I would venture a guess that most (Americans) respond well to teenage-style messaging, given the number of people who voted for a man who made disrespect his mantra. Sigh
That's one of the more creative opportunities I've seen to shoehorn an "orange man bad" in somewhere completely unnecessary. Get your T levels checked.
That's kinda the issue - the author has (surely inadvertently) diluted the focus of their point with the language choice.
I say this as a person who prefers to speak as frankly and casually as the author does, but when going into broadcast mode it's worthwhile to ask yourself if your language supports your mission or not (for instance, by pre-empting the majority of the comments in post that are curious about the language choice).
This is totally alien to me. I could understand - though not relate - if you were offended, or just thought the use of the word "fuck" here was awkward or tonally inconsistent. But "puerile" and "why should I take you seriously" and "you talk like a teenager" is an absolutely ridiculous reaction to me. I've honestly not met a single person in all my life who reacted like that to a superfluous curse word.
Because it is not about who says it, but about the truth value of it - and the simple fact is that you probably do know some old people you would like to keep alive.
Can you expand on this? What about these adjectives are a meme?
To me, the “tech person gives advice while brazenly cursing to show how serious and authoritative they are” is a meme.
Edit: I just learned that “cringey” is not In most dictionaries yet (which explains why spell check is saying it’s not a word). That said, the term fills a void where no other term conveniently comes to mind.
The word "fuck" has no real value to it. For those who don't care about the use of "fuck", it comes across with as much impact as an extra exclamation point. However, for those who do care, it immediately makes them hostile to the author's intent.
If you want to get your message across to as many people as possible (and why wouldn't you with COVID-19 and the "stay home" message), swearing can only hurt your message.
Very pleased to see developers trying to contribute to the community to their capacity.
But, I am curious to know the impact of this #StayTheFuckHome movement.
Great advice, but the expletive will limit its reach. Consider adding another alternate domain so that this can be shared with friends/family whom might find this offensive.
Seems like focusing on blaming individuals rather than:
- Employers don't allow telecommuting.
- Employers with draconian sick leave policies.
- No paid sick leave for the majority of jobs (and or strict limits).
- Limited access to testing to know if you have Covid-19 (Vs. a common cold). Which is significant with e.g. Walmarts new policies which ONLY allow Covid-19 paid sick leave.
Ultimately we set up a system where most people lose by default, then we critique those people for their personal failings without a hint of irony.
> Limited access to testing to know if you have Covid-19
This is a huge one, at least in France. A friend recently tried to get tested because he was coughing heavily and had a fever. His doctor asked if he went to Italy or China recently, he said no, his doctor replied "Well then you don't have it." and that was the end of it.
I don't understand. How are doctors this stupid? We have obvious communal transmission in France (and other countries). And if nobody is fucking testing for it, the doctor can't fucking say that you can't have it. What happened to evidence-based medicine?
I guess the test shortage is not limited to the US?
When my son got a cold, I also preferred to get him tested, but couldn't. Soon it became pretty obvious it was just a cold, but still, without a negative test for him, I'm not allowed to come to the office.
It's pretty clear that it's spreading faster than they can keep track of by merely tracking who you had contact with. I can understand they don't want to waste time or resources on people who obviously have a simple cold, but I'd rather they did test people who report flu cases.
> How are doctors this stupid? ... the doctor can't fucking say that you can't have it. What happened to evidence-based medicine?
You clearly have no idea what youre talking about. When something 100x less severe than the coronavirus happens, there is an ABSOLUTE AVALANCHE of people calling in on the full spectrum of sickness, from psychosomatic, to actually sick but with the wrong thing, to actually sick with the right thing but minor cases, to people that will actually die if not seen but cant make their case clear. The reality of the situation is that without instant, free, over-the-phone test results, this is a reasonable response from oversaturated medical systems.
Test, test, test. South Korea has tested 100.000 people. In Europe? Nobody is doing anything. You can't respond to something when you have zero idea what the scale is. We're literally seeing Europe stick its head in the sand.somebody comes in with flu-like symptoms, you fucking test. Psychosomatic doesn't matter, either you have the symptoms or you don't. And if you do, you test, test, fucking test. Not tell people to go home, you obviously can't have coronavirus.
The diagnostic is dead simple. Look at any health ministry of any country. It doesn't take a medical degree to understand that if you have flu-like symptoms, you need to be tested for the flu. And if you don't have any of the flu strains making the rounds, test for Coronavirus. You know, exactly what SK is able to do but somehow Europe isn't.
Tests are not free, not 100% accurate, and not 100% available. The doctor you called stupid is in control of exactly 0 of those factors, and has no effect on europes policy.
And Europe's policy needs to change. Nobody is saying dealing with this epidemic is going to be free.
Yet the doctor is one of many who are dismissing the likelihood of somebody having coronavirus just because they haven't been to Italy. So yes, stupid.
Now the infected population is very small, so if too many non infected people is testes, the false positives would be much bigger than the true positives. So you would get a lot of people unnecessary in the hospital while they have a normal cold or flu.
Anyway, if the symptoms of a normal cold or flu are so bad that deserve hospitalization, the doctor will send you to the hospital even if it is not covid19.
[If you are in a risk group, get the flu vaccine. It will not protect you from covid19, but you definitively don't want to catch a bad flu while the hospital if full of covid19 patients.]
> dismissing the likelihood of somebody having coronavirus just because they haven't been to Italy. So yes, stupid.
The amount of infected people calling in who havent traveled is _infinitecimal_. The doctor saying you're not infected is correct an OVERWHELMING amount of the time, probably >99% accuracy. Eventually, this wont be true, but then the doctor wont be telling everyone to go away because theyre not stupid.
Now, if you want to argue the merits of extreme overcaution and attempting things like 100% testing for a global pandemic mitigation plan, good for you. You have a lot of hurdles to overcome, some of which you named yourself, but none of them are the doctors fault. You are simply wrong.
What I'd like to see doctors do differently is encourage people to treat their illness as if it were covid-19 regardless of the test result.
If my health care provider can try to sell me antibiotics despite a negative strep test, "just to be sure, because sometimes you get a false negative", then they're surely not ignorant of the phenomenon where tests are less than 100% accurate. (Perhaps they're just variably aware of it, depending on what the bean counters from the health care network's corporate office are telling them to do. But still.) And, if you take a "better safe than sorry" attitude regarding false negatives, then you're not too far off from realizing that not having the test is not that big of a deal, because you'd be telling people to stay home when they're sick in either case.
What do you think "treating their illness as if it were covid-19" means?
This is a viral illness. There is simply no treatment. You go home, rest and eventually get through it in most cases. If you have annoying symptoms, you try to alleviate those in the usual ways (as if it was any other cold/flu). If you get life-threatening symptomps, you call for help and they'll take you to the hospital (at least while they aren't completely collapsed).
Sorry, ambiguous language. "treat" in the general sense, not specifically in the sense of medical treatment.
Specifically, I would like the doctor to say, "Stay the eff home and keep your germs to yourself, sickie."
More doctors doing this would also help put pressure on employers to change their policies. Maybe (dare I dream?) we can even get restaurants to start giving their employees sick leave, and encouraging them to use it, instead of requiring them to show up and germ up all the food on pain of losing their jobs.
Last week I had the flu. Me and my whole family. We are fine now, but coughing like crazy. Nobody tested us. We all went to see our respective doctors and they all said, its the avian flu (H1N1), with no testing whatsoever.
Same in Germany. An aquaintance of mine had a fever after a trip to Singapore. He called the hotline, the local health department, the local clinic. nobody helped him, always directed him to call someone else. After 5 hours a doctor called and told him "its just the flu, get a bath and rest". No testing, no quarantine, nothing. He's in self-quarantine now...
Same in the Netherlands. When one of my colleagues asked to get a test her GP asked if she’s been to one of those countries, when she said no, she didn’t get any tests :(
Or is it encouraging individuals to start making more of a grassroots effort to effect change for their own sakes, rather than sitting around waiting for the people with little to gain and much to lose in enacting more human policies to suddenly have a change of heart?
it reminds me of climate change, pushing blame onto individuals while corporations and governments continue business as usual. sure, recycle that bottle. quarantine yourself. but in the grand scheme of things it makes very little difference compared to if corporations and governments took the actions necessary.
They won't do it for no reason at all, though. They will do it in response to public pressure.
Which means that change inevitably has to start with individuals. Trying to insist that it's corporations' and governments' job to make the first move is only useful in situations where assigning blame is more important than dealing with the problem.
as an example, two weeks ago i made sure i had enough supplies to last a month. started taking precautions. social distancing, hand washing, etc. doing the best i can. then co-worker takes a coronavirus vacation due to discounted tickets. others are driving in from around the country for spring break. i've done all i can, but it's almost meaningless because others don't understand the risk and the government hasn't taken steps to limit movement and test.
Blaming? This is a rallying cry. The problems you list are important. Nonetheless, social distancing is perhaps the strongest weapon against this pandemic. Point fingers if you like, but also take responsibility.
Agree with you. I feel whoever put page up, who is brave enough to curse, but not enough to indicate his name, should leave his little social bubble and look at the reality of lower income folks. For a lot of people, telecommuting is not a reality. I foresee a lot of people being highly impacted financially, if a quarantine is declared in the USA, which lacks a lot of social assistance regulations from other countries.
The manifesto is not blaming people, it's blaming governments for not doing enough. It's calling on people to take care of themselves.
That said, in the US with its tradition of completely ignoring all needs of employees, there are a lot of people for who this advice would amount to quitting their job, and it's pretty obvious a lot of people can't afford that.
Employers should definitely do their part by encouraging people to work from home, and paying sick people to stay home so they don't infect their co-workers. I honestly don't understand what kind of employers would want an epidemic to spread in their offices.
Reading about American employers is baffling compared to my own. Everybody is encouraged to work from home. In face, every week half of the company is required to work from home. If anyone in your household has a cold, you have to work from home for two weeks.
It may be a slight overreaction, but that's vastly better than just ignoring the problem. From everything I hear, I seriously fear COVID-19 is going to wreak havoc in the US. They seem to have fine-tuned their country to be as vulnerable as possible to this: Many people with no or poor health insurance, no sick days, who are very easy to fire, will feel forced to go to work no matter how sick they are. Then there's Trump firing the pandemic crisis team, a dramatic shortage of tests, and nobody seems to be in charge over this thing, or even know anything at all.
Who is blaming here? This is a movement by the concerned for everyone. Our government is the one that has completely failed us, not just employers. Employers are expected to fail us. Every one of the issues above could be solved by a government that wanted to stop this. But no, it's a hoax to our government. Or whatever dumb shit idea they are on now. If anything, that's who the blame is falling on implicitly in this article and rightfully so. The response has been a disaster, especially in the US. After this, the only good thing that can come if it is if these scumbags get the virus themselves and it runs its course. That's the policy they are pushing anyway. So it's up to people to do what they can in the face of almost complete government inaction on the problem. What else can we do? Expect employers to fix it? It's amazing what has been done so far by then has been done without coercion. We should congratulate any steps taken voluntarily by the business sector.
People who are more at risk can't necessarily self-quarantine as effectively, because the same factors that put them at risk tend to also mean they require more care from (and therefore contact with) others.
It's like the flu shot. One big reason to get the flu shot every year, even if you never get the flu, is because controlling it needs to be a community effort. A big vector for seasonal flu is young, healthy people with subclinical infections. They never develop any symptoms, or maybe think it's just a cold, so they keep circulating in public and blithely spreading it to others.
Children can still be carriers (they're very potent at it!), and kids are a full time commitment even when they're healthy. They factor into everything, including OP.
Yes but there is no point for an adult to self isolate avoiding a concert while creating an "underground network" where kids contaminate one another, they stay unaffected, and bring the CV home and to the grandparents. This is the main reason schools are closing down, to disrupt "that" network.
Kids also have poor hygiene, try to convic a toddler to NOT pick their noses and eat it (amiright??), try convince a toddler to NOT stick theylir fingers in their mouths.
I read many governments are already planning for "sick leave" just to make sure that kids will be protected and prevented from doing the above.
And in an unrelated note, I remembered the movie "28 days later" and its fantastic soundtrack!
The problem with kids isn't that they are at risk of a serious infection, the problem is that someone needs to watch them. I worked from home yesterday while my daughter was off for the election, and while my work from home days are usually more productive, yesterday my output was clearly lower. Even a good 5-year-old needs a fair amount of attention. Younger kids need even more.
Kids are also great at spreading viruses even if they don't get very sick from them. In some ways that makes it worse because if they don't have obvious symptoms then they could be more likely to transmit it as no one is monitoring them closely.
This virus is worthy of a truck load of profanities -- and profanity in this case is appropriate (my opinion) because it stresses a point. (I have a 5 year old Kid).
I heard it described as similar to infectious Hepatitis A. Kids get it, carry it, transmit it, but they are asymptomatic. I haven't heard an age range, however. The thing that bothers me is that these facts are being presented in the mainstream, where it could go a very long way towards helping calm people (at least parents of young children). Or, maybe they have and I have just missed it.
>Disclaimer: The content of this website does not constitute medical advice. The information provided above is meant to be a suggestion for concerned individuals to follow a loose set of guidelines based on best practices and anecdotal evidence to protect themselves and their loved ones. There is no guarantee or scientific evidence that following the mentioned guidelines will lead to a reduction in new infections or even stop the COVID-19 epidemic. There is also no guarantee that following these guidelines will reduce the risk of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 or any other viral or bacterial contagion. All information provided on this website is given with the best intent and will to provide factual information. In no event shall the website operators be held liable for any claim, damages or other liabilities. If you have concerns or comments about the information provided on this website, please write to inquiry@staythefuckhome.com.
Here's a guy who's an expert on COVID-19 because he reads the internet. If you have symptoms that feel like death I am telling you to discount this persons' advice, get yourself to the doctor because you may very well be dying.
>Contact your primary care provider before going to their office. Be sure to let them know if you’ve been in close contact with someone who has coronavirus, or if you’ve recently traveled to an area where the virus is spreading, whether or not you have symptoms. If you don’t have a doctor to contact, you can also reach out to your local board of health.
Every single bit of advice we have been handed out the last few weeks is trying to get the message out - Do not physically go to your doctor if you suspect you have this illness. Do not turn up at hospital. Stay at home and telephone the doctors to inform them of what you think you have, and to get advice on what to do next. If you are feeling OK, telephone the non-emergency numbers. If you are feeling like you're about to die, telephone the emergency numbers.
> If you have symptoms that feel like death I am telling you to discount this persons' advice, get yourself to the doctor because you may very well be dying.
No, as the advice you cite subsequently says, you should NOT get yourself to a doctor, you should call them. Which is consistent with staying the fuck home.
Isn't that what I just said? If you're dying call them, and what they will tell you is to come in. That's what the medical system does when you're dying.
For many years now, I have - 5 times a week - left a building with a computer and Internet access to travel for an hour or more to a building with a computer and Internet access to talk to my colleagues - almost exclusively over Slack and GitHub - for many hours, before traveling back to the same building I left earlier that day. Often, I carry the computer I used throughout the day with me.
Apparently working from home isn't going to be allowed...
My wife and I are perfectly situated to simply stay at home. We live in a small town in the mountains (which unfortunately gets 1.5 million tourist visitors a year, many international visitors).
We always talked about staying at home and just talking with friends and family via FaceTime or phone during a pandemic. The problem is that I volunteer at the local food bank and my wife teaches in a reading program, so for us, STFH means that we are walking away from obligations.
My work (client rather than employer) has divided all teams in two, where team A is allowed to come to the office this week, but has to work from home next week, while team B telecommutes this week and can come to the office next week.
Despite being in team A, I'm not allowed to come to the office because my son has a cold that's already cured. But without a negative test, I still have to telecommute for two weeks.
They seem to be a bit more paranoid than your average health expert, but I guess it's better to be safe than sorry. I will definitely miss seeing the other half of my team, though.
Corona doesn't stop. Many of us will get infected and many of us [in a relative sense] will be fine after fighting the virus. The thing we need to focus on is making sure the contagion happens at a speed so it doesn't overload our hospitals. German counselor Merkel said that probably 70% will get infected, so we should focus on having too many people infected at the same time.
I'm curious about the 2% death rate number. How can we rely on this number if test kits are in such limited supply and the rate of "Severe" symptoms is only 15%? Is the death rate only calculated out of known cases? do we only know about the severe cases?
They do not say death rate, but they do mention the case fatality rate, which is exactly what it sounds like, and as you have described.
It’s the number of people who have died, of the known cases. Not everyone who is infected becomes a case, for one reason or another. Maybe their symptoms did not arouse enough concern, or maybe testing was refused to them since they didn’t fit an erroneously narrow list of testing requirements.
Another thing to keep in mind is that people calculating the CFR from public data on a napkin typically don’t distinguish between survivors and those who just haven’t died yet. So the other side of the CFR (the people who haven’t died) tends to include both the known survivors and will-be-survivors, as well as the people who are in the ICU hanging on for dear life and could be dead tomorrow.
For this reason, unless it explicitly states that it’s only counting survivors and deaths, the CFR is more reliable once the spread has began to decline, when there are fewer new cases each day than the day before.
106 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] threadI say this as a person who prefers to speak as frankly and casually as the author does, but when going into broadcast mode it's worthwhile to ask yourself if your language supports your mission or not (for instance, by pre-empting the majority of the comments in post that are curious about the language choice).
It's upsetting to me to see these "meme" adjectives used sincerely on HN.
To me, the “tech person gives advice while brazenly cursing to show how serious and authoritative they are” is a meme.
Edit: I just learned that “cringey” is not In most dictionaries yet (which explains why spell check is saying it’s not a word). That said, the term fills a void where no other term conveniently comes to mind.
If you want to get your message across to as many people as possible (and why wouldn't you with COVID-19 and the "stay home" message), swearing can only hurt your message.
The comment was about reaching a wider audience, not being offended.
- Employers don't allow telecommuting.
- Employers with draconian sick leave policies.
- No paid sick leave for the majority of jobs (and or strict limits).
- Limited access to testing to know if you have Covid-19 (Vs. a common cold). Which is significant with e.g. Walmarts new policies which ONLY allow Covid-19 paid sick leave.
Ultimately we set up a system where most people lose by default, then we critique those people for their personal failings without a hint of irony.
This is a huge one, at least in France. A friend recently tried to get tested because he was coughing heavily and had a fever. His doctor asked if he went to Italy or China recently, he said no, his doctor replied "Well then you don't have it." and that was the end of it.
When my son got a cold, I also preferred to get him tested, but couldn't. Soon it became pretty obvious it was just a cold, but still, without a negative test for him, I'm not allowed to come to the office.
It's pretty clear that it's spreading faster than they can keep track of by merely tracking who you had contact with. I can understand they don't want to waste time or resources on people who obviously have a simple cold, but I'd rather they did test people who report flu cases.
You clearly have no idea what youre talking about. When something 100x less severe than the coronavirus happens, there is an ABSOLUTE AVALANCHE of people calling in on the full spectrum of sickness, from psychosomatic, to actually sick but with the wrong thing, to actually sick with the right thing but minor cases, to people that will actually die if not seen but cant make their case clear. The reality of the situation is that without instant, free, over-the-phone test results, this is a reasonable response from oversaturated medical systems.
The diagnostic is dead simple. Look at any health ministry of any country. It doesn't take a medical degree to understand that if you have flu-like symptoms, you need to be tested for the flu. And if you don't have any of the flu strains making the rounds, test for Coronavirus. You know, exactly what SK is able to do but somehow Europe isn't.
Yet the doctor is one of many who are dismissing the likelihood of somebody having coronavirus just because they haven't been to Italy. So yes, stupid.
Now the infected population is very small, so if too many non infected people is testes, the false positives would be much bigger than the true positives. So you would get a lot of people unnecessary in the hospital while they have a normal cold or flu.
Anyway, if the symptoms of a normal cold or flu are so bad that deserve hospitalization, the doctor will send you to the hospital even if it is not covid19.
[If you are in a risk group, get the flu vaccine. It will not protect you from covid19, but you definitively don't want to catch a bad flu while the hospital if full of covid19 patients.]
The amount of infected people calling in who havent traveled is _infinitecimal_. The doctor saying you're not infected is correct an OVERWHELMING amount of the time, probably >99% accuracy. Eventually, this wont be true, but then the doctor wont be telling everyone to go away because theyre not stupid.
Now, if you want to argue the merits of extreme overcaution and attempting things like 100% testing for a global pandemic mitigation plan, good for you. You have a lot of hurdles to overcome, some of which you named yourself, but none of them are the doctors fault. You are simply wrong.
If my health care provider can try to sell me antibiotics despite a negative strep test, "just to be sure, because sometimes you get a false negative", then they're surely not ignorant of the phenomenon where tests are less than 100% accurate. (Perhaps they're just variably aware of it, depending on what the bean counters from the health care network's corporate office are telling them to do. But still.) And, if you take a "better safe than sorry" attitude regarding false negatives, then you're not too far off from realizing that not having the test is not that big of a deal, because you'd be telling people to stay home when they're sick in either case.
This is a viral illness. There is simply no treatment. You go home, rest and eventually get through it in most cases. If you have annoying symptoms, you try to alleviate those in the usual ways (as if it was any other cold/flu). If you get life-threatening symptomps, you call for help and they'll take you to the hospital (at least while they aren't completely collapsed).
What would you like the doctor to say or do here?
Specifically, I would like the doctor to say, "Stay the eff home and keep your germs to yourself, sickie."
More doctors doing this would also help put pressure on employers to change their policies. Maybe (dare I dream?) we can even get restaurants to start giving their employees sick leave, and encouraging them to use it, instead of requiring them to show up and germ up all the food on pain of losing their jobs.
I'm in Catalonia, Spain.
Or is it encouraging individuals to start making more of a grassroots effort to effect change for their own sakes, rather than sitting around waiting for the people with little to gain and much to lose in enacting more human policies to suddenly have a change of heart?
Which means that change inevitably has to start with individuals. Trying to insist that it's corporations' and governments' job to make the first move is only useful in situations where assigning blame is more important than dealing with the problem.
Perhaps related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
That said, in the US with its tradition of completely ignoring all needs of employees, there are a lot of people for who this advice would amount to quitting their job, and it's pretty obvious a lot of people can't afford that.
Employers should definitely do their part by encouraging people to work from home, and paying sick people to stay home so they don't infect their co-workers. I honestly don't understand what kind of employers would want an epidemic to spread in their offices.
Reading about American employers is baffling compared to my own. Everybody is encouraged to work from home. In face, every week half of the company is required to work from home. If anyone in your household has a cold, you have to work from home for two weeks.
It may be a slight overreaction, but that's vastly better than just ignoring the problem. From everything I hear, I seriously fear COVID-19 is going to wreak havoc in the US. They seem to have fine-tuned their country to be as vulnerable as possible to this: Many people with no or poor health insurance, no sick days, who are very easy to fire, will feel forced to go to work no matter how sick they are. Then there's Trump firing the pandemic crisis team, a dramatic shortage of tests, and nobody seems to be in charge over this thing, or even know anything at all.
It's like the flu shot. One big reason to get the flu shot every year, even if you never get the flu, is because controlling it needs to be a community effort. A big vector for seasonal flu is young, healthy people with subclinical infections. They never develop any symptoms, or maybe think it's just a cold, so they keep circulating in public and blithely spreading it to others.
I read many governments are already planning for "sick leave" just to make sure that kids will be protected and prevented from doing the above.
And in an unrelated note, I remembered the movie "28 days later" and its fantastic soundtrack!
Kids are also great at spreading viruses even if they don't get very sick from them. In some ways that makes it worse because if they don't have obvious symptoms then they could be more likely to transmit it as no one is monitoring them closely.
Coronavirus is mysteriously sparing kids and killing the elderly. Understanding why may help defeat the virus. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus...
Kids do get the coronavirus — they just don't get as sick https://www.livescience.com/can-kids-get-coronavirus.html
Here's a guy who's an expert on COVID-19 because he reads the internet. If you have symptoms that feel like death I am telling you to discount this persons' advice, get yourself to the doctor because you may very well be dying.
Also a site that's just better:
https://www.zocdoc.com/about/coronavirus-covid-19-2/
Here's the advice from this site:
>Contact your primary care provider before going to their office. Be sure to let them know if you’ve been in close contact with someone who has coronavirus, or if you’ve recently traveled to an area where the virus is spreading, whether or not you have symptoms. If you don’t have a doctor to contact, you can also reach out to your local board of health.
^^that up there is proper advice.
Every single bit of advice we have been handed out the last few weeks is trying to get the message out - Do not physically go to your doctor if you suspect you have this illness. Do not turn up at hospital. Stay at home and telephone the doctors to inform them of what you think you have, and to get advice on what to do next. If you are feeling OK, telephone the non-emergency numbers. If you are feeling like you're about to die, telephone the emergency numbers.
No, as the advice you cite subsequently says, you should NOT get yourself to a doctor, you should call them. Which is consistent with staying the fuck home.
Of course it's not "stay home even if you're dying".
Please stay at home if possible, the idea is to reduce the amount of infected and spread the infection over time so we do not saturate the hospitals.
Don't need to panic, just do it.
https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
To avoid TL;DR, search for boxes with green or red background centered text -- that's recommendations of behaviour.
Apparently working from home isn't going to be allowed...
Oh well.
We always talked about staying at home and just talking with friends and family via FaceTime or phone during a pandemic. The problem is that I volunteer at the local food bank and my wife teaches in a reading program, so for us, STFH means that we are walking away from obligations.
Despite being in team A, I'm not allowed to come to the office because my son has a cold that's already cured. But without a negative test, I still have to telecommute for two weeks.
They seem to be a bit more paranoid than your average health expert, but I guess it's better to be safe than sorry. I will definitely miss seeing the other half of my team, though.
> Do not use public transportation if not absolutely necessary.
Yeah, cause everyone lives within walking distance of their jobs.
The tone will not accomplish anything
the content is already known, albeit most of the points are good advice
no new ideas are proposed
stats (morbidity, % critical, etc) are still not stable or very helpful at this stage
second-order (let alone deeper) consequences are not discussed at all.
Coronavirustechhandbook.com
It’s the number of people who have died, of the known cases. Not everyone who is infected becomes a case, for one reason or another. Maybe their symptoms did not arouse enough concern, or maybe testing was refused to them since they didn’t fit an erroneously narrow list of testing requirements.
Another thing to keep in mind is that people calculating the CFR from public data on a napkin typically don’t distinguish between survivors and those who just haven’t died yet. So the other side of the CFR (the people who haven’t died) tends to include both the known survivors and will-be-survivors, as well as the people who are in the ICU hanging on for dear life and could be dead tomorrow.
For this reason, unless it explicitly states that it’s only counting survivors and deaths, the CFR is more reliable once the spread has began to decline, when there are fewer new cases each day than the day before.