Corona Virus

[bobby49]

Rlown, see if you can get a foot appointment with the dog's vet.

[rayfound]

A
By the way, in California with the $600 per week unemployment bonus, it IS a paid vacation, or even better, for anyone who was making less than about $30 per hour who was laid off due to the virus.

A few points to clarify:

• 1. The $600/wk addition to unemployment isn't California, it is national. It is meant to be a quickly-deploy-able stopgap to cover the average spread between unemployment benefits and normal wage. This is a unique unemployment situation because we're telling people NOT to work. The goal is to prevent larger economic cascading impacts.
  
  2. It benefits people in lower cost of living locales much more than California.
  
  3. As for "making more than before the layoff" - there's some absolute truth to that. But it isn't as simple as that... I'll give you a personal example - My wife works part time, their business is unable to operate during pandemic. She is netting a bit more on unemployment than her wages. On the other hand, I have remained working, but my income (In sales, so commissions) has collapsed due to production shutdowns, as well as demand side reductions. I am not eligible for unemployment since I am employed. So her little bit of additional income helps stabilize our cashflow. I am sure there are MILLIONS of american like me who have one family member laid off, but the other one has seen hours cut, overtime cut, bonuses halted, etc...
  
  And that doesn't even begin to cover the person making $15/hr or whatever, but losing healthcare coverage due to layoffs - that extra $600/wk would go a long way to help cover medical insurance too. I remember when I switched job 6-years ago, I needed to utilize COBRA while I waited for eligibility with my new employer - it cost $1300+month. If I had been unemployed and getting the maximum $450/wk, that would have used 75% of my UI benefits just to cover insurance for my Family.

[caddis]

40,000,000 people in CA and what? 2000 deaths. When is the fear pandemic going to end?

[franklin411]

My point being that the ultimate decision to lift a quarantine is with the county health officer

That's legally somewhat true, but in practice it's more complicated. Legally, citizens can sue on the grounds that the emergency has passed and the lockdown order is an abuse of power. The burden of proof would be high, but it's not impossible.

In practice... The police can't be everywhere. We're now at the point where people are sick of the lockdown, and where the reality is proving far better than the model predicted. People are simply going to start to ignore the lockdown, and over time it will become a joke because there's no way to enforce it. We're already starting to see that happen.

Or, to put it succinctly: people will only listen to Chicken Little for so long.

[balzaccom]

The other possibility is that as people begin to ignore the lockdown, and cases and deaths increase, as what happened in Italy and Spain. And then the lockdowns will come back more strictly enforced. And the science deniers will have some other story to tell--about how vaccines kill you.

[SirBC]

The other possibility is that as people begin to ignore the lockdown, and cases and deaths increase, as what happened in Italy and Spain. And then the lockdowns will come back more strictly enforced.

It also happened right here at home during the 1918 pandemic. San Francisco introduced social distancing, wearing masks when outside, and sheltering in place. They were flattening the curve but there was pressure to reopen the economy after about a month of sheltering in place. This led to a resurgence in cases and caused San Francisco to be one of the hardest hit cities in the country:

San Francisco had the 1918 flu under control. And then it lifted the restrictions.
A cautionary tale about the dangers of reopening too soon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... d-n1191141

[caddis]

If you are in "Lock down" you don't have anything in control, it (and the government) has you in control. You aren't saving lives you are stretching out the inevitable. Stay in place was about buying precious time and preventing our health care system from getting overloaded. THAT is where the lives were supposed to be saved. Since you can't name a local system that has been overloaded, it's time to relax

Open up.

If things get close to an overload in certain areas then deal with it there.
Let free people make their own decisions based on what they have learned the past two months and stop allowing government officials to tell you what is best for you. Since when has government been able to make a better decision then you?

[Wandering Daisy]

Obeying laws, rules, regulations, always is dependent on those on whom the rule is imposed, and they need to buy into it and self-regulate if it is to succeed. There never will be enough police to enforce, at least within the bounds of our constitution. I think a majority of the population are what you may call '"chicken littles", or others may call "smart and cautious". Rules or no, they will not simply go back to normal until they feel safe to do so. But I neither call those who stay home or those who go out unflattering names.

Personally, backpacking as an essential. However, hair salons, gyms, buying trinkets in a mall, parties, socializing, even getting my teeth cleaned or my annual physical at this moment, are NOT essential, some I do not even do in "normal" times. As for backpacking, I can wait a bit longer, but not give up my entire summer season. I certainly will keep my eye on the COVID statistics and act accordingly to protect vulnerable family and community members. If the Sierra remains closed, I will go elsewhere, self-contained. As such my actions should not endanger the locals, but nor will it add a penny to local economies. The latest date from the UW model, is that California could start opening up a bit May 18. Of course, that changes daily.

Balzaccom is right, if we all rush out and if it causes a huge increase in hospitalizations, oppressive rules will simply be implemented and with much more severe enforcement. A bit of patience may in the long run result a better chance of re-opening.

Now, if this were Ebola, I would be hiding in my house and NEVER go out. THAT, is a lethal virus.

[rlown]

Just from my observations when out and about near Elk Grove, many are already ignoring the shelter rules.
Some in masks, most not in masks unless one is required for the store they visit.

A very tough time trying to sell my house in Petaluma though. Real estate was considered "non-essential" in Sonoma County. The Board of supervisors finally relaxed that rule, but the fear has slowed house hunting.

My sister works as a guard at Folsom prison and they just now required the correctional officers to wear masks. She wears hers on her belt.

[caddis]

Balzaccom is right, if we all rush out and if it causes a huge increase in hospitalizations, oppressive rules will simply be implemented and with much more severe enforcement.

That's a big assumption (ALL rush out) I'm of the opinion that when it comes to suspending our rights as free people you should probably have overwhelming evidence that makes it easy convince people instead of coerce them. And I'm old school enough to dig in when someone wants to remove my freedoms no mater the reasons. As I see it now, most people are convinced enough to the point we have already made changes to the way we interact in public and we don't need (nor desire) coercion.

On the flipped side of that, I'm not convinced an extended lock down is needed. I'm no longer convinced this virus is as lethal as we were lead to believe. When models go from 2 million deaths to 60,000 it makes you wonder who the experts are and should this same group be involved in the decisions to crap on our rights?

Is the virus real? Yes.

Is it serious? Yes.

Is it serious enough to shut down our lives? Doesn't look like it to me.

But if someone thinks otherwise then stay home, no one will force you to interact with the rest of us