Yeoman

1 minute ago, NorthArlington101 said:

Happy to share! I'll sum the whole thing up here because it may be useful to others.

Essentially, UVA sent the students a survey to test our enthusiasm (and willingness to pay) for three different scenarios in the Fall

• A semi-regular semester, starting on-time, where we have seven-week intensive classes along with a regular semester. Classes that require in-persona activities (labs, discussions) might be on the back-end of the semester. Larger classes are likely online.
• A month delay, then hopefully we return to normal.
• We start online and on-time and progress to normalcy as soon as possible.

They also tossed out some extra ideas, including

• Weekend classes to allow for more space
• No classes with 50+ (a placeholder number) people meeting in-person in order to allow smaller lectures to meet in larger spaces, hence meeting social distancing requirements
• Classes until 10:00pm to allow for more space

They also emphasized that if we return, students will likely need to wear masks and abide by social distancing restrictions. They asked us if we'd be willing to enforce that rules for ourselves and engage in healthy peer pressure for other students, which I found kind of funny.

I'm skeptical we head back, honestly. First-year dorms, where students share bathrooms, hallways, and live in tiny tiny rooms seem light the nightmare scenario for a contagious disease. Our dining halls are literally set up like prisons (Amarak, a prison food contractor, provides our food), and every single class I've ever taken would violate social distancing protocols.  

I would just drop out.. that's not a college experience I'd want to have anything to do with if I'm shelling out tens of thousands. Amazon is hiring in the meantime, and you don't even need to present a resume!

6 minutes ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

Surely your calculator can handle one zero after the decimal.  As in 0.03216.  Which is a little over 3%.  But that's just like the flu (not)!

Wow VA only has 684 infections and not deaths? You better call the health department and correct them. 

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Are the professors all under 20?  Will the students only come in contact with other young people?  Or do you not understand how transmission of communicable disease works? 

Apologies.. 22 dead out of 684 for those 50 and under, most of which had underlying conditions.. my calculator doesn't have enough space for all the zeros after the decimal. 

1 minute ago, NorthArlington101 said:

UVA sent out an email yesterday that very highly implies that I won’t be having a normal Fall semester. Many colleges aren’t getting back to normal anytime soon, I fear. Probably goes jails > nursing homes > colleges in ability to quickly spread a virus.

Considering there have been 0 deaths in VA under the age of 20, sounds like a smart move.

Just now, Vice-Regent said:

Massive decline in cognition ... lockdowns are working and we want to let the progress slip away. All of that time wasted.

You better stock up on TP to fortify your bunker.. the rest of us will get on with our lives

Massive decline in VA hospitalizations the past week.. 

Well, there is a balance. Fedex and Amazon should be providing masks for staff. I thought they were, actually. If not, that at least needs to be addressed.

Good news on the reinfection threat.. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-south-korea-patients-infected-twice-test-a9491986.html

Toxic, toxic....mercy. Forgive me, I've tried to hold my peace about this, but...my goodness, ya got the same two or three in here messing it up (when I see their icons, I don't even open it half the time, lol) I mean, I get that you guys don't want to moderate TOO heavily and such...nevertheless, it's still frustrating to read.

What a way to spend a gorgeous weekend day. 

It’s hard to even follow what his argument is anymore.  It’s basically an amalgamation of all the worst takes tied up in one bundle. 

3 minutes ago, leesburg 04 said:

I think we need to get going again but I have zero faith in our citizens to be cautious and conscientious. That's why I say the Sweden comparison is bunk because those guys probably have 1. Way less poverty 2. Much more trust in their government. 3. Are more thoughtful in general.  Yes we have that here but we have the opposite in large doses so to me let's kill this beast and then get back at it. I'm dying though...I want out bad just as much as anyone. 

It's not going to be killed until there is a vaccine (which many will be scared to take, so maybe not), or the healthy get out and do the damage through herd immunity while keeping the compromised among us safe in the meantime. 

15 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

As people start seeing their fellow Americans going out and being fine, these numbers will shift further. There is still an enormous amount of fear out there about this virus, but Americans will be moved by a herd mentality once a critical mass of states open and people get out there. Could take until early-June when the weather is hot everywhere.

This ^^

5 hours ago, ErinInTheSky said:

 

 

 

One week in, Georgia's reopening appears to be doing nothing. Most restaurants still closed, nail salons opening are not getting customers, etc. I've heard some reports on NPR and have seen a lot on social media about this (I do social media monitoring as part of my job).

Most restaurants won't open until they are allowed to open fully, otherwise they are just losing more money than if they stayed closed. All of the nail salon customers are at the beach

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

Agree but I’m skeptical we will proceed with compassion towards those in the vulnerable populations. Early indications from some states look more like a “that’s your problem” attitude then a “how do we protect the vulnerable population” one. 

Agreed - completely wrong approach..

26 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Ok I know this is teetering on the edge and could fly off into way over the line if we aren't careful...but I find it somewhat "disingenuous" that most of the people making this argument right now for why we need to get back to work don't seem to care a lick about the negative effects of poverty under normal circumstances.   Many of the people using poverty as a reason for their policy advocacy now try to block any attempt at social programs to deal with poverty when they are proposed in every other situation.  I am NOT saying that is you...I have no idea what your stance on this stuff is...but in general my twitter feed and fb wall is filled with people ive argued with for years and who never gave a single F about doing a thing about poverty suddenly all upset about it now.  

I volunteer at the DC Central Kitchen and Arlington VA Food Bank multiple times a year as part of our company's community give back program. The Arlington Food Bank is running 400% higher in volume month over month.. and this is in one of the richest counties in the US. I can't imagine the rural impacts.. 

All I'm saying is that we need to continue an approach that takes all factors into consideration, and begin to let people use their own judgment and take their own risks as to how they go about their daily lives. 

1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said:

They are though, for better or for worse. If it was all about safety from the virus we would just stay locked down until there's a vaccine. 

How are things in Canada?

Just now, OSUmetstud said:

eh...maybe. Its interesting, at least. There's a lot of people who live with their older relatives, how do you deal with that? What is the risk point where it is decided that this personal is vulnerable enough to be broken off the general population and dealt with differently? 

I don't know, what's the impact of poverty, unemployment, food supply disruptions, school closings, etc on the well being of our society? These factors need to be taken into consideration when making policy decisions going forward, not just the numbers coming out of the models related to the virus. Unfortunately in this environment during an election year there will always be a political angle if the govt is making the decisions, regardless of which side you're on. 

2 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

I saw an interview with Dr. David Katz on Bill Mahar and he seemed to suggest similar, protecting the vulnerable as opposed to a more "carpetbombing" type lockdown policy for everybody. I don't know how you pull of something like that practically speaking. 

Makes too much sense.. and there are already programs available to provide necessities for the home-bound infirmed and elderly which could be expanded. 

Then again on my runs I see just as many older people out and about in DC as I see younger folks.. One 80+ year old in my building said she's got too few years left to be endlessly cooped up in the condo and will take her chances going out and seeing family while following guidelines.. I would guess many her age share that sentiment. 

22 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

Its interesting most places didn’t even open though.

Likely because either they will never reopen or they see no value in opening to a low turnout and losing even more money than if they stayed closed. Most restaurants make money only if they are near capacity during prime dining hours. Margins are razor thin in the restaurant business.. I doubt you will see many open until they are allowing at least 75% capacity, and by that point they will likely be entirely out of business. Pretty sad.. 

14 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

Yup. This is fascinating. It also shows herd immunity would be pretty brutal for New York. They've had 20,792 casualties at 13.9% positive. 

Who is reporting 20K+ deaths in NY?

https://www.businessinsider.com/usns-comfort-leaving-nyc-few-coronavirus-patients-three-weeks-2020-4

Just now, H2O said:

Sorry.  I just bristle at the notion that workers are expendable and we have to sacrifice as much as we do to keep jobs and earn an income.  I would love for this drastic change to how things are done spur a shift in what we value and how the worker matters more than they do now.  People are suffering and I am still very lucky to have what I have.  But it is a risk and I dont want others to be subjected to it if they dont have to.

I keep hearing how essential workers should be given a bonus or this or that.  If I am eligible for one because of what I do I would rather it go to someone else who even risked more than me or someone really affected by this and needs to pay bills or buy food.

Bonuses for front line folks are imperative - on the order of 50% or more of their salary. I've purchased $700 in gift cards for local restaurants and will continue to do more, so should others that have the means. These small businesses employ 50% of our workers.

13 minutes ago, Inverted_Trough said:

Public corporations spent most of their windfall from the corporate tax cut into buying back their shares.  Since the stock market crashed (most of which happened before the restrictions), those trillions of dollars disappeard.  Poof.  It'd be nice if companies socked away some money in a rainy-day fund so, you know, they can provide sick-day compensation during times like this.  But nope - gotta return that money to investors.  Investors always get priority over workers in our system, unfortunately.  That mindset began in the early 1980s and continues today.

Well put..

7 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

If we’re going to open things up we should at least be intellectually honest and cognizant that while some employers will be compassionate, a lot won’t.

In a rushed drive to get the economy up and running again, poor people and people of color get run over. A lot of those people have two options: work or be unemployed. Obviously there are jobs that need to be done, but someone that’s high risk shouldn’t lose their livelihood because they’re susceptible...in a global pandemic.

Forget a liability shield for big employers. Employees need protections.  

‪https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/coronavirus-chicken-meat-processing-plants-immigrants.html?smid=tw-share‬

On Thursday will probably find that 30M+ have lost their jobs on since this all started.. I'm sure many of those are high risk folks.. Are you supposed to give them monopoly money? Either you have the money to pay them or you don't.. 

6 minutes ago, H2O said:

Have you gone into your job every day?  I know I have.  Because my job and place of work needs to stay open.  And what I do doesn't give the luxury of office work every day.  My fear of going out is replaced by having to be the sole income earner for my family.  So while you armchair QB there are plenty of people just like me who have done all we can to work and not get sick.  To force people to go in just because there is a cubicle empty is irresponsible.  And to threaten firing is even more so.  Accommodations have already been made for many to work and can still be done that way.

 

  

Why do you think I have a problem with you? You're exactly the type of person that I'm inspired by.. you risk yourself to provide for your family, not cower in a corner. I'm not talking about people with the ability to work from home. Those people should do so as long as realistically possible. 

Just now, H2O said:

So maybe its up to business to change the dynamic.  More people can work from home and still get shit done so who needs a ton of office space.  You seem to contradict yourself by insisting business just fire people and find others if they can just work from home.

Obviously there are jobs which can't be done from home.. if you're in that position then it's probably be in your best interest to find something that allows you to work remotely if you're scared to go out.. Of course depends on your current situation, skills, etc. That way you're in a good position for the next health issue