A state agency told caregivers to quarantine themselves in the home/facility they work in so one person could get x amount of people sick with the sick caring for the sick. This isn't for elderly places so though so I don't know if there is a different protocol for people particularly vulnerable to the virus.
But I remember in college the way a virus would spread throughout a lecture hall with people refusing to stay home their body forced them because professors wouldn't just accept being sick to push back assignments/tests.
Resident Cosplay Progressive
Here's a nice visual explanation of why it's critical to slow down the epidemic as much as possible EVEN if it does not ultimately change the number of infections:
There are around 100,000 ICU beds in the US. Around 10% of "confirmed cases" are requiring ICU support for survival. If the number of active cases exceeds 1,000,000 then we can expect the fatality rate to approach 10% or more as people die because there are no ICU beds available for them.
If instead we can keep the active number of cases lower by delaying new infections through measures like social distancing, quarantine, aggressive testing, etc. then we stand a better chance of avoiding a complete meltdown of our health care infrastructure and the associated loss of life that would entail.
Just learned earlier today that the people on that cruise ship in san Francisco were not only allowed to disembark but weren't put into any type of quarantine despite it being known to be infected with the virus. These infected people were just allowed to go on their merry way like nothing is wrong
now we have one of those people up here in our hospital and not only did she have to travel though a whole bunch of places to get up here, likely infecting everyone she came in contact with along the way, but apparently she also went to a hospital in a different city before finally arriving here so now they're infected too
I just hope when I go do my grocery shopping tomorrow I can get a thing of toilet paper and I am actually going to carry my knife just in case
We cannot go back. That's why it's hard to choose. You have to make the right choice. As long as you don't choose, everything remains possible.
Lots of new cases and deaths popping up today. There's no way that the number of infected hasn't broken five digits by now given the incompetent nature of US response.
My brother in law's workplace has a few cases, irony is that they are a pharmaceutical company.
That is not prescient on March 5th; as it seems it was already too late by then.
Starting from the day before, March 4th, the number of reported cases in the US were: 44, 21, 19, 65 (and the day is still young).
WHO on March 5th reported that there was already Local Transmission in the US - https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=ed2ba78b_2
And is the US willing to act to stop local transmissions? https://apnews.com/461e25a61a7304f3446dbc92cf108bb2 And if the spready continues (as seem likely) and not only NBA-matches but also political rallies are seen as a threat, what will Trump do?
You know when you get right down to it, if I was a scientist tasked with creating a virus that would cut down on population in the most ethical way possible, i'd probably reach for Coronavirus. Let's look at what we know.
- Those whom are elderly or have weak immune systems are affected more while youthful and healthy people are left unscathed. (Basically anyone unable to work or is a burden on the healthcare system)
- Will affect the homeless population greatly. (Also those who are a burden)
- Spreads easily to ensure most of the population is affected. Since it isn't airborne, this means it's also easy to clean up. Simply wiping down surfaces with anti-virus stuff usually does the trick.
- Is known to affect men more than women.
Everything I hear about this virus makes me suspicious.
https://twitter.com/KALONSMERALDO/st...29090745896960
https://twitter.com/Annubisking/stat...89868820430849
funny how the media is being silent about this.
Last edited by Strangebrew; 2020-03-07 at 11:43 AM.
No.
But even still, getting rid of homosexuals would do nothing. They can still work. And if nobody knows their gay, who the hell cares?
But jesus, even the non conspiratorial sort have WARNED US about the incoming influx of elderly and infirmed who cannot take care of themselves because of the lack of new doctors and care givers.
Not only is your scenario not only realistic for most people but you really don't understand humans. You can only slow the virus down you cannot contain it forever unless you want to institute Marshall law and fuck up the world. I am hoping this is a joke since I refuse to believe you are serious about this.
Recently a plane landed in Beijing from Italy. It had 8 people *2 families* all confirmed. They had the symptoms BEFORE coming here yet the plane wasn't denied. Just a few days before, 4 people from Italy came to Beijing. T.T
The hunter hoe with the least beloe.
I was thinking more of his comments WRT globalism and such, but otherwise yeah, can't disagree.
I doubt it - but equally, I don't think the virus itself is actually that bad when compared to the usual influenza viruses and such that go around. Obviously the economic damage... yeah that's another thing entirely, and I'm certain that the Chinese authorities have been lying through their teeth about the scale of the epidemic in their country, but overall? Shouldn't be that bad once the dust settles. I expect there'll be a lot of "what were we panicking about?" once this is all over.
Still not tired of winning.