How is that related to the lockdown? Hospitals are open. People are staying home because they're scared of getting sick, that's not something that can be fixed by public policy.
>> People are staying home because they're scared of getting sick, that's not something that can be fixed by public policy.
Staying home IS the public policy in many places right now. Mere weeks ago, my social media feed was full of information about hospitals cancelling all non-emergency procedures, being overrun, doctors flying to New York, PPE shortages, etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people who would normally go to the ER just in case are trying to tough it out at home. Or perhaps they're more alone and the person who would normally call 911 because they're having a stroke / heart attack simply isn't with them - because isolation and social distancing is also the public policy.
No, because I don't care and I'm just going about my life mostly as normal. Many people have missed the context, and that's either a massive failure of education or a massive failure in communication, and the mere fact we're having this discussion is evidence of that. Isn't it?
Public policy right now is to stay home or die of Covid 19. Many people are scared to even go outside or go to a hospital if they don't have the virus.
Starting to open businesses again and requiring social distancing would definitely help with the fear and more people would actually go to the hospital for non-covid health issues.
I don't follow that. Can you walk me through how making people go to work is going to make them less afraid? You make people less afraid by reducing the risk they'll get sick, not increasing it. Releasing lockdowns before the pandemic is controlled increases risk, by definition.
This is the big flaw with the "open up" notion: it fundamentally won't work anyway. How is "opening up" the economy going to help Jet Blue when no one is willing to fly? Who is expected to fill those movie theaters and sports arenas? Who's going to sit in a crowded restaurant?
At best, opening up will get us a half-alive economy. And at the price of a much longer time until a true recovery starts.
Stay home. We can beat this. The regions that started lockdowns early (c.f. Europe, New York, the west coast) are well on their way to containment. It's the "open up" regions and the ones with partial lockdowns[1] that are the stragglers.
[1] I make this point every time it comes up: but for goodness sake something needs to happen in Nebraska. It's right on the cusp of exploding into a worst-than-NY disaster and no one is talking about it.
California is split. The Bay Area is past peak, socal is still growing. Washington and Oregon are well past peak, around half of their peak new infection rate. New York is crossing under 1/3 now. Likewise New England and a few other smaller states are clearly over the hump.
This stuff works. All these places could have easily blown right through health care capacity like Milan, but they didn't. The really frustrating thing is watching it work, then watching everyone figure things aren't so bad and demand that we "open up", when the only reason things aren't so bad is because we didn't.
Another month for these early states. Just be patient. As for everyone else, it's going to be much longer than if they had just followed the lead of the lockdown set.
That doesn't really answer what containment means or what the long-term strategy is.
If you relax lockdowns while you still have a significant number of active cases then expect outbreaks to reoccur. So is the plan to stay locked down until active cases in the applicable area are essentially zero, i.e. eradication? If so, how long will that take? If not, what is the plan?
I know there's no easy solution here but even my well-informed California friends don't seem to know what the plan is.
This stuff has been written about ad nauseum. Every think tank has some variant they've published. Here's Ezra Klein's review of a bunch of them (he's pretty bearish on whether they'll work): https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-soc...
The basic idea is that you stay locked down until the outbreak size is small enough that you can test every contact of every positive case to catch them before they spread.
This takes a lot of testing. And unfortunately the one body in the USA with the financial resources to foot that bill is conspicuously silent on a plan for rolling out expanded testing. But this is how it has to work. The alternative is, as everyone here loves to scream, more expensive.
But there's no magic wand where people just decide to start working again. That won't happen, either becuase they're scared or because the outbreaks run out of control again (which is to say: people won't exit lockdown voluntarily without containment ever, either they're scared now or they'll be scared of the results they see).
So call your representatives and get testing funded and scaled. Really there is no other option.
I for one will be feeling less safe love we start opening things again. Nothing has changed in the US except that people are getting tired of the situation. We have enough idiots walking around without masks or who aren't distancing as it is. Once we start opening up there is only now risk in going to places where there are other people.
I don't think people fear that they'll die if they step outside, but they are afraid of catching coronavirus if they go to a hospital, and in some hot spots that's been a real risk. But it's a lower risk than dying of a heart attack because you refuse to seek care.
A solid month of messaging “stay at home” and “hospitals are overwhelmed” and ratings driven fear-mongering been far more effective than policy makers ever intended.
Hospitals were overwhelmed in many places in the world. People absolutely should have stayed home.
Or are you trying to claim that the virus is a hoax or something? This is a real risk. We've seen what happens in Madrid and Milan if you lock down just ~10 days too late.
My anecdata confirms your view exactly. My wife was concerned a few weeks ago that she might have a heart attack (she did not). I suggested to go to urgent care, but she was more concerned about COVID and wanted to just take Aspirin and monitor the situation. She also is in a group vulnerable to COVID, so this might be skewed.
Government closure had nothing to do with this decision. In fact I've zero trust in US government recommendation around this and don't factor their recommendation into any of my personnel decision making around this topic.
Staying home IS the public policy in many places right now. Mere weeks ago, my social media feed was full of information about hospitals cancelling all non-emergency procedures, being overrun, doctors flying to New York, PPE shortages, etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people who would normally go to the ER just in case are trying to tough it out at home. Or perhaps they're more alone and the person who would normally call 911 because they're having a stroke / heart attack simply isn't with them - because isolation and social distancing is also the public policy.