The Mysterious Coronavirus Spreading Worldwide

[Bob]

2 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Those 2 out of 100 come home and infect their family.  Yes, that makes perfect sense and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

How would not locking down be better, though?  

Well, I'm not a black and white thinker my brother. I was for partial lockdowns. To explain, protect the vulnerable, particularly nursing homes and people who are more susceptible to dying from this, and allow the young and healthy to live a normal life, with precautions (like masks and physical distancing, etc). Because my other fears were the direct and indirect ramifications off FULL lockdowns, like ruining people financially, and other things like depression and the closing of hospitals to non-covid related surgeries. 

 

I was always for balancing the needs of slowing this virus, with what people need to function as a society. 

[Bob]

@Shawnster so if i can put it succinctly, balance preserving life with preserving quality of life. 

[Tortuga]

3 hours ago, Bob said:

People are more likely to catch Covid from members of their own household:

It was probably initially introduced into the family group by one of the family members that came in contact with someone that didn't wear a mask or follow the reccomend protocols. What a shame.

 

Bad association spoils healthy families...

Edited July 22, 2020 by Mephibosheth

[Bob]

1 minute ago, Mephibosheth said:

It was probably initially introduced into the family group by one of the family members that came in contact with someone that didn't wear a mask or follow the reccomend protocols. What a shame.

 

Bad association spoils useful health...

I don't believe so. Here's a quote from the article:

 

Quote

Data for the study was collected between Jan. 20 and March 27, when the new coronavirus was spreading exponentially and as daily infections in South Korea reached their peak.

Koreans are known for wearing masks - its what people credit for slowing the spread there. 

 

[Bob]

9 minutes ago, Mephibosheth said:

It was probably initially introduced into the family group by one of the family members that came in contact with someone that didn't wear a mask or follow the reccomend protocols. What a shame.

I think it was going to spread regardless, based on this study. The only defense we actually have is mitigation until a cure or if the thing just mutated out of existence.  

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, Bob said:

Well, I'm not a black and white thinker my brother. I was for partial lockdowns. To explain, protect the vulnerable, particularly nursing homes and people who are more susceptible to dying from this, and allow the young and healthy to live a normal life, with precautions (like masks and physical distancing, etc). Because my other fears were the direct and indirect ramifications off FULL lockdowns, like ruining people financially, and other things like depression and the closing of hospitals to non-covid related surgeries. 

 

I was always for balancing the needs of slowing this virus, with what people need to function as a society. 

 

2 hours ago, Bob said:

@Shawnster so if i can put it succinctly, balance preserving life with preserving quality of life. 

Let me rephrase...   How would your proposal have resulted in less cases of Covid-19?  My impression is that you are saying there would have been fewer cases than what we are seeing now.  

Edited July 22, 2020 by Shawnster

[dove]

I read recently that up to 40% of people can be infected and carriers while showing no symptoms..

 

I worry about this personally because I have a son in law that works every day in hospitals taking care of the equipment used in surgeries, and a grandson who works for CDC in the corona virus department. They are both sent all over the country and even other countries on a regular basis to do these jobs.

 

Also another son in law who is a first responder, and grandson also a first responder and (firefighter).

 

2 come home to wives with life threatening incurable conditions that will have low immunity if they were ever in contact with this virus..

[Bob]

48 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

 

Let me rephrase...   How would your proposal have resulted in less cases of Covid-19?  My impression is that you are saying there would have been fewer cases than what we are seeing now.  

Well, here’s the thing. I don’t know that it would result in less cases, but that’s not my goal necessarily.  My goal was always to protect the vulnerable. I was of the opinion that this would spread no matter what because it went undetected for too long and was apparently really contagious. 
 

So my goal was more of a control avalanche type approach. If it’s gonna spread regardless, control who does or doesn’t get it WITH precautions in place.  

Edited July 22, 2020 by Bob

[Bob]

@Shawnster and part of the reason why I share that view is because we cannot stay fully locked down until a non-existent vaccine arises in about a year or less. So I believe people need to live their lives, close to normal as possible, while protecting themselves and others. Really that's all you can do at this point, unless you choose to self isolate until a cure. 

[pnutts]

2 hours ago, Bob said:

because we cannot stay fully locked down until a non-existent vaccine arises in about a year or less.

The great tribulation.  The scriptures say that the world would be going great at start of the end. 

Don't have time to look up reference right now. Meeting in a little while.

[Shawnster]

3 hours ago, Bob said:

Well, here’s the thing. I don’t know that it would result in less cases, but that’s not my goal necessarily.  My goal was always to protect the vulnerable. I was of the opinion that this would spread no matter what because it went undetected for too long and was apparently really contagious. 

So we lock down, er, protect the most vulnerable...  Does that really protect them?  They still need contact with the outside be it delivery people, doctors, family bring food and supplies.  In some cases the most vulnerable still live with people who are younger and healthy.  In such a situation those healthy family members would still be going about their daily business and coming back home to their vulnerable family members.  How do we really protect the most vulnerable if even more people are/were exposed to the virus?  How does opening the potential for more people being exposed to the virus actually protect the most vulnerable than what we saw in March with stiff lockdowns?

 

Besides, isn't what you are proposing essentially how we are currently living?  States are open, businesses are operating, PPE is recommended or required.  Here in Ohio life is somewhat back to normal.  It's on a case-by-case basis for some things, but there are county fairs going on and restaurants are open.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/states-reopening-coronavirus-map/

 

 

 

[Bob]

34 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

So we lock down, er, protect the most vulnerable...  Does that really protect them?  They still need contact with the outside be it delivery people, doctors, family bring food and supplies.  In some cases the most vulnerable still live with people who are younger and healthy.  In such a situation those healthy family members would still be going about their daily business and coming back home to their vulnerable family members.  How do we really protect the most vulnerable if even more people are/were exposed to the virus?  How does opening the potential for more people being exposed to the virus actually protect the most vulnerable than what we saw in March with stiff lockdowns?

 

Besides, isn't what you are proposing essentially how we are currently living?  States are open, businesses are operating, PPE is recommended or required.  Here in Ohio life is somewhat back to normal.  It's on a case-by-case basis for some things, but there are county fairs going on and restaurants are open.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/states-reopening-coronavirus-map/

 

 

 

I hear you. There are no silver bullets or good answers. I sure don’t have good answers. But we basically need to maintain a staggered approach like we began late spring/early summer, or a multi-thronged approach. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Bob

[hatcheckgirl]

Lockdowns are much harder to be effective if cases are growing exponentially. But yes, lockdowns can work. Even partial lockdowns with limited movement can stop the spread. Health authorities are using what worked in the past to manage pandemics, because there is no cure. But where lockdown doesn’t work is when people flaunt it and don’t stay at home when they should. For example 53% of people in Melbourne didn’t self isolate when they were waiting for their test results, as per my post a few pages back. They blew it for the rest of Melbourne. So numbers are still climbing there, after weeks of no community transmission.

 

Essentially starving the virus of a host will bring this under control, and opening the economy slowly allows authorities to manage cluster outbreaks. But when people aren’t doing the right thing, all the benefits of the lockdown are lost.

 

And that is why this is dragging on. Mistakes and humans deciding not to follow instructions.

 

I too feel this is becoming a circular discussion. 🤔

[Hotteok]

I think this corona virus is an evidence of man’s inability to create a truly happy society.

For men to be truly happy, they need every member of the society to be completely selfless.

If some members stay selfish, it can’t work. That’s why man’s independence can’t work, while God’s kingdom will succeed because it knows how to make such a society. 

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

USA 4 Million reported cases

Old (Downunder) Tone
 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz
Add pic

[BenJepthah]

3 hours ago, Shawnster said:

we lock down, er, protect the most vulnerable...  Does that really protect them?  They still need contact with the outside be it delivery people, doctors, family bring food and supplies.  In some cases the most vulnerable still live with people who are younger and healthy. 

All true. And yet the CLC ( nursing home ) remains free of COVID fatalities. The staff are tested weekly and if symptomatic are put on COVID leave.  If this model had been applied from the start it may have prevented a great many deaths while still permitting the at of humanity to continue business as more or less usual. 
  All this being said. It really no longer matters . It is simply too late to stuff this Djinn back in its bottle. The consensus among healthcare workers is : everyone will contract SARS COVID-2 . And about 0.5-1.0 percent will die. The only benefit to the path being taken by most communities is to cause these hospitalizations to occur at a controlled trickle . Which will save a few but will not prevent the actual pathogen from spreading . It’s okay, with the exception that it is actively changing living conditions and breeding  homelessness and poverty on a global scale.  
        The good news : this pushes the world at an unprecedented rate directly toward the GT. So, rejoice!! 

[dove]

2 hours ago, BenJepthah said:

  The consensus among healthcare workers is : everyone will contract SARS COVID-2 . And about 0.5-1.0 percent will die. 

What healthcare workers are you talking about..those working in nursing homes or those at the front working with covid patients in hospitals..

[Hotteok]

Will literally everyone all over the world get infected? Sounds like a zombie movie

[blacc]

8 hours ago, BenJepthah said:

All true. And yet the CLC ( nursing home ) remains free of COVID fatalities. The staff are tested weekly and if symptomatic are put on COVID leave.  If this model had been applied from the start it may have prevented a great many deaths while still permitting the at of humanity to continue business as more or less usual. 
  All this being said. It really no longer matters . It is simply too late to stuff this Djinn back in its bottle. The consensus among healthcare workers is : everyone will contract SARS COVID-2 . And about 0.5-1.0 percent will die. The only benefit to the path being taken by most communities is to cause these hospitalizations to occur at a controlled trickle . Which will save a few but will not prevent the actual pathogen from spreading . It’s okay, with the exception that it is actively changing living conditions and breeding  homelessness and poverty on a global scale.  
        The good news : this pushes the world at an unprecedented rate directly toward the GT. So, rejoice!! 

How does this covid pandemic push the world at an unprecedented scale directly towards the GT? What's the special marker? Is it any different from former pandemics?

[hatcheckgirl]

1 hour ago, blacc said:

How does this covid pandemic push the world at an unprecedented scale directly towards the GT? What's the special marker? Is it any different from former pandemics?

Well, we don’t know for sure. Pandemics in the past were also destructive, and they form a part of the sign we are in the last days. However, this pandemic is causing never before seen economic woes, for each country in the world. Deficits in nations’ budgets, unseen since the Great Depression. Because our world is so interconnected now, economic blows in one country has a knock on effect for recovery. Governments will soon be in desperate straits - and its all down hill for them. We'll have to wait and see.

[cme]

23 hours ago, Bob said:

People are more likely to catch Covid from members of their own household:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea-idUSKCN24M1NK

 

This is interesting. Perhaps this thing spreading was unavoidable given this new research. And it is also the main reason why I never really supported lockdowns as any sort of solution. When you don't know who is infected, then locking down the sick with the healthy would have this as an obvious consequence.

So, you have half of dozen of this and half of dozen of that.  Where does one go from here?  There is no clear cut understanding of this virus.  We know its deadly and its not going anywhere anytime soon so it seems.  The GB is telling us to use common sense and if one needs to work or go out or whatever is considered a necessity to do with caution.  If you don't have to go out then don't.  Why expose oneself and others?  This could be (and I am using this loosely) our "inner rooms" that Isaiah prophesied.  All of the organization world wide is in doors in compliance with the law and direction of the GB. So, we wait!

[cme]

Some friends say this could be a test.  Lets show obedience by being extremely cautious in all we do.  If this is it, we will know soon enough. If not, we will also know soon enough.  Right now, there is no rhyme or reason to this pandemic. We are ALL left in suspense.  However, I do trust that Jehovah will act and very soon.

Edited July 23, 2020 by cme
spelling

[BenJepthah]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
    Some interesting findings. I will say no more.

8 hours ago, Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual said:

Will literally everyone all over the world get infected? Sounds like a zombie movie

yes literally. And yes it does.

9 hours ago, Dove said:

What healthcare workers are you talking about..those working in nursing homes or those at the front working with covid patients in hospitals..

Yes.

Edited July 23, 2020 by BenJepthah

[BenJepthah]

3 hours ago, blacc said:

How does this covid pandemic push the world at an unprecedented scale directly towards the GT? What's the special marker? Is it any different from former pandemics?

Economic and Social conditions have been radically altered in a very short time . To the degree that the KOTS is standing on the precipice of insolvency like never before and it’s Constitutional underpinnings ( the only good way to define the current KOTS ) are under serious threat like never before. Former pandemics have never spurred literally every government under the KOTN/KOTS dynamic to completely trash their currencies or suspend their constitutions with such a huge footprint. Not have their actions caused such a “ roaring of the sea”. As today. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by BenJepthah

[Ferb]

15 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Besides, isn't what you are proposing essentially how we are currently living?  States are open, businesses are operating, PPE is recommended or required.  Here in Ohio life is somewhat back to normal.  It's on a case-by-case basis for some things, but there are county fairs going on and restaurants are open.

Your life may be like normal.  For others superstitious xenophobic lockdown measures have included separating people from their families, by force where necessary.

 

Quote

On Sunday, lovers, brothers and sisters, parents and their children, and old friends pressed against the chain links in the spring sunshine, just close enough to say "I love you", too far apart to touch.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2020/04/06/coronavirus-divides-lovers-friends-at-swiss-german-border-fences.html

 

I used to wonder how people could just stand there and watch the communists erect a wall separating them from their families.  Now I know that even in the information age people would stand by and accept it, and it turns out, they wasted their time building theirs out of concrete.  Not only would people have accepted it if it were a mere wire fence, but some people would have cheered them on repeating their propaganda that they were doing it for the good of the people, comrades!