Think we're going to see a surge in first-time cruisers?

[dlochner]

Maybe, but not from what I'm told. How many old guys hang out in bars and resturaunts with friends because wives and children are now gone. They are now imprissoned in thier own homes and don't access the internet. This shutdown is stealing life and liberty from them. One month of a seniors life is a much higher percentage of what they have left on this earth than a younger person. You say "He might have already been on the edge", well the same is true for the majority that have succumbed to the virus. If I was that old guy I would be begging to let me live my life and I'll take my chances with the virus. The shutdown is punishing the vast majority for the sake of those "on the edge". We should protect the vulnerable not deny them the freedom to chose.

The logic is faulty. While we might want to assert our "right" to live as we wish, we do not have the right to endanger others. Gathering in groups increases the likelihood of both getting the virus and spreading the virus. With this particular virus a person can be contagious and not even know it. No one can tell who they might infect and how the infected person might respond.

Depression and isolation in the elderly is a problem whether there is a pandemic or not. It is unfortunate that he chose to end his life, it would equally or perhaps more unfortunate if he contracted the virus and spread the virus causing someone else to lose their life who had years to live.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I don't think of myself as a pessimist, but I can't see a return to normality as possible. Nor do I think it an especially good thing.
The human race has a once in history chance to change the things that need changing. A reboot, if you will. Going back to the same old, same old is insane. Perhaps insuring that all the people of the world have shelter, food, clean water, health care and switching to renewable energy could become the focus of human existence, rather than the me, me, me of the pre-pandemic world? A world without war because those who would become radicals will have those things I mentioned above instead of the dismal, hopeless future that facilitates radicalism.
Interesting proposition, don't you think?

No, but you do sound bitter about something. Actually, the world around us has been on a trajectory of improvement for a very long time. I don't think there has ever been a time when prosperity is available to more of the world's population than now. The world is in a constant state of evolution so I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to 'same old, same old'. The times are changing and they always have been. Where have you been? What's so wrong that needs drastic change? Perhaps China needs a swift kick in the ass for what they have done.

I think that it's a false premise that radicalism is borne from hopelessness. Haven't you ever noticed that most radical revolutionaries come primarily from middle-class and bourgeois backgrounds? I think radicalism comes primarily from bitterness and envy. It seems that revolutionaries are always born among the wealthy, have comfortable lives and education when they are young, and then when they look around and become envious of some of their neighbors, they get radicalized. They project their own bitterness, primarily to gain political power by exploiting the so-called plight of the poor and hopeless. Basically, they are mostly spoiled rich kids that need an outlet for their own mis-guided ambition. Isn't it strange that radicalism rarely, if ever, improves the condition for the people whom the radicals exploit for power. In fact, the opposite is often the case. Conditions normally degenerate under radicalism. And I think that was your point. Except that you seem to think that the world WAS on a degenerating trajectory prior to the pandemic and that it is time for correction. I have the opposite view. The world has been on a positive trajectory and it will continue to be a positive trajectory after we return to normalcy by defeating this pandemic.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

The logic is faulty. While we might want to assert our "right" to live as we wish, we do not have the right to endanger others. Gathering in groups increases the likelihood of both getting the virus and spreading the virus. With this particular virus a person can be contagious and not even know it. No one can tell who they might infect and how the infected person might respond.

Depression and isolation in the elderly is a problem whether there is a pandemic or not. It is unfortunate that he chose to end his life, it would equally or perhaps more unfortunate if he contracted the virus and spread the virus causing someone else to lose their life who had years to live.

It's faulty logic to assume that we do not have the right to endanger others. Our very existence endangers others. That's an inescapable fact. This virus is scary right now simply because we don't know enough about it. We endanger the lives of others with every facet of our lives. We endanger others when we go sailing, go to work, go skiing, go to the stores. We have every manner of virus and bacteria and what-not clinging around us on a constant basis. We're scared of this virus simply because we don't know what we can expect from it. It's a rational response and it's rational to take preventative measures until we learn more about it. We'll find that we need a vaccine, or therapeutic remedy, or even herd immunity to kick it to the curb. The aged and even the strong among us are still going to die from disease and disorder and that is the result of our right to live our lives. So when will the right time to open society be? That's still an open question, but protests are going to increase, the longer we wait. We can't use false premises to keep people under wraps.

 

[David in Sandusky]

Speaking for us, we plan to increase our socially distanced cruising this summer. We will cruise the anchorages of the Lake Erie Islands, avoiding the crowds ashore. That's provided our Marina stays open. So far, they are, and we are scheduled to go in the water in about a month.

 

[dlochner]

It's faulty logic to assume that we do not have the right to endanger others. Our very existence endangers others. That's an inescapable fact. This virus is scary right now simply because we don't know enough about it. We endanger the lives of others with every facet of our lives. We endanger others when we go sailing, go to work, go skiing, go to the stores. We have every manner of virus and bacteria and what-not clinging around us on a constant basis. We're scared of this virus simply because we don't know what we can expect from it. It's a rational response and it's rational to take preventative measures until we learn more about it. We'll find that we need a vaccine, or therapeutic remedy, or even herd immunity to kick it to the curb. The aged and even the strong among us are still going to die from disease and disorder and that is the result of our right to live our lives. So when will the right time to open society be? That's still an open question, but protests are going to increase, the longer we wait. We can't use false premises to keep people under wraps.

There is a subtle and important difference between what you have said and what I intended to say. You're correct, irrespective of the pandemic, any of our actions may cause harm to others and it may do so without any ill intent. However, even without ill intent there is no right to behave in ways that jeopardize the safety and health of others. That's why we have DUI and BWI laws, that's why we all kinds of rules, laws, and regulations, to limit what you can do to others, not to limit what you can do to yourself. That's why attempting to take your own life is not criminal, attempting to take some one else's life is. Cutting your own arms is not criminal, cutting some one else's arm is.

With respect to the pandemic, we know enough about how it is transmitted to know that close personal contact can cause it to spread. We also know that the virus is fatal to some and may cause lasting health issues for others. Knowing this, no one has the right to deliberately behave in ways that jeopardize others.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

"With respect to the pandemic, we know enough about how it is transmitted to know that close personal contact can cause it to spread. We also know that the virus is fatal to some and may cause lasting health issues for others. Knowing this, no one has the right to deliberately behave in ways that jeopardize others. "

We know the same thing about influenza and yet we don't expect the same restrictions. We know that fresh air and sunlight is beneficial to our immunity, yet our open spaces are now restricted. I am very curious to know if the overall numbers of death have risen and COVID has caused an overall increase in morbidity or if overall morbidity has not spiked appreciably. Those would be some statistics that could be very useful to know. Age and poor health is such a contributing factor. It may be callous to say so, but how far do we have to go to protect the aged and the unhealthy when the statistics may show no overall increase in morbidity among that demographic? I wonder if the statistics can be known yet. I agree that we can't deliberately behave in ways that jeopardize a vulnerable demographic, but is it sane to expect that I can't go to work because there are people in this world that are more vulnerable to illness than others?

 

[Head Sail]

However, even without ill intent there is no right to behave in ways that jeopardize the safety and health of others. That's why we have DUI and BWI laws, that's why we all kinds of rules, laws, and regulations, to limit what you can do to others, not to limit what you can do to yourself.

When one chooses to drink and boat, they are actively taking steps to endanger others. That's why there are laws against it. If you have a medical issue while driving or boating and cause damage , you may be liable but it is not criminal. Is it criminal for someone with the flu to be in public or just COVID? The narative to wear a mast to protect others is disingenuois. They mostly wear to protect themselves. A mask will protect you from me as much as it protects me from you. If one is in fear of catching a virus then by all means wear a mask but don't tell me to wear one if you have yours. The unfortunate truth is we have become a very protected species. Like a forest when protected from fire to long, when it inevitably burns it will be a big one.

 

[dlochner]

We know the same thing about influenza and yet we don't expect the same restrictions. We know that fresh air and sunlight is beneficial to our immunity, yet our open spaces are now restricted. I am very curious to know if the overall numbers of death have risen and COVID has caused an overall increase in morbidity or if overall morbidity has not spiked appreciably. Those would be some statistics that could be very useful to know. Age and poor health is such a contributing factor. It may be callous to say so, but how far do we have to go to protect the aged and the unhealthy when the statistics may show no overall increase in morbidity among that demographic? I wonder if the statistics can be known yet. I agree that we can't deliberately behave in ways that jeopardize a vulnerable demographic, but is it sane to expect that I can't go to work because there are people in this world that are more vulnerable to illness than others?

First, don't think of this a not being able to go to work. Think of it as practice retirement.

Flu is a little different. The time between being contagious and knowing you're ill is pretty short, like a day. That inherently limits the spread. With C-19 the latency period, or time between being infected and no longer being contagious is really long, as much as 14 days. And, some people are asymptomatic and others have such mild symptoms they never notice. This exponentially increases the risk of transmission. There some treatments for flu that work and there are vaccines, again these mitigate the risks.

Part of the issue is vulnerable people, mostly older or with underlying health conditions. While it is tempting to simply suggest they are old and infirm and will die soon any way, that is a very slippery slope that we as society do not want to go down. There is an additional issue and the one the NYC Metro area is dealing with, overloaded hospitals. If the ICUs are full of C-19 patients and someone needs an ICU bed because of a heart attack, car accident or some other reason, that person is denied a bed because there isn't one. Over burdened hospitals is a huge problem in some areas.

The question of increased morbidity has to be placed in a time context. A large nursing home might lose 55 patients in a year, there was one nursing home that lost the 55 in a day. Our institutions, funeral homes, crematoria, cemeteries are simply not capable of handling the rapid increase in deaths, just as hospital are not capable of dealing with high numbers of ICU patients.

Then there is another level of social stress. The uncertainties associated with the virus, how to contain it, how long will it be, can we find an effective treatment, finding a vaccine, what will post pandemic life look like? What if the virus mutates and becomes more virulent or lethal? These issues are taking a toll. I spent 3 hours this morning with teachers listening to the struggles of families at home with their children all day. A lot of those families were high risk families to start with, the pandemic is doing little to ease their stress.

There is economic risk to extending the social distancing rules, however, I and many others believe the risk of a premature end to those rules is much greater, both socially and economically.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Flu is a little different. The time between being contagious and knowing you're ill is pretty short, like a day. That inherently limits the spread. With C-19 the latency period, or time between being infected and no longer being contagious is really long, as much as 14 days. And, some people are asymptomatic and others have such mild symptoms they never notice. This exponentially increases the risk of transmission. There some treatments for flu that work and there are vaccines, again these mitigate the risks.

Yes, these are significant differences. For the great number of people, these reasons have justified the restrictions. The pressure of the economy and the injustices of illogical restrictions is going to build. For instance, in some areas, Home Depot can sell garden supplies, yet landscape services are not allowed to work even though landscape maintenance is still allowed in select areas (such as government facilities). People notice and become enraged and I don't blame them.

 

[dlochner]

When one chooses to drink and boat, they are actively taking steps to endanger others. That's why there are laws against it. If you have a medical issue while driving or boating and cause damage , you may be liable but it is not criminal.

No argument there, different words, same idea.

Is it criminal for someone with the flu to be in public or just COVID?

At least here in central NY it is not criminal to be in public with C-19. It is a civil offense to violate certain rules, such as gathering in large groups, not maintaining appropriate distancing, not wearing a mask in a store or where close personal contact is likely. A civil offense only entails a fine.

A mask will protect you from me as much as it protects me from you.

Yes, and that is why everyone needs to wear a mask. Individually the masks are not that effective, however, if everyone is wearing a mask, they are more effective. To be honest, I didn't wear a mask until every one was required to wear one for that reason. Now I carry a sander with me when I wear an N95 mask, it seems more natural. (Just kidding about the sander. )

The unfortunate truth is we have become a very protected species. Like a forest when protected from fire to long, when it inevitably burns it will be a big one.

Preserving and protecting life and preserving and protecting the land upon which we live and depend on are inherent human traits. We have been doing that since time immemorial. There was time when we treated illness by blood letting and mental illness by burning "witches" at the stake. In a civilized and educated society we've moved beyond that. There was a time when we thought suppressing fire was the way to preserve forests, we know better now. We look back at the 1918 pandemic and learned from their mistakes. I have no doubt that we are making some mistakes now and 100 years from humans will look back at the 2020 pandemic and wonder what we were thinking. As each generation passes we gain more knowledge about our world and how best to protect life and the land upon which we live.

Looking back at 1918, Philadelphia partied on and lost thousands of lives. San Francisco shut down and very few died. Let's be more like San Francisco than Philadelphia.

 

[TomY]

Speaking of Home Depot, I heavily support a family owned hardware and building supply right here in town. It's such a great personal service for me in my building management biz.

But here's why I thought of it: Today, the head yard guy, friend like all the employees, was telling me that their business is up 30% since the virus has hit Maine.
In Maine, they are an essential biz (In Me.) as are all building repair and maintenance. I thought at least in this tough time that 30% is a silver lining for this small homegrown business. This mini boom is fueled by all the people home doing work around their houses and gardens.

This is the only place I have to be anywhere near another person in my work. I wear a mask but so far the employees don't.

They're set up spacing rules, plastic, lines etc., but they inevitably come in transmission distance to strangers. I'd say more than half of those customers are wearing masks but everybody is moving cautiously around each other.

I felt a little odd with a mask in there at first but now I feel it's the right thing to do for the employees that are at the higher risk than I. I'd demand all customers wore a mask, we're the risk that's coming in.

I'm hoping my wearing a mask will result in my friend in the lumber shed to wear one as well.

 

[dlochner]

Yes, these are significant differences. For the great number of people, these reasons have justified the restrictions. The pressure of the economy and the injustices of illogical restrictions is going to build. For instance, in some areas, Home Depot can sell garden supplies, yet landscape services are not allowed to work even though landscape maintenance is still allowed in select areas (such as government facilities). People notice and become enraged and I don't blame them.

Don't get me started on stupid rules. However, in defense of the rule makers, when confronted with a rapidly emerging crisis it is faster and easier to issue broad rules that are overly restrictive than to consider the nuances of every decision. Sort of a shoot first and ask questions later. At least in NY, we're beginning the process of reviewing those rules and making more rational decisions. Two weeks ago marinas were declared non-essential businesses, last Saturday, marinas were allowed to open with certain conditions. A week ago, RV parks were declared non-essential businesses, today the Health Department outlined the process and rules that would allow RV parks to open. From one perspective it looks like poor and indecisive leadership. From another perspective it appears like leadership trying to manage a fast moving health crisis and a rapidly deteriorating economic crisis, balancing both economic and health concerns. It's a tough job. I've had occasion to manage a few small scale crisis situations, it ain't fun and someone is always bitching about the decisions being made.

We live in a democracy and our leaders are accountable to us. If there are rules being implemented to which are particularly onerous to you, then speak up in a rational way that lets your voice and concerns be heard. I wrote letters to my elected officials about marinas being closed and a week later they opened up. My wife warns me to not become delusional about the impact of my letters, but hey, ya never know. A letter is far better way of communicating than becoming an internet zombie meme while pounding on the door of the state capital.

Reason and facts need to guide us through these next few months. Unfortunately, the least fortunate among us will pay the greatest price, as always.

 

[dlochner]

They're set up spacing rules, plastic, lines etc., but they inevitably come in transmission distance to strangers. I'd say more than half of those customers are wearing masks but everybody is moving cautiously around each other.

A couple of weeks ago, I stopped by Lowe's. They had lots of signs up reminding people to not touch displays, maintain social distancing, and so forth.

I bought my boat part (an essential purchase) walked to the check out line and saw a series of big blue squares on the floor that said, "Stand here". So like any obedient Kindergarten student I stood on the blue square and advanced 1 blue square at a time. When it was my turn at the register I walked up and stood on the blue square. Quickly, the cashier said, "DON"T Stand on the SQUARE!" There on the counter was a small sign that said "Please stand behind the square." First they trained me up to stand on the squares, then they tell me not do that.

 

[shemandr]

We adapt. People find new ways of doing things. Two weeks ago there weren't barriers at check outs in supermarkets. While the government argues about the use of face masks people were at home sewing them. My Rotary Club in Greenport is donating a 3-D printer to a public library which intends to make N95 masks for hospital workers. I don't have to go to the bank anymore. We learned not to source our critical supplies with one source. We have to learn how to ramp up stocks of PPE - latex gloves at least don't have that long of a shelf life. You can't just order a s**t ton of them and keep them in storage.
On the other hand, with the government control model individuals, businesses and groups petition the government for the favors of being considered "Essential" without any rational. The public knows it and it makes them angry, especially if they don't have political clout. They see their lives being destroyed in an arbitrary fashion by the Gov'mint.
I'll take innovation over government control any day. I don't need to be told to avoid people. I don't need to be told to wear a mask. I was wearing face covering in mid-February. I need access to information to be able to calculate my risk. I need access to testing. I don't want to beg the government for a test through my doctor. OK, I'll stand down....

 

[capta]

No, but you do sound bitter about something. Actually, the world around us has been on a trajectory of improvement for a very long time. I don't think there has ever been a time when prosperity is available to more of the world's population than now. The world is in a constant state of evolution so I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to 'same old, same old'. The times are changing and they always have been. Where have you been? What's so wrong that needs drastic change? Perhaps China needs a swift kick in the ass for what they have done.

I think that it's a false premise that radicalism is borne from hopelessness. Haven't you ever noticed that most radical revolutionaries come primarily from middle-class and bourgeois backgrounds? I think radicalism comes primarily from bitterness and envy. It seems that revolutionaries are always born among the wealthy, have comfortable lives and education when they are young, and then when they look around and become envious of some of their neighbors, they get radicalized. They project their own bitterness, primarily to gain political power by exploiting the so-called plight of the poor and hopeless. Basically, they are mostly spoiled rich kids that need an outlet for their own mis-guided ambition. Isn't it strange that radicalism rarely, if ever, improves the condition for the people whom the radicals exploit for power. In fact, the opposite is often the case. Conditions normally degenerate under radicalism. And I think that was your point. Except that you seem to think that the world WAS on a degenerating trajectory prior to the pandemic and that it is time for correction. I have the opposite view. The world has been on a positive trajectory and it will continue to be a positive trajectory after we return to normalcy by defeating this pandemic.

Wow, there's just too much there to address, so I'll begin with the radicals. The most of the ones you get up close to and personal with through the media may well be as you said, from well off families, but they are a tiny number when one considers that the ISIS forces had upwards of 10k at their height. Most of those were recruited in Muslim countries and were very poor.
I can't see why you would think me angry, though I obviously see the state of America in a completely different light than you.
What do you find positive about the world's trajectory when we now have Al Quida, ISIS, Boko Haram and many others holding our attention on a daily basis, with their atrocities? We have devastated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by passing the Patriot Act in a futile effort to gain a security that can never exist. We have numerous mass shootings by crazies (not necessarily radicals at all), killing children in schools on an ever increasing basis and the US has more (and a greater percent of its population) incarcerated than any other country on this planet. And you want to know why? Because the privatization of prisons is big bucks. Real big bucks. So we incarcerate our citizens to make the wealthy, wealthier. Now that has become the America you say is getting better. Maybe in your neighborhood, but not a whole lot of others.
The US is by far the richest country on the planet, yet less that a quarter of its citizens have any sort of health care and we have had homeless and starving people on our streets for decades. In point of fact, more many Americans have been murdered by the white supremacists than by Muslim terrorists, so perhaps our attention needs to shift to the real danger.
Of course, you are welcome to your opinion, but I can't see how you come by your conclusions. Perhaps we should move this to PM, if you'd like to continue this discussion?
If you don't believe any of this, check it out. I may not have the exact correct numbers, but the facts are unassailable.

 

[Head Sail]

At least here in central NY it is not criminal to be in public with C-19. It is a civil offense to violate certain rules, such as gathering in large groups, not maintaining appropriate distancing, not wearing a mask in a store or where close personal contact is likely. A civil offense only entails a fine.

This is what pisses people off. Your mask protects you, that's your choice. I may not wear a mask for my reasons. We are now both happy. But here comes the government and infringes on my rights. Don't get me wrong, I will wear a mask if I feel the situation warrants. I don't need the government to tell me every situation that I'm in and pass a law with penalties.

Yes, and that is why everyone needs to wear a mask. Individually the masks are not that effective, however, if everyone is wearing a mask, they are more effective. To be honest, I didn't wear a mask until every one was required to wear one for that reason. Now I carry a sander with me when I wear an N95 mask, it seems more natural. (Just kidding about the sander. )

You are not going to get everyone to wear a mask. Be realistic. Not going to happen. No point in passing coercive legislation to force people to do it. Your mask protects you, my lack of a mask is my choice or as some may say YMYC. (Your Mask Your Choice).

Looking back at 1918, Philadelphia partied on and lost thousands of lives. San Francisco shut down and very few died. Let's be more like San Francisco than Philadelphia.

And we will if everyone assesses their own situation AS INDIVIDUALS with guidance from the goverment not threating civil penalties. Protect the vulnerable by closing off the facilities they occupy, warn the population of the risks, and have in place the medical resources to handle the onslaught.

 

[dmax]

I say your mask protects others more than you, that's why you should wear it.

 

[dlochner]

This is what pisses people off. Your mask protects you, that's your choice. I may not wear a mask for my reasons. We are now both happy. But here comes the government and infringes on my rights. Don't get me wrong, I will wear a mask if I feel the situation warrants. I don't need the government to tell me every situation that I'm in and pass a law with penalties.

You are incorrect. Your mask protects me, my masks protects you. The mask prevents water droplets from leaving your face, drifting in the air and landing on surfaces and to a very minor extent prevents you from breathing in any virus containing droplets. And vice versa. This is why masks are essential.

You are not going to get everyone to wear a mask. Be realistic. Not going to happen. No point in passing coercive legislation to force people to do it. Your mask protects you, my lack of a mask is my choice or as some may say YMYC. (Your Mask Your Choice).

Not everyone is going to wear a mask, not everyone is going to drive sober, not everyone is going to follow all laws, to believe other wise is folly. However, it is our obligation to act in the common good and it wearing a mask is in the common good.

If you don't wear a mask, fine, but don't show up at a hospital needing care because you contracted C-19. Don't complain because the hospital can't treat you because they are full of C-19 patients. If you take unnecessary risks, then accept the consequences. That's the other half of the equation, if you don't want to act in the common good, then don't expect the rest of us to support you.

And we will if everyone assesses their own situation AS INDIVIDUALS with guidance from the goverment not threating civil penalties. Protect the vulnerable by closing off the facilities they occupy, warn the population of the risks, and have in place the medical resources to handle the onslaught.

Well, I know a lot about human behavior. This is a nice sentiment, but it simply doesn't work in real life. People are inherently irrational and act in their short term interests not their long term. They respond to immediacy, either positive or negative. Shaping social behavior is complex and is not at all based on commonsense. When someone says "Commonsense says you should...." they are wrong. Sorry, that's just the nature of the human beast.

 

[Head Sail]

I say your mask protects others more than you, that's why you should wear it.

If the situation calls for it I will. I will judge that. I don't need a law.

 

[dlochner]

If the situation calls for it I will. I will judge that. I don't need a law.

That's fine if it is a reasoned and informed judgement based on your professional understanding of epidemiology, infectious diseases, and human behavior. Otherwise, I would humbly suggest you listen to the experts, not the politicians and the charlatans like Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.