Stoner

And all through last week the daily deaths were over 2,000. Sunday saw a dramatic drop, but maybe that's a lack of reporting. The idea of escaping this thing with 60,000 deaths is looking like a fantasy. And the models that predicted less than 100k deaths were based on mitigation efforts continuing. Not necessarily that businesses wouldn't reopen but that people would stay smart. My big fear is that people will equate reopening with "back to normal."

An interesting bit of food for thought re: Sweden is that although the government didn't order mitigation efforts, a lot of the people did them on their own. I wish I could remember where I saw this story. It might have had something to do with cellphone data they can look at to study people's movements. Which raises the obvious question here in the U.S. The powers that be can say the stay at home orders are lifted and businesses can re-open, but will the public buy in? Are you still casting shade or finally coming around into the sunlight (see the Even Randomer thread for further edification)? (Never mind, I read on in the thread.) Believe me, there's no hysteria here either. I know where Woody gets around to, and speaking only for my side of the border, the folks don't even know what germs are and don't know what's on other side of them hills. And I'd like to know where Woody gets avocado toast in WNY.

1. Good to see Dom's spine is still like a Slinky. 2. He was right. "[Thirty] seconds of direct sunlight injection to the anal orifice is equivalent to being outside in the sun ALL DAY!"

He's dangerous alright. Five days in the future.

What about the sabertooth tiger?

Did you leave a message.

No, but I'll know on Wednesday if it did. This story was in the news on Wednesday and maybe even earlier.

We knew this yesterday.

We can't talk about fat, stupid, corrupt leaders with horrendous hair. I honor that board rule.

I keep hoping to see some solid data that sheds some light on what underlying conditions are the worst, or which combinations of conditions with certain meds, etc. I think it's still too early to know for sure, although there's some data out there. It's kind of confusing for the layman. We know it's an overactive immune response that gets a lot of (most?) people in trouble. So wouldn't a medication that dampens the immune system be protective? One thing to ponder is whether people with chronic health conditions by definition have immune systems that don't work right.

So odd. I don't even know where to start. Maybe I could start with the fact you are arguing against mitigation but practicing it at the same time. Keep the vulnerable inside and everyone else go back to normal. OK, you first. What are you afraid of? Get in there! Make some new friends!

Stop being logical.

Correct. Why would a discussion of his health lead to a discussion of his leadership, policies, etc. We can't have that here! #thoughtsandprayersgoout

The purpose of mitigation is to protect the health care system from being overwhelmed.

That's a tough policy when a doctor has told you to stay at home and has your economic future in his or her hands. In PA, a medically-ordered stay at home order triggers unemployment eligibility.

Sorry to hear it. Why no unemployment?

What problem?

@SwampD you need to come up with a new question and save this lost three-hour tour (four in Taro's case).

"Significant risk of dying" is the operative term and is quite subjective. Because 95% or 99% of people don't die from an activity doesn't mean the risk isn't significant. It's statistically and personally significant. If there was a 1 in 100 chance you wouldn't return to your home after going grocery shopping tomorrow, you would almost certainly stay home. What if the Sabres announced that 191 people would die in their seats the next time they sell out a game? What would it look like in there? (Softball question, and the sticklers can have fun with my math and terminology.)

Yay! So what does this mean? If L. Ron Hubbard had been A. Ron Hubbard and played in the NHL as an alternate captain I would be correct? I'll take it!

I meant the A for alternate captain.

Which sentence? I'm asking for a friend.

B.J. Hunnicutt would disagree. @New Scotland (NS) Wait... I GOT ONE! Thanks, B.J.

A. Ron Hubbard. Except it's L. Ron, and he never played in the NHL.

Are you sure it's the bulk of the economy? Essential was pretty loosely defined, at least in my state. And the last I heard, over 4,000 exemptions were given to non-essential businesses. Isn't the unemployment rate "only" 16%? Probably unnecessary quibbling about the meaning of "bulk," but it's just not accurate to say the American economy is "shut down." Or that the economy needs to "re-open." That was supposed to be between the two of us. (See what I did there?)