COVID-19 (f/k/a "the Coronavirus")

[skianth16]

Maybe if we had a better safety net, "people's livelihoods" wouldn't be as urgent a concern.

Fair. But we don't today, and we can't change that today. It can and should be addressed once this fire is out.

We have lots of time for politicking over large-scale changes to things like safety nets after we get through this. I think we're all better served by finding a solution for the current issue and then using things learned from this situation to avoid repeat scenarios.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The data I saw is they have had new cases decline for two straight days.  While early and still digging out of the morass, this will likely take time.  What info shows them not getting better?

^This.  I would have expected the numbers to continue to climb for at least another week based on when they shut down, but it is an encouraging trend.  Really hoping the numbers continue to tick down.

[jesmu84]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner

Here's the thing, in a crisis, Uncle Sam is going to pony up for unemployment benefit increases, food stamps, $1000 checks, etc. anyway. Just like there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in a pandemic.

Problem is, none of it was budgeted so we will run a $3 trillion deficit this year. If we were smart, like every other country, we would just budget for the safety net at all times.

Socialist heathen

[jesmu84]

Fair. But we don't today, and we can't change that today. It can and should be addressed once this fire is out.

We have lots of time for politicking over large-scale changes to things like safety nets after we get through this. I think we're all better served by finding a solution for the current issue and then using things learned from this situation to avoid repeat scenarios.

Ya .. as a nation, we don't tend to do this. We look at about 2 years ahead and forget about everything else - past, present or future.

[Pakuni]

But livelihoods are important as well. I assume reasonable people can agree on that.

The point is that we can't employ solutions that don't factor in multiple points of view. It's possible to have a comprehensive solution that addresses more than one priority. If we are going to take extreme measure to save as many lives as possible, we also need to think about ways to limit the negative consequences of those actions.

Yes, livelihoods are important. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Lots of other things are important as well. And sometimes you have to prioritize among things that are important. I'm saying we should prioritize lives more than we prioritize livelihoods. The loss of the former is permanent; the latter temporary.

And we are thinking about ways to limit the negative consequences. Congress will soon pass a $2 trillion package to limit those negative consequences. That's 10% of the GDP. It won't prevent all the hardship, of course, but it's far from ignoring or de-prioritizing the negative consequences/.

[jesmu84]

I have to assume jesmu84's comment about "experts" in the economic and business community was made in implied teal. If not...wow.

Ding ding ding.


But here's the thing...whomever I listen to doesn't matter. The only "listener" that matters is in the oval office. And, for better or worse, he doesn't want to look bad, doesn't want to have people talking badly about him and wants to win again in November.

[Jockey]

There was one jenius that tweeted this last night after watching a news show......

Where does this expert work?

[jesmu84]

Yes, livelihoods are important. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Lots of other things are important as well. And sometimes you have to prioritize among things that are important. I'm saying we should prioritize lives more than we prioritize livelihoods. The loss of the former is permanent; the latter temporary.

And we are thinking about ways to limit the negative consequences. Congress will soon pass a $2 trillion package to limit those negative consequences. That's 10% of the GDP. It won't prevent all the hardship, of course, but it's far from ignoring or de-prioritizing the negative consequences/.

I agree with you pak.

But then you have people like my boss who told me today that the economic setback - already in the trillions - is far too great a cost for "a few thousand lives" (based on current data/fatality rates). "We don't spend that kinda money to prevent DUI deaths or smoking deaths or any other kind of death, so this time shouldn't be any different."

I am POSITIVE he isn't the only one thinking/saying these kinds of things. And he's far from the most charged on being against more economic shutdown.

Edit: I think there's a certain subset that won't believe this is any kind of a big deal until millions end up dead. And the whole point of steps so far is to prevent that from happening. So, it's a real catch-22.

[Jockey]

Socialist heathen

Now, that is funny.

Even a dope like me can recognize sarcasm when based over over the head. 

[mu03eng]

Maybe if we had a better safety net, "people's livelihoods" wouldn't be as urgent a concern.

We play the hand we're dealt. Right now we are having to balance the potential of avoiding up to say a million deaths against the say the long lasting economic imperilment of millions of Americans. It's an impossible call but how much net damage is done to peoples lives if the lockdowns hold long term?

The ideal approach at this point is based on a finite lock down, say 3 weeks with a funding package to support people for that three weeks while simultaneously building out a rapid test program and rapidly expanding our healthcare capacity. Assuming you can get the testing capacity to the point where you can test everyone and get results in a day or less you can start opening things back up and move to a tracing and quarantine model.

And honestly, a lot of world leaders were caught flat footed by this thing, I'm a lot less worried about recriminations in the short term, lets focus on working the problem and assign credit/blame later.

[mu03eng]

I agree with you pak.

But then you have people like my boss who told me today that the economic setback - already in the trillions - is far too great a cost for "a few thousand lives" (based on current data/fatality rates). "We don't spend that kinda money to prevent DUI deaths or smoking deaths or any other kind of death, so this time shouldn't be any different."

I am POSITIVE he isn't the only one thinking/saying these kinds of things. And he's far from the most charged on being against more economic shutdown.

Edit: I think there's a certain subset that won't believe this is any kind of a big deal until millions end up dead. And the whole point of steps so far is to prevent that from happening. So, it's a real catch-22.

This is the calculus that people have trouble wrapping their heads around....if this works the economic turmoil saved literally incalculable numbers of lives, but it'll look like a huge expense in comparison to the count of lives we didn't save.

[skianth16]

Yes, livelihoods are important. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Lots of other things are important as well. And sometimes you have to prioritize among things that are important. I'm saying we should prioritize lives more than we prioritize livelihoods. The loss of the former is permanent; the latter temporary.

And we are thinking about ways to limit the negative consequences. Congress will soon pass a $2 trillion package to limit those negative consequences. That's 10% of the GDP. It won't prevent all the hardship, of course, but it's far from ignoring or de-prioritizing the negative consequences/.

Right. So back to my original point, we need to listen to financial experts as well as healthcare experts in this kind of situation. Everything you're saying seems to agree/align with my initial comment.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

This is the calculus that people have trouble wrapping their heads around....if this works the economic turmoil saved literally incalculable numbers of lives, but it'll look like a huge expense in comparison to the count of lives we didn't save.

Quite simply though we can probably estimate what we are talking about.  We have 330M people in the US.  Let's say 80% get it due to herd immunity taking over at some point.  Let's say the death rate only doubles to 2%, even though we probably run out of HC equipment which could cause it to go higher.  That is 5.3M people.  Let alone the emotional carnage of that happening....let alone some businesses not being able to run while people recover or dont...

We start marching up that curve, the economic will crumbles.  The consumer gets more scared then they already are.  Workers refuse to come to work or there arent enough healthy to work.

Everything is about controlling the virus. 

[GooooMarquette]

The data I saw is they have had new cases decline for two straight days.  While early and still digging out of the morass, this will likely take time.  What info shows them not getting better?

You are absolutely correct. Italy is still in a world of hurt, but given the natural rate of expansion of this, their decreasing infection rates make it clear that they are turning a corner. We, on the other hand, are still seeing just the tip of the iceberg because our "leaders" are waiting WAY too long. To show how we are very soon going to pass (and then lap) Italy, people should consider these numbers of confirmed cases:

Italy:

March 16: 27,980
March 23: 63,927 (roughly 2.3x increase in one week)

US:

March 16: 4,663
March 23: 41,708 (roughly 9x increase in one week)

If those numbers don't scare the sh!t out of people, nothing will.

[rocket surgeon]

I don’t have the link handy, and if it has been discussed earlier, I apologize, but I just heard someone discussing the Wall Street journal editorial from last Friday. It brings up some real realities...kinda scary

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

By the way there is precedent for controlling the virus without completely shutting down the economy.  We are very far from this path though and it may be to late without a shutdown first. 

South Korea

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/world/asia/coronavirus-south-korea-flatten-curve.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes

[GooooMarquette]

By the way there is precedent for controlling the virus without completely shutting down the economy.  We are very far from this path though and it may be to late without a shutdown first. 

South Korea

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/world/asia/coronavirus-south-korea-flatten-curve.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes

Yep. Unfortunately, we lost that opportunity when the FDA refused to let the U of Washington test people with its research test kits, and when the CDC's initial test kits were flawed.

We already have 5x the cases of SK, and our rate of infection is rising exponentially. Snooze, we lose....

[mu03eng]

Theoretical plan of action, is it feasible?

-National lock down for 4 weeks except for a rigid essential industry all of which have to apply for a national waiver to continue operations
-Congress issues a 4 week "wage" that is means tested and tied to someone not working (ie essential works like healthcare wouldn't get the payment as they are being paid). Basically pay people to stay home.
-shutter the stock market for 4 weeks....freeze valuations, etc until it reopens.
-During 4 weeks all interest/payments are suspended or deferred to the following month.
-during the 4 weeks, rapidly expand capacity in healthcare and advanced testing using Defense Procurement Act necessary.
-After four weeks either begin a phased restart or extend another month depending on the extent of the outbreak and viability of testing program to enable national tracking

What doesn't work? I'm sure there are lots of constitutional issues but if you get companies to cooperate either willfully or via government bullying you could put it in place.

Thoughts?

[Archies Bat]

On a tangent, did anyone notice the death toll above in French Polynesia?  860 deaths, and they have a population of around 300K.  Talk about hard hit.

[MU82]

Theoretical plan of action, is it feasible?

-National lock down for 4 weeks except for a rigid essential industry all of which have to apply for a national waiver to continue operations
-Congress issues a 4 week "wage" that is means tested and tied to someone not working (ie essential works like healthcare wouldn't get the payment as they are being paid). Basically pay people to stay home.
-shutter the stock market for 4 weeks....freeze valuations, etc until it reopens.
-During 4 weeks all interest/payments are suspended or deferred to the following month.
-during the 4 weeks, rapidly expand capacity in healthcare and advanced testing using Defense Procurement Act necessary.
-After four weeks either begin a phased restart or extend another month depending on the extent of the outbreak and viability of testing program to enable national tracking

What doesn't work? I'm sure there are lots of constitutional issues but if you get companies to cooperate either willfully or via government bullying you could put it in place.

Thoughts?

Probably would work, but it's hard to believe most (or any) of it happening here in 'Merica.

FWIW ... South Carolina governor just signed executive order banning groups of more than 3 people from congregating outside the home. Police are supposed to enforce the mandate.

So if you are a family with 3 kids, I guess it's against the law for the 5 of you to hang out in your driveway.

[jesmu84]

Theoretical plan of action, is it feasible?

-National lock down for 4 weeks except for a rigid essential industry all of which have to apply for a national waiver to continue operations
-Congress issues a 4 week "wage" that is means tested and tied to someone not working (ie essential works like healthcare wouldn't get the payment as they are being paid). Basically pay people to stay home.
-shutter the stock market for 4 weeks....freeze valuations, etc until it reopens.
-During 4 weeks all interest/payments are suspended or deferred to the following month.
-during the 4 weeks, rapidly expand capacity in healthcare and advanced testing using Defense Procurement Act necessary.
-After four weeks either begin a phased restart or extend another month depending on the extent of the outbreak and viability of testing program to enable national tracking

What doesn't work? I'm sure there are lots of constitutional issues but if you get companies to cooperate either willfully or via government bullying you could put it in place.

Thoughts?

I like the way you think....

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59849.msg1223469#msg1223469

Too bad we didn't do this a week ago.

[mu03eng]

I like the way you think....

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59849.msg1223469#msg1223469

Too bad we didn't do this a week ago.

Don't disagree but it's not like we have a frame of reference for this.....getting the general population on board is really really hard, exacerbated by the #FakeNews paradigm in America today. This is unprecedented in our life times and while tragic it's not surprising it's taken this long

[rocket surgeon]

Evers just shut down k-12 schools indefinitely.

All bars and restaurants are closed except for takeout and delivery.

Speaking of leadership...holy Jesus...a school administrator?  And he vetoed a bill a few weeks ago and didn’t know why?  I’m sure someone else, I hope, is calling the shots...think muppets eyn’a?

[Galway Eagle]

Probably would work, but it's hard to believe most (or any) of it happening here in 'Merica.

FWIW ... South Carolina governor just signed executive order banning groups of more than 3 people from congregating outside the home. Police are supposed to enforce the mandate.

So if you are a family with 3 kids, I guess it's against the law for the 5 of you to hang out in your driveway.

Aren't driveways considered part of your land? Can't imagine it gives police the right to ticket you on your own property? 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Speaking of leadership...holy Jesus...a school administrator?  And he vetoed a bill a few weeks ago and didn’t know why?  I’m sure someone else, I hope, is calling the shots...think muppets eyn’a?

Wtf are you talking about?