Home Blog Page 621

COVID-19 Put Her Husband in the ICU. She Had to Be Hospitalized Next. The State Demanded to Know: Who Would Care for Their Children?

0

When Laura Whalen went to a hospital with COVID-19, she brought her kids. Her husband was already in an ICU, and she couldn’t risk them exposing their grandma. But the state told her to find someone to take them or it would.

by Topher Sanders and David Armstrong April 15, 6 a.m. EDT

On the afternoon of March 24, as her symptoms from the coronavirus worsened, Laura Whalen found it difficult to talk. She would run out of breath before finishing a sentence. If she moved, even slightly, she coughed.

Her friend Robin, a nurse, grew alarmed at the wispy sound of her voice and urged her to go to the hospital. “Laura,” she said on the phone, “you need to go.”

“I’m not leaving my children,” Laura replied. “I’m not going anywhere.”

The 43-year-old mother in Bridgewater, New Jersey, was facing any parent’s worst nightmare: She was growing sicker by the hour but had no viable plan for taking care of her two children. The usual options for watching the kids were off the table because the Whalen children were likely infected with a virus that was contagious, unpredictable and lethal.

Her 45-year-old husband, Tony, was in a medically induced coma at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in Somerville, a nearby town. In the six days since they had both tested positive for COVID-19, his health had been her priority. She’d been working the phones and Facebook to see if she knew anyone who could get him connected to an ECMO machine that would oxygenate his blood, or help him get an experimental antiviral drug called Remdesivir.

His decline had been steep. Even that day, after hanging up with her concerned friend, Laura thought first about Tony, wrapping her mind around the fact that she and her kids — Cai, 11, and Maji, 14 — might have to say goodbye to him on FaceTime. A nurse agreed to hold up a phone so they could see him. They thought they were looking at a large box, but the nurse said it was the bottom of a special bed. Tony was strapped in, facing the floor, in an effort to increase his oxygen level. All Laura and the kids could see was his shoulder.

As they told him they loved him, Laura’s friend called again but was unable to get through. Robin would have normally jumped in the car right then, but her daughter is immunocompromised and she couldn’t risk exposing herself, and thus her daughter, to the virus. Alarmed at the lack of response, Robin called the police to check on Laura.

The cruiser pulled up shortly after Laura and the kids ended their call. Two ambulances soon followed.

Laura knew she needed to go to the hospital, but she wasn’t going to leave the kids home alone for what likely would be days in the middle of a pandemic. Her elderly mom, who lived nearby, was always available to care for her grandchildren; but now, asking her to do so would be asking her to put her own life at risk. Laura decided she would bring the children with her to the hospital.

She told them to stuff their backpacks with books and games, picturing the possibility that she could wind up out of it, and she didn’t know how long they would be at the hospital. The only thing she could do for them, in that moment, was to make sure they could occupy their minds.

Within hours, the decision to keep the kids by her side would threaten to split the family further apart. If she couldn’t find someone to take them, she’d be told, the state of New Jersey would.

Laura and Tony Whalen met as teenagers at a church retreat. She was 16. He was 18. As an icebreaker, they were handed toilet paper and told to take just enough squares to get them through the weekend; for each square, they had to provide a detail about themselves.

Tony, who was tall with floppy brown hair, took a bunch of squares, and launched into a monologue about the various mishaps he experienced at his part-time job at Chicken Holiday, a local fast food restaurant. “I’m captivated,” Laura recalled. “I had a boyfriend at the time. But, you know, within hours, that was kind of forgotten.”

They married seven years later. She was more introverted, preferring the quiet of home. He loved being the center of attention. One Christmas while in middle school, his older brother Tom Whalen remembered, Tony posed a question to his step grandparents in front of their large Italian family: “You guys use condoms, or what?” The kids at the table laughed; the adults did not.

His brash sense of humor made some people uncomfortable but endeared him to others, including a group of brothers from the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity he helped to establish at Rider University. He was all about people. At Sanofi pharmaceuticals, where he worked for 17 years, he was director of client engagement.

Tony embraced fatherhood. His dad died when he was a young boy, and he wanted to be involved in as many of his own kids’ pursuits as they would allow. When Cai joined the Cub Scouts, Tony stepped in to be the den leader. After Maji came out as nonbinary, Tony joined an LGBTQ group so he could learn more about how to offer support.

Amid it all, Tony was dealing with significant health problems. He had osteopenia, or weakened bones, and underwent surgeries beginning around age 3 for pectus excavatum, a condition where his chest was slightly sunken. After several bouts of pneumonia as an adult, he had a portion of a lung removed in an effort to reduce his risk of infection. He suffered multiple broken bones, and in the past two years, broke both hips and both wrists. “Even when he was well, he was sick,” his brother said. “He was always sick or he was always in pain.”

Yet Laura said she never considered Tony fragile. It was something they talked about just a few months ago, at a time when Tony was feeling down about his health. “I never, ever thought of you as sick or broken,” she said she told Tony.

When they both came down with the coronavirus, it left the couple exhausted. They would slump on the couch and watch television. “The kids were kind of fending for themselves,” she said. Instead of participating in online classes, they would wake up, sign in and go back to bed.

Tony’s condition began to worsen March 19, about a week after he first experienced symptoms. He had a persistent cough and wasn’t sleeping well. Tony didn’t want to go to the hospital, afraid it would expose him to other illnesses and infections that would make him even sicker. He hoped to ride out the virus at home, optimistic he would overcome it, like he had everything else.

But Laura found him at the kitchen table in the early morning of March 21, struggling to breathe. She woke up the kids. She wanted them to have some time with their father before the ambulance took him away.

On the night of March 24, Laura and the children were evaluated in the emergency room at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, about 10 miles away from the hospital where Tony was in critical condition.

Maji had mild symptoms; Cai had none. They didn’t need emergency care and the hospital wanted to discharge them. The staff soon began asking Laura who could take them.

“There’s no one,” Laura said she told the staff.

They asked about her mother. “My mother’s not sick,” she said. “My child is sick. You are essentially asking me to infect my mother.”

If Laura couldn’t find someone to take the children, the staff said, they would be forced to call the state’s child welfare agency.

A hospital spokesman said state law requires the facility to notify welfare officials if a parent is unable to find someone to care for their child. Both the state and the hospital declined to comment specifically on Laura’s description of events.

Laura texted her friend Robin for help at 10:27 p.m.; she was a nurse at the hospital. Robin told her to talk to the nursing supervisor and ask for a compassionate admission where she and the children would be placed in a room together.

“They need to be creative here,” Robin wrote. “This is going to be a repeat issue. They should figure out how to assist you, not stress you.”

The appeal worked. Laura and her children were allowed to stay in a small room in the emergency area for several hours while they waited for a room that could better accommodate them. Laura had a bed; the children sat in hard chairs.

They were all struggling to sleep when, just after midnight, Laura’s phone rang with an unfamiliar number. It was a caseworker from the state Department of Children and Families, asking the same question the others had. Who could take the kids? The hospital’s social worker also called.

Laura was reaching a breaking point. She was sick. Her kid was sick. She was worried about her husband and couldn’t talk to him. She was on her own.

“I just said: ‘Fuck you. My kids are staying with me.’”

The question of what happens if parents get sick with the coronavirus and can’t care for their children is something “every state and city and town child welfare provider is struggling with,” said Christine James-Brown, president and CEO of the Child Welfare League of America.

A spokeswoman for the state of New Jersey, Nicole Brossoie, said that when it receives reports that a parent is “incapacitated and unable to care for their child, the department has an obligation to respond.”

She said New Jersey has identified foster parents willing to take in children exposed to the virus. The state plans to quarantine children in that situation for 14 days. “All efforts are made to connect the children with family or someone familiar,” Brossoie said. “When that is not possible, foster care placement is arranged. … The department will take all necessary precautions to mitigate the spread.”

Like New Jersey, officials in Louisiana, Michigan and Washington told ProPublica they have begun planning for the possibility of having to place children who have been exposed and whose parents are hospitalized or have died.

It has become difficult to find willing foster families.

“They’re really, really hesitant of potentially exposing their own loved ones to something larger than just temper tantrums or behavior,” said Marcus Stallworth, a training and development specialist at the CWLA. Irene Clements, executive director of the National Foster Parent Association, agreed. “The caregivers are going to say: ‘No, we know this child’s exposed. I can’t do that to my family.’ So in these situations, either a state or a county agency has to then become the parent.”

At 4 a.m. on March 25, after spending several hours cramped in a small room in the emergency department, Laura decided she and the children would leave. She still couldn’t catch her breath and had a headache and fever that made her ears hurt. But they were all exhausted, and a solution for how to take care of the kids was no closer to being found. “I’m taking my kids and going home,” Laura told hospital staff. “This is ridiculous.”

Staff members moved them from the emergency department to a room with two beds and a recliner. They slept for five or six hours. Laura was getting oxygen and the medical attention she needed. “It was good,” Laura said.

But at 9:53 a.m., her phone ran again. It was the caseworker from the state. This time, the tone was different. “It was very clear they were going to take the kids,” Laura said.

Laura ran, once again, through a mental list of those who would ordinarily help with the children. She wished she had come up with a plan when she and Tony first got sick.

This time, she remembered one person she hadn’t considered, Tony’s stepfather Frank. Laura had assumed he was ill; Tony’s mother had the coronavirus. But then, as she was updating Tony’s mom about everything, she learned that Frank never developed symptoms even though he had been exposed to the virus for weeks.

Laura called Frank. It was the first time she’d ever asked him for child care help. “I need you to do this. Otherwise, they’re going to take the kids.” He understood.

Laura was relieved. Now she could focus on fighting the virus in her body.

A few hours later, Laura received another call. Tony was dead.

It’s quiet in the Whalen house these days. Tony was the one who filled it with Nirvana and Radiohead and adventure audiobooks like Harry Potter stuff he and the kids enjoyed together. Cai has poured himself into one of his dad’s passions, video games. Maji has retreated into their room. From a distance, many family members and friends have expressed their love. None have been able to come over and give them a hug.

Laura knows it will take time for the kids to get used to it all. In the past, when Maji had difficulty sleeping, Tony would rub the teen’s shoulders and put on a chapter of the novel “Artemis Fowl.” It doesn’t work when Laura does it.

But she is trying to pay attention to what has improved. “You get up and you take a tiny teeny step and it may not even look or feel like a step, but it’s a step,” she said.

She’s started working again at her job consulting at Johnson & Johnson and forces herself to wake up and get the day started. She pushes herself to take deep breaths to help get her lungs back in shape; each breath still comes with pain, but she knows that will fade.

She feels the same way about the pain of loss. Her father died when she was 21. The hurt was intense but not everlasting. “I know that the pain for Tony won’t last forever. I’m just going to have that faith and just choose to believe that,” she said. “And if I can do that … I can live through this moment.”

Tony told Laura he didn’t want a funeral when he died. He wanted a celebration, with those in attendance hoisting shots in his honor. He recently became fond of peanut butter whiskey.

Laura said the shots will have to wait, but there will be a private funeral and viewing on Wednesday. Five people will be allowed in the room at a time.

When her father died, the family received a visit from their Catholic priest who said that if her dad were given a choice to come back or stay in heaven, he would choose heaven. “And that made me so angry and so sad,” she said. “You tell me that my dad would choose heaven over me and heaven over my brothers?”

His words have taken on a new meaning now. To her, heaven is real, and Tony is there, and if he was given a chance to come back, he wouldn’t. “And that’s OK, because his lungs are great and he’s happy,” she said, “and he’s with his own dad, and he’s with my dad, and he’s drinking whiskey and he’s playing pinochle and he is looking out for us.”

Multiple Waves, Mass Deaths and a $5 Billion Economic Hit: Inside Mississippi’s Pandemic Playbook

0

by Adam Ganucheau, Mississippi Today
April 15, 2020

It was designed for the flu, but the coronavirus put it into motion.

More than 10 years ago, Mississippi health and government officials began developing a comprehensive plan in preparation for a pandemic of a novel influenza strain — not a coronavirus strain — for which there is no human immunity, vaccine or treatment. 

Commissioned in 2009 by former Gov. Haley Barbour and completed in June 2019, the final 447-page document is serving as a playbook for health experts, emergency management officials and dozens of state government agencies. 

The document, titled the Mississippi Pandemic Influenza Incident Annex, anticipates mass deaths as well as a crippled state economy.

“A large number of cases will increase the burden to hospitals and other healthcare infrastructure,” reads the plan, obtained by Mississippi Today. “All areas of the public and private sectors will be adversely affected by a pandemic… The pandemic may last up to 18 months and may occur in multiple waves, with varying morbidity and mortality.”

The plan forecasts a potentially devastating economic outlook: “The economic impact on the state of Mississippi could be in excess of $4.9 billion in a severe pandemic… The flow of critical goods and services provided by vendors, contractors and consultants may be interrupted.”

The pandemic plan, which has been heralded by Gov. Tate Reeves and other officials in recent days, also details chains of command, guides department heads the responsibilities for their agencies and chronicles priorities across the entire state government before, during and after the pandemic.

Though the plan’s workflow considerations have been closely adhered to, health officials have had to scrap much of the plan because of the inherent differences in an influenza pandemic and a coronavirus pandemic.

“With influenza there’s a subset of people who are already immune, but with coronavirus we don’t have any of that. So that’s a bigger challenge,” said State Health Officer Thomas Dobbs, who sat on the committee that developed the pandemic plan. “The social distancing interventions in the plan, for instance, are a lot softer than what we’re doing now. The other piece is we don’t have a lot of the tools in place (for coronavirus), such as pharmaceutical interventions like Tamiflu and (other influenza treatments).”

Several key components of the plan were conceptualized and put on paper but were not tested as of last summer. Some of those untested components include: 

• Ensuring the continuity of food supply systems, considering “many of the usual venues for obtaining food, such as school lunch programs, farmers’ markets and grocery stores, may be closed or have very restricted access during periods in which strict community protection measures (e.g., social distancing, sheltering-in-place directives) must be observed.”

• Mitigating the impact of a pandemic on the state’s workers as most agencies are responsible for “how they can share pandemic prevention and preparedness information with their constituents and how they can assist them in responding to protect worker health and safety during a pandemic event.”

• Implementing comprehensive telework plans that give state employees access to vital records and databases with secure encryption technology.

And state officials have diverted from some of the plan’s recommendations in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak.

The plan did not offer any guidance on what should be deemed “essential businesses” during a shelter-in-place order or some other form of societal shutdown, though the plan did list 41 state governmental bodies considered “essential.” The only non-governmental essential entity listed in the plan was the American Red Cross.

Reeves last month issued a broad definition of “essential businesses,” which exempted most private industries and businesses  from adhering to any shelter-in-place order. Reeves asked agency heads to allow state employees to continue their work from home, if possible, though many are unable to do so.

Another point of diversion deals with the closing of schools. The pandemic plan calls for county health department and local schools officials to make decision about school closures. In the case of the coronavirus, Reeves took the matter out of the hands of local health and education officials, issuing a statewide order that closed all of the state’s schools indefinitely following most other governors. This week, he announced that the state’s schools would remain closed through the rest of the school year.

“Was it perfect? Of course it wasn’t,” Reeves said of the pandemic plan on Wednesday. “I don’t know if anyone could write 460 pages about any topic that was perfect. But it was well thought out, and it laid a framework and guideline for the various steps we’re taking.”

The pandemic plan is split into operational phases, as recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. Officials are currently operating in the second phase of the three-part plan: “Response.” The first is “Preparedness” and the final is “Recovery.”

The “Recovery” section of the plan, defined as “steps taken to return the state to normal functioning,” offers insight into what the next few weeks could look like in Mississippi.

Some of the top priorities in the plan’s next phase include facilitating recovery of public health and health-care institutions, preparing for a potential subsequent wave of infections and replenishing stockpiles of resources. Mental health is also a focus of the “Recovery” section of the plan.

“Mental health of the workforce is a function that will need to be addressed throughout a pandemic response and will be a critical factor in returning to normalcy across the state,” the plan reads. “All agencies are responsible for identifying resources to support their staff.”

Focusing on the importance of administering a vaccine when one becomes available, the pandemic plan offers guidance in all three operational phases for how state officials can distribute a vaccine to Mississippians. Citing studies from national researchers, the Mississippi plan suggests that a vaccine may not be available for at least the first four to six months of the pandemic and will initially have limited availability. That estimate was developed for a novel influenza strain, and a COVID-19 vaccine is expected to take longer.

“Due to limited quantities and production capacity of (influenza) vaccine, vaccination of the population may take up to 20 months to complete once vaccine is initially available,” the plan reads. “The overall impact of vaccination during a pandemic depends on how rapidly a vaccine becomes available, its effectiveness in preventing infection and disease, its supply levels and the ability to allocate and administer it.”

More sobering parts of the plan include five pages on how state officials should handle high mortality rates. The plan estimates that a severe pandemic could cause up to 15,000 deaths in Mississippi, which would “place extraordinary demands on local jurisdictions and the families of victims.”

As of Wednesday morning, the state health department had reported 3,360 identified coronavirus cases and 122 related deaths. At least 273 new Mississippi cases were reported on Tuesday, which is the most known new cases in a single day since the pandemic reached the state, and at least 11 people died on Tuesday.

The plan guides 11 state entities and associations, including the Mississippi Coroners Association and Mississippi Funeral Directors Association, on how to handle a spike in deaths.

“The timely, safe and respectful disposition of the deceased is an essential component of an effective response,” the plan reads. “Accurate, sensitive and timely public relations are crucial to this effort.”

The plan itself was initiated by a commission that Gov. Barbour appointed in 2009. The commission was chaired by the state epidemiologist, and a number of state agency representatives also sat on the committee. Other state agency heads and officials added to the plan over the years contributed information for final version, approved in June 2019.

When asked why he commissioned the plan, Barbour told Mississippi Today in an interview that Hurricane Katrina and its lessons inspired action. 

“After Hurricane Camille hit in 1969, a lot of people, long before I was governor, planned for the next terrible hurricane,” Barbour said. “The problem was (that) Katrina didn’t turn out to be anything like Camille. However, just by having a plan, having practice and having lots of people on the ground who were familiar with what we were trying to accomplish if we had a terrible hurricane, our people were much better off.”

Barbour continued: “I hope that this (pandemic) plan is getting Mississippi the best performance and will reduce our health risks and leave us with fewer deaths.”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

You’re Being Tested – What Now?

0

After Being Tested: What You Should Do

If you have been tested for COVID-19, take the following steps to monitor your health and avoid spreading the disease to others:

Isolate yourself

  • While waiting for results, you should immediately isolate yourself at home. DO NOT GO TO WORK OR LEAVE YOUR HOME.
  • Stay in a specific room and away from other people in your home to the extent possible. Use a separate bathroom, if available. Household members can consider staying in a separate location, if available, to decrease their risk of exposure.
  • For more information, see the CDC’s guidance on preventing the spread of COVID-19 at home.
  • If you must leave home, such as to seek medical care, wear a surgical mask if available.
  • If your results are positive, you will need to isolate for 14 days from the time your symptoms started.

Monitor your health

  • Get plenty of rest, stay hydrated and if needed, take medication to reduce your fever.
  • If your symptoms get worse and you need to seek healthcare, call ahead and tell the provider that you have been tested for COVID-19. This will help the healthcare provider’s office take steps to keep other people from getting infected or exposed.

Practice healthy habits

  • Cover your cough, or sneeze into your elbow or a tissue.
  • Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, or use alcohol-based hand rub if soap and water are not available.
  • Clean and disinfect objects and surfaces regularly, including your phone.

Guidance for your household contacts

  • While waiting for the results of your test, your household contacts should stay at home.
  • They should not go to work or school and should avoid all public places.
  • If your results are positive, your household contacts should immediately quarantine themselves for 14 days.
  • Household contacts should monitor for fever, cough and shortness of breath and contact their healthcare provider with symptoms. If they need medical assessment, they should call the health clinic or hospital before they visit.

If your results are negative (or not detected) continue to reduce your risk of illness

  • Isolate yourself until fever-free for at least 48 hours (if fever was present)
  • Practicing social distancing
  • Wash your hands
  • Avoid non-essential outings

Lone Star Schooner Bar & Grill

Lone Star Schooner Bar & Grill is located at 3942 North Gloster Street, Tupelo (in the shopping center near Bed, Bath, & Beyond).

Welcome the owners and staff of Tupelo’s newest Bar & Grill! (Call in orders @ 662-269-2815 )

A message from Lone Star Schooner Bar & Grill:

“Ready to serve up all of your favorites! In an effort to serve our guests with the absolute best service possible, we have limited our menu a little during this and changed our hours to 12-8pm. Just give us a call after placing your orders and we will bring it out to your car!!! We hope everyone is continuing prayers and staying safe! We love each and every one of y’all and hope you continue to support us through this time!”

I called ahead and ordered the new fried chicken sandwich called the cow-chick with fries as my side. They also have some awesome onion rings also. One side is included for $9.99+tax.

The sandwich is a nice hunk of breast meat with lettuce and tomato on the side. The fries were good, but if you haven’t tried the onion rings they are awesome, huge, and tasty! I just wanted some tatters for this lunch.

I’ve already tried their steak and also the shrimp PoBoy, both were phenomenal!

See y’all there!!!

Connect with me on social media!

Facebook

Instagram

Twitter

LIKE • COMMENT • SHARE

Wednesday’s Weather

WEDNESDAY OUTLOOK: Good morning everyone! A multi-day warming trend is expected today across North Mississippi. After a cold start with temperatures in the mid to upper 30s, afternoon highs should climb into the low 60s today. ‪Northerly flow is keeping us well below average. By Thursday, southerly flow returns and highs jump back up into the 70s. Morning lows will be cold again, but slightly warmer than last night…Enjoy your morning hot cup of ☕and have a safe and pleasant day ahead!

The Mayor’s Virtual Concert Series.

From the Facebook Page of The City of Tupelo – Mayor’s Office

Last night we kicked off our Mayor’s Music Series, 30 days of live music, with the musical talent of Matt Nolan–thanks Matt! Tune in this evening as we go Facebook Live with Elvis Tribute Artist, Nick Perkins! #MayorsMusicSeries #OurTupelo #TupeloSpirit

Here is the concert for April 14th, 2020

Mayor Shelton's Concert Series!!! Woot! Woot!

Mayor Shelton's 30 days of music. EVERYDAY at 530.Any tips appreciated. Paypal or Venmo: mattspunkm@gmail.com

Posted by Matt Nolan on Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Flags at Half Mast

Quote from the City of Tupelo-Mayor’s office:

Flags in Tupelo will be flown at half-staff in remembrance of those who have lost their lives to Covid-19 and the recent…

Posted by City of Tupelo – Mayor's Office on Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Moral Dilemmas in the Time of Covid-19

0

A philosopher answers everyday moral dilemmas in a time of coronavirus

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

Like a lot of people, we here at The Conversation are facing ethical decisions about our daily life as a result of the coronavirus. Here ethicist Lee McIntyre answers some of our editors’ queries. If you have a question you’d like a philosopher to answer, send it to us at us-ethicalquestions@theconversation.com

1. I’m 65 years old. My son, who is 32, has offered to pick up the groceries. But he has asthma. I’m in a quandary as to who should go?

One of the leading ethical theories is “utilitarianism,” which says that moral decisions and actions should be made on the basis of their consequences.

Although this idea stretches back to antiquity, it was 19th-century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who articulated the most developed form of this theory, arguing that ethical judgments were a matter of assessing “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

In balancing risk, you are anticipating likely consequences, which is a very utilitarian thing to do. But, as an ethicist, I would urge you to be careful.

Please consider whether you have all of the relevant information. It has now been shown that although at a much lower risk, younger people too can become dangerously sick with COVID-19. And with asthma as an underlying condition, that raises the stakes for your son.

You must also take into account your own risk profile: age, underlying health and other factors.

But, according to the utilitarian, you’ve still got to deal with another issue. Your son may be younger than you, but that means he’s also got many more life years to enjoy. According to utilitarian theory, if something were to happen to him, it would be a greater tragedy than if it happened to you, because he has more overall “utility” at stake.

Perhaps you could hire Instacart and have someone else’s son or daughter, presumably without asthma, deliver your groceries? But here is where it gets tricky. According to the utilitarian, you cannot prefer your own or your son’s happiness over that of a stranger.

It’s all about the “greatest good” for all concerned. If you think the ethical thing is to maximize happiness, then it shouldn’t matter whose happiness we are talking about.

Utilitarianism offers a method for thinking through this problem, but not an answer. You’ll have to think through each outcome – taking everyone’s happiness, health, age and risk into consideration.

2. I have a renter in my house who isn’t obeying social distancing rules and goes out all the time. What should I do?

As the renter lives in the same house you do, his or her behavior is endangering your health, which warrants some action.

Ethical egoism – which says that the ethical thing is that which brings about the greatest happiness for oneself – is a relevant ethical theory in this situation. You might think that your renter is an egoist, because he or she is presumably only concerned with his or her own welfare.

But that might open the door for you to claim that you are an egoist too. If you believe that it’s ethical for someone to care only about himself or herself, then perhaps you are justified in evicting the renter. But first you might want to check why he or she is going out. Perhaps it’s to take care of someone else.

So, first I’d have a talk with the renter and point out that – in a communal environment, especially in times of a public health crisis – everyone’s actions affect everyone else.

If that doesn’t work, you might guiltlessly embrace egoism as your own moral philosophy and say to the renter “if you don’t stop endangering my health, there will be consequences … for you.”

3. I don’t have a car and I have flu-like symptoms. Should I take a cab or Uber to go to the hospital?

Absolutely not, unless you plan to tell the driver in advance what you are doing. Eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant said that the guiding principle behind ethical behavior was to follow the “categorical imperative.” This says that everyone should act as if their behavior could form the basis for a universal law of human conduct.

So just ask yourself: What would happen if everyone who likely had COVID-19 just thought of themselves and took a cab or Uber? The disease would likely spread, which would be disastrous for many people beyond just you. The utilitarian too would agree.

A better course of action might be to call the hospital and ask for their help in arranging how to get there. If that fails, you could always call an ambulance. You might balk at the expense, but the alternative is to pass that expense, in the form of a life threatening illness, on to others – without their consent. And according to Kant, that is not an ethical thing to do.

[You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend.]

Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Who should get the groceries? Alex Potemkin/iStock / Getty Images Plus

Lack of data makes predicting COVID-19’s spread difficult but models are still vital

0

Lester Caudill, University of Richmond

Editor’s note: The question everyone in the world wants answered is how far the new coronavirus will spread and when the pandemic will begin to ebb. To know that, epidemiologists, public health authorities and policymakers rely on models.

Models are not meant to predict the future perfectly – yet they’re still useful. Biomedical mathematician Lester Caudill, who is currently teaching a class focused on COVID-19 and modeling, explains the limitations of models and how to better understand them.

What are infectious disease models?

Mathematical models of how infections spread are simplified versions of reality. They are designed to mimic the main features of real-world disease spread well enough to make predictions which can, at least partly, be trusted enough to make decisions. The COVID-19 model predictions reported in the media come from mathematical models that have been converted into computer simulations. For example, a model might use a variety of real world data to predict a date (or range of dates) for a city’s peak number of cases.

Why is modeling the spread of COVID-19 challenging?

In order for a model’s predictions to be trustworthy, the model must accurately reflect how the infection progresses in real life. To do this, modelers typically use data from prior outbreaks of the same infection, both to create their model, and to make sure its predictions match what people already know to be true.

This works well for infections like influenza, because scientists have decades of data that help them understand how flu outbreaks progress through different types of communities. Influenza models are used each year to make decisions regarding vaccine formulations and other flu-season preparations.

By contrast, modeling the current COVID-19 outbreak is much more challenging, simply because researchers know very little about the disease. What are all the different ways it can be transferred between people? How long does it live on door knobs or Amazon boxes? How much time passes from the moment the virus enters a person’s body until that person is able to transmit it to someone else? These, and many other questions, are important to incorporate into a reliable model of COVID-19 infections. Yet people simply do not know the answers yet, because the world is in the midst of the first appearance of this disease, ever.

Disease models are built on assumptions and historical data collected from other diseases. Having relatively little epidemiological data on COVID-19 adds uncertainty to models of how it will spread. AP Photo/Jon Elswick

Why do different models have different predictions?

The best modelers can do is assume some things about COVID-19, and create models that are based on these assumptions. Some current COVID-19 models assume that the virus behaves like influenza, so they use influenza data in their models. Other COVID-19 models assume that the virus behaves like SARS-CoV, the virus that caused the SARS epidemic in 2003.

Other models may make other assumptions about COVID-19, but they must all assume something, in order to make up for information that they need, but that simply does not yet exist. These different assumptions are likely to lead to very different COVID-19 model predictions.

How can people make sense of the different – sometimes conflicting – model predictions?

This question gets at, perhaps, the most important thing to know about mathematical model predictions: They are only useful if you understand the assumptions that the model is based on.

Ideally, model predictions like, “We expect 80,000 COVID-related deaths in the U.S.” would read more like, “Assuming that COVID-19 behaves similar to SARS, we expect 80,000 COVID-related deaths in the U.S.” This helps place the model’s prediction into context, and helps remind everyone that model predictions are not, necessarily, glimpses into an inevitable future.

An oft-cited model from Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington has a wide range of projections for deaths from COVID-19. They vary based on different underlying assumptions and how they change, such as the effect of social distancing or widespread testing. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington

It may also be useful to use predictions from different models to establish reasonable ranges, rather than exact numbers. For instance, a model that assumes COVID-19 behaves like influenza might predict 50,000 deaths in the U.S. Rather than trying to decide which prediction to believe – which is an impossible task – it may be more useful to conclude that there will be between 50,000 and 80,000 deaths in the U.S.

Why do the same models seem to predict different outcomes today than they did yesterday?

As COVID-19 data becomes available – and there are many good people working tirelessly to gather data and make it available – modelers are incorporating it so that, each day, their models are based a little more on actual COVID-19 information, and a little less on assumptions about the disease. You can see this process unfold in the news, where the major predictive COVID-19 models provide almost daily revisions to their prior estimates of case numbers and deaths.

Can a model that’s (probably) not accurate at predicting the future still be useful?

While models of infections can provide insights into what the future might hold, they are far more valuable when they help answer, “How can policies alter that future?”

For instance, a baseline model for predicting the future number of COVID-19 cases might be adapted to incorporate the effects of, say, a stay-at-home order. By running model simulations with the order, and comparing to model simulations without the order, public health authorities may learn something about how effective the order is expected to be. That can be especially useful when comparing the associated costs, not only in terms of disease burden, but in economic terms, as well.

One step further, this same model could be used to predict the consequences of ending the order on, say, June 10 – the current target date for the stay-at-home order in Virginia – and compare them to model predictions for ending the order on, say, May 31 or June 30. Here, as in many other settings, models prove to be most useful when they’re used to generate different scenarios which are compared to each other. This is different than comparing model predictions to reality.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

Lester Caudill, Professor of Mathematics, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Public health authorities rely on models to make decisions but how accurate are they? Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

What policing during the pandemic can tell us about crime rates and arrests

Tom Nolan, Emmanuel College

Social distancing orders in place across the U.S. have added to the long list of low-level offenses that police are charged with enforcing as a routine part of their job.

There are about 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, with close to 800,000 police officers. To date most appear to be exercising judgment and restraint in taking action against those occupying public spaces during the current pandemic. But then, of course, there are the exceptions.

I was a Boston police officer for 27 years before becoming an academic. My career on the force began with the large-scale unrest that accompanied Boston’s school desegregation and busing crisis of the 1970s and ended with the massive redeployment of police resources for the city’s hosting of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

So I know firsthand how rapidly shifting priorities can determine the way law enforcement carries out its mandate. And as the author of a book on policing in marginalized communities, I also know that when officers “overpolice,” especially communities of color, it can undermine trust and increase tensions.

Taking a close look at how policing is done during the coronavirus pandemic can shed light on both of these issues: how policing adapts in times of crisis and what happens when police take a more hands-off approach to enforcement.

Softly, softly

Police in New York City, Nashville, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Chicago have reportedly scaled back significantly on routine enforcement operations. Even when it comes to the policing of new social distancing orders, officers in departments across the U.S. are being encourage to tread lightly. “If we see large groups, we’ll go and talk to them, educate them about it and try and get compliance,” explained Chief Terence Monahan of the New York Police Department.

Such a strategy is particularly prudent given how officer numbers have been depleted due to the coronavirus outbreak. In early April, almost 20% of NYPD officers were out sick. And New York is far from being the only city whose police have been hit by illness. Chicago has seen hundreds of officers call out sick and in Detroit, the city’s police chief came down with COVID-19 alongside many rank-and-file officers.

This has coincided with a significant decrease in arrests in U.S. cities during the pandemic. The Boston Globe reported that arrests for January through April 2020 were down almost 60% compared to the same period in 2019. This sharp drop-off has not been accompanied by an increase in reports of crimes. In fact, in Boston, the rates of serious crimes remain nearly identical, dipping by just 1% over the same time frame.

Drop in crime

Other cities have seen slight drops in crime. New York City, for example, has seen an overall 4.2% decrease in serious crime in the last month when compared to the same period in 2019 “with the steepest declines realized amid the citywide coronavirus protections of the last two weeks,” according to the NYPD.

It is not known to what extent the crime figures have been affected by fewer people going out during the lockdown, leading to fewer potential victims. The data on that do not appear conclusive, with some major cities, like Washington D.C., reporting murder rates as flat, but shootings up.

Such large drops in arrest rates suggests that low-level misdemeanors and so-called quality-of-life offenses like drinking from an open container in public are not being targeted by police in the same way as they were before the public health crisis. The fact that serious crime figures have remained comparatively static, or have fallen in some cities, calls into question the notion that arrests of lower-level offenses can prevent the commission of serious crimes – the so-called “broken windows” theory of policing that still has its adherents despite coming under heavy criticism in recent years.

Go slows

The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented event and its long-term impact on arrests and crime rates is not known. But research into what happens when police tread lightly may give us an insight as to what is going on now.

The current operational scaling back of routine law enforcement is reminiscent of police slowdowns or stoppages of the past. Often taking place at the beat officer level, these have occurred during disputes between rank-and-file officers and police management. Other suspensions of “policing as usual” have been observed amid tensions related to brutality allegations and punitive actions against officers.

In a study published in 2017, Louisiana State University professor Christopher Sullivan and Zachary O’Keeffe, a Ph.D. student at University of Michigan found that scaling back so-called proactive policing – high rates of stop and frisk detentions, court summonses and arrests for misdemeanor offenses – after the police-related death of unarmed New York resident Eric Garner coincided with a reduction in violent crimes. They found that reports of murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, grand larceny and grand theft auto declined by between 3% and 6% during the halt on proactive policing.

Sullivan and O’Keeffe concluded that the results challenged the “conventional wisdom on authority and legal compliance” and imply that “aggressively enforcing minor legal statutes incites more severe criminal acts.”

In a 2016 study examining police work slowdowns, law professor Andrea Cann Chandrasekher found that despite the dramatic fall in arrests “the effects on public safety may be limited” and “mostly concentrated in the area of minor criminal disorder” rather than serious offenses.

Likewise an NYPD work slowdown of 2015, following the shooting deaths of officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, saw a dramatic fall in low-level arrests but no rise in crime.

Arresting developments

After the coronavirus pandemic, it may be time to rethink policing practices that rely on enforcement, such as stop and frisk and the overzealous use of arrest and ticketing for trivial offenses such as jaywalking, panhandling, turnstile jumping and marijuana possession. This imperative to reimagine the role of police in our cities is supported by research indicating that broken windows policing has not worked in keeping communities safer. Moreover, such “overpolicing” may actually exacerbate violent crime rates in affected communities.

I see the less invasive model of policing seemingly being employed during the coronavirus pandemic as a prudent and timely undertaking. But it also provides an opportunity that may not present itself again in the near term: to reimagine policing without arrests being seen as the main tool against crime.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter.]

Tom Nolan, Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology, Emmanuel College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Police keeping a safe distance from patients awaiting COVID-19 tests at a New York hospital. John Minchillo/AP Photo