insist it is their right to behave however they want, no matter how irresponsible it is. The countries that have been more successful, and that is most countries, the people have behaved more responsibly, sometimes with not so subtle prodding.

All of the above words trying to justify where we are today is really laying out damning weaknesses of American culture. The US has done more this time to help those who have been hurt but they lack of action in Congress seems to be putting the interest of the well-off ahead of the welfare of those who are struggling.

[chrisk]

Getting through the next couple weeks seems key to me. ...

I do not think it’s possible to close things back down completely again.  Economically, politically or socially.  It could  lead to the economy completely collapsing. Which has enormous impacts oh health etc world wide. As does the mental health aspect (and other secondary health issues - such as delayed diagnosis) 

The critical time is more than the next couple weeks!!   Or, maybe, you meant it is the next 2 weeks, every week.

I didn't think it was possible to do the Shelter-in-place in the first place.  The US political, social, and news machines are built on money.  How could the well-being of the people come first?   Like some have said about banks, the economy was too big to fail, so we have to support it.   

But, the Bay Area led the way as it was one of the first to be hit.  It was possible only because of the unfortunate example of Italy.  It withstood complaints by some because of the unfortunate example of NYC.

Texas and Florida are starting to lead the way on a second round of closures.  But, they were only looking 2 weeks out too, which is a too-weak approach for the life cycle of COVID-19.

The well-being of people obviously comes first.  But the equation in figuring out the right formula for protecting that well being is not as simplistic as “SIP good” “opening up - bad”.  From an economic standpoint people with money are the ones that can shelter in place the easiest and the longest. Particular people with money who are either retired or can work from home. 

Those people who aren’t  quite that fortunate sufferred much heavier consequences as a result of the shelter in place and the economy shutting down. And if it happens again, the impact on them will be even worse. For them “economic well-being“ wont be how well their 401(k) is doing.  It will be whether they can put food on the table.   

Socially - it’s not just getting together with the buddies for brews to watch the ball game. Human beings are social animals that need social interaction. The mental health consequences of the virus and the shelter in place were very very negative. As shown by the fact that there was a significant uptick in calls to suicide prevention centers etc. I believe that’s particularly true for people who live alone. And also for those with economic issues. 

 And then there is the impact on education. Kids having to school from home over a long period of time will, in my opinion, be disastrous.  Those kids who are fortunate enough to have parents that value education and the economic wherewithal to have the tools available to them will do just fine. On the other hand, those kids that do not live in such households will suffer. Tremendously. Thus the education gap we already have grows. Significantly. Which is why I think it’s very important to get kids back to school. Figure out a way to do it safely. Or as safely as possible.

 So  the narrative that those who support the shelter in place are selfless folks that are all about “saving lives”; while those who want to see the economy moving forward are a bunch of self-centered cretins that don’t care if people die is not just overly simplistic, it’s a false narrative. 

 Figuring out how to manage this pandemic while keeping portions of the economy going as much as possible is a tricky balancing test. I get that.  But shutting things down as we did in March is not the answer.

Americans continue to miss the point. Shelter-in-Place is not the end game. It was a time to get prepared, which Americans largely squandered. The key issue is responsible behavior. Many Americans insist it is their right to behave however they want, no matter how irresponsible it is. The countries that have been more successful, and that is most countries, the people have behaved more responsibly, sometimes with not so subtle prodding.

All of the above words trying to justify where we are today is really laying out damning weaknesses of American culture. The US has done more this time to help those who have been hurt but they lack of action in Congress seems to be putting the interest of the well-off ahead of the welfare of those who are struggling.

[Goose]

I can tell you one very seriously negative consequence of the SIP. Clinical trials at places like MD Andersen and Sloan-Kettering are shut down. If you have a disease that isn't responding to the approved therapy, you are, right now, dead. There is no place else to go. For people in that situation, it is indeed a bitter pill. The answer to their problem may be right there in front of them, but they will never know. They can't enroll.

---

Americans continue to miss the point.  Shelter-in-Place is not the end game.  It was a time to get prepared, which Americans largely squandered.  The key issue is responsible behavior.  Many Americans insist it is their right to behave however they want, no matter how irresponsible it is.  The countries that have been more successful, and that is most countries, the people have behaved more responsibly, sometimes with not so subtle prodding.


All of the above words trying to justify where we are today is really laying out damning weaknesses of American culture.  The US has done more this time to help those who have been hurt but they lack of action in Congress seems to be putting the interest of the well-off ahead of the welfare of those who are struggling.

I think you might want to consider the fact that the other nations who have done better haven't conditioned their response on the government making it easy for them. That in fact might be one thing about American culture that is a dramatic weakness.

[Goose]

I can tell you one very seriously negative consequence of the SIP. Clinical trials at places like MD Andersen and Sloan-Kettering are shut down. If you have a disease that isn't responding to the approved therapy, you are, right now, dead. There is no place else to go. For people in that situation, it is indeed a bitter pill. The answer to their problem may be right there in front of them, but they will never know. They can't enroll.

---

Americans continue to miss the point.  Shelter-in-Place is not the end game.  It was a time to get prepared, which Americans largely squandered.  The key issue is responsible behavior.  Many Americans insist it is their right to behave however they want, no matter how irresponsible it is.  The countries that have been more successful, and that is most countries, the people have behaved more responsibly, sometimes with not so subtle prodding.


All of the above words trying to justify where we are today is really laying out damning weaknesses of American culture.  The US has done more this time to help those who have been hurt but they lack of action in Congress seems to be putting the interest of the well-off ahead of the welfare of those who are struggling.

I think you might want to consider the fact that the other nations who have done better haven't conditioned their response on the government making it easy for them. That in fact might be one thing about American culture that is a dramatic weakness.

[BostonCard]

Cancer clinical trials are impacted and slowed down but have not stopped in most cases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00093-1

BC

[BostonCard]

Cancer clinical trials are impacted and slowed down but have not stopped in most cases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00093-1

BC

[dabigv13]

Every nation but Brazil, maybe Russia, has done better than us. I have a hard time believing that was an inevitability due to our nation's culture.

[dabigv13]

Every nation but Brazil, maybe Russia, has done better than us. I have a hard time believing that was an inevitability due to our nation's culture.

[chrisk]

It depends what you mean by culture. In Taiwan, the people have a high degree of respect for their CDC. Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite. Of course, our CDC was highly deficient in this case compared to Taiwan’s and their poor performance gave Americans even more “justification” for doing their own thing.

Also, if you look at the total number of cases by jurisdiction in SCC, Cupertino has the lowest or just about the lowest rate. Some of it is economics, particularly compared to San Jose and Gilroy. Some of it seems clearly linked to cultural behavior.

[chrisk]

It depends what you mean by culture. In Taiwan, the people have a high degree of respect for their CDC. Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite. Of course, our CDC was highly deficient in this case compared to Taiwan’s and their poor performance gave Americans even more “justification” for doing their own thing.

Also, if you look at the total number of cases by jurisdiction in SCC, Cupertino has the lowest or just about the lowest rate. Some of it is economics, particularly compared to San Jose and Gilroy. Some of it seems clearly linked to cultural behavior.

[oregontim]

Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite. 

Is the above actually true? It's so hard with all the misinformation. Before all of this, I thought we looked up to the CDC as the gold standard. The CDC was the cavalry that rode into Africa to show them how to fight Ebola, and so on and so forth ... OK nothing is ever completely black or white, so sure, there must have been some who distrusted the CDC, but "many"?

I don't want to get into a "fact" war, or the 2020 version, a links war, lobbing links back and forth. So I'm just asking ... was this suspicion of the CDC true before this pandemic?

[oregontim]

Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite. 

Is the above actually true? It's so hard with all the misinformation. Before all of this, I thought we looked up to the CDC as the gold standard. The CDC was the cavalry that rode into Africa to show them how to fight Ebola, and so on and so forth ... OK nothing is ever completely black or white, so sure, there must have been some who distrusted the CDC, but "many"?

I don't want to get into a "fact" war, or the 2020 version, a links war, lobbing links back and forth. So I'm just asking ... was this suspicion of the CDC true before this pandemic?

[akiddoc]

It depends what you mean by culture.  In Taiwan, the people have a high degree of respect for their CDC.  Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite.  Of course, our CDC was highly deficient in this case compared to Taiwan’s and their poor performance gave Americans even more “justification” for doing their own thing.

Also, if you look at the total number of cases by jurisdiction in SCC, Cupertino has the lowest or just about the lowest rate.  Some of it is economics, particularly compared to San Jose and Gilroy.  Some of it seems clearly linked to cultural behavior.

If you're living check to check and working in a grocery store while living in San Jose, yep, you're much more likely to catch it than if you live in Cupertino and can work from home. This is mostly economic, not cultural.

[akiddoc]

It depends what you mean by culture.  In Taiwan, the people have a high degree of respect for their CDC.  Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite.  Of course, our CDC was highly deficient in this case compared to Taiwan’s and their poor performance gave Americans even more “justification” for doing their own thing.

Also, if you look at the total number of cases by jurisdiction in SCC, Cupertino has the lowest or just about the lowest rate.  Some of it is economics, particularly compared to San Jose and Gilroy.  Some of it seems clearly linked to cultural behavior.

If you're living check to check and working in a grocery store while living in San Jose, yep, you're much more likely to catch it than if you live in Cupertino and can work from home. This is mostly economic, not cultural.

[Goose]

Cancer clinical trials are impacted and slowed down but have not stopped in most cases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00093-1

BC

Well BC, I can totally assure you 100% beyond all doubt that both MD Anderson and Sloan-Kettering are closed to all enrollments, People in the ongoing trials are probably proceeding normally, but if you are not in, you aren't going to be in any reasonable interval (3 to 6 months is probably optimistic).

[Goose]

Cancer clinical trials are impacted and slowed down but have not stopped in most cases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00093-1

BC

Well BC, I can totally assure you 100% beyond all doubt that both MD Anderson and Sloan-Kettering are closed to all enrollments, People in the ongoing trials are probably proceeding normally, but if you are not in, you aren't going to be in any reasonable interval (3 to 6 months is probably optimistic).

[chrisk]

It depends what you mean by culture.  In Taiwan, the people have a high degree of respect for their CDC.  Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite.  Of course, our CDC was highly deficient in this case compared to Taiwan’s and their poor performance gave Americans even more “justification” for doing their own thing.

Also, if you look at the total number of cases by jurisdiction in SCC, Cupertino has the lowest or just about the lowest rate.  Some of it is economics, particularly compared to San Jose and Gilroy.  Some of it seems clearly linked to cultural behavior.

If you're living check to check and working in a grocery store while living in San Jose, yep, you're much more likely to catch it than if you live in Cupertino and can work from home. This is mostly economic, not cultural.

But the rate in Cupertino is significantly lower than the other high income cities in SCC (Palo Alto, Los Altos, Saratoga, and Los Gatos). If economics is the only explanation, it should not be so much lower than its peer group.

[chrisk]

It depends what you mean by culture.  In Taiwan, the people have a high degree of respect for their CDC.  Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite.  Of course, our CDC was highly deficient in this case compared to Taiwan’s and their poor performance gave Americans even more “justification” for doing their own thing.

Also, if you look at the total number of cases by jurisdiction in SCC, Cupertino has the lowest or just about the lowest rate.  Some of it is economics, particularly compared to San Jose and Gilroy.  Some of it seems clearly linked to cultural behavior.

If you're living check to check and working in a grocery store while living in San Jose, yep, you're much more likely to catch it than if you live in Cupertino and can work from home. This is mostly economic, not cultural.

But the rate in Cupertino is significantly lower than the other high income cities in SCC (Palo Alto, Los Altos, Saratoga, and Los Gatos). If economics is the only explanation, it should not be so much lower than its peer group.

[Goose]

Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite. 

Is the above actually true? It's so hard with all the misinformation. Before all of this, I thought we looked up to the CDC as the gold standard. The CDC was the cavalry that rode into Africa to show them how to fight Ebola, and so on and so forth ... OK nothing is ever completely black or white, so sure, there must have been some who distrusted the CDC, but "many"?

I don't want to get into a "fact" war, or the 2020 version, a links war, lobbing links back and forth. So I'm just asking ... was this suspicion of the CDC true before this pandemic?

Short answer, yes, there was more than suspicion that the CDC would be unable to cope with a large outbreak in the USA. The CDC itself published documents highlighting some of the issues. Unfortunately, nothing was done to address the shortcomings. BC has posted a NYT article about the current problems.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=19845

On the basic topic of what the "average citizen" thinks about the CDC, I believe the following is true. Before COVID-19, most people had no idea the CDC existed. When they found out it did, it was during the testing roll-out that was a mess. That didn't leave a good impression of the CDC. Those few who actually knew the CDC existed mostly believed it was a very good organization who would do their job. IMHO that belief unfortunately was based on "ancient" history and good PR from the government. The CDC itself was aware of many of the weaknesses. Unfortunately, one of those weaknesses was a lack of urgency about anything.

[Goose]

Many Americans associate the US CDC with big government and are inclined to the opposite. 

Is the above actually true? It's so hard with all the misinformation. Before all of this, I thought we looked up to the CDC as the gold standard. The CDC was the cavalry that rode into Africa to show them how to fight Ebola, and so on and so forth ... OK nothing is ever completely black or white, so sure, there must have been some who distrusted the CDC, but "many"?

I don't want to get into a "fact" war, or the 2020 version, a links war, lobbing links back and forth. So I'm just asking ... was this suspicion of the CDC true before this pandemic?

Short answer, yes, there was more than suspicion that the CDC would be unable to cope with a large outbreak in the USA. The CDC itself published documents highlighting some of the issues. Unfortunately, nothing was done to address the shortcomings. BC has posted a NYT article about the current problems.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=19845

On the basic topic of what the "average citizen" thinks about the CDC, I believe the following is true. Before COVID-19, most people had no idea the CDC existed. When they found out it did, it was during the testing roll-out that was a mess. That didn't leave a good impression of the CDC. Those few who actually knew the CDC existed mostly believed it was a very good organization who would do their job. IMHO that belief unfortunately was based on "ancient" history and good PR from the government. The CDC itself was aware of many of the weaknesses. Unfortunately, one of those weaknesses was a lack of urgency about anything.

[magnus]

I feel like most people knew about the CDC but mainly from what they've "learned" from movies, which i think usually portrays them favorably. 

I lost faith during the early days of the outbreak,  when their testing was limited/not ready and they failed to give full truth advice.  "In the absence of PPE, it is ok to use scarves and bandanas. "  This makes it sound like scarves and bandanas are adequate protection for this virus.

[magnus]

I feel like most people knew about the CDC but mainly from what they've "learned" from movies, which i think usually portrays them favorably. 

I lost faith during the early days of the outbreak,  when their testing was limited/not ready and they failed to give full truth advice.  "In the absence of PPE, it is ok to use scarves and bandanas. "  This makes it sound like scarves and bandanas are adequate protection for this virus.