Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Westwood, Harvard: parlor, rooms, nuclear)

[bjimmy24]

One study laying out scenarios for how disruption to health services and food sources brought about by lockdown might affect mortality of low income mothers and children.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...#seccestitle70

By the way, this is from Johns Hopkins and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (no midwesterners at all!)

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

Again, countries that are reopening schools have covid-19 under control. They are also requiring 6 feet of distance in the classroom (how does that work in the average classroom with 25 students on top of each other) and students wear masks (how does that work when parents here claim they can't wear them, much less teach their kids to wear them?).

Some of the proposals are to have children alternate days. So some students would report Mon-Wed-Fri one week, and then Tue-Thur the next week. That way, only half the kids are in the class at one time. Masks would be required, and there would be restrictions on other things like recess and lunch.

This is what is being discussed now among administrators. They are closing following what Europe is about to try to see what works and what doesn't.

Wife and I have discussed her not returning to work this fall and staying home to homeschool the kids if this does seem like it will be true. We'd have to provide child-care for 2-3 days a week and not thrilled about the learning environment. Whatever plan they decide to go with...would like to know in Juneish timeframe...and not mid-Aug.

[Bridge781]

It seems like from the get go there have been mountains of studies and articles about how this is going to poorly affect low income people. I think that goes without saying and I wonder if it’s unhelpful to keep bringing it up. It seems to cause anger and finger pointing. I guess that’s what people want. They want someone to be responsible for all this and show how the vulnerable are most at risk.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

It seems like from the get go there have been mountains of studies and articles about how this is going to poorly affect low income people. I think that goes without saying and I wonder if it’s unhelpful to keep bringing it up. It seems to cause anger and finger pointing. I guess that’s what people want. They want someone to be responsible for all this and show how the vulnerable are most at risk.

I don't get it. We should ignore it because you are uncomfortable?

[Bridge781]

Well it seems the people being most affected are the ones in nursing homes. Even lower income people need to be responsible for themselves. I’m not saying ignore it but why the need to hear about it every day. What are any of us supposed to do about it?

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

Yes we do want our kids lives to safely resume. I can’t imagine school not starting in the fall. It won’t be a healthy situation if kids go the next 7 months with no structure of school. If they don’t open in the fall what next? They open in January when this thing is probably resurging?

Bridge, why would it be any safer in the fall than it is now? Because states are gradually reopening? Because the numbers are slightly down?

The states are reopening for economic reasons, not because it's any safer.

It's not going to be any safer until there's a vaccine.

In my opinion, it is going to get a whole lot worse as places reopen. I mean, how could it possibly not get worse?

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

Well it seems the people being most affected are the ones in nursing homes. Even lower income people need to be responsible for themselves. I’m not saying ignore it but why the need to hear about it every day. What are any of us supposed to do about it?

I agree completely, people in nursing homes are definitely, far and away the most effected. Very little evidence suggests children 14 and under have much anything to worry about. However, the lockdown itself might very well be creating adverse effects for the population that is not effected by the virus. This becomes worse the fewer resources you have.

[Bridge781]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Bridge, why would it be any safer in the fall than it is now? Because states are gradually reopening? Because the numbers are slightly down?

The states are reopening for economic reasons, not because it's any safer.

It's not going to be any safer until there's a vaccine.

In my opinion, it is going to get a whole lot worse as places reopen. I mean, how could it possibly not get worse?

I don’t have the answers. I also won’t feel safe from this unless there’s a vaccine. However I did have a flu shot this year and I think I had the flu still. It feels somewhat extreme to me I guess in the way that we’ve reacted to certain things. Like it’s weird to shut down schools but keep the MBTA and Uber operating.

So closing schools this fall and expecting people to work is certainly not going to help people of lower economic status who probably are working at grocery stores or something. It’s not going to be good for the ‘professional’ workers either.

Really the safest people right now are those who have no kids.

[sawyer2]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

I grew up in the midwest and have lived on the East Coast for the majority of my life at this point. There is most definitely a difference in how those I know in the midwest are approaching this and how my friends and colleagues here are approaching this.

Not that the midwest is all rural, but the more rural the area, the more autonomous communities are. There is generally just more self-reliance and people aren't looking for an authority to tell them what to do. They are used to taking care of their families and communities without much oversight. So when they suddenly have to authorities telling them their kids can't go to school, they can't meet, they must wear masks, they are much less trusting. Even my own mother when diagnosed with ALS decided to take her life in her own hands, stopped drinking water, and was dead in 3 days. Midwesterners tend to feel that they know what is best for themselves and their families and they'll do what is best without being forced to do it by others who are imposing their will on them.

My great aunts/uncles in the midwest who are 75+ are outraged that those in their generation aren't protesting that nobody asked them if they wanted the world to stop for them. I remind them that we are protecting them even if they don't want to, but it frustrates them that everybody is acting on their behalf without even asking them what they want. Very typical midwestern mentality.

My midwest friends are also talking much more about the cost of the policies we are enacting. In this effort to go beyond flattening the curve (the initial goal), to now basically saving every life, what is it costing us? The midwest has more small businesses that can't afford to be closed until there is a vaccine. They tend to feel that those of us on the coasts are myopic when it comes to the "save any life at any cost" mentality. They would say that even at this point the cure has been worse than the disease, especially in their smaller communities where businesses can't recover, people are out of work, and they can do nothing about it.

I think here people are used to living in a nanny state where there is much more acceptance around being told what to do. And I do understand that we rely on experts to give us the data we need to make decisions. And we feel that if the policy is informed by good data that is the most beneficial to the most people, then why would we question that? But while those here are mostly just listening to Fauci, looking at covid-19 data, and basing decisions on that, the majority of my midwestern friends/family is curious about the economic data around how many lives will suffer/deaths will be caused by depression-level unemployment, what are the long-term effects of the lack of education our children are receiving, where are the mental health experts to talk with us about depression, suicide, etc. that is an outcome of the policy we are enacting.

And the other key point is that the East Coast was hit first and hardest so there is probably a greater residual fear.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Bridge, why would it be any safer in the fall than it is now? Because states are gradually reopening? Because the numbers are slightly down?

The states are reopening for economic reasons, not because it's any safer.

It's not going to be any safer until there's a vaccine.

In my opinion, it is going to get a whole lot worse as places reopen. I mean, how could it possibly not get worse?

There is a fair chance of an effective drug therapy by fall. We already have remdesivir, which provides some benefits, and many other existing drugs (for fastest development and deployment, existing drugs) are under clinical investigation.

Certainly a vaccine is the ideal, but if we can access a drug therapy that can greatly reduce mortality and morbidity, then we'll still be far better off than we are today.