Same - I have 78 year old double cancer surviving Mother who came to visit (we live out of state) two weeks ago to see her grand children (and me too). They were already on there way out to see us when this all happened but they didn't turn around.
She is very much aware (and frankly scared) of getting COVID-19.
But who knows how many years she has left and she knows it. She isn't going to waste time she could be spending with her grandkids sitting at home worrying.
We all tried extra hard to stay safe before and while they were staying with us. But she weighed the risk and she could get cancer again at anytime and never get to see her grandkids again.
Who am I to tell her she is wrong to make the decision she did?
I have a really good job that I can do from home and don't need people to get back to work.
But math and science says that we need 60% or 70% to get COVID-19. So it either happens now or dragged out over the next 6 months. We can not social distance ourselves out of this. Eventually people will either have to get vaccinated (could be years out) or get sick and recover. We can focus on keeping people with compromised immune system from getting it by allowing other, healthier people to get it while people at risk self isolate and reduce spread that way.
What is your alternative?
One disservice that has been done by the media is promulgate very misleading fatality rates. We can not accurately calculate a fatality rate currently (until we have antibody testing). The reputable sources are placing it at less than 1% but no one knows for sure. Whenever you see statistics like "9%" think "Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics" (sorry not trying to impune you if you did the math yourself - just saying if you see sources saying that, just close the website it is junk!).
The COVID-19 does not have a higher or lower fatality rate based on social distancing, etc. If the quality of care declines (i.e. Italy) it can impact outcomes. There may be some genetic or or immune history at work creating disparities between countries, but most of what you are seeing is demographics (older and less healthy populations will have higher fatality rates) and infection rates combined with uneven testing.
To get a better picture you need to look at fatality rates per million. By this measure the US is basically the same as Europe including Sweden and excluding Italy and Spain which are much higher. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
As to Sweden - they have 1/2 the population of New York and 793 deaths to date (to normalize for population this would put that at about 1,500 deaths). New York is approaching 8,000. They had their first death BEFORE New York. As discussed in earlier comments, maybe this is not a fair comparison because of New York's many high risk factors. But we also can not very well cast stones at them currently.
What Sweden is doing correctly is focusing on protecting at risk individuals and taking the pressure off everyone else by asking (and receiving) voluntary common sense social distancing. Ohio may have less than 300 people who have died but it will be susceptible to a 2nd wave. Sweden will have taken their medicine and moved on by the end of May.
COVID-19 does not just surrender when we (hopefully) start getting back to "normal" on May 1. What stops COVID-19 from just coming back (maybe harder and more lethal) if no one has built up immunity?
I am not saying act stupid and get people in nursing homes infected. I am saying that when you have an asymmetric enemy that has a weakness (leaving healthy people relatively untouched - yes there are the inverse lottery winners that are young and die from it) you should take advantage of it. If they have big, mean slow defensive tackles tackles - don't run it up the middle bounce it outside. We should focus on protecting at risk people and try to get everyone else back out there as soon as possible in a responsible manner.
Also here is some good reading. Don't get too excited - the COVID-19 numbers are preliminary, but it gives perspective on how much more we have to worry about (and don't) other than COVID-19.
Testing is a key.
That said we need to get to 60 to 70% having recovered from COVID-19 unless we get a vaccine. If we don't do that we will just be fighting the same war over and over and over....for years potentially.
A vaccine is at least 12 months (or way longer potentially) away.
First - sincerely - it is refreshing to run into someone who is open minded and uses their brain. Proud you are a Buckeye!
I think the issue, IMO, is Ohio specifically did not need to overreact. If we are talking about NYC then action like was taken makes sense. But NYC actually had data that drove their decisions and they did about as well as one could hope under the circumstances.
Countries like Japan, Sweden, and Germany (all pretty responsible countries) did not overreact like Ohio did. Ohio was low to moderate risk in every known risk factor (demographic age distribution, density, multi-generational living arrangements, high public transportation utilization). Ohio also does not have a large international population compared to NYC or even San Francisco (my current home base).
So Ohio had a choice. They could have behaved like Japan or Sweden or Germany (who have behaved with more moderation and where more data driven). But instead they chose a path that even the IHME had modeled as being sub optimal. This (IMHE) is the model everyone is talking about currently and what the government is using to assess the likely outcome. The IHME modelling showed that if you do what Ohio did (and is doing) you actually are not helping. You are only suppressing it for the time being and you will have to pay the price later. The optimal model (according to their data and models) showed was suppressing it only enough to keep hospitals from getting overwhelmed. They labeled this as somewhere between social distancing and shutting schools down. Lock down was shown to cause massive issues later on if you didn't maintain it indefinitely (which you can not do).
So we did have data even before now saying that this (Ohio's) behavior is long term detrimental (and that doesn't even take into account the economic and social issues it is causing).
The numbers being reported (and hyped by the media) are not what some people seem to think they are.
It is as if you decided to calculate death rate from drinking (don't do drink and drive - it isn't cool) by doing the below.
Find the number of people that died in 2019 while driving drunk. Find the number of people cited for drunk driving. Divide the first number by the second number.
This is obviously wrong. The number is not indicative of the fatality rate, but it is a lot easier to do this than to figure out the number of people drinking and driving and not getting in wrecks or cited.
Sure that is one way to do it, but it will WAY over estimate the impact of drinking and driving.
Someone pointing this out is NOT saying that drinking and driving is good or safe.
But they are just saying this is a ridiculous way to view risk of drinking and driving.
This is EXACTLY what is happening now with CV-19.
Watching the CFP selection show thought it was interesting to see the way that was handled. They had the #1 team LSU on first. They then skipped #2 team and went straight to Dabo. Dabo chums it up with the host and talks about how disrespected Clemson has been with a wink and a nudge. Then they bring in Coach Day like he is a side note to Dabo's interview.
Day said all the right things but the look on his face said he is a man with a chip on his shoulder and felt like he and his team had been disrespected. Dabo immediately noticed it and the the smug look on his face disappeared. I think he realized that he and ESPN may have just helped Day (and let's not kid ourselves Urban in the background) completely play the disrespect card and that it is going to be a dog fight.