Coronavirus Discussion

[Raikielia]

1 hour ago, ValidEmotions said:

I understand that no one (except the stock market greedy) want to sacrifice thousands who are higher risk by letting people go out and return to normal daily life. But they are forgetting about the millions who are at high risk of trauma and death by continuing as we are with the blanket lockdowns as they currently are set up. 

 

I wouldn't say no one. The lieutenant governor of Texas suggested that grandparents would be willing to die to save the economy. No idea why he thought that was a good thing to say, though.

 

The hoarding is just unreasonable and I still don't quite understand why people are doing that. I've seen people say the media is causing the panic, but I haven't seen anything that should warrant this kind of action. And this panic hoarding is just making things worse.

 

And again, most people don't react the same about the flu because all those sick with it aren't sick all at the same time. It's spread out and doesn't tax the healthcare system like this is. And not everyone gets the flu.

 

Ideally, we should have been testing from the get go and only isolating those who tested positive and anyone they were in contact with. That way nothing would have to have been shut down. Right now, though, if everything stayed open and everyone caught COVID-19 at the same time MORE people would die because there's not enough medical equipment. If a hospital has all their ventilators in use and more people come in needing those vents, those people(who might have been able to recover with proper medical care) WILL die because there are no more free ventilators and there won't be until the people currently on them either recover or die. THAT is what the lockdown is for. We're trying to prevent that situation.

[ValidEmotions]

I know about the PPE shortage. And it's an undesired (I really want to use a stronger word but I can't because of filters) situation all around. We should have been testing from the start, I 100% agree. But certain US officials turned down the proven effective tests from another country because "we can make our own, better ones". Which only wound up failing. So the US is dramatically behind everyone else; it's embarrassing. And it's costing the entire nation. 

 

I still think there were/are better decisions that could have/can be made instead of making a blanket/all encompassing lockdown. If people could just put their "big brains" together and work out different ideas, different solutions, we could better help the millions who are more likely to suffer daily trauma and/or violent deaths than they are to encounter COVID while preventing the hospitals from being overwhelmed and without sacrificing the health of vulnerable individuals. We could better help those with unstable homes and/or lacking food security. We could better help those with financial uncertainties. But, instead, we're risking and sacrificing those millions to avoid risking thousands. 

 

It's an unclean lose-lose and it leaves me ffffffff--very frustrated. All because the world has been unprepared and decided to panic, to overreact, than to think everything through and think outside of themselves for once.

[Lagie]

14 cases here now. The PM sounds unsettled and he's really angry at all the people STILL out on the roads and socializing.

Our emergency orders will be extended to April 8th, at least, it seems.

[StormBirdRising]

3 minutes ago, Lagie said:

14 cases here now. The PM sounds unsettled and he's really angry at all the people STILL out on the roads and socializing.

Our emergency orders will be extended to April 8th, at least, it seems.

 

This morning President Trump announced that the federal guidelines for social distancing will be extended until at least April 30 for the entire country.

[Lagie]

22 minutes ago, StormBirdRising said:

 

This morning President Trump announced that the federal guidelines for social distancing will be extended until at least April 30 for the entire country.

That's actually what I expected to hear here, too. I'm a bit surprised he shortened the time frame.

[Raikielia]

43 minutes ago, ValidEmotions said:

I know about the PPE shortage. And it's an undesired (I really want to use a stronger word but I can't because of filters) situation all around. We should have been testing from the start, I 100% agree. But certain US officials turned down the proven effective tests from another country because "we can make our own, better ones". Which only wound up failing. So the US is dramatically behind everyone else; it's embarrassing. And it's costing the entire nation. 

 

I still think there were/are better decisions that could have/can be made instead of making a blanket/all encompassing lockdown. If people could just put their "big brains" together and work out different ideas, different solutions, we could better help the millions who are more likely to suffer daily trauma and/or violent deaths than they are to encounter COVID while preventing the hospitals from being overwhelmed and without sacrificing the health of vulnerable individuals. We could better help those with unstable homes and/or lacking food security. We could better help those with financial uncertainties. But, instead, we're risking and sacrificing those millions to avoid risking thousands. 

 

It's an unclean lose-lose and it leaves me ffffffff--very frustrated. All because the world has been unprepared and decided to panic, to overreact, than to think everything through and think outside of themselves for once.

 

Well, the PPE shortage is different than the ventilator shortage. That is another issue, though, if doctors and nurses get sick and are out of commission because they don't have enough PPE. My dad is a nurse and they're getting one mask a day right now.

 

But, I agree. Our(I'm in the US) response to this has been a cluster.

[Classycal]

3 hours ago, ValidEmotions said:

It's an unclean lose-lose and it leaves me ffffffff--very frustrated. All because the world has been unprepared and decided to panic, to overreact, than to think everything through and think outside of themselves for once.

I'm not sure why you think we are overreacting.  I'm a nurse, and I think we are underreacting.  Yes, some people are panicking, but the people who aren't taking things seriously are the ones who are really causing the problem.  Social distancing is important, but it's better to just stay at home.    

[ValidEmotions]

10 minutes ago, Classycal said:

Social distancing is important, but it's better to just stay at home.    

Sure--if you're someone who has everything peachy-keen and can comfortably afford to "just stay home". That is, someone who doesn't fear eviction or zero food if they don't get their next paycheck. Or someone who isn't going to be trapped with someone physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abusing them. Or someone in need of mental health assistance. Or if you're someone who even has a home to stay in. 

There are millions, even billions, of people where the answer of "just stay home" doesn't cut it. But the entire world wants to risk them,  sacrifice them, because they think that the 100% best answer to avoid putting some several thousand at risk is to lock everyone up at home. Heck, even those locked in prison (a majority of whom are there for non-violent crimes, such as simply not being able to pay fines) away from society are at great risk of COVID-19. But hey, they're "practicing" Social Distancing, right?

Edited March 30, 2020 by ValidEmotions

[Classycal]

Okay, I'll amend that to say if at all possible then stay at home.  But some people who can aren't.  

[Astreya]

@ValidEmotions

I'm aware that flu vaccines sometimes only are 40% successful - but even the 40% mean that there are definitely 40% of the medical workers "safe". Right now no one in the medical system is safe, which is why Covid-19 is so problematic.

 

The RKI currently gives that 11% of the people who get infected need to be hospitalised (and that's with Germany's around 500 000 tests per week where also less severe cases are tested), so you can calculate how many people have to be admitted to the hospital per day with the current rate of infections. That's why Covid-19 is so problematic, also because the R0 value is about 2 - 3.3 (Source), while for seasonal influenza it's 1.2 - 2 (without any measures to reduce contacts).

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Astreya

[olympe]

9 hours ago, ValidEmotions said:

like you can prevent skin cancer by diligently wearing hats and sun lotion but not enough people care about doing so

Ahem. Sun lotion doesn't reduce your risk of getting skin cancer. Not at all. Hats might help somewhat, but most of them don't give shadow to all your exposed skin, so it's not a perfect solution, either.

 

7 hours ago, ValidEmotions said:

But, instead, we're risking and sacrificing those millions to avoid risking thousands. 

I'd love to know where you get your numbers from. How many millions do you think are at risk due to the lock-down? Why do you think it's so many? And did you know that, for the US alone, estimates for the death toll are in the 6 digits?

 

4 hours ago, Classycal said:

I'm not sure why you think we are overreacting.  I'm a nurse, and I think we are underreacting.  Yes, some people are panicking, but the people who aren't taking things seriously are the ones who are really causing the problem.  Social distancing is important, but it's better to just stay at home.    

100% agreed here. Also a nurse, but with professional focus on the elderly ("examinierte Altenpflegerin" in German). I also have some background in maths (bachelor of education) and biology (4 semesters of study, but dropped out then due to pregnancy and moving 2.5 hours away). I know a thing or two about exponential growth (number of cases worldwide), statistics, viruses and diseases -among other things.

 

Personally, I don't think hoarding toilet paper is the way to go. But we all have to be prepared for a 14-day quarantine at the drop of a hat.

 

Update from me:

I just got a call from someone with the public health department. I'm most definitely quarantined, and so are pretty much all of my colleagues because all of those who haven't been on extended sick leave have been in contact with our "patient 0". However, not everyone has had the call from the authorities yet, and our two bosses try to "encourage" us to go to work. 

 

I think there was also some really bad planning involved. We all knew that "patient 0" was in Italy around the time the pandemic started there. We all knew since end of February that she wasn't feeling well, and had cold-like symptoms, and that she consulted her doctor pretty much every week. (I still don't get why her doctor didn't get her tested *at all*. It only happened after that sweet old lady had to be admitted to a hospital because she was getting worse and worse. In my mind, that's dangerous negligience. But I digress.) Our boss and her 2nd in command *knew* all about that. Everyone from our team knew about that. However, they decided it was a good idea to send *every single nurse* to her. Well, everyone not on sick leave. Now they have everyone quarantined. Well done.

[StormBirdRising]

From the US Dept of Defense

 

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists and engineers at Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) are developing low-cost, easily-assembled, non FDA-approved ventilators that can be rapidly prototyped and used in both hospital and field settings. If approved, these prototypes could be used to support critical care requirements around the world.

During a period of only two weeks, the Department of Defense (DoD) Hack-a-Vent Innovation Challenge sought to ignite the brilliant minds and expertise of our Nation to respond to the threats overwhelming the medical system. Teams were charged with creating innovative prototypes using exclusively commercial-off-the-shelf items and/or 3D printed parts.

The NSWC PCD teams are comprised of mechanical, electrical, and systems engineers, as well as diving and life support subject matter experts,  including medical professionals. The prototypes were developed and tested in partnership with NSWC PCD’s Center for Innovation.

 

Despite the aggressive deadline, the employees remained committed to the task because they know producing a viable solution will serve a greater need. NSWC PCD submitted five different proposals, one of which had a working prototype that met all of the requirements. They may be able to produce a functioning prototype by March 30, which is today.

 

 

[olympe]

Well, I just hope these things work out. It'd be a blessing. (And, hopefully, not only for the US.)

[Fuzzbucket]

6 hours ago, Classycal said:

I'm not sure why you think we are overreacting.  I'm a nurse, and I think we are underreacting.  Yes, some people are panicking, but the people who aren't taking things seriously are the ones who are really causing the problem.  Social distancing is important, but it's better to just stay at home.    

 

Right on. (Background: I used to work in Public Health.) Yes, staying at home is better ( and yes you lose income, but it will all be over much sooner if we DO that.)

 

If social distancing had been set up AT ONCE, along with testing, we'd be doing OK like Taiwan is. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-taiwan-case-study-rapid-response-containment-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

https://nationalpost.com/health/how-taiwan-and-singapore-managed-to-contain-covid-19-while-letting-normal-life-go-on

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/what-taiwan-can-teach-world-fighting-coronavirus-n1153826

 

It WORKS.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Fuzzbucket

[Astreya]

Interesting! Today in NRW the first virtual intensive care hospital has been opened. This is a telemedicine centre in Aachen staffed with 30 intensive care specialists where the intensive care departments of smaller hospitals are connected via monitors and data channels etc and which can be consulted 24/7 day and night if the smaller hospitals have questions about their patients etc. Not bad. That way the ICUs of the less high end hospitals can be used just like the university hospitals for difficult cases and they get the expert information, too.

 

Info: https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/video/sendungen/lokalzeit-aachen/video-das-virtuelle-krankenhaus-100.html (Probably a German proxy needed)

 

Update: Oh. Looks like this has been in the making since last summer, and it was originally set-up so that the doctors in small hospitals would be able to easily consult experts for their cases, too. The opening was fast-tracked due to the Corona crisis.

https://www.welt.de/regionales/nrw/article198268661/Virtuelles-Krankenhaus-Digitales-Facharzt-Netzwerk-soll-Leben-retten.html (Language German)

Edited March 30, 2020 by Astreya

[ValidEmotions]

6 hours ago, olympe said:

Ahem. Sun lotion doesn't reduce your risk of getting skin cancer. Not at all. Hats might help somewhat, but most of them don't give shadow to all your exposed skin, so it's not a perfect solution, either.

 

I'd love to know where you get your numbers from. How many millions do you think are at risk due to the lock-down? Why do you think it's so many? And did you know that, for the US alone, estimates for the death toll are in the 6 digits?

 

Some sources:

 

Going to "actually" you: Sunscreen (aka Sun Lotion), when applied with due diligence, has been shown to reduce the risks of skin cancer by ~40% and melanoma particularly ~50%. It's not enough by itself, of course, and you want to support it with hats and UV-rated sunglasses, clothing, etc. for the best level of protection. 

More than 1/3 women (~35% globally = 2.73 billion) and 1/4 men experience any form of sexual violence CDC [WHO expands further that ~38% of women who are murdered worldwide, are murdered by a male intimate partner.]
In the USA alone, over 12 million women and men are victims of violence and/or stalking from intimate partners each year Domestic Violence Hotline [Globally, some 470,000 murders occur each year and millions more are assaulted/suffer injuries related to violence that lead to serious other issues like illness, drug or alcohol abuse, and mental health problems that can lead to suicide.]
In the USA alone, there are at least 550,000 homeless individuals End Homelessness
In the USA alone, there were approximately 1,400,000 suicide attempts and approximately 50,000 suicides in 2018 AFSP

 

Additionally, the USA has 2,300,000 incarcerated individuals. Prison Policy

 

Did you know that, because of these blanket lockdowns, there is more at stake that isn't the virus itself? That the trauma and death toll outside of the virus, are going to be at least 8 digits?

Edited March 30, 2020 by ValidEmotions

[Fuzzbucket]

15 hours ago, ValidEmotions said:

Sure--if you're someone who has everything peachy-keen and can comfortably afford to "just stay home". That is, someone who doesn't fear eviction or zero food if they don't get their next paycheck. Or someone who isn't going to be trapped with someone physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abusing them. Or someone in need of mental health assistance. Or if you're someone who even has a home to stay in. 

There are millions, even billions, of people where the answer of "just stay home" doesn't cut it. But the entire world wants to risk them,  sacrifice them, because they think that the 100% best answer to avoid putting some several thousand at risk is to lock everyone up at home. Heck, even those locked in prison (a majority of whom are there for non-violent crimes, such as simply not being able to pay fines) away from society are at great risk of COVID-19. But hey, they're "practicing" Social Distancing, right?

 

So they are better off going to work and getting infected and dying, than having no income. I'm not sure they would all agree (I am currently in touch with several people who are going exactly that route. They say they would rather be homeless than dead. Just saying.)

[olympe]

@ValidEmotions

First, a little note for everyone: To avoid spamming this thread with a wall of text, I'm going to use spoilers.

 

Well, let's start with the sunscreen: Evidence can point either way pro or against a benefit of sunscreen against melanoma. However, even if there is a benefit, it's somewhere below 40% (highest stat I found), but can also be "negligible". There's also concern that sunscreen might give people a false sense of security. And: Your link is far from scientific. Just because it's a foundation that asks for funds and promotes the use of sunscreen doesn't mean they're right.

Spoiler

Excerpt:

To get the full broad-spectrum protection out of your sunscreen, apply one ounce — about a shot glass full — to your entire body. Most people apply less than half of that amount, translating into reduced protection. Learn more.

With reapplication, a family of four should use one four-ounce bottle of sunscreen during a long day outdoors.

How on earth does this work? You're supposed to use an ounce every single time. Reapply several times during a day. And yet, a family of four only needs four ounces for a long day outdoors? If that's the quality of your source, excuse me for not taking it seriously. (And I don't even know how much an ounce is, being European and all that. The maths is still very, very wrong.)

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00105-003-0590-6 

Experimental animal studies have unambiguously demonstrated that topical sunscreens can prevent squamous cell carcinoma and photoaging (damage of collagen and elastic fibers of the skin). Although data from clinical studies and surrogate markers also indicate such photoprotective effects in man, there is a lack of controlled, prospective clinical trials to provide definite evidence in man. Because of inadequate data, no definite conclusions can be drawn about the cancer-preventive activity of topical use of sunscreens against basal cell carcinoma and malignant melanoma.

About experimental animal studies: They also implied Contergan was safe... Which proves they're not always reliable.

https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/10/1921 

Currently, there is no such evidence to answer the question of the relationship between sunscreen use and the incidence of cutaneous melanoma. Trial data have shown however that incidence of benign melanocytic nevi, the strongest markers of melanoma risk, is reduced in children by sunscreen use (

20). Furthermore in several short-term trials (21-23), regular sunscreen use has been shown to reduce the occurrence of solar keratoses, the benign squamous cell tumors that strongly determine not only risk of squamous cell carcinoma but also of BCC (24) and melanoma (12).

Adverse effects observed in the above trials included development of allergic contact dermatitis, photoallergic and phototoxic effects, stinging of the eyes, and interference with perspiration (16, 25). Again, there is no convincing evidence that long-term use of sunscreen causes either unsafe reduction in vitamin D levels or increased risk of melanoma (11, 26-29)

Short-term use of sunscreen is not a reliable factor for melanoma, as melanoma are a long-term consequence of too much sun exposure.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22086817/ 

Many primary care providers advise patients to use sunscreen as a means to reduce their risk for skin cancer, especially cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). Despite the availability and promotion of sunscreen for decades, the incidence of CMM continues to increase in the U.S. at a rate of 3% per year. There currently is little evidence that sunscreens are protective against CMM. A number of studies suggest that the use of sunscreen does not significantly decrease the risk CMM, and may actually increase the risk of CMM and sunburns. This paper discusses current information regarding the relationship between sunscreen use and CMM, and how providers may need to alter their advice regarding sunscreen use for CMM prevention.

About sexual violence:

Mostly, your sources are crap.

Spoiler

According to your source (I went to the video linked there), 1 out of 3 women and 1 out of 6 men experience "sexual violence through touch". Which could be as little as getting your butt touched without consent, maybe even accidentally while dancing in a packed club. Or a simple embrace from your partner when you're still upset with them for whatever reason. And: "sexual violence isn't just physical". So, one stupid sexual joke or jab could already be considered "sexual violence". Even having someone looking at your very obvious and very exposed cleavage would fall under this definition of "sexual violence". With this definition, I'm not surprised they get these numbers. And, seriously, quite a few of these forms of "sexual violence" don't have me worried at all.

 

Your second source, once again, deals with weird stats. According to the Domestic Violence hotline you linked, every year, more than 12 million people in the US are "victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner". There are 327 Million people in the US. Around 60 Million of these are below 15 and should not have an intimate partner. Leaves... let's say, 270 Million (because some teenaged people below 15 certainly don't fit the mold). Anyway, with these stats around (12 Million every year), explain to me how the people there get to reach the conclusion that around 20% of the population (rounded up average of 10% men and 29% women) suffer these things. That would be 81 Million people overall. A number that, according to the stats cited above, is reached within a whopping 7 years. Something is seriously wrong with your source. Because they're inflating their numbers by ignoring statistical things - like repeat victims. Which they also claim to be the vast majority:

On average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States — more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year.

Most female victims of intimate partner violence were previously victimized by the same offender, including 77% of females ages 18 to 24, 76% of females ages 25 to 34, and 81% of females ages 35 to 49.[x]

 

Also, let me give two different quotes for the same kinds of physical violence citing different stats from your 2nd source (domestic violence hotline):

Nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their< functioning.[ii]

1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iv]

Apparently, among the female population, there are more peope suffering the conesquences of abuse than people suffering it in the first place... Unless, of course, quite a lot of it happens to minors by their intimate partners. In which case - why do they make this distinction of "18+" and "no age restrictions"? Weirdly enough, the reverse is true for the male half of the population.

I know that sexual abuse happens, and other forms of abuse, too. But I know for a fact that the numbers your linked cannot be taken seriously, as they contradict each other in several places. Do you, by any chance, have reliable sources? As in sources that don't contradict themselves repeatedly?

 

I know there are many people who are homeless, but even they will be helped if everyone who has a home stays there. Less people on the streets means less people able to spread a disease to them, no?

 

Regarding jail - you usually don't end up there without any reason. Yes, there are 470 k who are not convicted *yet*. Most of them probably will be. And, considering the crimes mentioned, the vast majority are where they belong. Would you rather prefer someone accused of drug trafficking to run free and continue? Would you want people accused of rape to run home and hide - probably a house where their victim(s) also live (spouse, children - you name it)? Or people accused of burglary - so they can go to *your* home? Why don't you offer to take them in? Seriously, most people are in jail for a very good reason, and actually belong there. So, no sympathy from me.

[Gryphites]

Well today I lost my job because of the outbreak, just like several of my colleagues.

My (former) place of employment temporarily closing down three weeks ago wasn't unexpected, as what we did there required us being in close proximity to a lot of people, usually children.

Come to think of it, me being fired now did not come out of left field either. Still, as someone who is on their own and who doesn't have any other source of income/savings (all I have - or rather don't have - has to be sent to my university), this is a major setback. And it is very scary to think of the future right now, not only because of the increase of coronavirus cases, or the fact isolation takes a toll on many, but also because more and more people are affected financially.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Gryphites

[Lagie]

5 minutes ago, Gryphites said:

Well today I lost my job because of the outbreak, just like several of my colleagues.

Sorry to hear this. I know it makes a stressful time even more stressful, when you don't have the financial resources.

 

I'm surprised today at the number of children in the gated community where I live. It probably seems like more than usual because there's no school and because I'm home where on a day off I would usually be running errands. 

Our power company may go bankrupt because of the reduction in the number of people paying their bills. (Note to them: if you want people to pay online, you have to make sure your online payment platform is actually working.) Now would maybe be a good time to switch to solar...

[olympe]

@Gryphites I, too, am sorry to hear that. And I hope you'll find something better soon.

15 minutes ago, Lagie said:

(Note to them: if you want people to pay online, you have to make sure your online payment platform is actually working.)

That actually made me laugh. Sorry.

[olympe]

16 minutes ago, AngelsSin said:

I need to vent about this so called herd immunity idea. I find this deeply offensive. The idea to let people spread this illness is insane. The idea that the strong will survive essentially culling those too weak to survive it is frankly evil. This is an old idea which I thought most understood to be deeply unethical. Once upon a time there were those whole believed it to be a good idea. But what people forget is those weaker and less likely to survive are those we greatly value now. They are the artists and scientists, inventors, doctors,etc of our world and we would be less for the loss of such people. 

I feel the same. I mean, it's not just those who're weak who will die. It's also those people who aren't rich or influential, once hostpital beds get scarce. Because you can bet that [insert important manager/politician/noble] will get preferential treatment - whether they need it or not. Especially if they're willing to pay a lot of money. Do you really think a mid-20, healthy marine would get a bed that someone like your most beloved Mr. President booked that very bed "just in case" and paid a million or two as an incentive? Do you really believe it? Because I don't. I remember a case from around 30 years back where one rich Noble (Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis) got not one, but two donor hearts in next to no time. But, of course, there was no favoritism involved. Riiight.

[Classycal]

I heard on NBC news today that CDC guidelines say that healthcare workers positive for COVID-19 can continue to work as long as they don't have symptoms or a fever and they wear masks, gloves, and other PPE.  I was frankly surprised.  

[olympe]

Well, it seems like our different parts of the government aren't exactly on the same page. My boss called our city (whichever part they could reach on a Sunday) and were told what @Classycal said. Today, every one of my colleages and me got called and told to go into quarantine at home for 14 days after contact with the infected person. Some of us - those with cold-like symptoms and/or relevant health issues (one case of asthma) get or got tested, those without symptoms were just told to stay in quarantine. 

[ValidEmotions]

@olympe @AngelsSin I said nothing about setting them free. I mentioned that several were there for non-violent crimes, plenty of which include simply not being able to pay for a parking ticket. Others are locked up in other facilities because they're immigrants trying to find asylum. What I did say was that incarcerated individuals are at a high risk of COVID, despite their forced "social distancing" (they're isolated from society, after all). 

 

For my sources, really? I provide CDC and WHO source links. Please clarify: you're calling those crap and unreliable sources? 
"Sexual violence with touch" isn't skewed because "someone poked my butt". It's much more often unwanted penetration (from fingers, for example, or into the mouth). However, groping is assault. Be it but, groin/genitals, or breasts. It is direct violation of someone's body and boundaries.  Don't you dare downplay that. Most especially when you have no idea who might have PTSD/trauma from past events.

Sexual violence without contact isn't "sex jokes in bad taste". There are cyber attacks, revenge porn, and things of the like. They are harassment and sexually violating on a psychological scale. 
Sexual violence/abuse is one of the most under-reported crimes because the world is littered with misogyny in the current day and has a horrible, hideous, track record of treating women as second class citizens/inferior creatures that are beneath men. Whenever it is reported, victims are blamed, ridiculed, harassed and threatened, labeled as liars, and so many more awful things. Police go so far as to force victims to drop the charges. 

 

As for people returning to work just so they can get infected? No. Let people go to work so they can pay to keep a roof over their head and food on their table. Not everyone qualifies for unemployment. Not everyone can get access to food or housing assistance. Make companies follow better, more supportive, [paid] sick leave policies, better healthcare. Make them practice better heath and sanitation standards. Make them protect their workers. 

We don't need to let anyone and everyone go running through the streets. No. That's not my point nor what I'm trying to suggest. I just want people to stop touting Social Distancing and "just stay home" as the perfect, 100% best solution that the entire world could come up with. I think it's just the easiest solution the world could be bothered to come up with. 

 

I guarantee you, when someone is suffering trauma on a daily basis, death looks pretty good to make it all stop. Why else would the suicide attempts/rate be so high in any given year? I guarantee, someone might take COVID over being trapped in a house with their homicidal abuser.

 

The world panicked and chose the fastest, easiest solution by ordering everyone to stay home, without ever once thinking about the people who are suffering by staying locked up at home. The world could have thought for a hot minute and figured out a solution that keeps vulnerable people safe from abusers, mental illness, and so much more while also working to contain the COVID spread. 

 

Here's another example to consider: my state governor finally mandated on Sunday, Mar 29th, that foreclosures and evictions cannot occur for the next 90 days. He figured out this was important 1 week after he ordered a lockdown on the state and 2-3 weeks after people were made to start self-isolating. Meaning, he didn't think of a solution for serious financial problems until after his "solution" to make everything worse for individuals and households. So now, is he going to make a solution to help those who were foreclosed on or evicted before yesterday? Because in 2-3 weeks, people lost one or two paychecks, which could spell financial disaster. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by ValidEmotions