I think that to be a wholly emotional response.
@roamer_1 @DB It is to some extent, but that extent may be justified. Our situations are sometimes similar, but often different, too.
Everyone has their own perception of risk, some informed, some not so much. but most of the folks here who want to be are informed. Add to that our individual health issues, how well we have responded in the past to viral bugs, our own immune systems which we may know best, but we still are dealing with something new here.
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
For all we know, the virus is mutating in the urban bioreactors where death rates are higher, hospitals are overwhelmed, and people are just too close together to avoid breathing each other's air.
@roamer_1 , we are fortunate in that regard, to be already fairly well separated from teeming masses of humanity (and whatever pathogens they may harbor) that simply cannot be avoided in the scrum unless you stay locked down of have serious protective gear used right.
While it is a little bit of a crapshoot, some math might help. Keep in mind this isn't precise, nor do I claim it to be.
Example 1:My county has five confirmed cases. Population roughly 33,500 (although I think that may be low). Still, working with what is 'official", that sets current odds of encountering one of these folks if they were not in their homes or the hospital at 5:33,500, at 0.014%, or roughly, I could statistically expect to encounter one person with the virus for every 6,700 people I met.
Okay, obviously, that isn't realistic, because those people are sick and they know it, and probably not wandering in Walmart.
Lat's assume each person, on average, infected ten others, who are "unknowns" (a high number, likely more like 2.5 to 5 at most, especially here), but that would mean I would statistically have to run across (assuming the known positives are sequestered) 570 people to meet one infected.
Now, people don't act that way, so chances are I'd run across a couple who got it from the first cases at a time, but we'll go with a nice round number that ups the odds at 1 per 500 people. I can hit three grocery stores and not see that many people to exchange air with right now, so I figure my odds of going to the store and getting back uninfected are pretty darned good, especially if I avoid people who are sneezing, flushed in appearance, and generally just keep some decent distance between me and them.
In all fairness, there are a lot of people in this country who just don't have that option, that space, and their risk may be higher of catching the disease given the same number of encounters, because the range of contact, the shared volume of air is much smaller, so they are more likely to breathe in what other folks are breathing out, and not long after it got breathed out.
But, let's look at New York City.
(Example 2:)Whoa. 8,500,000 people. With 100+K infected, the odds of meeting someone infected are 1 in 85 (actually more, because there are over 100K infected there.) There's a lot more shared spaces and surfaces in closer quarters so they just don't have the option there I do here of just standing back without stepping on someone's toes.
In other words, their likelihood of catching something are significantly greater than mine are here because of confined spaces and short range contact. As I have noted, there are buildings in NYC with more people living in them than our whole county.
There are 27,000 people per square mile in NYC.
Here, there are 11 people per square mile.
That's a whole lot more air to breathe here before recycling someone else's air molecules. Anyone can look up their population density and get an idea of their odds overall, but that might not reflect the differences between buildings, blocks, or even towns, and definitely not rural vs urban, which is why I am against one size fits all rules administered from the Federal level.
Either the intrepid, the reckless, or those taking precautions and measuring their general health against risk would be out, given a chance.
(Those who see the risk as too great are folks I'd be happy to deliver stuff to or stock shelves for during the outbreak, and I'll wear gloves and a mask if they want. That's a service, and you cater to the customer. )
Besides, the oil patch is slow right now, and may be for the foreseeable short term anyway, even though Trump is working on getting the Saudis and Russians back to the table to end the dumping of crude oil which is going to hurt the US in short order, but is hurting them, too.
I wash my hands before I leave, and again when I get back, and resist the urge to fiddle with my mustache in the meantime.
Yep, with fewer folks out, it's likely to spread slower, but the rest of us could keep the economy going at a reduced pace.
Maybe that is too risky elsewhere, but that should be for the people who live there to decide.
BTW, I noticed there was a zinc supplement in the store, so I grabbed a bottle. Might help, might not, but I figured I'd try it.
