tomgamber
Well-known member
I love how a different opinion gets people to assume anyone is offended. I thought it was hysterical that the only responses were about cheap gas rather than the fact that people think this ever going away.
S
SmoothOperator
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 523
I pray to god your wrong Tom.....Places I'm delivering to are like a war zone in Florida..... They closed the border down there and although I can still deliver gennys ......Count me out.....I got spooked and ain't going back......Usually my gut instinct is dead on so I'm done......Why do you think this is going to be a common thing/occurance,In the future ????????
tomgamber
Well-known member
I went to the store. My wife asked me, " how was it out there today?" I said it was like when the Steelers are playing in the superbowl.
tomgamber
Well-known member
How many people die from flu every year? Where's it going to go?
S
SmoothOperator
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 523
. Hopefully the same place as the other plagues in history ..... ( Bird Flu , Spanish Flu, Ebola, etc.).......And hopefully a cure ( like a flu shot ) is coming soon...
tomgamber
Well-known member
Right we have flu shots now. How many people die from flu, still?
On the upside, necessity is the mother of invention.
https://youtu.be/oLQ5bXakWq8
R
reelinron
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2016
- Messages
- 30
1) I was initially in the camp that this was not as bad as the flu based on death rates. Well I think if you have paid attention, the flu analogy has been debunked on many levels. I was wrong and I think the few still holding on to this will see it sooner or later too.
2) I am 61 and a heart patient.............Strong family history, 2 attacks, 3 stents, 4 catherizations and angina. My cardiologist called me and said I am a high risk person and should lay low, so I am "Layin low in Delco." Down here stocked streams are crowded and I have always avoided them Early season before Corona and now even more so.
3) I have fished since I was in diapers, literally, and fished hard and often my whole life. Twice fishing trips ended me in the ER. Once when my brother slipped on a jetty and needed stitches in his head. The other time I got a hook threw my finger, under the nail through a tendon. This was one I was not getting out by pushing through and clipping off the barb, this mother was in there. My point is there were 2 out of thousands of trips that led me to a hospital. It can happen.
4) I have a daughter who is a nurse, she was exposed to another nurse who tested positive before they were protected. Luckily. after a quarantine she came out untouched. My son in law is a PT, similar experience, exposed, tested and luckily came out untouched. They are both back to work.
5) Reducing possible exposure is not about empathy or a sign of support, it is to reduce the number of people exposed and showing up at the hospital.
6) I will fish again, but for now I am not.
Not going to argue or judge, just making a few points.
Ron
2) I am 61 and a heart patient.............Strong family history, 2 attacks, 3 stents, 4 catherizations and angina. My cardiologist called me and said I am a high risk person and should lay low, so I am "Layin low in Delco." Down here stocked streams are crowded and I have always avoided them Early season before Corona and now even more so.
3) I have fished since I was in diapers, literally, and fished hard and often my whole life. Twice fishing trips ended me in the ER. Once when my brother slipped on a jetty and needed stitches in his head. The other time I got a hook threw my finger, under the nail through a tendon. This was one I was not getting out by pushing through and clipping off the barb, this mother was in there. My point is there were 2 out of thousands of trips that led me to a hospital. It can happen.
4) I have a daughter who is a nurse, she was exposed to another nurse who tested positive before they were protected. Luckily. after a quarantine she came out untouched. My son in law is a PT, similar experience, exposed, tested and luckily came out untouched. They are both back to work.
5) Reducing possible exposure is not about empathy or a sign of support, it is to reduce the number of people exposed and showing up at the hospital.
6) I will fish again, but for now I am not.
Not going to argue or judge, just making a few points.
Ron
ryansheehan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,520
My post was about someone being fined for "going on a drive". As far as this going away why would anyone think it is? Your hot take on covid being around for a long time is just not controversial at all, everyone knows it at this point.
gulfgreyhound
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,197
I hope they develop a vaccine soon! Iget a flu shot and will get a C19 shot ,I hope.
People seem oblivious to whats happening from the crowd s at Wlly world to the cars still on the roads when we go out for groceries. Boat ramps are crowded and it's like summer is here. My zip code has the highest number of cases in the whole county. Not a nice thing to think about.i
Enjoy your time on the water,im jealous.GG
People seem oblivious to whats happening from the crowd s at Wlly world to the cars still on the roads when we go out for groceries. Boat ramps are crowded and it's like summer is here. My zip code has the highest number of cases in the whole county. Not a nice thing to think about.i
Enjoy your time on the water,im jealous.GG
Acristickid
Well-known member
The problem with a relatively healthy adult and a decent car- you would assume that you’d be able to get to your destinations and arrive home safely but the issue is you are now putting others at risk.
How?
What if you break down? What if you get an accident? Again- here’s one for the best motorcycle riders- What if some texter hits you?
Now you have a tow guy exposed, a cop, EMT’s, the other vehicle or vehicles? Not to mention sucking up resources that could be used for the sick and or not further taxing the system.
Low chance perhaps but still a chance.
How?
What if you break down? What if you get an accident? Again- here’s one for the best motorcycle riders- What if some texter hits you?
Now you have a tow guy exposed, a cop, EMT’s, the other vehicle or vehicles? Not to mention sucking up resources that could be used for the sick and or not further taxing the system.
Low chance perhaps but still a chance.
P
poopdeck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,420
Why does nobody answer a simple question. How long do we keep the country locked down for? How long to we continue to keep business from operating? How long to we force people to stay in their homes? another month, end of summer, rest of the year, or until a vaccine is developed? And what exactly is the point now that we know this is not going away? Its time to end the craziness and time to learn how to live and work with it. This is a more reasonable action then sitting around and waiting. The American workforce has defeated all ills in our history and it will for this as well.
D
dryflyguy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 6,147
I understand that China started opening things up last month. Maybe 3 months after the pandemic started.
And cases started spiking again, and they had to put the brakes back on
We'll have more leads to follow from europe too.
I saw that Sweden started opening up last week - trusting it's citizens to follow good hygiene and social distancing practicing.
Be interesting to see how that works
I don't see us even thinking about ending the lockdowns until June.
We have to be very careful.
I caught a PBS special about the spanish flu outbreak of 1918 last week. (well worth watching)
The similarities of what happened then, and what's happening now are striking.
It hit about the same time of year. Then subsided over the summer, and we thought we were out of the woods.
Only to have it come back again in the fall, worse than ever
And cases started spiking again, and they had to put the brakes back on
We'll have more leads to follow from europe too.
I saw that Sweden started opening up last week - trusting it's citizens to follow good hygiene and social distancing practicing.
Be interesting to see how that works
I don't see us even thinking about ending the lockdowns until June.
We have to be very careful.
I caught a PBS special about the spanish flu outbreak of 1918 last week. (well worth watching)
The similarities of what happened then, and what's happening now are striking.
It hit about the same time of year. Then subsided over the summer, and we thought we were out of the woods.
Only to have it come back again in the fall, worse than ever
ThePharmacist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 111
if there’s a chance we can prevent many people from dying prematurely then it’s worth going along with staying at home. It’s not a “simple” question as to how long to keep measures up. My wife and I have not been inside a store since 3/13 and we are not part of the TP hoarding brigade.
If I miss a few months or even an entire year of trout fishing over this I probably won’t remember much about it 10 years from now.
In some ways I’m embarrassed to associate myself as a fisherman if there’s so many of us out there acting foolish and disregarding suggestions from heath professionals. Sure it’s legal to fish right now. Legal does not make it sensible.
All that being said, I taught my kid to ride without training wheels a few weeks ago. We’ve been riding bikes around our small neighborhood and he skidded out on some gravel and went down pretty hard. I guess my behavior was just as risky as someone else who was fishing.
If I miss a few months or even an entire year of trout fishing over this I probably won’t remember much about it 10 years from now.
In some ways I’m embarrassed to associate myself as a fisherman if there’s so many of us out there acting foolish and disregarding suggestions from heath professionals. Sure it’s legal to fish right now. Legal does not make it sensible.
All that being said, I taught my kid to ride without training wheels a few weeks ago. We’ve been riding bikes around our small neighborhood and he skidded out on some gravel and went down pretty hard. I guess my behavior was just as risky as someone else who was fishing.
jifigz
Well-known member
The current orders are only in place to slow the spread and allow health care systems to gain supplies and not have too many to deal with all at once. A lot of people will get infected because we have to go to work..most people will be fine, some will not, it's just how it's going to go..I am fully expecting to get infected at some point. It just seems likely.
I think not fishing right now is just stupid. Plenty of places to fish without seeing people. And if a boat ramp is full so what? Is every carload out there on the same boat holding hands? No. It is way safer than going to the store or the gas station etc. When I fish I tend to fish alone and see no one.
Poopdeck, the bottom part of my post is in no way a reply to you.
CLSports
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,136
I do agree with the OP, but what about when those health care workers have a day off and want to go out fishing to relax and forget about the stress for a day?
This happened to me last weekend. I was at a stream and 5 cars came to the parking lot and I overheard them talking about work at the hospital. I imagine they were all doctors and such based on the very expensive cars they were driving, but that was just an assumption of mine. They seemed to be there to get away.
I get out fishing, but I try to stay as far away from people as possible. even the lesser visited places seemed really crowded lately though . . .
People need to get out. I don't care about actually catching fish much anymore, but I like to be outdoors and enjoy the serenity and fresh air.
This happened to me last weekend. I was at a stream and 5 cars came to the parking lot and I overheard them talking about work at the hospital. I imagine they were all doctors and such based on the very expensive cars they were driving, but that was just an assumption of mine. They seemed to be there to get away.
I get out fishing, but I try to stay as far away from people as possible. even the lesser visited places seemed really crowded lately though . . .
People need to get out. I don't care about actually catching fish much anymore, but I like to be outdoors and enjoy the serenity and fresh air.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,827
The more I think through this, the more I think the actual purpose of the lockdown was bit of a decision to punt now and play defense, and hope to get the ball back later. And I agree with it. That said, sometimes you don't get the ball back.
Here's what I mean, and how I see things going. The lockdowns are here to get us through the "peak" and reduce the initial deaths by avoiding overwhelming the healthcare system. That's important, and it will save total lives, period, versus doing nothing and just letting the virus tear through the country as rapidly as possible. It will slow the initial course of the virus down for sure, so that makes it worse (longer) for the economy, and for people being stuck in their houses longer. If you let the virus do as it pleases, it will be a much higher/faster peak, with less immediate disturbance to the economy, and anyone who is lucky enough to not get it, or only a mild case. Bottom line, saving lives is more important than the short-term impact to the economy, or a short-term infringement on folks recreational activities...fly fishing, sporting events, going to the gym, mall, bar, yakking, spincasting, letting your dogs splash around in creeks...whatever it is you like to do.
Once the peak passes, and new cases subside to pre-mid-March levels (current models suggest mid/late May for much of the country, but subject to change and highly dependent on specific locale) I think you will see things open up pretty rapidly, given the ideology of the administration in Washington. States (even Democratically governed ones) will be forced to follow suit to avoid being left behind economically, and facing the displeasure of temporarily displaced workers who would be rehired once things open back up. The headlines will shift to the new virus counts being so low, but yet folks can’t work and are hurting financially? This is a moral and political nightmare for governors, not envious of them one bit. Then, one of two things happen:
1. The virus is beaten back enough and has already infected many of the people most susceptible to it. Some herd immunity has developed, and moving forward you have a lower, but continuous and still significant infection stream, but the healthcare system can manage it. People still get sick, people still die, but it’s not a number being drastically inflated because sick people are dying who would’ve otherwise lived had the proper healthcare been available to them. Moving forward (not counting the initial peak) this ends up looking and feeling like a VERY severe flu season, but longer term. In this scenario, I think life gets back to reasonably "normal" fairly quickly, and the virus fades to the background, after the first commercial, of the evening news. The election comes back to the forefront, the economy largely recovers, maybe not quite to where it was immediately, but everything is largely back to normal. There’s probably some residual foreign travel restrictions that stay in place, and come and go as hot-spots get identified in other areas of the world. Cruises are dirt cheap for a while. Clearly this is the desirable scenario.
2. You open things up, and a new exponential curve begins (one that will again overwhelm the healthcare system) and we get to repeat the same "lockdown" processes and practices again. We're better prepared, so we catch it, and implement it earlier this time, so it's probably not as bad as round one. This time however, we are much more reluctant (for good reason) to ease the lockdown, so it goes on longer, and is eased much more gradually. The impact to the economy is more severe and longer term. The curve subsides again, and eventually we repeat the above…Do we have scenario 1 or 2 this time?
If you do your reading, there’s evidence and expert opinions out there to support either scenario playing out. What happens, we’ll find out in time. There’s a more strategic option that calls for a more calculated opening of the lockdown by testing high numbers of folks, and only opening things back up at first to those who have already had the virus, or are not especially susceptible to succumbing to it…typically younger folks. That being said, I don’t foresee the U.S. going that route until a full and rapid opening fails at least once. (Hopefully it doesn’t fail, and we get scenario #1.)
As far as the impact on all this to “just fishing”…It’s a slippery slope. I had sausage in my (made at home) omelet this morning. In theory, I should have kept it to an egg white, veggie omelet as statistically this would result in less chance of me having a heart attack and needing medical care during the crisis. Of course, keeping fresh veggies stocked means more trips to the grocery store versus pulling some sausage out of the freezer. Excellent point by ThePharmacist above with the riding bikes comparison. Literally, do not go outside your house is one option. Where’s the right line? I don’t know. No one does. Do what you think is reasonable, and right, and don’t put others unnecessarily or unreasonably at risk. Expect (hope maybe?) that others will be doing the same, but don’t criticize them, except in extreme and obscene circumstances. Short version, give folks the benefit of the doubt. If someone goes fishing, AND doesn’t break any social distancing tenets or any local temporary laws, cool. If someone decides not to go fishing, also cool.
Here's what I mean, and how I see things going. The lockdowns are here to get us through the "peak" and reduce the initial deaths by avoiding overwhelming the healthcare system. That's important, and it will save total lives, period, versus doing nothing and just letting the virus tear through the country as rapidly as possible. It will slow the initial course of the virus down for sure, so that makes it worse (longer) for the economy, and for people being stuck in their houses longer. If you let the virus do as it pleases, it will be a much higher/faster peak, with less immediate disturbance to the economy, and anyone who is lucky enough to not get it, or only a mild case. Bottom line, saving lives is more important than the short-term impact to the economy, or a short-term infringement on folks recreational activities...fly fishing, sporting events, going to the gym, mall, bar, yakking, spincasting, letting your dogs splash around in creeks...whatever it is you like to do.
Once the peak passes, and new cases subside to pre-mid-March levels (current models suggest mid/late May for much of the country, but subject to change and highly dependent on specific locale) I think you will see things open up pretty rapidly, given the ideology of the administration in Washington. States (even Democratically governed ones) will be forced to follow suit to avoid being left behind economically, and facing the displeasure of temporarily displaced workers who would be rehired once things open back up. The headlines will shift to the new virus counts being so low, but yet folks can’t work and are hurting financially? This is a moral and political nightmare for governors, not envious of them one bit. Then, one of two things happen:
1. The virus is beaten back enough and has already infected many of the people most susceptible to it. Some herd immunity has developed, and moving forward you have a lower, but continuous and still significant infection stream, but the healthcare system can manage it. People still get sick, people still die, but it’s not a number being drastically inflated because sick people are dying who would’ve otherwise lived had the proper healthcare been available to them. Moving forward (not counting the initial peak) this ends up looking and feeling like a VERY severe flu season, but longer term. In this scenario, I think life gets back to reasonably "normal" fairly quickly, and the virus fades to the background, after the first commercial, of the evening news. The election comes back to the forefront, the economy largely recovers, maybe not quite to where it was immediately, but everything is largely back to normal. There’s probably some residual foreign travel restrictions that stay in place, and come and go as hot-spots get identified in other areas of the world. Cruises are dirt cheap for a while. Clearly this is the desirable scenario.
2. You open things up, and a new exponential curve begins (one that will again overwhelm the healthcare system) and we get to repeat the same "lockdown" processes and practices again. We're better prepared, so we catch it, and implement it earlier this time, so it's probably not as bad as round one. This time however, we are much more reluctant (for good reason) to ease the lockdown, so it goes on longer, and is eased much more gradually. The impact to the economy is more severe and longer term. The curve subsides again, and eventually we repeat the above…Do we have scenario 1 or 2 this time?
If you do your reading, there’s evidence and expert opinions out there to support either scenario playing out. What happens, we’ll find out in time. There’s a more strategic option that calls for a more calculated opening of the lockdown by testing high numbers of folks, and only opening things back up at first to those who have already had the virus, or are not especially susceptible to succumbing to it…typically younger folks. That being said, I don’t foresee the U.S. going that route until a full and rapid opening fails at least once. (Hopefully it doesn’t fail, and we get scenario #1.)
As far as the impact on all this to “just fishing”…It’s a slippery slope. I had sausage in my (made at home) omelet this morning. In theory, I should have kept it to an egg white, veggie omelet as statistically this would result in less chance of me having a heart attack and needing medical care during the crisis. Of course, keeping fresh veggies stocked means more trips to the grocery store versus pulling some sausage out of the freezer. Excellent point by ThePharmacist above with the riding bikes comparison. Literally, do not go outside your house is one option. Where’s the right line? I don’t know. No one does. Do what you think is reasonable, and right, and don’t put others unnecessarily or unreasonably at risk. Expect (hope maybe?) that others will be doing the same, but don’t criticize them, except in extreme and obscene circumstances. Short version, give folks the benefit of the doubt. If someone goes fishing, AND doesn’t break any social distancing tenets or any local temporary laws, cool. If someone decides not to go fishing, also cool.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
Exactly.
gulfgreyhound
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,197
Better safe than sorry? GG
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,827
Additional thought to my above post...
If/when a “no fishing” order is declared by the government, then all discussion on this stops in my mind until it’s lifted. No fishing, means no fishing. (I think that’s where we’re headed in the next week with MYD/OD on the horizon and the virus peak period likely coinciding with those dates.)
If/when a “no fishing” order is declared by the government, then all discussion on this stops in my mind until it’s lifted. No fishing, means no fishing. (I think that’s where we’re headed in the next week with MYD/OD on the horizon and the virus peak period likely coinciding with those dates.)
