|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On April 28 2020 08:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2020 07:30 farvacola wrote:
There are probably like five sit-down restaurants in all of the US that can operate at 25% capacity to a profit lol, what a stupid idea. Plus, it'd be super annoying to enforce for customers. Some stores (e.g., the Trader Joe's near me) have been doing a reasonably good job of enforcing a maximum number of customers inside the store, by having people wait outside in a line (six feet spacing, etc.) until a customer leaves, so that the maximum number of occupants inside the store never increases past the recommended capacity. But that's doable when customers are food shopping in a small store and probably won't take longer than 15 minutes to get in and get out. The rotation moves at a reasonable pace. On the other hand, sitting down to a full-fledged meal that could take over an hour would be absurd. (I would hope that everyone would call ahead to check the restaurant's availability, but it would be incredibly frustrating on both the restaurant's end and the customer's end.) I don't get what the issue is. If people are too annoyed to wait in line then there would be no line. People can determine what their time is worth and how long they are willing to wait. I went to Trader Joe's 2 days ago and there was a line of about 5 people and I decided to go to Whole Foods instead because I don't feel like waiting in any line to go into a grocery store no matter how long it is. I wouldn't wait in a line for a restaurant either. Some people might. I don't really care about their frustrations since they still have the option to go home and cook their own dinner.
I don't get what the issue is. If people are too annoyed to wait in line then there would be no line.
Where do you live where people would just be patient about something like that? Sounds like a nice place.
My grocery store has 3 security guards on duty all day long now just in case just to enforce what should be common courtesy behavior these days. They've got two, one at each entrance checking that people are wearing masks and then one inside, checking for shoplifting like usual.
On sundays when there is a line? I can only imagine. I don't go during peak hours though because I want to avoid those crowds.
|
On April 28 2020 08:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2020 07:30 farvacola wrote:
There are probably like five sit-down restaurants in all of the US that can operate at 25% capacity to a profit lol, what a stupid idea. Plus, it'd be super annoying to enforce for customers. Some stores (e.g., the Trader Joe's near me) have been doing a reasonably good job of enforcing a maximum number of customers inside the store, by having people wait outside in a line (six feet spacing, etc.) until a customer leaves, so that the maximum number of occupants inside the store never increases past the recommended capacity. But that's doable when customers are food shopping in a small store and probably won't take longer than 15 minutes to get in and get out. The rotation moves at a reasonable pace. On the other hand, sitting down to a full-fledged meal that could take over an hour would be absurd. (I would hope that everyone would call ahead to check the restaurant's availability, but it would be incredibly frustrating on both the restaurant's end and the customer's end.) Absolutely, it's hard to conceive of how dine-in food service will work once we make it through this all of this in 18-24 months, so much so that it seems relatively likely that restaurants will never be like they once were. Just imagining 24-50 people sitting in close quarters all letting out a constant cloud of vapor tinged breath (with some number of people waiting at the door or just outside) will be enough to dissuade large numbers of people from ever going to a place like that again. And for good reason given what we know about how the 'rona spreads.
Seems more likely that it would go like hepatitis outbreaks do where a restaurant has an outbreak and then closes/goes bankrupt because nobody will eat there anymore.
|
On April 28 2020 08:45 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 08:15 BlackJack wrote:On April 28 2020 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2020 07:30 farvacola wrote:
There are probably like five sit-down restaurants in all of the US that can operate at 25% capacity to a profit lol, what a stupid idea. Plus, it'd be super annoying to enforce for customers. Some stores (e.g., the Trader Joe's near me) have been doing a reasonably good job of enforcing a maximum number of customers inside the store, by having people wait outside in a line (six feet spacing, etc.) until a customer leaves, so that the maximum number of occupants inside the store never increases past the recommended capacity. But that's doable when customers are food shopping in a small store and probably won't take longer than 15 minutes to get in and get out. The rotation moves at a reasonable pace. On the other hand, sitting down to a full-fledged meal that could take over an hour would be absurd. (I would hope that everyone would call ahead to check the restaurant's availability, but it would be incredibly frustrating on both the restaurant's end and the customer's end.) I don't get what the issue is. If people are too annoyed to wait in line then there would be no line. People can determine what their time is worth and how long they are willing to wait. I went to Trader Joe's 2 days ago and there was a line of about 5 people and I decided to go to Whole Foods instead because I don't feel like waiting in any line to go into a grocery store no matter how long it is. I wouldn't wait in a line for a restaurant either. Some people might. I don't really care about their frustrations since they still have the option to go home and cook their own dinner. Show nested quote +I don't get what the issue is. If people are too annoyed to wait in line then there would be no line. Where do you live where people would just be patient about something like that? Sounds like a nice place. My grocery store has 3 security guards on duty all day long now just in case just to enforce what should be common courtesy behavior these days. They've got two, one at each entrance checking that people are wearing masks and then one inside, checking for shoplifting like usual. On sundays when there is a line? I can only imagine. I don't go during peak hours though because I want to avoid those crowds.
These lines and waits are already in effect. Look at Costco for example. If people were going to lose their shit it would already be happening at the grocery stores. People would be more stressed about not being able to get groceries for their family. I don't see them losing their shit because they can't get a quesadilla at the Cheesecake Factory.
Also it's only rational to conclude that the more places that we have open the more spread out people can choose to dine and thus the shorter the lines will be everywhere. It makes no sense to conclude that we should keep businesses closed because the lines might frustrate people. Have you seen how long the lines are at a Chik Fil A or Panda Express? It's because everyone is bottlenecking to the few places that are open. I don't see how opening more restaurants is going to worsen this problem.
|
On April 28 2020 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 06:04 eviltomahawk wrote:
The governor here in Texas just announced that he's allowing restaurants, retail, malls, theaters, and some public facilities to open up on Friday at a reduced 25% capacity, and counties with less than 5 cases can open up to operate at 50% capacity. Seems like a risky move, but statewide we're not yet as hard hit as the Northeast. I'm worried this might cause a spike in cases in a few weeks, right when they're hoping to consider proceeding to phase 2 of opening up. The problem is going to be enforcement. First one I think will be the worst are restaurants that serve alcohol/have bars. Some of them are definitely not going to observe lowered capacity guidelines and there will be no effective accountability mechanism. I've been seeing this at various places in WA where gun shops didn't observe the shutdown and many businesses didn't start even encouraging social distancing or capacity reduction (to varying degrees) until the last week or so. I'm not going to be surprised if the worst is still ahead of us in the US.
Apparently the governor is punting the responsibility for enforcement to local and county officials, afaik. Seeing how some cities around here dragged their feet before and even during the state-mandated stay-at-home order, it's possible they'll end up being too lax on businesses violating these guidelines once they're allowed to slightly open up. Plus, the new guidelines are supposed to supersede any local orders, so that could cause uncertainty and friction with local governments trying to enact stricter guidelines.
|
On April 28 2020 09:14 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 07:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2020 06:04 eviltomahawk wrote:
The governor here in Texas just announced that he's allowing restaurants, retail, malls, theaters, and some public facilities to open up on Friday at a reduced 25% capacity, and counties with less than 5 cases can open up to operate at 50% capacity. Seems like a risky move, but statewide we're not yet as hard hit as the Northeast. I'm worried this might cause a spike in cases in a few weeks, right when they're hoping to consider proceeding to phase 2 of opening up. The problem is going to be enforcement. First one I think will be the worst are restaurants that serve alcohol/have bars. Some of them are definitely not going to observe lowered capacity guidelines and there will be no effective accountability mechanism. I've been seeing this at various places in WA where gun shops didn't observe the shutdown and many businesses didn't start even encouraging social distancing or capacity reduction (to varying degrees) until the last week or so. I'm not going to be surprised if the worst is still ahead of us in the US. Apparently the governor is punting the responsibility for enforcement to local and county officials, afaik. Seeing how some cities around here dragged their feet before and even during the state-mandated stay-at-home order, it's possible they'll end up being too lax on businesses violating these guidelines once they're allowed to slightly open up. Plus, the new guidelines are supposed to supersede any local orders, so that could cause uncertainty and friction with local governments trying to enact stricter guidelines.
Honestly that's for the best, at least for Texas. It's so big and spread out that it doesn't make much sense to govern the whole thing under one set of rules, although there definitely should be plenty of screening for people moving around.
But what's going on in the cities shouldn't be mandated on the small towns that are thus far unaffected. Not yet anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
That's awful  fwiw, while it seems like there haven't been many cases of babies/ infants/ children contracting covid-19, there have been some cases. Not as prevalent as young adults or old adults, it seems, but if I were a parent, I wouldn't feel safe bringing my baby anywhere *just in case*.
|
So we're officially at 1918 again. It might not kill children outright, but the fact it leaves them so vulnerable, it may as well.
100 year epidemic. The experts have been warning us about if for years. I guess they were just off by 2 years.
|
|
|
Hey,
So i got into a discussion with someone. She (a reasonably smart person) states that the virus can not be transmitted by blood,apearently she got a google link to "prove" it but i have not seen that yet.
To me it seems like a nobrainer that the virus can be transmitted by blood. How else does the virus travel all through the body? It is not a common occurance as people dont walk around bleeding and when they have a wound they cover it up and maybe thats why it doesnt get much attention but surely the virus can enter the body by blood? (virus-blood).
Does anyone have a link where it shows so so that i have some "evidence" to back up my claim?
There is so much we dont know about the virus,we dont know anything about the long term effects. We dont even know if people fully clear the virus from their body. It might stick around for years,giving more problems the older you become.
I do wonder what the effect of the virus will be on life expectancy in the future say 10 years from now.
|
On April 28 2020 23:09 pmh wrote:
Hey,
So i got into a discussion with someone. She (a reasonably smart person) states that the virus can not be transmitted by blood,apearently she got a google link to "prove" it but i have not seen that yet.
To me it seems like a nobrainer that the virus can be transmitted by blood. How else does the virus travel all through the body? It is not a common occurance as people dont walk around bleeding and when they have a wound they cover it up and maybe thats why it doesnt get much attention but surely the virus can enter the body by blood? (virus-blood).
Does anyone have a link where it shows so so that i have some "evidence" to back up my claim?
There is so much we dont know about the virus,we dont know anything about the long term effects. We dont even know if people fully clear the virus from their body. It might stick around for years,giving more problems the older you become.
I do wonder what the effect of the virus will be on life expectancy in the future say 10 years from now.
Can only give you this
http://www.rfi.fr/en/science-and-technology/20200413-can-covid-19-be-transferred-through-blood-donations
According to Canadian Blood Services, “viruses rely on 'binding sites' on their host cells, proteins which allow them to attach and invade. The binding sites for COVID-19 are located in the lungs and the intestines. “There is no evidence this new coronavirus targets blood cells, or even uses plasma to move around and invade other organs,” according to CBS.
|
It's only the UK reporting it so far, so I'd ignore it for now. I believe reasonably older children have a chance because.. measles parties? And so far news tells us that they're doing fine in comparison to other age groups. We'll see, hopefully this claim is investigated.
Also from that article:
“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.”
It's pure speculation at this point.
Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine.
|
coronavirus is gay i wanna go back to church
User was warned for this post
|
On April 28 2020 23:09 pmh wrote:
Hey,
So i got into a discussion with someone. She (a reasonably smart person) states that the virus can not be transmitted by blood,apearently she got a google link to "prove" it but i have not seen that yet.
To me it seems like a nobrainer that the virus can be transmitted by blood. How else does the virus travel all through the body? It is not a common occurance as people dont walk around bleeding and when they have a wound they cover it up and maybe thats why it doesnt get much attention but surely the virus can enter the body by blood? (virus-blood).
Does anyone have a link where it shows so so that i have some "evidence" to back up my claim?
There is so much we dont know about the virus,we dont know anything about the long term effects. We dont even know if people fully clear the virus from their body. It might stick around for years,giving more problems the older you become.
I do wonder what the effect of the virus will be on life expectancy in the future say 10 years from now.
Not all viruses are blood borne. IIRC hepatitis A and influenza are not blood borne viruses. Would make sense COVID-19 isn't blood borne since it's a respiratory disease.
|
On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine.
I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question.
|
There is no vaccine yet and nothing says we will have one. We still don't know if patients that have recover have an acceptable immunity, to me that screams no vaccine :/
|
On April 29 2020 00:18 joon wrote:coronavirus is gay i wanna go back to church
Please avoid the casual homophobia. Using gay as a negative term is not okay.
The vaccine is a hard question. On the one hand, we need to weight the danger of the vaccine against the danger of the infection, which is hard to do without longterm studies for either the vaccine or the disease. On the other hand, if a vaccine actually helps just shutting down the chain of infections, there is some added ethical problems regarding helping others by reducing the spread of the virus versus your own safety.
|
On April 29 2020 00:18 joon wrote:coronavirus is gay i wanna go back to church
Just pray at home and be a generally good person. If there's a deity, I doubt he/she/it takes attendance. Also, maybe don't use "gay" like that. You can probably find some online streams or videos of church services too, if you really want.
|
On April 29 2020 00:20 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2020 23:35 SC-Shield wrote:“There is a growing concern that a SARS-CoV-2-related inflammatory syndrome is emerging in children in the UK, or that there may be another, as yet unidentified, infectious pathogen associated with these cases.” It's pure speculation at this point. Also, I'm not against vaccines, not at all. But I'm very concerned with getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is produced so fast. Is 6-12 months enough to conclude that there won't be side affects in long-term like 5-10-15 years? This is what scares me and I think I'd skip vaccine at the beginning to see if it's fine. I would make the same decision regarding the vaccine. This isn't a serious enough disease to take the risk (when I think I have had it already). If there is anti body tests where they can see I did not get it but a normal flu or something then I'll consider it. The risk is low but so is the reward considering my age and general health condition. If I was 30 years older I would take the vaccine without a question.
This is way way WAY deadlier than a seasonal flu virus dude. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill hundreds of doctors in Italy. A seasonal flu virus doesn't kill 60,000 Americans in a little more than a month when most of us are on fucking quarantined lockdown.
This is way more contagious. It might have a global lethality rate at 1<% but the fact it is so contagious means that the numbers of people that are infected and thus vulnerable is VERY high.
There is no rational reason to disregard a vaccine here. This is a serious disease. If a vaccine becomes available you need to seriously consider it as the most rational option for safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
