this is NOT the link I wanted, but it’s somewhat helpful: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/smarter-living/wirecutter/coronavirus-hand-sanitizer.html
Not so much disagreeing - quarantining a city would be tough - but there are other things we do can do, like move medical and other services online, isolate the infected, and work for the common good. Now is the time to be a bit creative to avoid some of the social disintegration…
2 Likes
In an overwhelmed system, they will resort to triage. It is ugly and unfair, but some will be left to die. Yes, the old and ill, but considering it is the US, with its extreme level of inequality, more often the poor and those without power.
2 Likes
My husband was really upset when he read choices were being made about who gets a respirator and hence more likely to survive versus who doesn’t and hence more likely to die.
I think it’s reprehensible that those choices are made. I unfortunately completely understand it. If you take the fact you have 1 respirator and 5 people needing it. Do you pick the one that has the most chance of survival to get it? Probably makes sense to make the choice that way.
That is one reason I prefer to stay holed up when it starts to hit. The problem I see is when do I start?
3 Likes
I think it has started already! In the US, we have not been testing very much. That means that the scope of the illness is likely far advanced beyond the reported numbers. In any case, if you think the risk is lower now, starting to take distancing measures gives you time to practice.
There is no penalty for starting too early and an extreme penalty for starting too late.
5 Likes
My husband goes to the grocery store and we are trying to limit that need. We both walk the dog. That is all we are doing now. We spray the mail and UPS packages with Lysol.
All our social needs are met on line. We are happy.
My son works on an assembly line and nothing at all has been done there to limit contact with others. NOTHING He probably will get the virus. Fortunately he is pretty healthy and only 31. Some of the 800 people in his building will get very ill. The hospitals there have around 22-25 beds. Hopefully the administration where he works is trying to come up with ways to protect the workers and the town, but the line workers sure haven’t heard anything. Luckily the 2 universities in the area are switching to on line learning and won’t be bringing back the virus from Seattle after Spring break.
3 Likes
That would drive us nuts! We just got back from a sightseeing trip up to SF, from San Jose. Lovely weather, traffic wasn’t bad, but didn’t go all the way into downtown SF (I hate driving there). We turned back south just north of the airport, after intersecting 280 from Route 1. Neither one of us likes staring at 4 walls…
We love San Francisco and the area around it. We are at the beach, so have the ocean to stare at. We also love to read, spend time on our computers, exercise and walk our elderly dog.
Our lives mean everything to us and our son. Protecting ourselves during this virus scare is easy for us.
3 Likes
Our colleges are cancelling classes since the U of MN did. Everyone is falling in behind them. They are our big medical school.
2 Likes
My mom took a class years and years ago, back with hand sanitizer use was a craze (I want to say 15 to 20 years ago). The class was taught by a public health nurse. I don’t remember exactly what she said but she said that something to the effect of hand sanitizers are not effective and it is about the soap binding with the germs and the water washing them away that is getting rid of the germs.
I don’t know that hand sanitizer is completely ineffective BUT I believe it is much less effective than washing you hands.
2 Likes
That is exactly what I’ve been reading about recently: soap and water is far more effective in removing germs from the entire hands instead of a portion, and leaving the hands more germ-free than sanitizers.
2 Likes
That’s disturbing because those are the ones that get hit the hardest. There is a summary report from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (which, being that it comes from the Chinese government.
,
Of their 72,314 cases (at the time of the report), 44,672 were classified as confirmed 16 186 as suspected cases (22%; diagnosis based on symptoms and exposures only, no test was performed because testing capacity is insufficient to meet current needs), 10 567 as clinically diagnosed cases (15%; this designation is being used in Hubei Province only; in these cases, no test was performed but diagnosis was made based on symptoms, exposures, and presence of lung imaging features consistent with coronavirus pneumonia), and 889 as asymptomatic cases (1%; diagnosis by positive viral nucleic acid test result but lacking typical symptoms including fever, dry cough, and fatigue)
87% (I think just of the confirmed cases) were 30-79; 1% were under 9; 1% were aged 10-19; 3% were age 80 or older (Anyone else notice that they missed the 20-29 age bracket??)
81% were “mild”(i.e. nonpneumonia & mild pneumonia)
14% were “severe”(ie, dyspnea, respiratory frequency ≥30/min, blood oxygen saturation ≤93%, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio <300, and/or lung infiltrates >50% within 24 to 48 hours)
5% were “critical” (ie, respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure)
There were 1,024 deaths out of the 44,672 confirmed cases.
Of those that passed
None were under 9
8% of those who had the virus and were between 70-79 passed away
14% of those who had the virus and were over 80 passed away
No deaths were reported among the mild or severe cases.
49% of the cases labeled critical did not make it
The chances of not surviving rose in patients with co-morbidities
10.5% for cardiovascular disease
7.3% for diabetes
6.3% for chronic respiratory disease
6.0% for hypertension
5.5% for cancer
It sounds so cold reducing this matter to numbers and statistics but, for me at least, it helps me wrap my mind about what is happening.
2 Likes
I don’t think the stats are “cold”. The are good information!
1 Like
Yes, this is my understanding as well. Hand-washing is more effective, but hand sanitizer is better than nothing when soap and water are unavailable.
3 Likes
I agree with you, that’s why I posted it. For me, it helps get a better idea about what is going on (numbers and statistics make my brain happy… 
) but after I was done writing it, I thought some might find reducing the lost of someone’s love one to a number and statistic might sound cold or insensitive. I wanted to acknowledge that fact.
3 Likes
Funny, I had a nurse tell me today that most people do not use hand sanitizer correctly. You should have a big goop of it (I think she said size of a quarter- though depends on hand size). Coat your hands in it, get under the nails, the fingers and just leave it for a minimum of 20 seconds.
2 Likes
They’re not being treated because the system has been overwhelmed.
An aggressive response (eg social distancing, isolation of the infected- assuming they can get tested) will reduce the likelihood of this happening by flattening the curve.
2 Likes
I notice guys in mens rooms routinely not washing their hands, or if they do, they just pretend a bit. A splash of water for 2 seconds is not washing one’s hands.
1 Like
That’s what I mean…They are the people you SHOULD be treating. They are the sickest. Look at the statistics that came out of China, chances are the others will recover on their own.
My mother tells that to little kids all day. I think you are supposed to sing the ABCs (twice if you sing it fast)…