OT: Coronavirus

@"purplefaithful" said:

Social distancing wasn't much of an option Tuesday in the line for lunch at Sharing & Caring Hands in Minneapolis.

Dayum they gotta execute this better....

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:

Social distancing wasn't much of an option Tuesday in the line for lunch at Sharing & Caring Hands in Minneapolis.

Dayum they gotta execute this better....

people gotta eat,   but they  might need to go to bag meals from the back of a truck or something.  that is exactly the type of situation that the govt has been cautioning against for weeks now and just as things are heating up in minny we see this?   somebody needs to make better decisions.

Interesting historical perspective and parallels...
==================================


The real lesson of World War II for mobilizing against COVID-19Our collective memory has forgotten the messy reality of what actually happened — and what elements of persuasion were required.

With the COVID-19 pandemic wreaking havoc on our health, economy and our very lives, there is an almost irresistible temptation to compare the situation to the 1940s mobilization of the greatest generation.
Examples are plentiful. Last week, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, discussing health care professionals in the crisis, channeled Winston Churchill by declaring: “Never will so many ask so much of so few.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo proclaimed that “ventilators are to this war what missiles were to World War II.” Even Germany is comparing the crisis to the war, with Chancellor Angela Merkel calling the pandemic her country’s biggest challenge “since World War II.”
These comparisons are powerful because from scrap metal drives to Rosie the Riveter and everything in between, the World War II home front was arguably as essential to winning the war as the troops themselves. But while the U.S. celebrates its wartime mobilization, our collective memory has forgotten the messy reality of what actually happened — and what elements of persuasion were required to mobilize people.
Though forgotten today, the home front was not seamlessly united immediately after Pearl Harbor, and the populace often resisted following directions from the government. But we must remember the government’s initial struggle to sell war bonds and to overcome divisions on the home front. Recalling what it took to surmount these obstacles is essential to overcoming the medical and economic perils of the coronavirus outbreak today — which might require an even bigger effort.
Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it was far from inevitable that the U.S. would enter the war. While interventionists loudly advocated for outright military support of the besieged Allies, predicting that failure to do so would bring war to America’s doorstep, a powerful bloc of isolationists demanded that the nation stay out of the conflict, warning ominously about a repeat of World War I.
At first, Pearl Harbor seemed to bring these divided Americans together in support of the war effort. But the wave of unity disguised continuing divisions. Throughout much of 1942, in fact, secret government polls repeatedly found that nearly one-third of the country favored the idea of peace talks with the German enemy. And this opposition didn’t just fade away as American troops prosecuted the war. Two years later, an American Institute of Public Opinion study revealed that 66 percent of respondents believed that most of their fellow citizens were not taking the war effort seriously.
The bitter prewar split between interventionists and isolationists, in other words, didn’t vanish forever on Dec. 7, 1941. It instead reemerged in a subtler way, with a minority of citizens on one side quietly questioning the need for the war effort while those on the other side grew frustrated because they sensed the lack of commitment from this minority.
Some of the public also resisted the government’s wartime leadership. Occasionally it was personal: a sizable minority of the country simply reviled President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whether they viewed New Deal policies as fascist or believed that he had manipulated the country into war, many such critics despised the commander in chief so much that they even refused to use his name aloud (instead, they called him “that man”).
But as the government asked more of the public as the nation shifted to an all-out war footing, defiance of the government’s dictates was not uncommon across ideological boundaries. Early appeals to gather scrap metal for munitions production were widely ignored. Government rationing of fuel and food staples faced underground black markets. And the Roosevelt administration’s plea for nonstop factory production angered many laborers, eventually fostering wildcat strikes and work stoppages.
And then there was the matter of war bond sales. It was clear that the American war effort would be the largest expense in the nation’s history. To support it, the Treasury established a program in which average citizens were asked to purchase war bonds for $18.75 with the promise of a $25 return 10 years later. In the meantime, the citizens’ money was critical to training, equipping and feeding our fighting forces.
Imagine how distressed the Treasury became, then, when in 1942, just eight months after Pearl Harbor, sales of war bonds reached a dangerous low point. There were two problems: the Treasury’s sales force wasn’t explaining the urgency of war bond purchases clearly enough and, at the same time, too many Americans were reluctant to sacrifice what little money they had in the wake of the Depression. By mid-September, the war effort itself was teetering on the edge because the public wasn’t financially chipping in.
The Treasury was forced to go to the hard sell. From late 1942 all the way to the end of the war, it staged a series of all-out war bond drives that cajoled and hectored citizens with everything from sob stories to images of bestial enemy “rapists” to gruesome photographs of American war dead. This was part of a much larger propaganda campaign. The War Advertising Council, for example, originated in efforts to provide no-cost campaign guidance to the wartime government.
These campaigns worked, bringing the public around. The massive Treasury drives led to surges in war bond purchases. Scrap metal collections reached a crescendo. Americans even began to plant some 20 million victory gardens, providing food for their communities and ensuring that the nation’s farm output could supply the military.
While American patriotism and wartime fervor played important roles in these successes, it was active leadership from the Roosevelt administration, especially its rhetorical campaigns and — to be frank — its propaganda, which secured the buy in. These governmental efforts contributed tremendously to winning the war by assertively (one might even say aggressively) explaining to Americans what was needed and why it was important.
An analogous effort is needed today. 
To do so, the Trump administration must adopt clear, consistent, repeated messaging as much as possible to encourage Americans to take steps needed to slow the spread of the coronavirus. This message must outline the stakes in easy to comprehend terms and offer clear guidance for action. As a recent example, the Republican language guru Frank Luntz has suggested eschewing new terms like social distancing in favor of simpler messages, like simply asking people to stay home.
Americans today can be reached more directly by online messages than the World War II generation ever was, and any COVID-19 messaging needs to take advantage of that circumstance. One key lesson from World War II was that it took the full might of the government’s persuasive resources to mobilize the home front and win the war. Developing and disseminating clear messages to keep people safe is critical today.
James J. Kimble is professor of communication & the arts at Seton Hall University and a Fulbright Scholar.  He wrote this article for the Washington Post.

Governor Tim Walz to announce shelter in place order for MinnesotaThe announcement is expected to come during his 2pm conference call
https://twitter.com/bloisolson/status/1242851281187848193

@"purplefaithful" said:

Governor Tim Walz to announce shelter in place order for MinnesotaThe announcement is expected to come during his 2pm conference call https://twitter.com/bloisolson/status/1242851281187848193

The shelter in place starts at midnight on Friday through April 10 (for now). 

@"Vikergirl" said: The shelter in place starts at midnight on Friday through April 10 (for now). 

The health and safety of Minnesotans is my top priority. I’m providing an update on our state’s response to COVID-19 and what this means for our neighbors and our loved ones. Tune in: https://t.co/lvcNluCCjS #StayHomeMN pic.twitter.com/NeiZdV5Uki

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) March 25, 2020

We have 235 ICU beds in the entire state of MN, the Gov. says, adding "that is not a misprint." That is why he is issuing a "shelter in place" order starting on Friday to slwo spread and buy time for hospitals, particularly critical care units. #COVID2019 #stayhomemn https://t.co/423QRI2f7H

— Julie Nelson (@JulieNelsonKARE) March 25, 2020

Not referring to anything else in Tim's presser, but it really did bother me that he/they are looking at the 'run' of the virus in absolutes using the "math" of outbreaks in other areas; NYC, Italy, etc.  He used the words "WOULD HAVE" in reference to numbers about twenty times, i.e., 'We Would have had 6,000 infections now if we didn't close bars and restaurants.'  I just think it's a whole lot of COULD HAVES.  Yes, there probably would have been many more, but it's still a whole lot of guessing...

He also speaks like it's a definite that we're going to have all these infections and they just want to delay the spread until we're ready.  Nobody at any level seems to know how the virus is going to sustain itself so it sounded a little odd to say that all these people are going to get hospital level infections of it a month or so down the road.

In case anybody is wondering... the virus found after 17 days on the cruise ship was not viable,  only detectable.  the cdc is still saying up to 3 days to remain viable outside the body depending on the surface.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/25/how-long-coronavirus-lasts-on-surfaces-packages-groceries

I felt like they are trying to learn from the states that are seeing the high rates and trying to get ahead of it any way they can. If this is what it takes so be it. It's important to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed. He highlighted the number of ICU hospital beds and that is a scary low number. Kudos to 3M and Medtronic for stepping up with masks and ventilators. It's better to be on the other side of the woulda, coulda, shoulda though. Obviously there is a population difference between Minnesota and other states but taking action is important. There has only been 1 dramatic spike in numbers for Minnesota. Looking out for health and safety is the number one priority.

@"Vikergirl" said: I felt like they are trying to learn from the states that are seeing the high rates and trying to get ahead of it any way they can. If this is what it takes so be it. It's important to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed. He highlighted the number of ICU hospital beds and that is a scary low number.

I've heard/read in a few places that his icu bed number is old and it's now more than 1k.  One article from today on the KSTP site has a map indicating that Hennepin County alone now has 311.  What do we have in hospital as of today, 25? 

The Mayo Clinic Hospital — Rochester, Saint Marys Campus has 1,265 licensed beds and 64 operating rooms. In 2008, there were 63,000 admissions as well as 28,000 surgical cases that took place in the hospital. The Mayo Clinic Psychiatry and Psychology Treatment Center in the Generose Building is also part of the campus. St. Marys Hospital campus includes the nation's largest intensive care unit which includes about 200 ICU beds and 200 "step-down" ICU beds.

@"CLOBIMON" said:

Not referring to anything else in Tim's presser, but it really did bother me that he/they are looking at the 'run' of the virus in absolutes using the "math" of outbreaks in other areas; NYC, Italy, etc.  He used the words "WOULD HAVE" in reference to numbers about twenty times, i.e., 'We Would have had 6,000 infections now if we didn't close bars and restaurants.'  I just think it's a whole lot of COULD HAVES.  Yes, there probably would have been many more, but it's still a whole lot of guessing...

He also speaks like it's a definite that we're going to have all these infections and they just want to delay the spread until we're ready.  Nobody at any level seems to know how the virus is going to sustain itself so it sounded a little odd to say that all these people are going to get hospital level infections of it a month or so down the road.

I cant speak for the gov, but I can speak as someone who did Marketing Research for a living for 30 years...And I dont mean for this to sound professorial if it comes across that way ;)

This gov is an analytics guy and relies heavily on data to make decisions. In this case it means data we know from historical, coupled with modeling predictive results, which as we know are as good as the inputs, weightings and calculations being run.

But he has confidence making decisions based on that math. Do you use what we know, have seen and extrapolate that on a forward basis or...Do what? Will COVID behavior change significantly in the next 2 weeks? Or will it mimic (to some degree) what we've see elsewhere? 

Where do you place the bet with so much at stake? 

On the surface, it sounds like the U of M modelers worked to tweak the models so that it is more reflective of our demographic and other variables. But there is a hell of a lot more to it than that. 

Bottom line is (as you stated) they want to move the curve out (its to late to bend it which is sobering) and in theory allow additional infrastructure to be built to try and minimize death and dying as the contagion spreads. 

Without any real therapeutic or prophylactic about to get introduced in mass scale, I might have done the same if my name was Gov. 

These are trying times. But we are Minnesotans. We see challenges, and we tackle them. No matter how daunting the challenge; no matter how dark the times; Minnesota has always risen up—by coming together. If we unite as One Minnesota, we will save lives. #StayHomeMN pic.twitter.com/pAOStd1NG2

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) March 25, 2020

I've attached an article from the WSJ as of 03/24/2020 by 2 doctors.  Hope it attaches OK.

If you're out and about and within six feet of other people, Asantay Brown is going to hit you with some knowledge.#StayHome 🔥 #ForTheLoveOfFootball pic.twitter.com/zP4qfg7PQU

— Dallas Renegades (@UFLRenegades) March 25, 2020

As part of the NFL Draft set for April 23-25, the NFL is working on a plan to incorporate charitable efforts to help increase relief funds for those significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. More details forthcoming in coming weeks.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 25, 2020