Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (Dallas, Colleyville: hair salon, county)

[Skipito]

How much do you need? Many distilleries have begun producing g mass quantities of this. I’ve got 6 gallons in my garage right now.

[CHRockwell]

Colleyville started opening businesses

https://www.colleyville.com/home/showdocument?id=5852

[4Movingeast]

Originally Posted by CHRockwell

Colleyville started opening businesses

https://www.colleyville.com/home/showdocument?id=5852

We are in the unfortunate position of having a tea party mayor and city council. Bobby Lindamood is posting "Q" dog whistles on his social media. Bud Kennedy of the FWST has been reporting on it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

Isn't there also some benefit to having the population who is low-risk expose themselves to the virus and recover from it creating 'herd immunity'?

I realize herd immunity requires a lot of the population to get it, but I'd imagine every person who has recovered from it is also helping to stop the spread, no?

Sure, more recovered people means we are closer to herd immunity, but we are very unlikely to reach herd immunity before there is a vaccine. We need 150 million cases before we can begin to see herd immunity protection. We're not even 1% of the way there. Further, you are still acting as a vector who is creating a new path for the virus to spread if you get it. So the herd immunity "contribution" is far outweighed by the "you're creating a new pathway" issue. Right now, the goal is to have as few people as possible get the virus, not as many as possible.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Sure, more recovered people means we are closer to herd immunity, but we are very unlikely to reach herd immunity before there is a vaccine. We need 150 million cases before we can begin to see herd immunity protection. We're not even 1% of the way there. Further, you are still acting as a vector who is creating a new path for the virus to spread if you get it. So the herd immunity "contribution" is far outweighed by the "you're creating a new pathway" issue. Right now, the goal is to have as few people as possible get the virus, not as many as possible.

Would being a vector be dangerous if high-risk individuals were to continue to stay at home and take necessary precautions?

[jiping]

Now I'm comfortably working from home, with the same salary and much less work, for now. Even if I'm laid off, I can financially hang on until the vaccines are out in 2021 or 2022.
It's easy for me to WFH and pick up groceries from my front porch. It's brutal for people who are out of work, or are financially bind to minimum wage jobs while exposed to virus.

Continuous shutdown is not justified unless war is declared and WFH people are routinely drafted as essential (or expandable) workers. A cashier in Kroger, or a janitor in Parkland, you name it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

Would being a vector be dangerous if high-risk individuals were to continue to stay at home and take necessary precautions?

Yes

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Let's be honest, if Kenny G does his thing, there won't be much social distancing later that evening.




So if the person cutting the hair gets it, they can infect one person at a time all day long?

The idea that people who are not personally at high risk can get it without risking a bunch of other people is incorrect. If you're going out and interacting with people who then interact with a lot of other people, you are putting everyone at risk. The fact that we grocery shop, which is a necessity, doesn't mean we should be getting our hair did. Having someone cut your hair is a high-risk event in that the two of you must be very close to one another, and it's for a prolonged period. And my hunch is that most people doing this are not wearing masks.

"One person at a time" misunderstands the risks and the nature of what it means to become a vector.

I'm a portrait photographer. I work either in my own studio or in the client's home location. I could wear a mask, but it wouldn't be practicable for my clients to be masked.


My business is dead in the water for a year or more.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Sure, more recovered people means we are closer to herd immunity, but we are very unlikely to reach herd immunity before there is a vaccine. We need 150 million cases before we can begin to see herd immunity protection. We're not even 1% of the way there. Further, you are still acting as a vector who is creating a new path for the virus to spread if you get it. So the herd immunity "contribution" is far outweighed by the "you're creating a new pathway" issue. Right now, the goal is to have as few people as possible get the virus, not as many as possible.

I don't see herd immunity without a vaccine being anything but a chimera.



We had "herd immunity before there is a vaccine" with every other disease that was a terror in the past. Take polio for instance. We had thousands of years of "herd immunity before there is a vaccine" with polio, and yet polio was a terror even within my own memory. And that was even considering that 70% of persons infected with polio were asymptomatic.


"Herd immunity before there is a vaccine" just means the disease has failed to be a species extinction event. It doesn't make the risk acceptable.

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

Isn't there also some benefit to having the population who is low-risk expose themselves to the virus and recover from it creating 'herd immunity'?

I realize herd immunity requires a lot of the population to get it, but I'd imagine every person who has recovered from it is also helping to stop the spread, no?

I think the problem there is that this virus is still putting “low risk” people in the hospital. Something like 65-70% of hospitalizations are high risk folks, but the other 30-35% are just like me. Young-ish, healthy, no pre-existing conditions. I have a very high chance of no complications (or possibly even no symptoms!) but a much greater chance of being hospitalized than with the flu.