Are the social distancing rules in your area necessary?

[andyguitar]

Rules about lock down for dealing with the corona outbreak differ. What do you think of them in your country/state?

 

[Hip]

Given that someone's non-socially distanced interaction may transmit the virus, and then a few transmission links down the line, may lead to the death of a vulnerable person because there are not yet enough ventilators and ICU places, personally I can't see how distancing measures can be viewed as unnecessary.

 

[geraldt52]

By the time that the "necessity" becomes obvious it is way too late...the virus has probably been being passed around under the radar for weeks.

 

[pattismith]

This rule will be necessary until a significant part of the population has build immunity against covid.
We will know how many of us were infected only when serologic testing will be available.

 

[Hipsman]

They are necessary, it's a shame only about 50% of people follow them, other 50% just don't care

 

[AnnieT]

Yes, of course, they make complete sense!

 

[Gingergrrl]

Given that someone's non-socially distanced interaction may transmit the virus, and then a few transmission links down the line, may lead to the death of a vulnerable person because there are not yet enough ventilators and ICU places, personally I can't see how distancing measures can be viewed as unnecessary.

+1 and co-signing this post and I could not have said it better. Without social distancing, in addition to passing on the virus that may later kill someone, it is the only way to flatten the curve so the entire medical and hospital system does not collapse. If everyone gets the virus at the same time, the system will collapse and people will die who otherwise would have lived (including the doctors and nurses treating these patients). There is no other option at this point.

 

[Wishful]

I voted no because I consider my area to extend a km or so. Since the library is closed, and I have plenty of food, it might be many weeks before I need to go into town. So, for me, distancing rules just don't apply. I don't even know what the rules are supposed to be.

Chickadees have gotten within a meter or so of me, but I don't think chickadees are a serious virus vector.

 

[Wolfcub]

Without social distancing, in addition to passing on the virus that may later kill someone, it is the only way to flatten the curve so the entire medical and hospital system does not collapse. If everyone gets the virus at the same time, the system will collapse and people will die who otherwise would have lived (including the doctors and nurses treating these patients). There is no other option at this point.

Spot on @Gingergrrl

It's absolutely necessary for all the reasons you stated. But I have seen some people not bothering with it. That is shocking.

 

[Wolfcub]

I consider my area to extend a km or so. Since the library is closed, and I have plenty of food, it might be many weeks before I need to go into town. So, for me, distancing rules just don't apply. I don't even know what the rules are supposed to be.

Chickadees have gotten within a meter or so of me, but I don't think chickadees are a serious virus vector.

Same here, where I live. Crows come near but nothing else does! It's a quarter mile to my nearest neighbour on one side and a half mile or more on the other side. No people in the fields, little bits of woodland etc here.

But in the town a few miles from me it's different. I had to go fill the car the other day and saw people walking about not seeming to be concerned at all.
I have quite a lot of supplies, but they won't last endlessly so will no doubt have to go stand in one of those grocery queues I am guessing about late May, as I can no longer get online orders. There is supposed to be social distancing happening in those queues, but I honestly do NOT think a 6ft gap between people will make the slightest difference.
All people are being forced to use those queues now. if they are under 70 or not classed as a "vulnerable" group.

 

[Pearshaped]

We have a total lockdown which at the beginning,some ppl didnt care about.distanzimg and avoiding social gahtherings.Now the situation has become worse and people are taking it more serious.

 

[percyval577]

The virus seems to prefer closed rooms with a lot of people inside talking or singing (restaurant, church, tent, party). The number of transmissions outdoor in non-crowds might actually be comparable very low, I guess.

As long as people ride on train or bus (for getting at work) without wearing a mask it makes probably not much sense. Also at work itself infections will take place often easily enough.

Sometimes I think it even might work towards the opposite, because people stay more inside. In Italy the lockdown, at least in its first version, doesn´t seem to have been much effective, I guess. Same in Spain. But in Wuhan the the lockdown was effective so far.


I think European countries and its inhabitants are not prone to behave to stop such a virus. Singapore has already much experience with viruses (MERS, Denque, SARS-Cov-1 which though is not comparable as it spreads only in severely infected), and will probably manage to eradicate the virus.

I personally am rather concerned that the effect on our organization and its follow-ups might be much more detrimental than the virus itself. True though that a lot needs to be learned. I also don´t think at all that it is a bad idea to try to slow down the spread for being better prepared and maybe to have some good luck.

We will see how the situation looks in two weeks.

 

[percyval577]

The problem may be that if the virus has not already spread around and induced some immunity, that it would take years to watch the spread until 70% are infected (under the presumption of course that the social distancing is carried out effective).

If indeed 10% of the infected people needed to be hospitalized, and 4% needed an ICU for two-three weeks ...

 

[Wishful]

I just thought to check whether the town I shop in has any cases of Covid. Nope. So, to answer the thread's question: No. Are the restrictions worthwhile as a 'just in case someone does bring the virus here' measure? That's harder to answer.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Given that someone's non-socially distanced interaction may transmit the virus, and then a few transmission links down the line, may lead to the death of a vulnerable person because there are not yet enough ventilators and ICU places, personally I can't see how distancing measures can be viewed as unnecessary.

Absolutely, totally, completely agree and couldn't have said it better !!!

I just thought to check whether the town I shop in has any cases of Covid. Nope. So, to answer the thread's question: No. Are the restrictions worthwhile as a 'just in case someone does bring the virus here' measure? That's harder to answer.

Then let me help you.

By the tine you become aware that the virus has spread to your community and could actually be threatening you personally, it'll be too late to do anything meaningful to stop its advance.

And in the absence of any meaningful treatment, that could be a death sentence for someone, somewhere along the line.

Maybe you, maybe not. Wanna roll those dice?

 

[Rufous McKinney]

The problem may be that if the virus has not already spread around and induced some immunity, that it would take years to watch the spread until 70% are infected (under the presumption of course that the social distancing is carried out effective).

Seems like if we are successful at slowing spread way down, but cannot eradicate it...we may be just in a very prolonged- pandemic that ends up with a similar result, just slowed down over time.

Sure hope I"m missing something!

 

[Wishful]

By the tine you become aware that the virus has spread to your community and could actually be threatening you personally, it'll be too late to do anything meaningful to stop its advance.

It's a matter of cost and benefit to society. The temporary shutdown of the world is expensive, and I don't just mean in terms of quarterly bonuses for the rich. Resources spent delaying deaths for a short time means resources not available for medical treatments that make a big difference (decades of high quality life) for other people, or high quality child-care, or education, or food safety, etc. The article someone posted the link to mentioned the cost in lives due to the methods used to prevent a few few deaths among the most vulnerable. Thus it's not as simple as 'these restrictions save lives'; it's 'these restrictions may save some lives at the cost of other lives.'

 

[Wishful]

Sure hope I"m missing something!

The full cost to society of short-term measures?

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Seems like if we are successful at slowing spread way down, but cannot eradicate it...

The whole point of slowing down the virulent spread of COVID is to allow our hospitals to catch up in terms of much needed, and much-denied, things like respirators, respiratory techs, PPE, and all the other things that are sorely missing, along with available hospital beds.

By delaying the disease's spike, we spread the damage over more time, but also reduce the frenetic assault on hospitals and medical care providers. At least that's the theory, and it makes some sense to me.

we may be just in a very prolonged- pandemic that ends up with a similar result, just slowed down over time.

When the overflow of dead bodies at NY hospitals is so huge that they have to bring in refrigerator trucks to house the bodies, you know that a slow-down would be welcome. That, and the fact tht most mortuaries are closed due to the virus, so there's no way to .... uh, forgive the term, I can;t think of any other .... process the bodies for burial, or anyone to dig the graves.

So yes, I think that a prolonged, extended active period, with fewer contagions due to self-isolation, might be a better thing than the exponential increases that we're seeing, like, every-effing-where, overwhleming things we always took for granted, like hospitals, doctors, adequate safety precautions, adequate amount of tech treatment machinery, etc ....

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Resources spent delaying deaths for a short time means resources not available for medical treatments that make a big difference (decades of high quality life) for other people, or high quality child-care, or education, or food safety, etc.

Maybe I missed something, but I haven't noticed that any of these things are high, or anywhere for that matter, on our current administration's list of priorities. Education here is headed up by someone who doesn;t seem to have had any. Food safety laws and guardrails have been almost completely dismantled, possibly in anticipation of using them for the much-vaunted infrastructure improvements that have yet to be seen. Scientific research, or science of any kind, is held in such low regard that improvements in that area are, not to put too fine a point to it, highly unlikely.

The resources being spent arent just to extend the lifespan of the dying. They're intended to reduce the numbers of the dying.

If you want total economic collapse, try running a country filled with unburied corpses, endless cascades of COVID infections and no one to run the machinery of progress and production.