TheGangsAllHere wrote:I would definitely prefer in-person contact, and I'm so glad I got to see my T on Wednesday, but he's in an at-risk category, and I don't want him putting his health at risk to see people in his office.
The statistics right now are terrifying, and it's going to get worse for at least two weeks until we see any results of the stay-at-home policies.
I think "essential" right now needs to be defined as essential for physical survival, especially since there's an option for seeing each other virtually. I don't think they're saying there isn't a need--it's just relatively less important to immediate, urgent, physical needs.
***Trigger warning*** (medical, virus impact)
To put it in perspective, there are people in Italy dying because they're aren't enough ventilators. Some are being told that since they're older than another person who needs a ventilator, they're considered to have less of a need to be kept alive, since they have statistically fewer years left to live.
***End trigger warning***
Compared to that, I can live with being told that my need to see my therapist face-to-face is down the scale from more important needs right now.
Side note about Italy, Europe's OLDEST population average and most of those are in the late 70's and 80's. They are high risk on top of this being so dangerous.
This IS a dangerous illness, and that's why I am not mad or upset (even if disappointed) about the things being done to try and slow it's spread- btw, that is what the distancing is for- to SLOW IT, not stop it... and the hope is slowing it enough will mean less will get it in the long run (a good plan).
It IS the right thing to do... but Italy is NOT a good model to compare to the US or even most of Europe. Kind of like comparing the testing in South Korea to the US. They have far less government regulation in place and government planning and control that we have- namely the CDC and FDA doing their own plan rather than using the WHO tests and then getting them worked out, efficient, and then finally approved. That's all time we don't really have- IDK why we don't use the WHO model as others are... but that's government in the way.
But like we've both said- this IS for the general good... It just sucks to hinder other things, too- and worst to give NO ONE a choice. Freedom of will should be considered, too, and people should be able to choose for themselves what risks they want to take to a large degree... without freedom to exercise free will, what are we?!
And the worst rate of fatality current has been Italy at around 10% (TERRIBLY HIGH). More scary, the LOWEST I've seen is about 7% (global average of "closed cases" as of yesterday). The common flu, 0.1% fatality rate. 1/10 of ONE percent. This is alarmingly more dangerous, also spreads a LOT easier and faster. This IS something to be concerned with. We totally agree.