Now the WHO wants to take our sick kids and other sick people right out of our homes

[Juvenal]

All joking aside, I call it kidnapping -- plain and simple.

There is, of course, a significant difference between separating a child from a parent who has broken the law, and forcibly removing members from a law abiding household.

By force is a logical presumption, as we saw them doing in China (though China can get away that). Not everyone, in fact, probably most folks wouldn't move voluntarily nor willingly, so if you're trying to implement an effective household quarantine strategy consistently, what would be the next move? Compromise?

We've got the transcript now. The story isn't true. It's time to stop spreading this.

Ryan spoke about compassionately, and with dignity, moving people sick at home with covid into professional care if it was available. From there, it went to Tucker Carlson, who "presumed" it would be done by force. From there, it went to Rebel News, where it became the WHO coming to kidnap your children.

IHME is projecting we'll hit peak resource use in about a week.

2020-04-08_01-55-40.jpg

We'll need 285,000 beds. We've got 73,000.
We'll need 56,000 ICU beds. We've got 16,000.
We'll need 48,000 ventilators. We've got 14,000.

Please God, hurry the day we'll be able to talk about taking people who are merely gravely ill into hospitals where they belong. One thing will slow that day, and it's a topic that came up again and again in the transcript. Without community buy-in, this won't work. We won't be able to suppress the virus. We won't be able to keep it suppressed until there's a vaccine.

We're in a car pointed downhill pumping the brakes right now. The difference being it's not the speed of the car that's going to come back up if we ease off.

These attacks on WHO, these fictions, they're not helpful.

[simplicio]

I think that there was some thread recently, a thread whose title contained the words fear and evangelicals in the title!

[seanD]

I think that there was some thread recently, a thread whose title contained the words fear and evangelicals in the title!

No need to fear a thing if you're an American because nothing like that would dare come to these shores. But a quarantine is a quarantine. He wasn't talking about a luxury ambulance service for those sick who needed a lift to a hospital. Folks that are that sick will go the hospital. He's talking about isolating folks so they don't come into contact with other folks. He just put a nice little bow on it and called it "dignified" because he knows it would require force in some instances.

[simplicio]

No need to fear a thing if you're an American because nothing like that would dare come to these shores. But a quarantine is a quarantine. He wasn't talking about a luxury ambulance service for those sick who needed a lift to a hospital. Folks that are that sick will go the hospital. He's talking about isolating folks so they don't come into contact with other folks. He just put a nice little bow on it and called it "dignified" because he knows it would require force in some instances.

In other words: Who cares if it is true, its the message that counts!

[mossrose]

I think that there was some thread recently, a thread whose title contained the words fear and evangelicals in the title!

Get out of my thread, troll. I won't ask you again.

[Sparko]

first of all what he suggested isn't even practical. The whole point of isolation at home is to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, by keeping sick people at home unless they get bad enough to NEED to go to the hospital. Since most cases do not require hospitalization, this is a good strategy. If there is anyone in a household who is at high risk though, perhaps they should go somewhere else if someone in the household is sick.

This story is just a scare tactic from the right, just like all of the scare tactic stories from the left. This guy has no authority and doesn't even make any sense. He would end up flooding hospitals with non-serious cases. Or creating a logistics nightmare with trying to house that many sick people elsewhere, like some sort of group home or camp or something. It's nonsense.

[KingsGambit]

first of all what he suggested isn't even practical. The whole point of isolation at home is to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, by keeping sick people at home unless they get bad enough to NEED to go to the hospital. Since most cases do not require hospitalization, this is a good strategy. If there is anyone in a household who is at high risk though, perhaps they should go somewhere else if someone in the household is sick.

This story is just a scare tactic from the right, just like all of the scare tactic stories from the left. This guy has no authority and doesn't even make any sense. He would end up flooding hospitals with non-serious cases. Or creating a logistics nightmare with trying to house that many sick people elsewhere, like some sort of group home or camp or something. It's nonsense.

I agree it is unlikely this would actually fly in the US. A country like China or Singapore that accepts authoritarianism as a way of life, certainly. But this nonetheless remains politically relevant as the next debate is to whether to cut off all funding to WHO like Trump has proposed. We will begin to ask ourselves whether this is an organization on the same page as the rest of us (though this one person's comment probably isn't the best evidence for that).

[Juvenal]

first of all what he suggested isn't even practical.

It's practical in the context of the question about Asian countries where they've 1) managed to suppress the epidemic enough to be able to free extra beds, where they've 2) got few enough cases so that health workers can get back to shoe-leather contact tracing, and where 3) community spreading is now so low they've got the luxury of looking inside the homes of folks they'd placed on case isolation at home to see if they couldn't better limit the spread by bringing them into hospitals.

But the fiction that they were going to have to do this by force is multiply contradicted by the emphasis placed on the necessity to get community buy in.

[Juvenal]

I agree it is unlikely this would actually fly in the US.

Please stop spreading this fiction. No one has suggested kidnapping kids. No one has suggested using force.

The only "this" here is letting sick people who can't go to the hospital now go to the hospital when there's room available. Of course we're going to allow this when we can.

[demi-conservative]

Obviously unlike neutered Europe, this would never fly in an armed America, which is why a global war meant to take America out of the picture is required before they can get the communist, authoritarian world government they crave.

Freedom of assembly has been quickly surrendered. Rights are so easy to get rid of with enough fear.

[Darfius]

Freedom of assembly has been quickly surrendered. Rights are so easy to get rid of with enough fear.

I don't think mere fear is the answer. Americans have gotten used to so many luxuries--far more than most of humanity has ever seen--that they are willing to temporarily give up a right or two and some privileges in the hopes that things will eventually "return to normal". So I think greed plays a significant role, as well. Once they discover that things will never be "going back to normal", there will be more of an outcry. And were they to attempt to snatch family members from homes, there would be far more than an outcry.

[KingsGambit]

Please stop spreading this fiction. No one has suggested kidnapping kids. No one has suggested using force.

The only "this" here is letting sick people who can't go to the hospital now go to the hospital when there's room available. Of course we're going to allow this when we can.

I don't understand how my post is actually endorsing that interpretation.

[seanD]

I agree it is unlikely this would actually fly in the US. A country like China or Singapore that accepts authoritarianism as a way of life, certainly. But this nonetheless remains politically relevant as the next debate is to whether to cut off all funding to WHO like Trump has proposed. We will begin to ask ourselves whether this is an organization on the same page as the rest of us (though this one person's comment probably isn't the best evidence for that).

His comment about isolating individuals from their home, coupled with the fact they were initially lax about the outbreak (probably to cover for China -- the conspiracy has it that China was a big contributor of funds to their organization, though I'm not sure how legit that is) is good enough reason for us to cut all ties.

[demi-conservative]

Once they discover that things will never be "going back to normal"

Never?

[Darfius]

Never?

To stop coronavirus we will need to radically change almost everything we do: how we work, exercise, socialize, shop, manage our health, educate our kids, take care of family members.
We all want things to go back to normal quickly. But what most of us have probably not yet realized—yet will soon—is that things won’t go back to normal after a few weeks, or even a few months. Some things never will.

https://www.technologyreview.com/202...ing-18-months/