191–200 of 919 posts
(In the USA) Is this going to accomplish anything? The virus is already here and has been spreading out-of-control for quite a while now. The only reason the numbers are still so low here is the incredibly low number of tests being done.
Deaths are also much lower in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. From the CDC: > It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. > In general, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very low risk of spread from food products or packaging that are shipp…
Not sure the CDC is the most credible source at this point
Which would you say is the most credible source then?
Regardless of the ability of people to travel to the UK or Canada and get here (which people have done for a long time with other nations we don't take kindly to) it's absolutely going to reduce the number of people who will travel across the pond. Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I c…
> Can anyone comment on supply chains that rely on Europe to source goods? I know medical grade steel comes from over there, but I don't know what else. I don't see why commercial sea-shipping would be restricted. Mariners may not be allowed to leave their ship while in port though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. Based on the localized infection cases I see across the US and have been watching as well as the characteristics of the virus (life outside host/on surfaces, in air, the degree of asymptomatic transference, etc.), it's well beyond containment IMHO. Travel isn't going to do too much to reduce infection rates alone. We need significant cultural changes to reduce infection rat…
There were just 2 cases detected at the gym down the street from me. I'm in a medium town of about 40k in upstate NY. Not podunk, but hardly bustling. I'm considering the USA fully seeded at this point.
Even if you think you have it, there's still not enough test kits available yet - even if you're swabbed it can be days for a result(Saying this from west michigan).
Regardless of the ability of people to travel to the UK or Canada and get here (which people have done for a long time with other nations we don't take kindly to) it's absolutely going to reduce the number of people who will travel across the pond. Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I c…
>Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. Based on the localized infection cases I see across the US and have been watching as well as the characteristics of the virus (life outside host/on surfaces, in air, the degree of asymptomatic transference, etc.), it's well beyond containment IMHO. Travel isn't going to do too much to reduce infection rates alone. We need significant cultural changes to reduce infection rat…
Can we do better than link to the front page of a news site?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all about flattening the curve at this point. You can do your best to identify those infected and have them self-quarantine, but if the gates are open and infected people are streaming into your country, you're not going to get far.
But doesn't that require the notion that infection rates are higher in the excluded place? Given the US's incredible failure to test widely, I am not seeing why flights from Sweden or Ireland are any more dangerous than flights from Seattle at this point.
Why is the U.K. not included? This is so weird; it's such a mess in the UK too.
Regardless of the ability of people to travel to the UK or Canada and get here (which people have done for a long time with other nations we don't take kindly to) it's absolutely going to reduce the number of people who will travel across the pond. Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I c…
>Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. Based on the localized infection cases I see across the US and have been watching as well as the characteristics of the virus (life outside host/on surfaces, in air, the degree of asymptomatic transference, etc.), it's well beyond containment IMHO. Travel isn't going to do too much to reduce infection rates alone. We need significant cultural changes to reduce infection rat…
This depends on how you're defining containment. Grounding aircraft may not decrease the current case count, you're right, but it may help not adding to it, or adding as much, or as fast. Because of this, it may still be worth doing.
The notion that we're going to abandon containment measures in favor of mitigation, which I've seen in many places (not in your comment though of course), is wrong. We're going to be doing both.
Can we do better than link to the front page of a news site?