beerad12man said:

---

Most aren't saying be reckless. No, we don't need to go backwards. Not here in this part. Maybe some more aggressive hot spots with public transit and closer lifestyles and less resources.

---

That's not near enough to make a meaningful difference though. The data is pretty clear we need something closer to what we've done the last month and a half than just being careful with public transit to keep this virus under control. We also do need society to function at some point. Which is why my outlook is very negative. The real possibility of keeping this virus contained is gone. We're now going to have to prevent it from going out of control - which means we really can't go much beyond the rate of spread we have had for the month of April. Given how contagious this virus is, that means (IMO), to sustainably exist we need to wear masks in public, not take public transport, constantly wash hands in when in public, focus on largely outdoor activities at social gathering places, probably keep schools and offices closed. I bet anything beyond that will likely have to revert to that if we don't want to lose the last bit of control we have left. We'll try to do all those things I'm sure. But I think they'll fail because we didn't get the active case count down.

cone said:

---

Quote:

---

I am way more in tune with business and the economy than probably 99% of people - I almost exclusively consume financial media.

---

well then we can end the thread here

---

I wasn't comparing myself to you. But it's ridiculous to act like I am not aware of the business and economic implications of everything that has happened - which is a common trope on here.

cone said:

---

Quote:

---

I bet anything beyond that will likely have to revert to that if we don't want to lose the last bit of control we have left. We'll try to do all those things I'm sure. But I think they'll fail because we didn't get the active case count down.

---

still haven't heard why protecting the vulnerable isn't possible, but man-making a depression is the more plausible alternative

---

I already said it. Beacuse many of the vulnerable are dependent on the care of others.

Gordo14 said:

---

cone said:

---

Quote:

---

I bet anything beyond that will likely have to revert to that if we don't want to lose the last bit of control we have left. We'll try to do all those things I'm sure. But I think they'll fail because we didn't get the active case count down.

---

still haven't heard why protecting the vulnerable isn't possible, but man-making a depression is the more plausible alternative

---

I already said it. Beacuse many of the vulnerable are dependent on the care of others.

---

Still, it is easier to protect a subset of the population than it is to protect the entire population. If for no other reason they will....indeed, have started to resist.

The problem with this asymptomatic narrative is that it's about saying look if we all just pretend this isn't a thing then everything will be fine. Sure some old people will die but they are old. None of this is found in reality. While it may be interesting that people are not exhibiting symptoms and that mostly old people will die. This shows me how chaotic and tragic things will be more than it assures me that everything will be normal.

Gordo14 said:

---

cone said:

---

Quote:

---

I am way more in tune with business and the economy than probably 99% of people - I almost exclusively consume financial media.

---

well then we can end the thread here

---

I wasn't comparing myself to you. But it's ridiculous to act like I am not aware of the business and economic implications of everything that has happened - which is a common trope on here.

---

Being a consumer of financial data, you know when you are tasked with finding cost savings you do the analysis and find the area/process that will have the biggest impact possible. Maybe some of the smaller impacts will add up, but your primary focus is on the largest risks and problem areas.

We pretty assuredly know the problem areas: this biggest problem area is the very elderly, people with heart issues, obese, and diabetic. That is where you attack.

To say it's impossible to protect the vulnerable is admiring defeat before you even try. We have to try to know if we can. The American free market has always risen to the occasion. Give us a chance to do it. Nursing homes WILL find a way to protect their elderly. Hospital WILL find a way to organize their hospitals to keep infection down. The CDC and and every other hospital and health organization should be screaming from the rooftops to get in shape.

We have to try to attack the problem no matter how hard it is. We can figure it out. We put a man on the moon. We won't back down from a challenge. Many doctors are already meeting the challenge and have saved lives figuring out we need to stop vents. They figure that out despite having to treat a threat they barely knew about.

Those same people who died in the Vietnam war you're comparing to - they didn't back down, even if they disagreed.

I actually don't disagree with some slow rolling at first, but I think any plan that doesn't at least try to target the vulnerable is off from the start. Let's put resources to work where they'll have the highest impact.

I know the direction it this thread is using a circumscribed group's data and extrapolating it to issues related to reopening.

However, more directly, how does this data set effect the meat and poultry industries? Most have already read about the supply chain bottleneck issues and tankers of milk being poured out, government guidelines telling ranchers to euthanize steer and poultry. My understanding is the meat packing plants is one of the main bottleneck points due to infections, but I wonder how this data set will exacerbate that.

Never mind.

Gordo, what kind of job do you have?

1200 out of 2700 tested positive for the virus at the same time? Or were many tested and have the IGg antibodies? That would make more sense.

Where is the actual data and report on this ... would love for this to be accurate otherwise its just more Internet fodder

So hard to see good reliable information .... fake news has this virus killing millions upon millions in a few months and other fake news has this as no worse than the sniffles. Sucks that this is the world we live in today and can't trust anything I see hardly.

Would love for this to be a highly accurate story.

Great post!

Quote:

---

Today in whataboutism the really sold logical fallacy "but what about auto accidents".

Clearly auto accidents are something society takes very seriously. There is a lot of money spent every year making driving slightly safer. In addition, it's a price that has to be paid for society to function. It's the thing we sign up for every day to not live in a cave. It's a false equivalency to compare that to COVID-19 which is not a necessary part of societal function.

---

Clearly COVID-19 is being taken seriously. However, as you stated, as a society, we are not signed up to live in a cave. Whether it is death due to virus infection or due auto accidents. You take cautions with social distancing and wear masks; however, you don't continue to shut down civilization as we did.

We are not going to get to zero. Vacine is at least a year away. Shutting down the nation until there is no more risk is not a realistic option.

Quote:

---

Your seasonal flu, money printing machine, comment is just completely ridiculous. The seasonal flu would also fit in that operating cost analogy (luckily we as a society can choose to opt into a flu shot, which I hope you do). The seasonal flu & auto accidents are also a fraction of COVID-19 in 3 months with social restrictions right now if we want to make thay comparison. UBI is stupid, but I don't have a problem with the government and the Fed providing liquidity to people and businesses short term. The difference is UBI isn't sustainable long term and that's not something that's set to be a permenant thing ejther so let's keep the frame of the discussion consistent to what's actually happening.

---

Go back and read my statement about money printing machine. I have absolutely no problem with the Fed and goverment providing liquidity to businesses on the short-term. I do have problem with giving away $1200 per adult and $500 per child. Why those bonus money are given to those already receving government assistants or social security? Their incomes are not impacted by COVID-19. Now they are talking about throwing even more money to the same group of people, $2000/month on top what they have already received.

BTW, seasonal flu and auto accidents accounts for ~ 70,000 deaths annually. That is not an insignificant fraction compared COVID-19

Quote:

---

Just for social experiment sake which of the following scenarios do people think we should have government action using COVID-19 as a base case.
COVID-19 is let's say R0 of 3 and mortality rate of .8%. The flu is ~1.3 R0 with .1% mortality rate.

R0s of 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 50
Mortality rate of .1%, .5%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%

Based on the COVID-19 experience I would say ~R0 of 2 with a death rate >1% or an R0 3 with a death rate of .5% are about the limits before society breaks down whether you want it to or not. Just know that it's entirely possible for something more contagious and much more deadly than this virus to come along some day. While being more deadly typically causes viruses to burn out, if it came with a similar incubation time and contagiousness as COVID-19, it would not burn itself out.

---

A significant omission from your logic - As of today there are ~ 1.3 millions documented COVID-19 cased. This means ~ 100 millions people in the US were already exposed to COVID-19. This means we are closer to "herd immunity."

Additionally not all death rate have the same impact on society. The cold reality is that 0.5% death rate where significant percentage are 70+ would not have the same impact if those are on young children/young adults/ work force ages.

California Ag 90 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Blind optimism should not be a driver of policy.

---

i'm searching everywhere for blind optimism and can't find it.

the vast majority of Americans took their leaders' guidance and shut down their lives, educations, work, and financial well being for several weeks, in an unprecedented act of benevolence to save lives.

that was done in an act of blind pessimism - acceptance and avoidance of the most grim worst case scenario this virus could have created.

facing the reality of systemic collapse in the healthcare industry, collapse of state and local tax base across the country, impending end of PPP money and growing reticence to print more money to deal with that at a national level, and a virus that we, as you clearly state, do not remotely understand yet, is not blind optimism.

it is necessity.

the lack of any admiration and respect for what the American people have already agreed to, and the pain they have taken on in the absence of anything more than informed speculation from leaders, has been very disappointing.

there are no blind optimists. at worst, there are disillusioned good American citizens who have absorbed tremendous loss in support of policies that, daily, are undermined by data.

remarkably, however, there remain untold numbers of blind pessimists who freely impose additional loss without real understanding of this virus. it is blind pessimism that should not be a driver of policy, anymore.

---

Very well put.

My understanding from the very beginning was that we were going to have a bunch of people get sick and an alarming number of people die.

We were told that we can't really do anything about that number. What we CAN do, however, is keeping them from all getting sick at once, so we needed to do what we did. The numbers that we were hearing in the beginning were 400k dead.

Now with social distancing that number was said to be 100k-200k dead. When we saw numbers of 80,000 dead, there were people that prematurely spiked the ball and mocked those initial estimates. Now it looks like by opening up we are staring at those 100-200k numbers again (or 134-200).

Has the objective changed? We still have the same number of people sick, just over a longer period of time.

And Gordo, please do not lecture me about how I don't care about human life. One of my dearest friends is laying in a hospital bed 10 miles away from me and his wife and his kids who can't see him. I care. I'm scared and I'm taking about 5 different supplements every single day to keep it away from me and we pray every day that the Lord would take it away.

But we were told, "if you do what we tell you, we can keep this to 100-200,000 deaths" and these were the rules we were given. What's changed and who decided that the objective had chanfed?