PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[DukieInKansas]

The latest retail shortage...Diet Coke. 3 stores completely out. Found a few six packs at a 4th store - 20 oz bottles only; no cans or large bottles. Of course I bought all they had before someone else starts hoarding Not really!

They can take away my TP, but when they run out of Diet Coke, now we have a problem!

Attachment 11220

Between shortage of Ginger Lime Diet Coke and a long spell between sales, I made the decision to mostly give it up. Had already decreased to 1 in the morning and then 1 or 2 if I bought lunch out. I'm am down to just the ones if I buy lunch out. I'm channeling my inner Jack Diemer and switching to iced tea.

[DukieInKansas]

Hmmmm, I'm not so sure I'm heading upstairs. Can we do a pre-rapture get together for, how shall I put this, folks like me who are hoping to slip in without the correct papers?

I'm okay with this option.

[Jeffrey]

Ain't no easy anwers
That's what I got to say

Just one thing I know for sure,
Someone got to pay.

I hear ya... this really sucks!

[OldPhiKap]

Just one thing I know for sure,
Someone got to pay.

I hear ya... this really sucks!

Yup . . . But we will survive.

[camion]

Good Lord — just start the Rapture already:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/us/zo...rnd/index.html

Boy am I late to the party.

In any event, it is rumored that the Rapture already occurred and coincidentally most of the raptured were political moderates from both parties.

[Skydog]

I just talked to my son who lives with wife and three children in Salt Lake City and he's pretty upset with the districts decision to go 100% online through Oct 31 at least. His argument is that the needs of elementary school kids, and especially kids from poorer families, are getting short shrift in the decision-making process and they will be the ones screwed the most by the "100% online" decision. Many of these kids don't have computers at home (the school district is giving loaners but of course not internet access), many will lack the supervision needed to keep a young child focused and many will lack even a quiet, safe place to work.

Anyway he felt the decisions weren't about the kids, they were made in the interests of adults. And especially in the interests of more well-to-do adults who may have one spouse or family member or nanny who can stay home and supervise the online learning tasks. My initial thought was that he might be viewing this one-sidedly and taking it too far. But the more I think about it the more I think he might be right. For poorer families and/or single working parent families the decision to go 100% online will be devastating. Many of these kids likely will never make up the ground they lose this year. But the adults (parents, teachers, school administrators) are being kept safe, even if come at a cost to the kids.

Now it's a complicated issue with no perfect (or even very good) answers, I admit. But bottom line - the fact that the adults couldn't figure out a way to have at least the very youngest students getting some in-person instruction at least part of each week is pretty damning. I think.

[Bostondevil]

I just talked to my son who lives with wife and three children in Salt Lake City and he's pretty upset with the districts decision to go 100% online through Oct 31 at least. His argument is that the needs of elementary school kids, and especially kids from poorer families, are getting short shrift in the decision-making process and they will be the ones screwed the most by the "100% online" decision. Many of these kids don't have computers at home (the school district is giving loaners but of course not internet access), many will lack the supervision needed to keep a young child focused and many will lack even a quiet, safe place to work.

Anyway he felt the decisions weren't about the kids, they were made in the interests of adults. And especially in the interests of more well-to-do adults who may have one spouse or family member or nanny who can stay home and supervise the online learning tasks. My initial thought was that he might be viewing this one-sidedly and taking it too far. But the more I think about it the more I think he might be right. For poorer families and/or single working parent families the decision to go 100% online will be devastating. Many of these kids likely will never make up the ground they lose this year. But the adults (parents, teachers, school administrators) are being kept safe, even if come at a cost to the kids.

Now it's a complicated issue with no perfect (or even very good) answers, I admit. But bottom line - the fact that the adults couldn't figure out a way to have at least the very youngest students getting some in-person instruction at least part of each week is pretty damning. I think.

My mother taught elementary school, mostly 1st grade, for a career. Her vast experience taught her that a child needs to be reading by age 8. If they aren't by then, they will never, ever catch up. Any 6 or 7 year old student who is not yet reading should be prioritized for in person instruction.

[gumbomoop]

I think I am a realist, and know I’m a pessimist. I don’t recommend the pessimism part. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to be much reason for optimism re relatively painless solutions to the COVID puzzle just now. Among my working assumptions is that when people avoid realistically dealing with problems, it’s highly likely that they will reach a point where there are no good answers left. When such a point is reached, the unpleasant working rule is: choose the least bad answer.

This commonplace observation merits serious consideration right now. That should begin with a clearheaded understanding of what “There are no good answers left, so choose the least bad answer” means. Most important, it means: no matter which answer is chosen, bad things will happen. This point should be emphasized, not cruelly, but firmly, hardheadedly, realistically. The goal, therefore, should be to choose the answer that will produce the fewest bad results.

One candidate for least bad option is supported by a growing number of expert scientific and medical professionals: “Shut it down, start over, do it right.”

https://uspirg.org/resources/usp/shu...er-do-it-right

Understandably, many will cry foul at such a harsh solution. It will cause pain. Yet, the working assumption is that for the foreseeable future, all policies will cause pain.

Is it accurate to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that several months were wasted at the beginning of the crisis? (Not unanimity; overwhelming majority.) Is it plausible that we should clearheadedly face the painful reality that there are no good (i.e., painless) answers left, at least for the immediate future? Should we hope for leaders who will tell the truth about our incredibly difficult and dangerous straits, set forth several approaches, straightforwardly state that no approach on offer is without significant pain, and recommend the least bad (but very painful) option?

Is what we’re doing [what are we doing?] the least bad option? Having, apparently, missed the chance for a relatively good option, what is the least bad option? For the next few months (2? 3? 4?), is “Shut it down, start over, do it right” the least bad option?

[CDu]

I think I am a realist, and know I’m a pessimist. I don’t recommend the pessimism part. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to be much reason for optimism re relatively painless solutions to the COVID puzzle just now. Among my working assumptions is that when people avoid realistically dealing with problems, it’s highly likely that they will reach a point where there are no good answers left. When such a point is reached, the unpleasant working rule is: choose the least bad answer.

This commonplace observation merits serious consideration right now. That should begin with a clearheaded understanding of what “There are no good answers left, so choose the least bad answer” means. Most important, it means: no matter which answer is chosen, bad things will happen. This point should be emphasized, not cruelly, but firmly, hardheadedly, realistically. The goal, therefore, should be to choose the answer that will produce the fewest bad results.

One candidate for least bad option is supported by a growing number of expert scientific and medical professionals: “Shut it down, start over, do it right.”

https://uspirg.org/resources/usp/shu...er-do-it-right

Understandably, many will cry foul at such a harsh solution. It will cause pain. Yet, the working assumption is that for the foreseeable future, all policies will cause pain.

Is it accurate to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that several months were wasted at the beginning of the crisis? (Not unanimity; overwhelming majority.) Is it plausible that we should clearheadedly face the painful reality that there are no good (i.e., painless) answers left, at least for the immediate future? Should we hope for leaders who will tell the truth about our incredibly difficult and dangerous straits, set forth several approaches, straightforwardly state that no approach on offer is without significant pain, and recommend the least bad (but very painful) option?

Is what we’re doing [what are we doing?] the least bad option? Having, apparently, missed the chance for a relatively good option, what is the least bad option? For the next few months (2? 3? 4?), is “Shut it down, start over, do it right” the least bad option?

To be clear: by the time folks were aware of the disease in the US, the “good options” were largely gone. Maybe we could have shut down two weeks earlier, but that wasn’t ever going to happen, and honestly we weren’t in a position to test adequately then anyway. Given that, though, if we had really locked down AND really gotten the testing and tracing right AND stuck with it until we not only flattened the curve but saw a steep decline, it could have been largely contained a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. We straddled the fence on lockdown, then jumped out of it at the first sign of progress (and in some cases before progress).

Yes, another shutdown - now that we have better testing and tracing - would probably work, provided folks actually observe it. Unfortunately, our society won’t buy it. Hell, they didn’t buy it the first time, which is part of why we are here now.

Given that another lockdown isn’t gonna happen, the next “least bad” is to emphasize prophylactic measures and spend heavily on stockpiling promising treatments and vaccines in the event that some of those drugs/vaccines prove effective. Then at least we can hopefully mitigate the damage. Treatments will precede vaccines, and hopefully a few prove effective in reducing severe outcomes. And soon.

[jacone21]

I think I am a realist, and know I’m a pessimist. I don’t recommend the pessimism part. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to be much reason for optimism re relatively painless solutions to the COVID puzzle just now. Among my working assumptions is that when people avoid realistically dealing with problems, it’s highly likely that they will reach a point where there are no good answers left. When such a point is reached, the unpleasant working rule is: choose the least bad answer.

This commonplace observation merits serious consideration right now. That should begin with a clearheaded understanding of what “There are no good answers left, so choose the least bad answer” means. Most important, it means: no matter which answer is chosen, bad things will happen. This point should be emphasized, not cruelly, but firmly, hardheadedly, realistically. The goal, therefore, should be to choose the answer that will produce the fewest bad results.

One candidate for least bad option is supported by a growing number of expert scientific and medical professionals: “Shut it down, start over, do it right.”

https://uspirg.org/resources/usp/shu...er-do-it-right

Understandably, many will cry foul at such a harsh solution. It will cause pain. Yet, the working assumption is that for the foreseeable future, all policies will cause pain.

Is it accurate to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that several months were wasted at the beginning of the crisis? (Not unanimity; overwhelming majority.) Is it plausible that we should clearheadedly face the painful reality that there are no good (i.e., painless) answers left, at least for the immediate future? Should we hope for leaders who will tell the truth about our incredibly difficult and dangerous straits, set forth several approaches, straightforwardly state that no approach on offer is without significant pain, and recommend the least bad (but very painful) option?

Is what we’re doing [what are we doing?] the least bad option? Having, apparently, missed the chance for a relatively good option, what is the least bad option? For the next few months (2? 3? 4?), is “Shut it down, start over, do it right” the least bad option?

In this region, we're going with the "It is what it is." option.

Capture.JPG

[rsvman]

In my opinion, another shutdown won't happen unless this thing changes dramatically and becomes truly apocalyptic (say, for example, mutations make the virus become 10 times more fatal). Nothing short of a that is ever going to be enough to get this country to start over.

[Skydog]

...unless this thing changes dramatically and becomes truly apocalyptic (say, for example, mutations make the virus become 10 times more fatal)...

Now why would you say that out loud rsvman?!

[PackMan97]

In my opinion, another shutdown won't happen unless this thing changes dramatically and becomes truly apocalyptic (say, for example, mutations make the virus become 10 times more fatal). Nothing short of a that is ever going to be enough to get this country to start over.

In many respects we are still in various stages of shutdown..

[mpj96]

(6) we can pull him out if we want, but if you start at home you cannot switch to live later in the semester.

Huge factor. Our middle schooler is going 100% virtual. Her school made clear that it would be very easy to switch to in person classes at any point.

Might have made a different decision if the policy had been more like yours.

[mpj96]

In my opinion, another shutdown won't happen unless this thing changes dramatically and becomes truly apocalyptic...

Agree. At this point the idea of a complete shut down is totally unrealistic. We have a mask law in NC by executive order that local law enforcement proudly refuses to support.

"Least bad" is a pessimistic frame. Most decisions have some potential for negative consequences.

"Make lemonade when you get lemons" is a more optimistic frame - identifying, emphasizing and pursuing the opportunity that inheres in any challenge while mitigating risk.

Either can be successful as long as the frame is realistic. You can't choose a "least bad" option that has no chance of implementation. You can't choose to make lemonade when all you've got are tomatoes.

[budwom]

In my opinion, another shutdown won't happen unless this thing changes dramatically and becomes truly apocalyptic (say, for example, mutations make the virus become 10 times more fatal). Nothing short of a that is ever going to be enough to get this country to start over.

yeah, and if we run out of Hydrox cookies, look out!

Images on TV last night of a high school in Georgia, hallway completely packed, students cheek to jowl, at least a hundred of them, nary a mask in sight. This seriously confuses me as to what they're thinking, or not thinking...

[Furniture]

yeah, and if we run out of Hydrox cookies, look out!

Images on TV last night of a high school in Georgia, hallway completely packed, students cheek to jowl, at least a hundred of them, nary a mask in sight. This seriously confuses me as to what they're thinking, or not thinking...

Or what are their parents thinking...

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Huge factor. Our middle schooler is going 100% virtual. Her school made clear that it would be very easy to switch to in person classes at any point.

Might have made a different decision if the policy had been more like yours.

How does that work? Our school is the opposite - if you start blended (half in person, half remote), you can probably switch to full remote. But if you start full remote, no guarantees that you can switch to blended. Which to me makes a lot more sense - if they are at capacity in the classrooms, how are they going to add another kid who was previously full remote?

Tomorrow is our deadline to tell them our preference (school doesn't start for a month). We gave preliminary indications so they could begin making policy but these are largely binding. Then they have to figure out the math. We had a zoom town hall last night and it seems like our principal is working 24/7 to figure this out in a way that is both safe and educational. She mentioned a lot of factors she is struggling with that I had not even considered, like how do you do drop off and pickup in a physically distanced way, particularly on a cold and/or rainy day (NY public school where most kids walk).

[PackMan97]

yeah, and if we run out of Hydrox cookies, look out!

Images on TV last night of a high school in Georgia, hallway completely packed, students cheek to jowl, at least a hundred of them, nary a mask in sight. This seriously confuses me as to what they're thinking, or not thinking...

The messaging for the past 5 months is that kids don't get sick, or seriously sick...so no worries.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Beware South Dakota residents...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/u...ronavirus.html