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

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I don't disagree with you, and don't think just flinging the doors back open and saying "back at it America!" is the solution.  But I have a visceral reaction to any suggestions that are "this is working, just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine".  Its myopic and detached from reality.

This whole thing is detached from reality.  At least thats what I thought 4 weeks ago.

[GooooMarquette]

I don't disagree with you, and don't think just flinging the doors back open and saying "back at it America!" is the solution.  But I have a visceral reaction to any suggestions that are "this is working, just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine".  Its myopic and detached from reality.

I never said - and I don't think anyone else here said - "just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine."

Quite the contrary. If we stick with it for another 3-4 months, it will be horribly difficult when we come out, likely with unemployment numbers like we haven't seen in a long time (none of which is "fine"). Yeah, it will be sh!tty. But we will recover and life will gradually move forward.

So why do I still believe we need that additional time? Because I think the alternative is even worse: opening things up too soon, and seeing the numbers rebound within a few weeks.

As I said in an earlier post - there are no "good" options. Just a choice between a bunch of bad ones. So the goal right now is to figure out which is least bad.

[JWags85]

I never said - and I don't think anyone else here said - "just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine."

Quite the contrary. If we stick with it for another 3-4 months, it will be horribly difficult when we come out, likely with unemployment numbers like we haven't seen in a long time (none of which is "fine"). Yeah, it will be sh!tty. But we will recover and life will gradually move forward.

So why do I still believe we need that additional time? Because I think the alternative is even worse: opening things up too soon, and seeing the numbers rebound within a few weeks.

As I said in an earlier post - there are no "good" options. Just a choice between a bunch of bad ones. So the goal right now is to figure out which is least bad.

I find this is always the argument for plans of action that have potentially extremely harmful economic outcomes, but not for ones that eye economic precaution versus the absolute minimal patient count (hopefully that was phrased in an understandable way).

And FWIW, I find that attitude towards it to be patronizing and dismissive (not yours personally, you're certainly not the fore-bearer of it).  "Your business might fail, but the country/industry/the market will recover, and we will all move on".  And then its usually followed by telling people what will or wont happen with their business if we don't and taking all personal ability or action out of it.  And frankly I'm pretty sick of it.  Especially when we are not talking about removing any and all restrictions and just free-wheeling into it like the virus never existed.

A business someone has had for years or decades failing due to a excess of caution and then assuming they will just move on into a bleak short to mid term economic outlook is pretty callous.  And relying on increasing government intervention like PPP is just putting a bandaid on a severed artery.  One size fits all strategy for this in a country as big, diverse, and varied as the US feels lowest common denominator.

Again, I'm speaking strictly to all of the super conservative model-fueled ideas that we need to keep things closed for far longer than anyone anticipates to mitigate any and all risk.  Not some sort of blended strategy which is what I hope the powers that be are working on.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

No, T, that was the woman IG from HHS - another IG.

Trump fired the one who was to oversee corporate stimulus today.

My bad, it is hard to keep up with the purges.

[Elonsmusk]

I never said - and I don't think anyone else here said - "just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine."

Quite the contrary. If we stick with it for another 3-4 months, it will be horribly difficult when we come out, likely with unemployment numbers like we haven't seen in a long time (none of which is "fine"). Yeah, it will be sh!tty. But we will recover and life will gradually move forward.

So why do I still believe we need that additional time? Because I think the alternative is even worse: opening things up too soon, and seeing the numbers rebound within a few weeks.

As I said in an earlier post - there are no "good" options. Just a choice between a bunch of bad ones. So the goal right now is to figure out which is least bad.

We already have seen unemployment numbers like we've never seen.  Last 2 weeks of unemployment claims were 5x and 10x the previous weekly record of 600k in a week set back in 1982. 

I simply don't see how we shut the country down for another 3-4 months.  The consequences of that would be dire.  We may need to come to terms with death being inevitable for those in the highest risk groups.  That sounds cold and callous, yet, nature ultimately has a way of running its course.  We can artificially keep people alive on ventilators, yet at what point do we have to let them go? Personally, I'd rather die a pretty short death, than to be stuck in a nursing home, assisted living, or memory care unit.

[Lennys Tap]

I never said - and I don't think anyone else here said - "just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine."

Quite the contrary. If we stick with it for another 3-4 months, it will be horribly difficult when we come out, likely with unemployment numbers like we haven't seen in a long time (none of which is "fine"). Yeah, it will be sh!tty. But we will recover and life will gradually move forward.

So why do I still believe we need that additional time? Because I think the alternative is even worse: opening things up too soon, and seeing the numbers rebound within a few weeks.

As I said in an earlier post - there are no "good" options. Just a choice between a bunch of bad ones. So the goal right now is to figure out which is least bad.

Just how "shitty" are you willing to let it get. We had a depression once that lasted 16 years and only ended because of and after a War had cost us 405,000 young men. That shitty?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Just how "crapty" are you willing to let it get. We had a depression once that lasted 16 years and only ended because of and after a War had cost us 405,000 young men. That crapty?

Lenny I am using you to make a point, but it's been coming up a lot.  There are more than two scenarios (full lockdown - maximum death). 

Maybe I expect more out of my leaders than others but I expect them to strike that balance. 

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny I am using you to make a point, but it's been coming up a lot.  There are more than two scenarios (full lockdown - maximum death). 

Maybe I expect more out of my leaders than others but I expect them to strike that balance.

Frenns

Agree. I just don't think a total shutdown through July strikes that balance.

[forgetful]

I'll wait for you to link the story about a Corona patient who loses their vision due to taking Hydroxy.  Just because you can't run a formal clinical trial phase 1, 2, 2a/b for this indication, shouldn't preclude its usage.

What are the other treatments currently available that offer equal or better preliminary data?

Interesting the rate of intubation, hospitalization, ICU has dropped off significantly in NY in last few days, and they began the usage of hydroxy 1 week ago.  Coincidence or correlation?

I suspect if you are a loved one were struggling mightily with COVID, you'd turn to trying Hydroxy, because of the anecdotal evidence thus far.

Go back several pages, Sweden stopped their trials because of side effects, like impaired vision.

Based on the preliminary data, all the drugs in clinical trials (e.g. Remdesivir) have equal or better preliminary data. The only clinical data with controls on hydroxychloroquine were mixed, one with moderate benefit, the other with no benefit and in some cases worse outcomes. That type of mixed results are essentially what all experimental treatments are showing so far.

Your correlation data is meaningless. Especially since they can't get the drug without being in a hospital. So rates of hospitalization cannot be affected by the drug.

I was struggling mightily, and could choose one treatment, I want convalescent plasma. Separate from that, I'd heed the advice of my doctors.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Frenns

Agree. I just don't think a total shutdown through July strikes that balance.

The truth is no one knows the answer to that.   New York has 7000 known cases per million.  Let's say that is wrong by a factor of 10-  they are 7% of the way to a herd immunity (idk 70% infected).

If someone said "New Yorkers the world is open". I don't think people are running to the movie theater or to eat out. 

We're debating nonsense scenarios until there is a cohesive plan on the health side. 

Now if the known to unknown case percentage is higher—maybe we can get back to normal.  That would of course have to be discovered with some sort of system of testing for antibodies. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

This decision was bad and unfortunate. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/491651-new-york-city-auctioned-off-extra-ventilators-due-to-cost-of-maintenance

[Jockey]

Just how "crapty" are you willing to let it get. We had a depression once that lasted 16 years and only ended because of and after a War had cost us 405,000 young men. That crapty?

If we actually had the testing that we are told we have, we could start the return to normal now.

[Elonsmusk]

Go back several pages, Sweden stopped their trials because of side effects, like impaired vision.

Based on the preliminary data, all the drugs in clinical trials (e.g. Remdesivir) have equal or better preliminary data. The only clinical data with controls on hydroxychloroquine were mixed, one with moderate benefit, the other with no benefit and in some cases worse outcomes. That type of mixed results are essentially what all experimental treatments are showing so far.

Your correlation data is meaningless. Especially since they can't get the drug without being in a hospital. So rates of hospitalization cannot be affected by the drug.

I was struggling mightily, and could choose one treatment, I want convalescent plasma. Separate from that, I'd heed the advice of my doctors.

Believe Sweden was using chloroquine..if it was the post Rocky decoded?   Remdesivir is at least 9 months away. So. Not an option right now.

So. If left with a choice between likely ICU, intubation, ventilator - you wouldn't give it a shot?

[Marquette Gyros]

Political fundraiser abruptly leaves role to start medical supply company... the new American Dream, really...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/27/republican-fundraiser-company-coronavirus-152184

"I don't want to overstate, but we probably represent the largest global supply chain for Covid-19 supplies right now," he said. "We are getting ready to fill 100 million-unit mask orders."

[rocket surgeon]

I doubt it.

Does the model take into account the possible advent of a treatment?
Call me a wild optimist, but I do believe we'll come up with some kind of treatment to lessen the symptoms. And once that's widely available, combined with warmer weather and herd immunity, it will allow things to open up again.
People will still get sick - people will still get sick either way - but if we can reduce the symptoms, we reduce the deaths, we reduce the severe cases and we reduce the stress on the health system.

If I read this correctly, post of the day!!  At least

[forgetful]

Believe Sweden was using chloroquine..if it was the post Rocky decoded?   Remdesivir is at least 9 months away. So. Not an option right now.

So. If left with a choice between likely ICU, intubation, ventilator - you wouldn't give it a shot?

Sweden stoped using hydroxychloroquine due to patients having seizures and vision problems. Both well known side effects.

Remdesivir is in trials for COVID-19, and can (and is) be used on the same compassionate use doctrines as hydroxychloroquine.

Like I said, I'd take the advice of my doctors on what gives me the best chance to survive.

[GooooMarquette]

Just how "crapty" are you willing to let it get. We had a depression once that lasted 16 years and only ended because of and after a War had cost us 405,000 young men. That crapty?

No, not at all.

The Great Depression lasted as long as it did because the underlying economy was weak to begin with, and the government had no means of controlling the widespread economic gambling. (Result: Securities Act of '33 and Securities Exchange Act of '34). Even the Great Recession resulted from underlying flaws in banking regulations. This time, the economy was relatively strong and the government had more tools at its immediate disposal, when an external factor intervened to throw things into a sudden spiral. Because of those very significant differences, I suspect things will rebound not long after we get this pandemic under control. And though economists differ in how quickly they think things will come back, even the most negative still call for a faster rebound than in those catastrophes. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/31/coronavirus-how-quickly-can-economy-bounce-back-crisis/5090355002/

As for the people like JWags who are seeing business falling apart, I feel terrible. I really do. It is starting to get real in my family as my daughter got an email today that her company is planning "significant cutbacks" within the next week or two, so she may very well be among the ranks of the unemployed. So yes - I can hear how real this is in the tone of her voice. I just fear that lifting the restrictions too quickly would result in a quick rebound and return to where we are today.

If the real pandemic experts (not Trump, but Fauci, the CDC and places like Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, University of Washington) think we can lift restrictions more quickly without risking a quick and dramatic rebound, great. But if not, I'd rather listen to their suggestions and stay the course.

[reinko]

No, not at all.

The Great Depression lasted as long as it did because the underlying economy was weak to begin with, and the government had no means of controlling the widespread economic gambling. (Result: Securities Act of '33 and Securities Exchange Act of '34). Even the Great Recession resulted from underlying flaws in banking regulations. This time, the economy was relatively strong and the government had more tools at its immediate disposal, when an external factor intervened to throw things into a sudden spiral. Because of those very significant differences, I suspect things will rebound not long after we get this pandemic under control. And though economists differ in how quickly they think things will come back, even the most negative still call for a faster rebound than in those catastrophes. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/31/coronavirus-how-quickly-can-economy-bounce-back-crisis/5090355002/

As for the people like JWags who are seeing business falling apart, I feel terrible. I really do. It is starting to get real in my family as my daughter got an email today that her company is planning "significant cutbacks" within the next week or two, so she may very well be among the ranks of the unemployed. So yes - I can hear how real this is in the tone of her voice. I just fear that lifting the restrictions too quickly would result in a quick rebound and return to where we are today.

If the real pandemic experts (not Trump, but Fauci, the CDC and places like Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, University of Washington) think we can lift restrictions more quickly without risking a quick and dramatic rebound, great. But if not, I'd rather listen to their suggestions and stay the course.

A few weeks back, folks were hopeful for a V shaped recession/bounce back, probably now closer to U, just depends on how long the bottom part is.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Here is an interview with Fauci from the WSJ on what a return to 'normal' could look like

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/dr-anthony-fauci-on-how-life-returns-to-normal/D5754969-7027-431E-89FA-E12788ED9879

[jesmu84]

No, not at all.

The Great Depression lasted as long as it did because the underlying economy was weak to begin with, and the government had no means of controlling the widespread economic gambling. (Result: Securities Act of '33 and Securities Exchange Act of '34). Even the Great Recession resulted from underlying flaws in banking regulations. This time, the economy was relatively strong and the government had more tools at its immediate disposal, when an external factor intervened to throw things into a sudden spiral. Because of those very significant differences, I suspect things will rebound not long after we get this pandemic under control. And though economists differ in how quickly they think things will come back, even the most negative still call for a faster rebound than in those catastrophes. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/31/coronavirus-how-quickly-can-economy-bounce-back-crisis/5090355002/

As for the people like JWags who are seeing business falling apart, I feel terrible. I really do. It is starting to get real in my family as my daughter got an email today that her company is planning "significant cutbacks" within the next week or two, so she may very well be among the ranks of the unemployed. So yes - I can hear how real this is in the tone of her voice. I just fear that lifting the restrictions too quickly would result in a quick rebound and return to where we are today.

If the real pandemic experts (not Trump, but Fauci, the CDC and places like Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, University of Washington) think we can lift restrictions more quickly without risking a quick and dramatic rebound, great. But if not, I'd rather listen to their suggestions and stay the course.

Are the regulations better today? Flaws removed?

[GooooMarquette]

Are the regulations better today? Flaws removed?

This downtown isn't the result of anything related to banks or poorly backed mortgages - the pandemic is a fundamentally different hurdle - so even if the answer is "no," I don't see how it is relevant.

[WarriorDad]

Lenny I am using you to make a point, but it's been coming up a lot.  There are more than two scenarios (full lockdown - maximum death). 

Maybe I expect more out of my leaders than others but I expect them to strike that balance.

As seen on this message forum, balance is not allowed.  Our leaders will be held to an impossible standard with "blood on their hands" no matter the decision any of them make at the federal, state and local level.

[GooooMarquette]

As seen on this message forum, balance is not allowed.  Our leaders will be held to an impossible standard with "blood on their hands" no matter the decision any of them make at the federal, state and local level.

I'm not sure where you see that.

From my perspective, state and local leaders have (for the most part) done a better job of handling this crisis than federal leaders. But even with that general observation, I have seen some bad decisions by state leaders, and some good decisions by the feds. So a mixed bag, with varying degrees of good and bad responses. And with all of them, it was never a death/no death scenario - it was simply a matter of good or bad responses to an inherently bad situation.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I'm not sure where you see that.

It's Chicos with his false equivalency act again, trying to change the narrative to everyone is at fault.  Fucker just can't go away.

[injuryBug]

Here is an interview with Fauci from the WSJ on what a return to 'normal' could look like

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/dr-anthony-fauci-on-how-life-returns-to-normal/D5754969-7027-431E-89FA-E12788ED9879

great podcast lots of good information