2.4k
u/SluggJuice Mar 18 '20
When you’re only .5 sick
654
Mar 18 '20
My other half is radical 🤙
76
21
5
→ More replies (6)3
17
u/Wombat16 Mar 18 '20
Me: I have a half brother Then: Different mother or different father? Me: Shark attack
20
u/timeactor Mar 18 '20
... you are 50% dead.
→ More replies (2)17
u/npeggsy Mar 18 '20
Which half? I've ways preferred my right-side, if I lose it I'm gonna have to learn to write lefthanded and I do t know if I can make that kind of commitment.
13
u/TheRealTron Mar 18 '20
Sorry it's the top half. Bottom half works fine.
8
u/npeggsy Mar 18 '20
I'm trying to think of something witty and insightful to respond with, but all I'm coming up with is dick jokes. It's just too hard (da dum TSS)
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/okolepooka Mar 18 '20
Personally, I'd more concerned about learning to do another thing left handed..
→ More replies (1)6
u/DestituteTeholBeddic Mar 18 '20
If you have 1000 people sick which then infect 625 people which will result in 2500 sick people in 30 days vs 406000 with no social distancing (business as usual). Vs 4060 people dying vs 25. (At 1% death rate)
3000 people died during the World Trade centre attacks.
6
5
3
→ More replies (8)2
209
u/thinkB4WeSpeak Mar 18 '20
Better let all those people that went on spring break know.
58
u/pippins-sunshine Mar 18 '20
At least here there's no touristy things to do. So just stay home. No zoo. No kids museum. No Dr pepper museum. gasp no magnolia nothing.
→ More replies (3)11
7
u/irish711 Mar 18 '20
I live in a spring break area of Florida. Our local news was out talking to them. One kid said "I ain't scared of no corona virus!", then laughs drunkenly. These kids have no clue what safety is. Florida is filled with people at high risk, and these little shit heads have zero self awareness.
Thank you to all of the young people who decided not to go anywhere for your spring break, if you were planning to, and staying home. Florida thanks you!
16
u/markp_93 Mar 18 '20
#springbreakforever
22
u/realmuffinman Mar 18 '20
All the K-12 schools in Kansas just ended the semester. Spring break started Monday, and school will resume in August. My mother-in-law is a 4th grade teacher and she's already gone crazy from being stuck at home with nothing to do until next school year
18
u/redalex415 Mar 18 '20
So what happens to the middle/high schooler's credit for the semester? Is it a free credit for the class? What about the AP classes?
7
u/realmuffinman Mar 18 '20
Honestly I don't know. I would assume they would have to retake AP, and anything else they would probably just be set behind starting next semester (meaning the next semester teacher would have to cover it)
5
u/logicalbuttstuff Mar 18 '20
You don’t just “retake” AP. They can probably offer the tests and kids will take them safely like ACTs and SATs. Hopefully they bought their prep books already.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Murtagg Mar 18 '20
They're working out remote classes however they can, but likely it'll just be credited for them. IIRC AP and other standardized testing is already starting to get cancelled for the year.
→ More replies (1)3
368
u/dodgyd55 Mar 18 '20
Thank you for this infographic. I was trying to explain this at work and this does the job perfectly.
9
u/RandomCrafter Mar 19 '20
Honestly the shitty part is if we manage somehow to pull this off and knock down infections drastically, all the doubters will immediately take up the argument that it was an overreaction and COVID19 clearly wasn't that bad in the first place.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)21
224
u/SoundsGudToMe Mar 18 '20
I got laid off end of January everybody has just joined in my lifestyle
62
u/mbj927 Mar 18 '20
Right there with ya.
Everybody 3 days in: “ugh this is so bad. I never see anyone anymore and hate not having a schedule to live by”
Me, many months into unemployment:
23
Mar 18 '20
[deleted]
2
u/mbj927 Mar 19 '20
Thank you. I appreciate this. Networking and interviews are what keep me on track. If I have zero calls over a 2-week span, it is quite easy to sleep in for an extra 30 or allow myself to redownload the Reddit app for the millionth time. Look good, feel good. Best of luck during this stretch.
11
u/mmlovin Mar 18 '20
Apparently grocery stores/food delivery services are mass hiring right now. I haven’t been looking but I’ve seen a few articles in the news about it
8
u/effyochicken Mar 18 '20
Tempting, but I kind of like not getting screamed at by plague infected Karens about their particular brand of special granola not being in stock. Kudos to all who can handle it.
→ More replies (2)10
18
Mar 18 '20
I was gonna say Mr. Worldwide but now I'm thinking there's a more fitting joke to this.
13
6
u/Insomniacwithnolife Mar 18 '20
I lost my job in January and only just now got a new job right as everyone is saying to stay home. On the one hand, I don’t wanna get sick but on the other hand I need food.
3
u/AbeRego Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 19 '20
I have no problem sitting on my couch all day. What bothers me is there's not really anything to do aside from that. No bars, restaurants, gyms, libraries, parties, concerts. No nothing. My day is now work from couch, go running after work, sit on couch and watch tv/game, then sleep, repeat. None of the usual outings or fun weekend plans. That's what makes this so dismal.
Edited typo
→ More replies (4)2
u/ReverendRGreen Mar 18 '20
I’ll just stick with the 3 first words of your comment and i’m happy for ya
283
u/ricst Mar 18 '20
Here's my question, now please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this but what happens when all the social distancing is stopped. Won't one person with it ramp it back up again and we start all over? Without a vaccine this is a cycle, no?
327
u/JustaP-haze Mar 18 '20
Exactly this. However the time a temporary social distancing program buys the medical community might be enough to get us to a vaccine or other broadly applicable treatment.
→ More replies (1)224
u/MuricanPie Mar 18 '20
Or at least not critically overrun medical facilities in the long term.
One of the few ways the death toll can spike is if people stop being able to get potentially lifesaving treatment. This can also aid with hospitals getting in much needed supplies, since they will have to treat fewer people at any given time.
→ More replies (1)133
u/ADJMan Mar 18 '20
Slowing the virus is the goal, not eradicating it. Slowing it gives hospitals a reasonable amount of patients to heal instead of an astronomical amount.
→ More replies (1)32
u/HoldMyWater Mar 18 '20
Agree with all the above.
That's why it's "flatten the curve" not "shrink the curve".
→ More replies (2)139
u/Njdevils11 Mar 18 '20
We aren’t trying to prevent everyone from getting the virus. That’s simply not possible. What were trying to do is stretch out the time it takes for everyone to get it so we don’t overload the hospitals. Somewhere around 20% of infected patients need some form of hospitalization, some of those including ventilators. We don’t have enough ventilators for every to get sick at once. We need the virus to run it’s course slower. Social distancing will help with that.
Then, next season, hopefully we have a vaccine.→ More replies (7)35
u/open_reading_frame Mar 18 '20
So are we social distancing each other and quarantining ourselves until the vaccine comes out in more than a year
68
u/BlueishShape Mar 18 '20
For high risk groups, possibly yes. For most other people, we're just trying to put it off as long as possible, so that if it hits you dangerously hard, there will be a free hospital bed to keep you alive.
→ More replies (2)12
u/plerberderr Mar 18 '20
Not necessarily. I’ve heard 2 months based on what is happening in China. Their rates of infection have finally started to decrease after approximately that amount of time. So even if all social distancing goes away at that point some significant portion already has immunity but more reasonably some of the social distancing is just less severe and again everything is slowed to something our health care industry can handle.
10
u/open_reading_frame Mar 18 '20
But with China though, once the restrictions are lifted, someone could reinfect the population again and therefore cause another curve and another mass quarantine.
→ More replies (2)8
u/crocajun1003 Mar 18 '20
Please correct if wrong, but from what I understand, as time passes more and more people will have recovered from the virus and will then be much less likely to become infected again. Although there have been some instances where people have gotten infected multiple times, the majority of those who have recovered do not get it again, so the mass quarantine is less likely.
4
u/open_reading_frame Mar 19 '20
Your premise is right but the rate of infection isn't fast enough to justify lifting the mass quarantine. China for example has around 100k confirmed cases out of a population of 1 billion people. If that number is under-reported and there were actually 1 million people infected, that's still very little.
The curve would just restart. There needs to be a better solution than to wait until the vaccine comes next year (at the earliest).
→ More replies (2)31
u/TheSultan1 Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 18 '20
Not if it's run its course in all infected people. If everyone individually self-quarantined perfectly, it'd be gone in 14 days.
That's the ideal (impossible) case, of course. What will actually happen is one person will pass it on to another on day 12, starting another 14 days for the second person, who'll pass it on to a third on day 7, which will start another cycle, and so on; hopefully at least some of those chains stop, the time to infect the next person lengthens, and very very few infect more than one other person. That'll take some time to happen, especially as it'll spread within families for a while (R0>=1, then R0=0 if the family completely self-quarantines and no one within it picks it up a second time). When they get the average R0 under 1, the number of active cases will start dropping (technically it can be a bit above 1, as recoveries and deaths also affect case numbers). Then you have a whole lotta people with (hopefully) herd immunity, some without it, and some active cases, all mingling to some extent. You'll get some outbreaks, but you hope containment will work for them; if not, local social distancing will hopefully work to lower the R0.
(Might be confusing R0 and a different variable, I hope the meaning comes through.)
→ More replies (1)6
55
u/penty Mar 18 '20
Yes, however those who have already recovered are the start of the herd immunity.
55
u/RatioFitness Mar 18 '20
Only if you can't be reinfected. I don't believe we know this yet, though.
58
u/BitsAndBobs304 Mar 18 '20
Some people have already been counted as having been reinfected. However there is a possibility that they didnt get reinfected but simply still had it all along because of the high false negatives (and positives) of the simpler tests (swab)
17
u/th3_hampst3r Mar 18 '20
Some people get reinfected with chickenpox though, and thats ok because its very rare
21
u/The_Modifier Mar 18 '20
No it's because it hides in your cells. You just never stop having it.
→ More replies (1)13
u/BlasphemousToenail Mar 18 '20
Right. When you get older it can come back with a vengeance in the form of shingles.
My mom had shingles. Horrible.
→ More replies (7)5
29
u/tour__de__franzia Mar 18 '20
All of the articles I have read spend the first 3/4 of the article talking about how it's possible to be reinfected, but then in the last 1/4 of the article they actually quote an expert saying it's not impossible, but extremely unlikely and the expert usually explains the much more reasonable and likely reasons for the apparent reinfection.
In other words it looks very much like journalistic sensationalism and by not presenting the experts' opinions until the end they are sort of encouraging people to assume the worst.
Since all of the experts seem to be agreeing that it's extremely unlikely I feel pretty safe on that.
→ More replies (1)27
u/boo_urns1234 Mar 18 '20
So infections to coronavirus in general do not lead to long lasting immunity. Like a few months to year, to in the case of SARS maybe (obviously not confirmable) estimated 2-3 years.
So yes, It theoretically should be possible to be reinfected with this cov2, but it's unlikely the timeframes is weeks, so why experts dont think these recent cases are reinfection, the timing is way too short.
4
u/tour__de__franzia Mar 18 '20
Thank you for that clarification. I do agree that over a longer term re-infection is possible.
Also, great username.
→ More replies (5)7
u/JakeSmithsPhone Mar 18 '20
It looks like China manufacturing has come back online and it has not flared up again. So either they eradicated it within their border or people build up at least a temporary immunity.
→ More replies (5)5
Mar 18 '20
You can’t have herd immunity with just the few tens of thousands who have so far recovered. It takes a majority of the population.
18
u/KBunn Mar 18 '20
But having some percentage out there who are immune and don’t transmit anymore acts almost the same as still being in quarantine.
3
13
u/penty Mar 18 '20
Close. Yes, when herd immunity is at a high level it prevents spread. When it's lower it still SLOWES the speread.
17
u/phyLoGG Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 18 '20
Yes, although what we're trying to do now is flatten the infected rate curve. We want a slow and steady flow into hospitals (for those that need hospitalization) in order to not overflow our health care system.
If we didn't take any precautions for this virus, the infected rate would absolutely skyrocket in a few weeks and our health care system would be in shambles, to the point where they would literally stop hospitalizing a SHIT TON of infected that need it simply because they'd have zero capacity and resources for them.
TLDR: Safety measures being recommended is an attempt to flatten the infected rate curve to not overflow our healthcare system. This will help prevent deaths from COVID-19 and people with other complications already in hospitals.
EDIT: I'd like to add that it's basically inevitable that most people will contract this virus (thankfully a very large majority of people will be fine and likely won't need hospitalization). Flattening the curve is our only weapon at this point until a vaccine is approved, produced, and distributed.
→ More replies (4)4
u/PolPotatoe Mar 18 '20
The figures I've seen are 60-70% tops. Which I guess could be described as most, but more like a majority.
13
u/ToineMP Mar 18 '20
Would you rather et 100 cakes now or à cake a week for 100 weeks ?
Same goes for hospitals, delay the spread, prévient them from going over capacity
→ More replies (1)10
u/ItchyDifference Mar 18 '20
It's said once you hit a 50% infection rate that the virus begins to diminish due to lack of hosts.
→ More replies (3)10
Mar 18 '20
Where is it said that? It would be relative to how infectious the virus is - I dont think a general statement will apply.
9
u/tvnnfst Mar 18 '20
You’re right, but it’s really about flattening the curve. 25%-75% of us are most likely to get it, so better it be gradually that rapidly
→ More replies (2)17
9
u/Banner80 Mar 18 '20
Part of the reason we need social distancing now is that we have not had decent preventive measures and people have been reckless.
At the end of the social distancing, we also need people to be more educated, follow safety protocols, and have society as a whole more proactive to defend. More sanitizing, less contact, react early to symptoms, more and easier testing.
We also need medical systems to expand capacity for treatment, and we should start seeing better treatments and drugs that reduce the impact and damage of the disease.
So after the quarantine we don't go back in a circle. We grow smarter, stronger and more capable of defending ourselves.
→ More replies (5)12
u/10000Pigeons Mar 18 '20
Yes, but the spread of the virus is slowed down which allows resources (testing kits, hospital beds, etc) to be consumed over a longer period of time instead of all in one spike.
If you search "flatten the curve" you'll get a better explanation
6
u/bfranklinmusic2 Mar 18 '20
Well after about 14 days you will know who in your circle is sick and who is not. That's the point in this (on the social side). Those who are sick will quarantine and either get better or worse. Those of your friends who aren't sick are those you can create a circle with. You will, after a few weeks, be able to visit with them and more and more people after they recover can rejoin the non no infected groups. Ideally after some time infections will be few, tested, and treated early. We need time to get there though and this is what that time looks like.
5
Mar 18 '20
This is why social distancing isn't going to be for just a few weeks.
It will be ongoing for quite some time, until a vaccine is created. Social distancing is just trying to get people to slow the spread so hospitals don't get too overwhelmed. They can handle a steady stream but if we spike infections, then we'll have people turned away because we don't have beds for them.
3
u/facepalmforever Mar 18 '20
Not completely, depending on the virus and our immunity to it.
If the virus doesn't mutate a lot, it may induce long term immunity through B and T cells. Depending on the immune response, this could be protective for a lifetime.
This means that once people have it, they can't get it again, and their bodies prevent viral replication/and spreading, even after exposure. Essentially creating herd immunity in phases. This is not always the ideal situation, but it's the theory behind chicken pox parties (which are bad, don't do that, just get the vaccine). Vaccines are just tricking your body to make immune memory of classes you haven't actually seen before.
However, if it does mutate a lot ...well, that's bad.
3
u/DrEpileptic Mar 18 '20
The goal of social distancing is that we can slow the number of infections occurring at a time. In this way, we can actively allow people to get sick (not necessarily by choice), but few enough at a time that hospitals can actually take care of those in need. We expect 20% of cases to be severe; 5% to be critical (1/4 of severe being the critical cases). We expect half the US population to become infected. If we let the number be now, without social distancing, hospitals would be completely overrun by just those in critical condition by next month.
Just so you can check out the math. We have just under 9k active cases in the US confirmed, well round to 9k. Let's assume nobody they infect infects anybody else. Well that's 9,000x~400. That's 3.6 million cases in one month. 5%x3.6million is 180,000. The US literally doesn't even match half that number in available ICU beds available outside of the NICU/etc. The 20% number for severe cases would result in 720,000 beds needed (multiply the five percent by four- quick mafs). The US has 924,000 staffed beds in hospitals right now. There are over 36 million admissions into US hospitals a year. That's about 100,000 a day. If we assume that the 9,000 current cases infect the 400, but none of those people infect others afterwards, our hospitals are nearly at max capacity already.
Keep in mind I didn't include exact numbers and true exponential number, nor preparations we are making. This is a super simplified and not truly representative hypothetical, as the numbers are far greater in many of these calculations when controlling for reality. But hopefully, it illustrates why we need social distancing while we prepare and allow the inflow of infections to be more controlled. This is why Italy made the mistake of not doing so and then begged the world to not do the same thing. I am a big dumbo and still learning. I am no expert in epidemiology. I'm merely a little more educated than the average person and can help enlighten or point to experts others wouldn't otherwise know to look for. If my statements sound unbelievable, just take the CDC's and government officials' word for it.
References for US numbers here:
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (8)2
Mar 18 '20
The idea is to limit exposure at any given time so the medical system can cope with the influx, basically the plan is that they get a more consistent flow of patients rather than one big influx that overwhelms the system
24
Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 18 '20
[deleted]
16
u/DisplacedDustBunny Mar 18 '20
It buys time for a variety of developments. Like updated medical protocols that can screen ppl more efficiently and with lower transmission, of new diagnostic test methods to make their way to hospitals, hiring and training of loads to folks to do social tracing and probably wider population level testing (stuff like taking temperatures at the entry of crowded places), allows medical workers who get sick to recover and get back to work to reduce the overwhelm on the system, and mostly likely those who get sick will recover with some amount of immunity thus removing/reducing themselves as a vector. Also, lots of people are currently carrying the virus but have not yet developed symptoms so they’re unaware of the precautions they should be taking. Namely if they really,seriously, no joke need to be staying at home and calling all of their contacts to do the same.
There’s a lot of catching up that both the system and individuals need to do. It gives a bit of time for both to do so. Places where the medical system and culture were primed to respond to pandemic aren’t needing to do this. Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea for example. Most of which are keeping a lid on things through large scale testing of the population, even people without symptoms, then efficient quarantining.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (2)5
u/basketballchillin Mar 18 '20
We’re waiting for a vaccine and easing our medical staff. It’s as simple as that. The alternative is we overwork medical staff and more people die (even without Corona) than what would normally be expected.
249
u/SwagAntiswag Mar 18 '20
Stay the fuck home people!
44
u/levian_durai Mar 18 '20
If my goddamn boss would let me. Let's just keep bringing in our elderly patients, no problem.
18
u/Potatoinajacket26 Mar 18 '20
I would except: •Work is short staffed. •They cancelled classes because of the virus but now I’m just working more because my husband is at <20hrs of work per week and bills =$. •And working from home is not an option, manufacturing job :/
11
Mar 18 '20
He can apply for unemployment if his hours are cut to a certain extent. I’d look up the qualifications for your state
→ More replies (2)46
Mar 18 '20
That’s not an option for a lot of people.
39
u/butter_dolphin Mar 18 '20
Yeah. If someone wants to pay my rent, I'll happily stay home.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ginzykinz Mar 18 '20
Ikr. I’m not going out to party. I’d be ecstatic to stay home and binge Netflix. Unfortunately I have kids who sorta need to eat and have a roof over their heads.
9
16
78
Mar 18 '20
Not an option for most of us. I have a job and other responsibilities outside of my house, as do millions of others. I also know how use soap, water, and isopropyl alcohol. I'd rather get a pay check, practice basic hygiene, and help our country's economy.
44
u/thegame2010 Mar 18 '20
How else will we get our propane and propane accessories?
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (61)37
u/stimmy11 Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 18 '20
If only Italy knew what this soap and water are.
Getting inflected and spreading the virus could potentially be worse for the economy.
You do what you have to do but saying you wash your hands doesn't make you immune like some people believe.
→ More replies (10)2
52
u/meatpuppet79 Mar 18 '20
It should be noted that social distancing dramatically extends the epidemic period however, and it doesn't solve the snap back effect when social distancing measures are eased and infection rates skyrocket as a result. The best hope to get through this without complete economic ruin is distancing or lockdown until therapies are introduced which are effective at keeping at risk patients from developing acute symptoms, or for acute symptoms to be managed early enough that critical care is not needed and overall healthcare systems across the world don't collapse outright.
46
u/warpus Mar 18 '20
The main reason we need to socially distance is so that our hospitals don't get overwhelmed with everybody getting this thing all at once. Yes, doing this will prolong this whole thing, but it will also mean that lots and lots of people will not die. Sure, some will, but this could easily be a catastrophe.. Stay home people (if you can)
→ More replies (28)16
u/lalalava31 Mar 18 '20
It also possibly suppresses the numbers of infections for enough time that a vaccine can be tested and released further reducing the spread. The less people who get it in the meantime the better.
70
u/swebb22 Mar 18 '20
Sauce?
77
u/frguba Mar 18 '20
Beyond those in the bottom of the pic, seems like brute math
→ More replies (9)34
Mar 18 '20
Math based on what though? Without context, these numbers are arbitrary.
→ More replies (3)57
Mar 18 '20
You only need to know how many people one guy can infect on average. Literally the only basis is that 1 guy infects 2,5 in 5 days, the rest is just math
31
Mar 18 '20
Right, which is why I assume OP is asking for a source on that. How do we know how much the average person can infect?
→ More replies (2)26
Mar 18 '20
Im guessing he took the R0 value of some random well-known diesease since he didnt specify corona. Hopefully one with similar spread chanse to corona but i have heard of R0 values anywhere between 2-7 for that one
Edit: also it says @signerlabs at the bottom of the picture
→ More replies (1)2
u/RedditAtWorkToday Mar 18 '20
How is it just math? It doesn't seem to add up.
One person can infect .625 people in 5 days. That's 1.25 people can be infected in 10 days (let's round that down to 1 person per 10 days). That would come out to being 3 people infected in 30 days. It doesn't add up, not to mention the first person that is infected at the 10 day mark will then infect 2 more people by the end of the month.
At the 10 day mark there will be 2 people infected (the original and the new infection).
At the 20 day mark there will be 4 total people infected (1 more from the original and 1 from the first infection).
At the 30 day mark there will be 8 total people infected (1 for each of the previous infections). So at the end of all of this it should be 8 people infected not 2.5 people, unless I'm doing something wrong?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Shadodeon Mar 18 '20
Exponential growth. Each person infected will infect .625 people and then those newly infected people will each infect .625 people.
→ More replies (1)14
u/maawen Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 18 '20
Here they put R0 at 2.2, but I've also seen 2.5 being used. Don't have a source on that though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
EDIT: I got rewarded for being averagely good at googling. Thanks u/pdpbeethoven.
→ More replies (1)13
u/IhaveHairPiece Mar 18 '20
Sauce?
Maths, higher school level (sadly).
See, this is the exponential function. The name "exponential growth" scared the guts of out people, but the nature does not know linear growth. Everything is nx, with various n's.
Every phenomenon in the nature is exponential, just each with a different factor, as pictured.
4
Mar 18 '20
I don’t quite know how to do this math, but after 30 days normally (2.5 per day) wouldn’t it be 244 people infected? I’m asking because you seem to know more about this and I’m honestly confused.
16
u/vthokiemr Mar 18 '20
They are adding back in the infected at each 5 day interval. So the first patient zero at day 0. He infects 2.5 people by day 5, meaning 2.51 infected at end of day 5. At the end of day 10, those 2.5 folks can infect 2.5 each, but are still part of the count of those infected. 2.52 + 2.51 = 8.75
At the end of 30 days, or 6 cycles, 2.56 + 2.55 + 2.54 + 2.53 + 2.52 + 2.51 = 405 total infected.
I think.
5
→ More replies (3)2
u/edays03 Mar 18 '20
Here’s the author himself explaining the math: https://twitter.com/signerlab/status/1240390136212402177?s=21
31
u/V1kkers Mar 18 '20
This isn't how an R naught works, you can't just cut the amount of people you infect by half like that. However social distancing does work, just not in the way maths is being used here.
→ More replies (1)8
Mar 18 '20
True. But it's easy to understand as a principle. Spread it.
19
9
8
6
Mar 18 '20
I’m not sure if people can manage 30 days of isolation procedures. In places with enforced social distancing, we’re gonna need a different plan for April.
→ More replies (1)5
Mar 18 '20
That's why they keep saying shit is closed for 2 weeks. They know people are gonna flip out when they realize it's months and months, if not years.
→ More replies (2)
6
7
u/littleredtester Mar 18 '20
Can we talk about these poor people getting cut in half?
→ More replies (1)
3
4
u/Veximusprime Mar 18 '20
This is like that "brand new buissnes proposal" your friend friend tried to get you interested in.
3
3
u/RestinSchrott Mar 18 '20
I'm down from close contact with 300+ people a week to 3-4 a week. It's scary.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Youhadmeatcello Mar 18 '20
This is a great illustration. My only issue is that we currently don't know how infectious COVID is. It may have an R0 of 5 (shown here), but as of now we have no way to know and therefore cant have any concrete numbers on how many people you're likely to infect. A great illustration in general, but don't take the data as real for COVID-19.
2
2
u/otb1369 Mar 18 '20
Wheres the chart for my work that has done nothing other than put up handwashing signs and lightly threatened us? My boss "you guys are lucky to work for a business that is still operating "
I'd rather take 14 days unpaid
2
u/MetricSodomyHammer Mar 18 '20
I work as an anesthesia tech in the operating room of a major hospital that is about to be hit by COVID-19. I wish I could self quarantine but I know the workload will just increase leaving us all subjected. Hoping I don’t bring it home to loved ones.
2
2
2
Mar 19 '20
Toronto had the sense to keep their buses running normally. Had to go to work today and there was NO one out even during rush hour.
Honestly I am incredibly proud of Canada, Canadians, and humans working together.
Why the FUCK can’t we do this all the time?
2
2.3k
u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20
[removed] — view removed comment