Are you worried about the Coronavirus?

[ItsMainelyYou]

I'm not talking about him getting booted after he loses. I'm genuinely worried he's going to circumvent the elections altogether by 1) letting coronavirus get out of hand and cancelling elections or 2) postponing elections due to some other emergency situation he creates, like a premature war with N. Korea, Iran, China.

It's certainly a worrisome possibility, I agree, but I still think unlikely.
Coronavirus is already out of hand. He has 64% disapproval on handling the pandemic and rising. He also doesn't have widespread support with the top brass/Congress for any major military incursion. The GOP is against the push to inhibit mail in voting, so that gambit backfired. The GOP needs it to survive. He doesn't have the authority to stop elections. He isn't king. What he'll try is more domestic bullshit because that's all he can attempt within his authority at this point. That is plenty damaging in the interim.

 

[OboeGal]

For what reason are you referring to?

Home school is not a viable option for many. You want people to quit full-time jobs to come home and work for kids instead? Education is quite a lot of work. The only people I've known who are happy home schooling their kids are educators themselves; not every kid is easy to home school, and not every parent has the patience or the qualifications to home school.

If a family can afford for one parent to quit or take a leave to come home and, not "work for kids," but protect their kids, protect teachers and staff, support their kids in a temporary online educational effort (which doesn't have to come from the school district or the parent; several states have online school programs that have been around for a while and are designed for that purpose), and protect those kids and families that simply can't afford to do so, since the fewer kids there are in the schools, the lower the risk for the ones who are there - than they should. Yes, it's a lot of work, and especially for non-educators, and yes, it's not ideal - but none of this is ideal or going to be ideal. It's ridiculous to expect that there is any scenario in which kids are going to be getting even remotely an optimal education or optimal socialization. Not until this is over. It's time for people to give up on these goals of "kids not falling behind" - they're going to fall behind. And then, the overwhelming majority will catch up. It will not do great harm to the overwhelming majority of them, long-term over the course of their lives, to finish a bachelor's degree at age 24 instead of 22, but dying or having long-term physical damage or watching family members or classmates or teachers die and always wondering if it's "their fault", the way that kids do, will. And parents being "happy home schooling their kids" should really not matter here - it's about doing the right thing for their kids and the community in a public health emergency of epic proportions for a temporary period of time - not "being happy." In-person school, if it happens at all, should be reserved for those few kids whose parents really, truly are struggling financially and can't afford to lose any pay for a while, are in some possible danger at home, or have certain kinds of disorders, developmental delays, etc., that require extra levels of attention and therapy that parents can't access resources for at home.

 

[Arcadian]

the good news (maybe) my test came back negative. The other good, I'm on vacation until Wednesday. the bad, work up this morning sick as a freaking dog ( This is stress related, the reason why I took the vacation in the first place)

 

[Matata]

the good news (maybe) my test came back negative

That's a relief. I hope you are able to find ways to lower your stress levels. Hugs.

 

[Dancing Fire]

That is exactly what's happening. Trump wants to control the narrative; if he can't do it outright by denying testing and linking that to even the existence of infection of/to the populace he'll leave us completely in the dark to die. I would have said that was alarmist before.
I believe that is exactly what's taking place now. He is willing kill us for election prospects and he's no longer keeping up any pretenses.

You don't have to die if you stay at home. It is your choice.

 

[qubitasaurus]

If a family can afford for one parent to quit or take a leave to come home and, not "work for kids," but protect their kids, protect teachers and staff, support their kids in a temporary online educational effort (which doesn't have to come from the school district or the parent; several states have online school programs that have been around for a while and are designed for that purpose), and protect those kids and families that simply can't afford to do so, since the fewer kids there are in the schools, the lower the risk for the ones who are there - than they should. Yes, it's a lot of work, and especially for non-educators, and yes, it's not ideal - but none of this is ideal or going to be ideal. It's ridiculous to expect that there is any scenario in which kids are going to be getting even remotely an optimal education or optimal socialization. Not until this is over. It's time for people to give up on these goals of "kids not falling behind" - they're going to fall behind. And then, the overwhelming majority will catch up. It will not do great harm to the overwhelming majority of them, long-term over the course of their lives, to finish a bachelor's degree at age 24 instead of 22, but dying or having long-term physical damage or watching family members or classmates or teachers die and always wondering if it's "their fault", the way that kids do, will. And parents being "happy home schooling their kids" should really not matter here - it's about doing the right thing for their kids and the community in a public health emergency of epic proportions for a temporary period of time - not "being happy." In-person school, if it happens at all, should be reserved for those few kids whose parents really, truly are struggling financially and can't afford to lose any pay for a while, are in some possible danger at home, or have certain kinds of disorders, developmental delays, etc., that require extra levels of attention and therapy that parents can't access resources for at home.

I kind of feel like this makes some good points, but it doesn't quite see the whole picture of protecting your kids. A large part of the role of protecting your kids is about giving them stability and certainty, making sure they have a future and don't have to experience any (unavoidable) anxiety over what that future may hold. This means looking after both their health and your own health but also 100% securing the income and roof over their heads to whatever degree you can. Leaving your job at a time when there is the largest unemployment and a contracting job market would mean deliberately opting to entirely rely only on a single income and the security of that income. If your/your childerns health insurance is linked to this income remaining intact, and your capacity to keep the roof over your head is also contingent on it. Then I am not sure opting to cull one out of two jobs, is responsible parenting at the moment. Its certainly taking a risk, just of a different type. You'd have to weigh up the risks involved in both actions (remaining vs leaving to home school). I just think the calculation will be complex, and the optimal solution will be a highly individual thing that varies dramaically family to family.

I guess though I do not have a stake in this game -- my little one is small enough that we haven't put her in childcare, and we have someone already at home caring for her so I can work. So I haven't encountered this choice personally.

 

[AGBF]

Here is a link to Maureen Dowd's column about Donald Trump and Dr. Fauci. It's entitled, "The Doctor versus the Denier".

Opinion | The Doctor Versus the Denier (Published 2020)

Anthony Fauci’s at the pool, but Donald Trump’s in deep.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Good breakdown.

Inside Trump’s Failure: The Rush to Abandon Leadership Role on the Virus (Published 2020)

The roots of the nation’s current inability to control the pandemic can be traced to mid-April, when the White House embraced overly rosy projections to proclaim victory and move on.

www.nytimes.com

 

[OboeGal]

I kind of feel like this makes some good points, but it doesn't quite see the whole picture of protecting your kids. A large part of the role of protecting your kids is about giving them stability and certainty, making sure they have a future and don't have to experience any (unavoidable) anxiety over what that future may hold. This means looking after both their health and your own health but also 100% securing the income and roof over their heads to whatever degree you can. Leaving your job at a time when there is the largest unemployment and a contracting job market would mean deliberately opting to entirely rely only on a single income and the security of that income. If your/your childerns health insurance is linked to this income remaining intact, and your capacity to keep the roof over your head is also contingent on it. Then I am not sure opting to cull one out of two jobs, is responsible parenting at the moment. Its certainly taking a risk, just of a different type. You'd have to weigh up the risks involved in both actions (remaining vs leaving to home school). I just think the calculation will be complex, and the optimal solution will be a highly individual thing that varies dramaically family to family.

I guess though I do not have a stake in this game -- my little one is small enough that we haven't put her in childcare, and we have someone already at home caring for her so I can work. So I haven't encountered this choice personally.

Yes, I agree it is a complex decision for each family to "do the math" on whether they truly can afford it - I didn't want to go into a ton of detail about all the possible scenarios, so I meant "can afford to" in a pretty broad sense.

 

[missy]

I kind of feel like this makes some good points, but it doesn't quite see the whole picture of protecting your kids. A large part of the role of protecting your kids is about giving them stability and certainty, making sure they have a future and don't have to experience any (unavoidable) anxiety over what that future may hold. This means looking after both their health and your own health but also 100% securing the income and roof over their heads to whatever degree you can. Leaving your job at a time when there is the largest unemployment and a contracting job market would mean deliberately opting to entirely rely only on a single income and the security of that income. If your/your childerns health insurance is linked to this income remaining intact, and your capacity to keep the roof over your head is also contingent on it. Then I am not sure opting to cull one out of two jobs, is responsible parenting at the moment. Its certainly taking a risk, just of a different type. You'd have to weigh up the risks involved in both actions (remaining vs leaving to home school). I just think the calculation will be complex, and the optimal solution will be a highly individual thing that varies dramaically family to family.

I guess though I do not have a stake in this game -- my little one is small enough that we haven't put her in childcare, and we have someone already at home caring for her so I can work. So I haven't encountered this choice personally.

The real question is, IMO, can one afford not to keep their kids at home and minimize exposure as best as possible?

I agree it is a complex decision but it can be made into a relatively simple issue if we break it down at its core. The pandemic will be over within a finite amount of time. Our kids can catch up. The main dilemma now (as I see it) is to keep everyone well and healthy so that can happen. IMO.

 

[missy]

Our rate of transmission is now over 1.1. The virus is once again uncontrolled and spreading via community spread.

“ Murphy said "we can't ignore the world around us," saying he's not comfortable with reopening gyms, theaters and indoor dining if leaders elsewhere aren't behaving responsibly.

"My God — suing communities that require face coverings. I mean, it's just unfathomable. It's just unfathomable," Murphy said, referring to Georgia's governor suing Atlanta's mayor for defying his order to not require people to wear masks.
”

WTH is wrong with people. People who refuse to wear masks. Who refuse to social distance.

This was a scene repeated up and down the shore a few days ago. Every day. All day. Social distancing non existent and crowds out of control.




CLOSE the beaches already.

 

[Matata]

The real question is, IMO, can one afford not to keep their kids at home and minimize exposure as best as possible?

Depends on how much Jesus they need. The quote from the mom-of-the-year (not) is appalling.

How a Christian Summer Camp Ended Up With 82 Cases of COVID

"For us, the risk of COVID-19 versus the chance of the kids having more time with Jesus, it was hands down: the chance to have more of Jesus.”

slate.com

 

[Slickk]

Omg @missy I am speechless.

 

[Demon]

Depends on how much Jesus they need. The quote from the mom-of-the-year (not) is appalling.

How a Christian Summer Camp Ended Up With 82 Cases of COVID

"For us, the risk of COVID-19 versus the chance of the kids having more time with Jesus, it was hands down: the chance to have more of Jesus.”

slate.com

Hopefully this doesn't lead to eternity with Jesus.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Depends on how much Jesus they need. The quote from the mom-of-the-year (not) is appalling.

How a Christian Summer Camp Ended Up With 82 Cases of COVID

"For us, the risk of COVID-19 versus the chance of the kids having more time with Jesus, it was hands down: the chance to have more of Jesus.”

slate.com

Negligent and repulsive. 'Covered in the blood of Jesus' ridiculous.

 

[Matata]

Hopefully this doesn't lead to eternity with Jesus.

Isn't that the goal of christianity?

 

[Demon]

Isn't that the goal of christianity?

Lol, I guess it is! Wouldn't be sending my kid out to possibly hurry it up, but that's just me.

 

[MeowMeow]

Lol, I guess it is! Wouldn't be sending my kid out to possibly hurry it up, but that's just me.

It's the goal of Christianity yup, but as a Christian mother I am not willing to hurry it up for myself or anyone else either. Isn't there a saying too that God helps those who help themselves? He sent us smart people who tell us how to be safer. He sent us medical treatments and vaccines for those who are able to use them in order to protect ourselves as well as those who are not able to use them...

In my family we listen to those smart people, thus helping ourselves. I was one at first who thought it was like Swine flu or whatever it was when I was in college, which sucked but I did not see much problem where I was. But when I kept reading and listening to people smarter than myself. I became very concerned and relatively quickly changed my mind. My family has done everything we can do to lower our risk and lower the chances someone else can get it from us too the best we can. We don't go out unless it's necessary for survival like groceries and my husband working. We cancelled every visit with family we had planned. It sucked but to me it's necessary and I'm willing to do it.

I do worry about my kid and her socialization. I was basically raised in a quarentine like situation because of my mom and her mental problems and I can see the bad results of this even today in my speech and social skills. But I would rather have a wierd kid like me with terrible social skills than a dead one

 

[qubitasaurus]

The real question is, IMO, can one afford not to keep their kids at home and minimize exposure as best as possible?

I agree it is a complex decision but it can be made into a relatively simple issue if we break it down at its core. The pandemic will be over within a finite amount of time. Our kids can catch up. The main dilemma now (as I see it) is to keep everyone well and healthy so that can happen. IMO.

I'm sure no one wants this virus. If they could reasonably get their children out of intermingling with others for 6+ hours a day they definitely will have done so. But as a parent you definitely absorb responsiblity for everything simultaneously -- you end up realizing that your kids will bear the consequences if you get it wrong at the end of the day, so you'll take full responsibility for everything right from the start. You also end up very much having to protect your own capacity to subsume all of these responsibilities, and planing things at least 1 step ahead (again as you're charting the course for both you and your kids this is the only thing you can do). My parents once said I'd become the rock on which my daughter built her life. My parents are very smart people and tend to see things very clearly, I think they nailed it. At the end of the day this does indeed become some simple pragmatic trade off about whether you can still offer this security and stay home at the same time. I'm sure if someones kids are still in school the parents realized the answer was no.

This may be the case for a large class of people as you are usually a little younger/less established when you have kids and they tend to cost at least 30 k a year (24 k alone in child care) so often youre not that financially secure once you have them. Many families may just wont have sufficient liquidity/savings to absorb a sudden shortfall in income. If this has forced a lot of families to keep their children in schools, then I feel the rest of us could show them some compassion (there's no way they would have wanted to make that choice).

 

[OboeGal]

I'm sure if someones kids are still in school the parents realized the answer was no.

Although I agree with much of what you've said, and I wish I could agree with your statement that I've quoted here, unfortunately I can't agree entirely. I personally know people who are putting their kids in school in-person to make a political and/or religious statement, because they don't want to be "annoyed" by their kids at home anymore, or because they're personally unwilling to make even the tiniest career sacrifice for the sake of their kids or the community. It's quite disheartening.

 

[qubitasaurus]

Although I agree with much of what you've said, and I wish I could agree with your statement that I've quoted here, unfortunately I can't agree entirely. I personally know people who are putting their kids in school in-person to make a political and/or religious statement, because they don't want to be "annoyed" by their kids at home anymore, or because they're personally unwilling to make even the tiniest career sacrifice for the sake of their kids or the community. It's quite disheartening.

That's quite sad. I think it must be an American thing. In asia kids are number one. All tiers of the family exist to support the youngest members. People's social status even is highly effected by how well their kids are doing, and how well they are doing at looking after their kids. Its thus almost unthinkable that they'd do anything other than what's best for their kids (society wouldn't even condone it, they'd get major lash back if they did anything else).

Also the kids definitely infect their parents once they bring it home. I thought this virus may have had a 5% death rate one hospitals became full (cant remember the exact figure) which is now the case in a lot of US states. Children do a bit better, but there is plenty of 30-50 yr olds who get quite ill. So these people must also have a personal death wish. Edit -- looks like the average person has 4 % mortality without proper care (obviously it's highly unevenly distributed) but I'd say they still have something to be worried about.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html

 

[OboeGal]

That's quite sad. I think it must be an American thing. In asia kids are number one. All tiers of the family exist to support the youngest members. People's social status even is highly effected by how well their kids are doing, and how well they are doing at looking after their kids. Its thus almost unthinkable that they'd do anything other than what's best for their kids (society wouldn't even condone it, they'd get major lash back if they did anything else).

Also the kids definitely infect their parents once they bring it home. I thought this virus may have had a 5% death rate one hospitals became full (cant remember the exact figure) which is now the case in a lot of US states. Children do a bit better, but there is plenty of 30-50 yr olds who get quite ill. So these people must also have a personal death wish. Edit -- looks like the average person has 4 % mortality without proper care (obviously it's highly unevenly distributed) but I'd say they still have something to be worried about.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html

Agreed on all counts.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

@qubitasaurus are you from Singapore by any chance?

I found Singapore very very very child friendly. People kept standing up to let my son sit down on public transport. It was a huge shock to us since in Australia they like to boot kids off the seats because their fares are cheaper (ie you don't pay full fare so you need to stand if there are not enough seats even if you are quite young).

 

[qubitasaurus]

@qubitasaurus are you from Singapore by any chance?

I found Singapore very very very child friendly. People kept standing up to let my son sit down on public transport. It was a huge shock to us since in Australia they like to boot kids off the seats because their fares are cheaper (ie you don't pay full fare so you need to stand if there are not enough seats even if you are quite young).

Yes but I am actually aussie, just expatriated. I remember being told as a kid that I could stand as I was young and healthy so I could give up my seat to others in greater need. But not that I had paid less and therefore to skedaddle. Lol I'd give them a piece of my mind if I heard that. But I've been in singapore almost a decade and I've never lived in Sydney. So probably times change and I really never knew the culture in other parts of australia that well in the first place.

 

[whitewave]

I’m on 14 day quarantine starting today.

I was within 3 feet for more than 15 mins (like 25 mins) with someone who asymptomatically tested positive today. Luckily, I haven’t been in contact with DH and the kids since I was exposed because he took them to my daughter’s college town all day yesterday to move her in her apartment, and then I slept in the guest room because DH snores and the foam ear plugs I wear have been hurting my ears and I wanted a few days break from them.

I also went to bed early.

Thank god for small things.

My friend only has the sniffles. Her kids had to be tested for summer camp and she has already been tested 3 times, all negative. She works with covid patients, but doesn’t know where she was exposed (I mean assume the hospital but she just doesn’t know for sure).

She seems to have a small viral load, and her kids are negative and they live with her.

I’m quarantining for 14 days since it’s the right thing to do. Im not very worried.

 

[Matata]

I’m on 14 day quarantine starting today.

I hope you don't get sick. Please keep us informed how you're coping with quarantine. I hear that bling shopping helps keep boredom away.

 

[whitewave]

I hope you don't get sick. Please keep us informed how you're coping with quarantine. I hear that bling shopping helps keep boredom away.

I will, thanks. I try not to go anywhere anyway, so this doesn’t really change my routine. My son leaves tomorrow to go visit my sister and my daughter stays in her room all day anyway, so I imagine this is going to be pretty normal around here.

Fingers crossed.

 

[missy]

Keeping good thoughts for you @whitewave. Stay well.

 

[Arcadian]

I'm still on vacation (kicked the man and the dog out....lol So glad to have another house for them to be at!)

This is the Moderna Phase 3 study

Fauci: Moderna’s Phase 3 Covid-19 Vaccine Trial Of 30,000 Individuals Will Begin In July

Dr. Anthony Fauci Tuesday said the Phase 3 trial of Moderna’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine will begin in July and include study of 30,000 patients.

www.forbes.com

Sooooooo My appt is August 26 at noon. When I said I'd take one for the team I really meant it. when I heard they'd be doing the study here I figured why not.

In the meantime I've been riding my bike a lot, and shamefully slept until 9am...lol Also doing LOTS of weeding in my hard which has actually helped my stress levels. blood pressure is definitely down. its been fun (except getting rained on of course!) I've got 2 more days...I definitely needed this.

 

[dk168]

I now have concerns about restrictions being lifted too soon, and we could be heading for second wave sooner rather than later.

Definitely made my concerns worse on a daily basis by reports of the <<<insert colourful metaphor of your choice>>> who think social distancing/mask wearing/lockdown/etc. are restricting their freedom, lifestyle and liberties, and that they are young/healthy enough not to have to worry about any of it.

I shall continue to perform my own risk assessment and due diligence, to avoid crowded places where social distancing is neither practical or possible, or worse - being ignored by the <<<insert colourful metaphor of your choice>>> who could not care less.

Fingers firmly crossed that a vaccine will become available soon, and I will join the queue to receive it right away. I would have volunteered to be part of the clinical trial, however, I am not eligible as I have an underlying health condition being a Type 2 Diabetic.

DK