At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm pretty good with logic, so let me explain it to you if it's puzzling.

If you wreck the economy over a virus that looks like it's going to kill far less than 100K lives, then it's extremely likely you could have handled the problem without wrecking the economy. So you say well nobody could know, we had to act conservative. OK. Maybe. But now that we're this far into it and the experts are saying we're hitting the peak and have it under control, it's time for people to go back to work and stop with this nonsense like Utah considering a lockdown.

Seems like the most logical thing to conclude is that the lockdown is working as advertised. This stuff isn't linear you know. It is exponential.

[Omaha 680]

Seems like the most logical thing to conclude is that the lockdown is working as advertised. This stuff isn't linear you know. It is exponential.

It's actually working way better than originally advertised while many are complaining we haven't gone far enough. So what are we to conclude from that? You can go several ways with it, but what Jay and SU are saying definitely resonates with me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Some good news from that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So what’s your point? Trying to follow your logic here, because apparently you’ve backed off of your original position that the economy counts for nothing, that it’s only the concern of billionaires (as you wrote that from a position of 100% economic security).

Are you still saying this has to go on indefinitely? Until Covid is completely gone? If not, how will what we have to do differ from wha the could have done in the first first place.

That is three straw men in two sentences. Impressive.

I never said any of those things.

[wapiti]

You're hilarious. The west coast states have by and large done a solid job managing the pandemic. They are not New York, New Jersey, Florida, or Louisiana, in part due to their leadership. The governors have been pretty consistent with their message. They are closer to statesman-like than any of the governors who've been parroting your 'cure is worse than the disease' message.

When Governor Inslee banned fishing he jumped the shark.

[Moliere]

Depends on the county. For example in Dallas county Clay Jenkins (the county judge or executive for the county) was "dethroned" for being too much of a nazi and closing things down, extending the stay at home order until may 20th, etc:

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/opposition-to-dallas-county-disaster-declaration-extension-to-may-20/2345191/

Damn Democrat.

This is a perfect example of the people not standing for stupidity and why SU needs to have faith. Jenkins is a disaster and has been raked over the coals (rightfully so) multiple times by Gov Abbott. But Dallas isn't going to shut everything down for 1.5 months. The Texans won't stand for it and it's a stupid decision. Maybe if things don't get better they can reevaluate, but I imagine come early May most stores will reopen and most services will return. The tricky part will be restaurants and bars. I imagine they'll reopen but with stricter guidelines.

This won't go on forever. People won't allow it to.

[Moliere]

I'm pretty good with logic, so let me explain it to you if it's puzzling.

If you wreck the economy over a virus that looks like it's going to kill far less than 100K lives, then it's extremely likely you could have handled the problem without wrecking the economy. So you say well nobody could know, we had to act conservative. OK. Maybe. But now that we're this far into it and the experts are saying we're hitting the peak and have it under control, it's time for people to go back to work and stop with this nonsense like Utah considering a lockdown.

Right, but it's under control because of the measures put in place. I don't think we want to end up like northern Italy. You get it under control then slowly turn the economy back on. If we all just go back to crowding into mass transit, attending sporting events, and filling up bars then we'll be right back where we started, with normally healthy people in the ICU. You know that a lot of people under the age of 50 are requiring oxygen in the ICU to beat this, right? The herd mentality was quickly abandonned because it's a dumb idea with horrifying results.

[jay santos]

Seems like the most logical thing to conclude is that the lockdown is working as advertised. This stuff isn't linear you know. It is exponential.

First give me your tolerable number of deaths for a virus that's killing people with average age of 79.5 and people who generally already have another serious medical condition. 50K? 1M? I'll go with 100K.

Next, include an assumption that preserving the economy is also extremely important.

Next, look at the worldwide data and US data in terms of number of cases and lives lost.

Next, include an assumption that with deaths at 16K and cases at 450K and the economy completely in the toilet, experts are telling us we're reaching the peak in terms of total cases.

Given that, do you think it's extremely likely that a slightly less extreme reaction to handling the virus could have improved the economic impact while keeping loss of life in the tolerable range?

(more importantly) Also, do you think it's extremely likely that relaxing restrictions with a priority on kick starting the economy immediately while minimizing risk in as many areas as possible, different guidelines for urban vs less urban areas, wearing masks, work from home where possible, no handshakes, keep school online until the year is out, keep old and vulnerable people quarantined, etc, could all that take place immediately while keeping the loss of life in the tolerable range?

I understand why hipster morons on fb are still exaggerating the need for economic shutdown to control a virus that's taken 16K lives, but I don't understand why smart people here are doing so.

[Omaha 680]

Some good news from that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal.

I guess that's good news if we are ready to start strategically opening back up. But do this for another 60 days and watch how quickly those furloughs become permanent layoffs.

[jay santos]

Right, but it's under control because of the measures put in place. I don't think we want to end up like northern Italy. You get it under control then slowly turn the economy back on. If we all just go back to crowding into mass transit, attending sporting events, and filling up bars then we'll be right back where we started, with normally healthy people in the ICU. You know that a lot of people under the age of 50 are requiring oxygen in the ICU to beat this, right? The herd mentality was quickly abandonned because it's a dumb idea with horrifying results.

There's a large middle area between complete economic shut down and normal life.

[Northwestcoug]

First give me your tolerable number of deaths for a virus that's killing people with average age of 79.5 and people who generally already have another serious medical condition. 50K? 1M? I'll go with 100K.

Next, include an assumption that preserving the economy is also extremely important.

Next, look at the worldwide data and US data in terms of number of cases and lives lost.

Next, include an assumption that with deaths at 16K and cases at 450K and the economy completely in the toilet, experts are telling us we're reaching the peak in terms of total cases.

Given that, do you think it's extremely likely that a slightly less extreme reaction to handling the virus could have improved the economic impact while keeping loss of life in the tolerable range?

(more importantly) Also, do you think it's extremely likely that relaxing restrictions with a priority on kick starting the economy immediately while minimizing risk in as many areas as possible, different guidelines for urban vs less urban areas, wearing masks, work from home where possible, no handshakes, keep school online until the year is out, keep old and vulnerable people quarantined, etc, could all that take place immediately while keeping the loss of life in the tolerable range?

I understand why hipster morons on fb are still exaggerating the need for economic shutdown to control a virus that's taken 16K lives, but I don't understand why smart people here are doing so.

If we're building another model, you have to include the amount of younger people with comorbidities you're willing to lose when hospital systems are broken taking care of elderly patients with COVID.

Also, include the number of patients younger than your 79.5 year statistic who are less healthy, that will die when infected with COVID. These are not serious medical conditions, mind you, just less healthy than you or me (assuming!). And I'm not talking about nearly retired. I'm referring to 40-50 year range.

Look, when this comes all out in the wash we will likely find that deaths will be lower than many estimates. And we'll also likely conclude that many areas in the US would not have needed as stringent measures as urban areas. But this exercise has always been more nuanced than what is being portrayed here today. It isn't all economy or all saving every life. It's mitigating multiple small catastrophes in the health system to avert a much more serious generalized catastrophe that would also damage the economy.

[jay santos]

If we're building another model, you have to include the amount of younger people with comorbidities you're willing to lose when hospital systems are broken taking care of elderly patients with COVID.

Also, include the number of patients younger than your 79.5 year statistic who are less healthy, that will die when infected with COVID. These are not serious medical conditions, mind you, just less healthy than you or me (assuming!). And I'm not talking about nearly retired. I'm referring to 40-50 year range.

Look, when this comes all out in the wash we will likely find that deaths will be lower than many estimates. And we'll also likely conclude that many areas in the US would not have needed as stringent measures as urban areas. But this exercise has always been more nuanced than what is being portrayed here today. It isn't all economy or all saving every life. It's mitigating multiple small catastrophes in the health system to avert a much more serious generalized catastrophe that would also damage the economy.

Glad we agree. So let's make immediate changes starting now to reverse the economic impact of these unnecessary measures.

[Flystripper]

I guess that's good news if we are ready to start strategically opening back up. But do this for another 60 days and watch how quickly those furloughs become permanent layoffs.

the majority in hospitality, entertainment, food service, and other consumer discretionary will be permanent.

[Moliere]

There's a large middle area between complete economic shut down and normal life.

Yep, I've got three more weeks of this partial (grocery stores, construction companies, Oil drillers, restauarants (take out only), liquor stores, gas stations, etc. are all open for business) shut down and then things will open up more and more. When we open up the economy, we'll have more testing capability, more PPE, more ventilators, and more acute awareness of social distancing. Things will be fine. Until then, the government is handing out money like crazy to small business owners. It's rich people like SU and Walter that are getting pounded in the market (well, not really now since stocks are reviving) that are doing the most complaining.

[Moliere]

the majority in hospitality, entertainment, food service, and other consumer discretionary will be permanent.

Doubt it but they certainly will take longer to get back. I can't imagine those fields being back to normal until a vaccine is available, which is at least a year away. So yes, they will take a big hit but as soon as a vaccine is available it'll be business as usual for everyone everywhere in the US.