How many deaths are acceptable to save the Economy?

??? @HTM i feel like we aren’t communicating. Of course all these things will reduce other disease transmission. That’s one reason people are a little silly to worry about flu season next year! Peace.

 

If you're talking about N95 masks worn by medical professionals in the front line, yeah I can believe that. IIRC, those masks are meant to be worn just once and replaced. But according to reports and online videos made by medical staff members, many have had to wear one mask for days at a time due to lack of PPE. This should be unacceptable.

And I think the case is different for ordinary people. Wearing masks will probably not help if you're stuck in a roomful of infected people or if someone with Covid 19 directly coughs on you, but that's not really the point. It's about lowering probabilities, not protecting yourself absolutely.

Also, wearing a mask can help to prevent others from getting infected in the off chance you're asymptomatic. The percentage of this is slight, but if everyone does it, it will still help to bring down the infection rate.

 

The idea of an acceptable number of deaths is troubling to me. I'd bet those proposing that these deaths are acceptable don't come from areas where these deaths are reaping the most devastation. Most of these people are able to say it because these acceptable deaths are likely happening to strangers or people outside of one's concern, and not their friends or loved ones.

It's scary how much partisan politics, racism, and ageism seem to be driving people's acceptance to the effects of this pandemic. And yet, they'd insist they are being objective about the situation, not being swayed by sentiment.

Also, it's not like we nonchalantly accept deaths caused by cancer or car accidents. Think of how much has been spent to find the cure for cancer. Even more are probably spent to educate people on driving safely, wearing seat belts, arresting and prosecuting drunk drivers, making roads safer, etc. Basically, a civilized society will continue to try to lower the risks caused by these factors, and not just shrug and say "live and let die."

 

The N-95 masks can be cleaned and re-used.

The regular masks only work for 20 mins and cant be re-used.

This is more about the govt making the public feel like they can do something to help themselves than what really works. Psychological more than anything else.

 

Wear a mask, wash your hands frequently, try to keep yourself from staying too long in places where infection is highly likely.

Trust me, these things are not psychological. If everyone does it, it can work.

 

I totally agree with the hygiene part of your post.

The regular masks only work for 20 mins though.

 

Because Manhattan has bad bad case of Covid-19 doesn't mean Montana should have to live by the same rules.

I agree with you about using safe cleaning measures. However if you aren't using the N-95 mask then the masks aren't doing you any good after 20 mins.

This comes from a renowned surgeon friend of mine who is currently working with the FDA on Covid-19.

 

OK, there are some debates about the effectiveness of normal masks. If you choose to believe they're not useful in keeping out the virus after 20 minutes, no argument from me.

As for the psychological aspect of masks, I agree. Though I think it has much more to do with the perception of others than yourself. When 80 percent of people are walking around with masks, it's going to encourage everyone to take things more seriously. But if you think wearing a mask is some sort of talisman against infection, that's definitely wrong.

Also, wearing a mask can help you from infecting others if you're infected yourself. Better to cough into a mask than to cough into someone's face (or, say, a bin of masks in a mask factory).

So, it could be that you're doing more for others than yourself if you wear a mask. But that should be motivation enough, I think.

 

I am not saying the entire country should be shut down in perpetuity. I am not even saying that I disagree with smart efforts to open up the economy and society. However we live in a world and time where people travel frequently inside the country and the virus will impact all 50 states. Indeed if you look at the numbers since NY has gotten under control, it has gotten worse as far as infections.

My wife is a doctor, she and all the doctors she knows and speaks with all believe wearing a protective mask reduces exposure and that includes cloth masks. Is it fool proof? No, but it does help limit the spread of the virus. There are recent studies that support that point as well.

I would rather not wear a mask and not have to practice social distancing and be able to attend parties. However the sacrifices are minimal if it can keep people alive.

 

Well we have dueling Dr.'s and I dont blame you for siding with yours. LOL

The type of mask matters. The right mask and your safe. The wrong mask and you might as well not even be wearing a mask.

 

So this is bullshit?



Rocket River

 

100's of thousands of people a year don't die from infections diseases every year. A bad flu season is 60-70K. We've blown past that with no slowing down. What we are seeing isn't normal. Also while we have bad flu seasons we have treatments and vaccines that will give at least partial immunity. We don't have any of that yet with this disease. Millions dying are still within the realm of possibility. This isn't like other years.

I will agree with you though that the decision has already been made as so many states and people aren't following the guidelines.

My point is that this shows a disturbing amount of callousness within our society.

 

don't know about %, but non n95 masks do protect. The CDC didn't recommend masks for all until it see enough data that asymptotic carriers can spread and likely do so significantly. One study said up to 80% of spread is from asymptotic carriers.

Some people are so overboard with this personal freedom. Just wear a freaking mask, it's not that big of a personal scarify. If your president said our great citizens of this countries are warriors, and if you are one of them that is willing to scarify, to fight the c19 enemy for the good of this nation, you can wear a mask during that fight. Soldiers of the good cause not wearing any protection gear in battle is a new heroic way of dying, but it's so unnecessary.

 

It IMO has little to do with personal freedoms.
This is about a display of power . . .intimidation

We are not a nation of laws.

We are a nation of selective enforcement of the law based on a social caste system.

Rocket River

 

You’re not understanding the point I’m making. It’s not complicated. I’ve written it several times in this thread.

The OP asked how many are we willing to let die to get back to our normal way of life? (Paraphrase)

My point: A certain amount of people die in our society every year who wouldn’t from infectious disease (whether its hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands isn’t the point) if we all socially distanced full time and wore PPE. So, we already make a choice, every year, of how many people is an acceptable amount of people we are willing to allow die for the sake of our way of life. The figures are bigger now but that fundamental question is still the same.

That’s literally the only point I've been conveying this whole time. People keep trying to twist what I’m saying or shift the conversation.

 

That's the only point I've been trying to convey.

OP: How many deaths is acceptable to get back to business as usual? (paraphrase)

Social distancing/the wearing of PPE would have reduced infectious disease deaths every before 2020. Business as usual always came at the expense of preventable infectious disease deaths. However, we weren't willing to alter our way of life to prevent those deaths. So, there is actually a number of deaths associated with the disruption of our way of life. It was smaller the years previously but it was still a number and they were still people dying.

 

I finally saw that you replied to my question, only the truth is, you didn't. Would you feel the reaction, which you describe as "sanctimonious," to a pandemic that is a new, deadly virus for which we have no vaccine of any kind, for which the treatment we have for those who get it and who's life is threatened is still rudimentary and experimental and, frankly, desperate, a virus several times more contagious that the flu - would you feel the same way about it if it were your parents, your grandmother who is desperately ill in a hospital or, heaven forbid, dead because of it?

Would you? It's easy to talk the way you are talking here about this horrific pandemic when you are experiencing it at a remove. When is does not impact you directly. When you don't have a relative you love, or a close friend at the cusp of dying from it and you can't even visit them at the hospital because is is simply too dangerous to do so. It was clear earlier what I was asking of you and you avoided answering. Why? The truth is that you would feel differently if you were one of the hundreds of thousands in exactly that position. Worrying about a person they love in a life or death situation brought on by this unprecedented pandemic. That worry, that concern that we take every step possible to save lives is not "sanctimonious." It is reality for far too many. If you are lucky, you won't be confronted with it.

 

What way have I ever claimed I felt about it?

The only point I've been trying to make in this thread is this:

We're all cool with a certain amount of preventable deaths from infectious disease up to a certain point every year. It's indisputable. If we all wore PPE and all socially distanced at all times it would save lives every year from infectious diseases. This year the cost is much greater. What number is acceptable? I don't know. There has always been a number though.

 

I think the initial shutdown of Texas was too draconian to last (New York is a different story). We kept deaths low, which is great, but it was a set of rules that were not sustainable for a marathon. I don't blame leadership for that as erring on the side of too much public health was probably the right approach when we don't know how bad it'll be. But 6 weeks of cooperation is probably all we could expect out of humans, especially when the sword of damocles is not right over head. And I don't think this is about haircuts, or going to the gym or the restaurant, or even jobs. It's not the economy -- people miss their friends, miss meeting people, miss that normal social intimacy.

Now of course, I think Texas is set on a path of erring too far in the other direction. Not because of the rules, but because of the rhetoric. The rules still say socially distance, wear masks, wash hands. The rhetoric should be that we're setting a new paradigm of social distancing that can be sustained for the long haul. Instead, leadership says we're opening up, as if we were any closer to this being over. Now we have Abbott butting in on contempt of court sanctions to undermine his own mask rules. Adherence to social distance rules is going to fall apart.

How many deaths are acceptable seems like a moot question to me. We will not be able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and just weather the shutdown for as long as it takes. People get worn out. Leaders can push harder, and maybe they can eek out an extra month or two (which translates to thousands of lives, I know), but even the people of New York will reach a point they just can't take it any longer.

When it comes to acceptable, my question is how long do we remain "understanding" about the challenges the government faces when we've gone for months now with lagging capabilities in testing, tracing, and supply of critical healthcare supplies. If we had these things, we wouldn't need to sacrifice so much on social distance. Why haven't we moved heaven and earth to get that done?

 

You've described how you think others feel about this, those who want to do what we can to knock this thing down, as "sanctimonious." It is entirely fair to ask you how you feel about it, when you describe your own opinion about how others feel about what the response to the pandemic should be. A response articulated and shared by our top experts in the field. A response still being studied, judged by those experts and often ignored by increasing numbers of Americans, ignored in part because of the clumsy mixed messaging from this administration.

You still haven't responded to my point, which is that you would have a different view of this if it impacted you personally. If one of your parents, a grandparent, or close friend were struggling to survive in a hospital or had actually succumbed to the virus. A virus unlike anything before it. You wouldn't be the least bit "cool" about this. Frankly, no one personally impacted by those yearly deaths from things other than the pandemic are "cool" with it. While you may pretend that you are not actually giving a view, you are, with all due respect.