stirs

Meh, don't know, maybe we lose 1.7 million in the US. I could be wrong, it happened once before back in 1990:) I just look at numbers and try to keep emotions in check. Numbers might change next week, so will the conversation at that point.

But if we know that kids don't die, and a lot don't even get sick, is it worth shutting down education systems? Flu actually killed kids, but nothing was done. Like I said, we KNOW who this hurts, or at least that is the way it looks. Is there such a thing as too much caution? Or pols trying to "out shutdown" each other? NYC is the biggest issue for the US at the moment. Waaaay too many people crammed into too little real estate. The Little Italy remark I made the other day holds true

So its a lack of self control? Unless they are giving it to their grandparents and great grandparents, it does not look that bad. Why not take the people we know are at risk and shut them down, really shut them down. Or, we pay everyone to sit on their butts, bored to death, while they still visit the grandparents. I dont know why we have science and statistics if we cannot use them

Think there was one kid in China or something

China and S Korea are almost finished with it The entire world loss of life is currently around 16500, we lost 23000 in flu so far this year.

So is it less worrisome to die from the regular flu than this Coronavirus? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/#S2 23k deaths from normal flu, including small kids. China, the most populous country on earth is pretty much through theirs now with 32-3300 deaths. So is it a lack of perspective? China loses only 3300 but the US will lose 1.7 million? Not seeing it

No child on earth under the age of 15 has died because of virus according to press conference, yet schools are out

I am pretty sure he did it for different reasons. WE are trying to save that group, whereas he......

Well past that Sparky. So what if all the 19 year olds got it? Most cough a couple times and go on, that was the point. IF they are giving it to others in their peer range and NOT to the endagered folks, because we have THEM locked down, then, would it be better or worse for society. It might take a bit of thought, but yes, I also have a TV

So how big a problem would it be if the isolation was with the at risk people and nobody else? Basically, if you are old and at risk category, YOU are quarantined, but the rest of society, the ones who are not retired, will go back to work, and school. What would this course do economically and socially and medically? Would it be worse than the "shutting it all down" scenario given what we now know about this particular virus? Of course there are only about 3 people here who can speak beyond linking twitter feeds, but for those who are in medical field and such, and for those in business field, love your thoughts. Grandparents will have to see their grandkids and everyone else via skype or talk on phone only till it has blown over.

True, we have a million links to Twiiter comments. That is just like real journalists right?

https://wben.radio.com/articles/cuomo-chides-new-yorkers-for-ignoring-social-distancing https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/03/coronavirus-in-ny-15168-cases-across-state-with-114-deaths-cuomo-says.html

So what is your answer if you were in his shoes?

Toilet Paper and Bullets Sho otin and Shi tin Its all America is worried about

Too much yard work for one. Sore all over. Gravel, mulch, block are no longer pretty in my eyes. Too much eating at home. Should have grilled some. Trying to do business online but that is kinda tough when everyone else is doing yard work or reading about WWII

Ga Pacific stock and Kimberly Clark went up several weeks back. Now their lines look like a lightning storm

Maybe we should go ahead with the Olympics too. Just with a lot of cameras and no crowds? We all watch it on TV anyway. Japan prolly wants all the tourists money, but getting TV revenue should help and be required.

If the elderly had been given "flu" shots this year for the coronavirus, then you tell me? Hard to call it the flu and hard to say it would have been worse with the normal precautions. Both sides are just trying to inflame or lessen reality A sudden onset of something like this with no time to prepare (vaccines take about 18 months) is the real issue

Martial law for 70 yr olds? Don't get it

Since most here only offer hindsight finger pointing, not sure this will get too many ideas. But would the government be better to require those in the at risk categories to be shut down and totally isolated? If we spend the billions on them and let the other parts of the population go back to work, would the long term costs to the country be better or worse? Would seem that shutting everyone down because 20% of your population is at risk, might not be the most effective route. And when I say shut down, I mean no visiting grand kids, grocery store visits, etc. The money the gov is spending could be used to basically quarantine these folks and provide for them. Most of them are not working anyway. Just thinking outside the box a bit. Not sure how that would flesh out, but wondering your thoughts, the ones besides "we shoulda done something"

Pols should not be "Polyana nor Eeyore" Doc that is in charge, he is about the only one respected, so he would be the one I would put in front of the mic. The finger pointing and crowing when things go bad or good is not helpful, but again, its what pols do.

Most were being purchased from China?

Best we can hope for is the infamous "flattened curve". The more we slow the peak, many things work in our favor. Warmer weather, less crowded hospitals, catching up on medical equipment, distribution of antiviral drugs, and most importantly, resupplies of toilet paper.

US at 1.0% death rate now Italy going wrong direction at 9.3% My goodness they have got to feel hopeless.