41–49 of 49 posts
Actually: food deliveries will still be permitted all cafes/restaurants will be closed unless can guarantee at least 1 metre distance between customers public services like post, transport remain
Nope, cafes/restaurant will be close, period.
It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die). Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL g…
Crippling the global economy hurts old people worse than it hurts the young because the young are far more resilliant to disruption in their daily lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, cafes/restaurant will be close, period.
Do you have a source? I pasted from the original article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand it. Your refrigerator breaks, something goes wrong with your sink, how forcing shops to close is helping? I could understand maybe shops that are selling clothes, but so many things depend on each other. You need working appliances to be able to cook for yourself and keep proper hygiene.
If you can decrease the spread factor (R0) by 0.1, you're going to help a lot of people. t^(r0-0.1) is a lot less over time than t^(r0). That's averaged, of course. If your refrigerator breaks, your individual value will increase. But as a whole, it will still decrease.
"Far and away, the most important thing to do is flatten the curve of the epidemic so that our health systems can cope and to give time for the scientists to research vaccines and treatments."
The faster your community does the same, the more people will live.
It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die). Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL g…
Compare this to the measures we could (and should) bring to bear on the youth problems you mention: The solutions are controversial, often need years to ramp up, with huge costs indefinitely. This is not to say these solutions should not be attempted! Just that you are comparing a temporary hack in a crisis to long-standing problems.
Knowing the inhabitants of a burning building are cancer patients, would that affect your decision to evacuate? After all, you could invest the evacuation effort into treatment instead! And the fire might turn out not so bad, right?
Woah, thats crazy.. Its sad that a lot of states will look like that because they wont do anything...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the response would be any different if this disease primarily affected younger people instead? I could imagine even more aggressive measures in that case.
Yes, it would match the staggering global response to rising youth suicide rates, mental health problems, cell-phone / videogame addiction, and student loan debt. It would be equal parts hand-wringing, helplessness, and blaming the youth for not being tough enough to deal with communicable diseases (like they did back in the 1950s).