Coronavirus

Alcachofa

Active member
The ticker in my signature is now inaccurate.

Our family had planned to go to the Caribbean in April of 2020, then moved it to Thanksgiving, and now it's been pushed to April 2021. Even then, I'm figuring a 50/50 chance that trip will happen.
 

DopeyRunr

the jeweled acrobats only perform amazing stunts f
Just saw a story today that the WHO is preparing people for the potential that a vaccine for the youngest, healthiest people won't be available until 2022. The limits on production and distribution will mean the most at-risk get it first, and it could take all of 2021 for the higher-risk tranches to be vaccinated. That would definitely impact our family's travel plans with our teenager.
 

George

wishes he had a pink frolicing llama under his tag
My in-laws are from South Dakota and it is like living on different worlds. With the exception of mother and father-in-law the rest of my wife's family just don't see it in the same light. And we are talking about educated, liberal professionals.
"Tragedy is if I stub my toe. Comedy is if you fall in a manhole and die."
- Mel Brooks
 

Anne

Well-known member
Just saw a story today that the WHO is preparing people for the potential that a vaccine for the youngest, healthiest people won't be available until 2022. The limits on production and distribution will mean the most at-risk get it first, and it could take all of 2021 for the higher-risk tranches to be vaccinated. That would definitely impact our family's travel plans with our teenager.
A related concern came up during Dr. Fauci's talk. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been concerned about children not being represented in vaccine trials and the president of the AAP pushed him for an answer on how vaccine approval would be handled for children. He gave a very non-specific answer. Which is understandable I guess given current uncertainty.

I'm not completely sure how I feel about activities and travel for the kids if my husband and I are vaccinated but they aren't. My husband is our high-risk family member. And I'm the one in contact with a lot of (sometimes vulnerable) people. If school and sports continue their current precautions I think I would be comfortable going back to in-person. Maybe travel as long as masks and related measures are still in place and we can have the kids appropriately quarantine following any trip. From all the data I've seen (and my anecdotal experience with patients), the risk of a significantly bad outcome in their age group in someone without chronic illness is reasonably low. Yes there is the risk of MIS-C and even some case reports of long-haul COVID in children, but still very uncommon and more on par with risks we take every day such as driving.
 

Nia

Well-known member
Restrictions in Dublin and leaving the rest of the country out didn't work for us. Dublin is starting to see some sort of slow reduction in numbers, but the rest of the country continues to grow. We have areas outside Dublin with over 500 per 100k. Dublin about 190 but general the days with 0 or few positives seem very distant right now and we need to handle current wave.

If all adults are vaccinated, the risk to kids and those who have not been will be lower.I wonder how many people will refuse the early vaccinations due to historic issues with swine flu vaccine and narcolepsy. My son was at risk at the time, was vaccinated with the one that was linked to the issue and remained healthy. My family get the normal flu vaccine every year. There will be people who will have concerns, particularly when it comes to children
 
Last edited:

DopeyRunr

the jeweled acrobats only perform amazing stunts f
They had to change the scale on all of these graphs because of North Dakota. On average, an additional 1 (nearly) out of every 1,000 ND residents is testing positive EVERY DAY.

Incidentally, the Fargo City Council meeting video that went viral explains a lot. They are VEHEMENTLY anti-science.

Screen Shot 2020-10-19 at 3.21.04 PM.png
 

geek1997

Member
We had fooled ourselves into thinking that by enrolling the girls in virtual school their schedules would be more 'stable' as cases increase and they have to shut down schools, etc., etc. Because they have a (significant?) number of kids returning to school they have to transition some of the virtual classes to in person. That makes sense and I get that they are trying to do what is best for the kids in person - spacing them out, etc. Elder daughter's schedule is so specific (pre-AP classes and electives only offered one period) that she will have to transition one of her classes from pre-AP to on-level. The other options were to drop every elective she is currently in for one she took last year or return to in-person classes. :rolleyes: It's not the end of the world, I know, but it does leave us wondering what happens at the end of the next grading period if even more kids want to return to in-person classes? Should we be opening ourselves up to the possibility that we may have to send them back to in-person classes whether we want to or not?
 

Mrs. Potts

Member
We had fooled ourselves into thinking that by enrolling the girls in virtual school their schedules would be more 'stable' as cases increase and they have to shut down schools, etc., etc. Because they have a (significant?) number of kids returning to school they have to transition some of the virtual classes to in person. That makes sense and I get that they are trying to do what is best for the kids in person - spacing them out, etc. Elder daughter's schedule is so specific (pre-AP classes and electives only offered one period) that she will have to transition one of her classes from pre-AP to on-level. The other options were to drop every elective she is currently in for one she took last year or return to in-person classes. :rolleyes: It's not the end of the world, I know, but it does leave us wondering what happens at the end of the next grading period if even more kids want to return to in-person classes? Should we be opening ourselves up to the possibility that we may have to send them back to in-person classes whether we want to or not?
I’m so sorry this is your situation. Is this for second semester or is the transition immediate? I don’t think it’s fair at all to make your daughter drop her AP class! Our school district isn’t offering every class virtually and my kids had to adjust some of their classes, but it was prior to the start of the school year. I would push back since her AP class is most likely a year long class, some school districts here are paying the tuition for an online school for classes that aren’t offered. Maybe they could do that for your daughter?
 

Mrs Darling

Well-known member
You had me curious about that stat because with small numbers % increase can make the problem seem bigger than it really is, so I looked up the stats. The province I live in has the same population size as ND(780k here) is mostly rural & an older demographic and has a Conservative, business-oriented government. So very comparable.
We’ve had just over 300 cases and 3 deaths. Total since the pandemic began.
ND has had over 33,000 cases & 400 deaths. What the actual...? I can’t even get my head around what that does to family, communities & the economy in this small a place where we seem to have no more than a few degrees of separation from each other.
 

Strangeite

Well-known member
You had me curious about that stat because with small numbers % increase can make the problem seem bigger than it really is, so I looked up the stats. The province I live in has the same population size as ND(780k here) is mostly rural & an older demographic and has a Conservative, business-oriented government. So very comparable.
We’ve had just over 300 cases and 3 deaths. Total since the pandemic began.
ND has had over 33,000 cases & 400 deaths. What the actual...? I can’t even get my head around what that does to family, communities & the economy in this small a place where we seem to have no more than a few degrees of separation from each other.
I can't comment on North Dakota but I can on South Dakota, which isn't really any better and very similar demographically. I think there is still a lot of head stuck in the sand going on. My wife's home county has a rolling 7-day average of daily new cases in the mid to high 60's per 100k, and they are doing better than their neighboring counties. Three of the seven surrounding counties have daily new cases in the triple digits per 100k.

When I asked my recently retired newspaperman father-in-law at what point does community spread get so bad that schools get switched back to virtual, he's answer was, "There is no plan unless it shows up in the school. Of course, we aren't testing and young people tend to be asymptomatic."

I have worried about what happens when this virus takes hold in these types of communities. They have an older population, heavily dependent upon church for socialization and household groups that intermingle frequently. I used to say that I was afraid this virus could be a town killer, I am now positive that there are going to be towns that are destroyed because of it.
 

Nia

Well-known member
In Ireland the second wave is mainly due to house parties/house visits and much less % to people traveling against the advice and not isolating after travel, meat factories, sports games being allowed to go ahead and players and fans drinking and partying after the games, house parties, pubs reopening and they won't say it but I think schools being back. The area I live in was 35 per 100,14 days average one week and 105 next, settled to 85. We had good plan but there were no any penalties for not following the restrictions. There is one small area that had nearly no cases few weeks ago and current 14 day average is 533 entirely linked to one sports club, one game win and celebrations.

I think the police are getting more rights to deal with rule breaking including fines and I hope this help. We did so well to cut the numbers first time around but the reality is we relaxed too early and we didn't enforce rules

I googled North Dakota ICU beds per population and they aren't good. I thought Ireland is bad. Raising numbers and no facilities to treat people isn't good match.
 
Last edited:

smwisc

Active member
In Ireland the second wave is mainly due to house parties/house visits and much less % to people traveling against the advice and not isolating after travel, meat factories, sports games being allowed to go ahead and players and fans drinking and partying after the games, house parties, pubs reopening and they won't say it but I think schools being back. The area I live in was 35 per 100,14 days average one week and 105 next, settled to 85. We had good plan but there were no any penalties for not following the restrictions. There is one small area that had nearly no cases few weeks ago and current 14 day average is 533 entirely linked to one sports club, one game win and celebrations.

I think the police are getting more rights to deal with rule breaking including fines and I hope this help. We did so well to cut the numbers first time around but the reality is we relaxed too early and we didn't enforce rules

I googled North Dakota ICU beds per population and they aren't good. I thought Ireland is bad. Raising numbers and no facilities to treat people isn't good match.
It seems as though much of the growth here too is due to parties, family gatherings etc. rather than large gatherings in public places - which makes it harder to develop or enforce restrictions that are going to make a difference. Realistically there's only so much you can do to regulate what people do in their own homes. And with as long as this has been going, and is going to continue, I think we have to have a more nuanced understanding of what is risky and how to respond than just telling everyone to just lock down indefinitely, which isn't going to work. But then people take that as license to do whatever they want (as opposed to limiting interactions to very small numbers, distancing, outdoors, masks, etc., all of which can substantially reduce risk).
 

DopeyRunr

the jeweled acrobats only perform amazing stunts f
I think we have to have a more nuanced understanding of what is risky and how to respond than just telling everyone to just lock down indefinitely
It actually doesn't require a nuanced understanding. It really is this simple:
1. Wear a mask
2. Maintain physical distancing
3. Avoid large groups, especially indoors
4. Wash your hands frequently
 

ThemeParkCommando

Active member
It actually doesn't require a nuanced understanding. It really is this simple:
1. Wear a mask
2. Maintain physical distancing
3. Avoid large groups, especially indoors
4. Wash your hands frequently
But #3 is what is keeping the lockdown going indefinitely. No one can go back to work, back to school, back to the grocery store, back to normal living, until we decide to let people be indoors together. The nuances are going to be in "how much risk are you willing to take, and how much risk should the gathering place allow?"

My office really wants to start letting people back in, but at this point are going for no more than 10% of the workers actually in the office at one time, starting in January. They plan to move up to 25% in April. Is that an acceptable risk or not? No one knows yet.

Going into a grocery store for 15 minutes of shopping is less risky than working in a grocery store for 8 hours exposure per day. Another nuance.

Because this virus is not going to go away, decisions have to be made by each individual, and each business owner.
 
Last edited:
Top