Will the Coming Season be Different Because of COVID-19?

[Born2Steel]

Yeah, like I said, it's not the inconvenience or any of that stuff that's a problem. Taking sensible precautions is not a bad idea (even though some people seem to think I am advocating being reckless for no reason whatsoever).

What is amazing to me is that it was simply decided to suddenly put hundreds of millions of people out of work, and that anyone thinks that is sustainable for any length of time.

You hear them saying the lockdown could go on for several months - well guess what, it is going to get dangerous in a matter of weeks. Not just inconvenient, but actually dangerous. It goes much past 2 more weeks, and we've got big-time other problems.

This coming week, I'd also expect to see some companies announcing layoffs of full-time positions as they go into survival mode. Even if you can do your job remotely, that's no assurance you'll have a job to come back to after this is all over.

That's a part of this I have only partially considered. I work in healthcare so nobody is laid off just yet. But the ripple effect is real. IF this continues into a month...we are all in trouble friend.

[Hawkman]

Yeah, like I said, it's not the inconvenience or any of that stuff that's a problem. Taking sensible precautions is not a bad idea (even though some people seem to think I am advocating being reckless for no reason whatsoever).

What is amazing to me is that it was simply decided to suddenly put hundreds of millions of people out of work, and that anyone thinks that is sustainable for any length of time.

You hear them saying the lockdown could go on for several months - well guess what, it is going to get dangerous in a matter of weeks, not months. Not just inconvenient, but actually dangerous. It goes much past 2 more weeks, and we've got big-time other problems.

This coming week, I'd also expect to see some companies announcing layoffs of full-time positions as they go into survival mode. Even if you can do your job remotely, that's no assurance you'll have a job to come back to after this is all over.

Everything you’re saying is straight up. Both my wife and I own our own company. Mine is tiny. Hers is mid-sized with several partners. They are the largest architectural firm in the area and have already had to lay off 27 designers. With a monthly payroll of over a million dollars that number will go up if this continues for more than three weeks. The principles are already taking no pay for the month of April, so that’s a hit for this household, since all of my projects have been put on hold. So I’m see through all lenses, and there has to be a better way than what we’re doing now.

[steelreserve]

That's a part of this I have only partially considered. I work in healthcare so nobody is laid off just yet. But the ripple effect is real. IF this continues into a month...we are all in trouble friend.

That is the point at which they need to start making those decisions. "This is self-imposed, so we can lift some or all of it at any time."

I don't think they will be telling people to do whatever, let's all go on vacation and pack elderly people into the stands for NBA games. But they WILL have to allow economic activity to return to somewhat normal. The government cannot remove the economic engine and make everyone wards of the state for 6 months, it is just not capable of doing that.

If it comes down to a choice between taking some chances with a less-than-perfect virus response, and the certainty of mayhem and violence, they'd damn well better be ready. Personally, I'd take my chances with the former rather than the latter.

[AtlantaDan]

This guy cuts to the chase



Clearly the only logical solution

[Mojouw]

This guy cuts to the chase



Clearly the only logical solution

Good to know his warm human like emotions on the elderly, the poor, and the other segments of the population hit hardest by this. This guy is the kinda douche nozzle that says crap like this now, but as soon as his white privileged ass gets the sniffles -- he will demand someone do something.

I remember watching documentaries during the Obama years about healthcare and all that mess. There would be these folks pounding the table, yelling, and demanding that the government allow people individual choice and to let the free market decide healthcare options. No one should be given free handouts from the government. Everyone must take individual responsibility. All that. Then it would revisit those same people later when they had a health issue that their crappy insurance did not cover. Guess what? They were now on camera bawling their eyes out and demanding that someone help them to not die.

[steelreserve]

This guy cuts to the chase

While that is a greatly inflated number (even the most dire numbers that the experts come up with only amount to 0.3%-0.5% of the population), that is essentially the question they are going to have to answer in the next week or two's time.

What level of risk is acceptable while still allowing for little things like, you know, the entire world being somewhat functional at all.

From a medical standpoint, it is easy to say, "stay home, it will lower the risk," but the cost of that is tremendous and not sustainable for any amount of time.

Clearly, what is going to happen will be neither the ideal medical scenario, nor the worst-case scenario, but somewhere in between. Best to start planning for that and figure out what some of these trade-offs are going to be.

[pczach]

Here's something interesting for everyone to watch. The scary part is that she is a doctor, and says she is getting all her numbers from the experts, and from the CDC. Just watch this white board presentation explaining why social distancing is necessary.

I'm not trying to take one side or the other here. I'm just getting this out there for everyone to see as it pertains to this discussion and to the safety of everyone around us. Scary stuff if all the numbers are correct.

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPoli...1155600624376/

[Mojouw]

Here's something interesting for everyone to watch. The scary part is that she is a doctor, and says she is getting all her numbers from the experts, and from the CDC. Just watch this white board presentation explaining why social distancing is necessary.

I'm not trying to take one side or the other here. I'm just getting this out there for everyone to see as it pertains to this discussion and to the safety of everyone around us. Scary stuff if all the numbers are correct.

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPoli...1155600624376/

What this doesn't take into account is the follow-on impacts of a overwhelmed and broken health care system. Say that ventilators, beds, and icu's are all maxed with coronavirus patients. What happens when you have a run of the mill heart issue? Like it is bad, but normally a 3 day hospital stay and you are back on your feet. But during that stay, you need a night in icu and 2 days on a ventilator. Does that happen in this virus reality? Does that person just die now?

So now you have a potential serious negative health impact or death on more than just the corona virus math chart patients.

Again, I do not really know the answers to these questions or scenarios...but if you are telling me that we are going to exceed the capacity of the healthcare system with just corona...it is not totally inappropriate to then ask the seemingly logical question of what happens with all of the "normal" patients that access the healthcare system each day?

[silver & black]

This coming week, I'd also expect to see some companies announcing layoffs of full-time positions as they go into survival mode. Even if you can do your job remotely, that's no assurance you'll have a job to come back to after this is all over.

I got furloughed today. And of course, the unemployment web site is crashed..... because they didn't feel the need to shore up the system some how? How do you not know when you putt 1000's of people out of work in a day, you need to make sure things are working... and will continue to work through the process?

[Mojouw]

While that is a greatly inflated number (even the most dire numbers that the experts come up with only amount to 0.3%-0.5% of the population), that is essentially the question they are going to have to answer in the next week or two's time.

What level of risk is acceptable while still allowing for little things like, you know, the entire world being somewhat functional at all.

From a medical standpoint, it is easy to say, "stay home, it will lower the risk," but the cost of that is tremendous and not sustainable for any amount of time.

Clearly, what is going to happen will be neither the ideal medical scenario, nor the worst-case scenario, but somewhere in between. Best to start planning for that and figure out what some of these trade-offs are going to be.

The thing that all this straight economics talk and "I'm just being logical and talking about the harsh realities" points of view appear to be failing to incorporate any impacts of a non-quaratine viral outbreak into their scenarios.

If we do nothing and let us say 40% of the labor force contracts the virus - then what? Sure, only maybe 20% or so of those will develop symptoms. So say, what, around something in the neighborhood of 1 in 35 workers is out of work for 2+ weeks. Then since there is no timeline (like a seasonal flu) or herd immunity (like with a flu vaccine) the newly sick and asymptomatic continue to infect other members of the workforce. So basically you have 3-5% of your labor force out of work at any one point for an indefinite period of time. What does that do to an economy? I certainly have no idea. But the "models" that everyone likes to throw around assume that either without a quarantine or once the quarantine is lifted that the labor force returns at full strength certainly seem a bit optimistic.

My point? There are valid perspectives and lines of argument from all sides. But all sides are guilty of the sin of vastly oversimplifying a complex and multi-faceted problem. For instance, some of the issues that are going to impact peoples lives over the next days, weeks, and months do have solutions. However, those solutions require raising and then setting aside some amount of public $$$'s for future emergencies. So we are talking about increasing the size of government spending for sure, potential tax increases, and the possible creation of additional bureaucracies. Something to think about as a country. Do we want to pay for the ability of a government to quickly scale-up for a massive emergency or do we want to avoid the burden of that cost and hope that emergencies can be managed?

[steelreserve]

What this doesn't take into account is the follow-on impacts of a overwhelmed and broken health care system. Say that ventilators, beds, and icu's are all maxed with coronavirus patients. What happens when you have a run of the mill heart issue? Like it is bad, but normally a 3 day hospital stay and you are back on your feet. But during that stay, you need a night in icu and 2 days on a ventilator. Does that happen in this virus reality? Does that person just die now?

So now you have a potential serious negative health impact or death on more than just the corona virus math chart patients.

Again, I do not really know the answers to these questions or scenarios...but if you are telling me that we are going to exceed the capacity of the healthcare system with just corona...it is not totally inappropriate to then ask the seemingly logical question of what happens with all of the "normal" patients that access the healthcare system each day?

You would think that is the more cut-and-dry part of the equation to solve. Coronavirus has a fatality rate of ~1% (probably will end up much lower than 1%, as it is dropping the more cases are discovered). If your heart patient has a greater chance of dying than that, you treat him and send the corona patient home. Of course, adjusting as necessary in individual cases for risk/reward and severity.

The more complicated part is, if you lift the lockdown of everything everywhere, what kinds of "normal" activities can be allowed, with what restrictions, etc. ... it is a balancing act of allowing people to support themselves and society to function while not taking unnecessary risks. Clearly it doesn't work if all anyone is allowed to do is go to the store and the doctor. But it would probably be pretty reckless to open movie theaters and start holding concerts right away.

Ultimately, I think a lot of it will sort itself out due to the fact that (most) people will think twice about what they are doing, and there will not be a lot of demand for things like concert tickets for a few months. Of course, there are always the morons who were partying at the beach last weekend, so I imagine some polite but firm restrictions would need to remain against the worst stupidity.

[Mojouw]

I got furloughed today. And of course, the unemployment web site is crashed..... because they didn't feel the need to shore up the system some how? How do you not know when you putt 1000's of people out of work in a day, you need to make sure things are working... and will continue to work through the process?

That sucks. Hopefully, the massive calls on the system ease a bit each day and it can all stabilize.

- - - Updated - - -

You would think that is the more cut-and-dry part of the equation to solve. Coronavirus has a fatality rate of ~1% (probably will end up much lower than 1%, as it is dropping the more cases are discovered). If your heart patient has a greater chance of dying than that, you treat him and send the corona patient home. Of course, adjusting as necessary in individual cases for risk/reward and severity.

The more complicated part is, if you lift the lockdown of everything everywhere, what kinds of "normal" activities can be allowed, with what restrictions, etc. ... it is a balancing act of allowing people to support themselves and society to function while not taking unnecessary risks. Clearly it doesn't work if all anyone is allowed to do is go to the store and the doctor. But it would probably be pretty reckless to open movie theaters and start holding concerts right away.

Ultimately, I think a lot of it will sort itself out due to the fact that (most) people will think twice about what they are doing, and there will not be a lot of demand for things like concert tickets for a few months. Of course, there are always the morons who were partying at the beach last weekend, so I imagine some polite but firm restrictions would need to remain against the worst stupidity.

I can see that. The question then moves to how many health care resources does each facility sequester for the non-virus pool? For how long until you release some to the virus pool? I gotta figure someone gets paid to think about the answers to this stuff...certainly glad it isn't me.

So to address the "lockdown" stuff...I wonder where the risk barrier is? For instance, in order to allow people to pay their bills, we put as many people back in normal workday settings as possible - is their exposure risk now so great that going to the movie theater on top of that is like going from 9.8 to 9.9 so what is the difference? Or is it like going from 3 to 8? My thinking is that this might be one of those all or nothing kinda things. For there to be any impact it is either go nowhere or go wherever you want.

[steelreserve]

The thing that all this straight economics talk and "I'm just being logical and talking about the harsh realities" points of view appear to be failing to incorporate any impacts of a non-quaratine viral outbreak into their scenarios.

If we do nothing and let us say 40% of the labor force contracts the virus - then what? Sure, only maybe 20% or so of those will develop symptoms. So say, what, around something in the neighborhood of 1 in 35 workers is out of work for 2+ weeks. Then since there is no timeline (like a seasonal flu) or herd immunity (like with a flu vaccine) the newly sick and asymptomatic continue to infect other members of the workforce. So basically you have 3-5% of your labor force out of work at any one point for an indefinite period of time. What does that do to an economy? I certainly have no idea. But the "models" that everyone likes to throw around assume that either without a quarantine or once the quarantine is lifted that the labor force returns at full strength certainly seem a bit optimistic.

My point? There are valid perspectives and lines of argument from all sides. But all sides are guilty of the sin of vastly oversimplifying a complex and multi-faceted problem. For instance, some of the issues that are going to impact peoples lives over the next days, weeks, and months do have solutions. However, those solutions require raising and then setting aside some amount of public $$$'s for future emergencies. So we are talking about increasing the size of government spending for sure, potential tax increases, and the possible creation of additional bureaucracies. Something to think about as a country. Do we want to pay for the ability of a government to quickly scale-up for a massive emergency or do we want to avoid the burden of that cost and hope that emergencies can be managed?

Well, the scenario in your middle paragraph does not sound too unrealistic - but is that worse, or is it worse having 30% or 40% unemployment indefinitely? Those are the kinds of cases they need to be modeling, not the perfect quarantine or the apocalyptic plague. But I think the medical experts' wet dream of a perfect quarantine is about to get smacked in the face by the big fat dick of people's need to earn an income, and the big hairy ballsack of putting food on the table.

When this is all over, it will be a REALLY big and important discussion about what ought to be done for preparedness in the future. But I imagine a good starting point will be what went right and what went wrong with this one. Start off with a better protocol for isolating the high-risk people, and the ability to mass-produce testing would be a good start. I don't think most people, if any, are willing to repeat this again, and with good reason.

[pczach]

What this doesn't take into account is the follow-on impacts of a overwhelmed and broken health care system. Say that ventilators, beds, and icu's are all maxed with coronavirus patients. What happens when you have a run of the mill heart issue? Like it is bad, but normally a 3 day hospital stay and you are back on your feet. But during that stay, you need a night in icu and 2 days on a ventilator. Does that happen in this virus reality? Does that person just die now?

So now you have a potential serious negative health impact or death on more than just the corona virus math chart patients.

Again, I do not really know the answers to these questions or scenarios...but if you are telling me that we are going to exceed the capacity of the healthcare system with just corona...it is not totally inappropriate to then ask the seemingly logical question of what happens with all of the "normal" patients that access the healthcare system each day?

It is also why some of us are against open borders and free health care for illegals. Everyone is losing their minds over something that nobody on this earth is able to cure right now, but they have no problems wanting every single person on the planet that wants to walk into our country with all the potential of infectious diseases, terrorism, or simply eating up money and straining a healthcare system that should be much stronger right now if not for taking on people that shouldn't be a part of it. It simply doesn't make any sense.

Maybe now, people will see that we can't just open our arms to everyone to just walk past our borders. American citizens need to come first. I think this pandemic and the lack of resources is due in part to the strains of illegals pressuring our healthcare system outside the designed parameters. I think that is being lost on many people, and it is something that really needs to come to the forefront.

I believe there are a lot of issues that are being exposed as a problem because of this outbreak....if people are honest and open-minded enough to admit it.

- - - Updated - - -

I got furloughed today. And of course, the unemployment web site is crashed..... because they didn't feel the need to shore up the system some how? How do you not know when you putt 1000's of people out of work in a day, you need to make sure things are working... and will continue to work through the process?

I'm very sorry to hear that. That really sucks. All the best to you and your family.

The same thing happened here in PA. The unemployment system crashed when the big hit came. It was up and running within a day or so.

[steelreserve]

So to address the "lockdown" stuff...I wonder where the risk barrier is? For instance, in order to allow people to pay their bills, we put as many people back in normal workday settings as possible - is their exposure risk now so great that going to the movie theater on top of that is like going from 9.8 to 9.9 so what is the difference? Or is it like going from 3 to 8? My thinking is that this might be one of those all or nothing kinda things. For there to be any impact it is either go nowhere or go wherever you want.

Those are the questions that I don't think anyone has a good answer to, but they had better figure it out in a hurry.

If I had to guess, where they will probably start is by keeping bans on large crowds, but letting stores and businesses other than grocery stores open back up. Maybe they come up with some better way of doing things so that you are not face-to-face with the cashier while you are paying, for example. And if people are not comfortable going to work and can manage on their own for a few weeks, they don't have to. Stuff like that.

Also, I think a big difference that will work in favor of controlling it in the absence of a full lockdown is that the great majority of people are aware of the issue now. If people are naturally avoiding unnecessary contact, you'll do a lot better.

[Mojouw]

It is also why some of us are against open borders and free health care for illegals. Everyone is losing their minds over something that nobody on this earth is able to cure right now, but they have no problems wanting every single person on the planet that wants to walk into our country with all the potential of infectious diseases, terrorism, or simply eating up money and straining a healthcare system that should be much stronger right now if not for taking on people that shouldn't be a part of it.

Maybe now, people will see that we can't just open our arms to everyone to just walk past our borders. American citizens need to come first. I think this pandemic and the lack of resources is due in part to the strains of illegals pressuring our healthcare system outside the designed parameters. I think that is being lost on many people, and it is something that really needs to come to the forefront.

I believe there are a lot of issues that are being exposed as a problem because of this outbreak....if people are honest and open-minded enough to admit it.

Don't know. I would like to see some actual data on any of that before coming to a conclusion. How much does any of what your speculating actually happen? The numbers I have seen (in the past and likely out of date) indicate the actual usage of services and the feared usage of services are two vastly different numbers.

Alternatively, we could turn this all around in another direction. Why are we low on hospital beds and ventilators and basic healthcare equipment? Maybe it has something to do with the astronomical profits and ruthless free market principles that have been applied to the healthcare industry. Empty beds and unused equipment eats into profit margins and represents inefficiency. So scrub that out of the system, maximize profit margins, and now you have zero extra capacity in the system. Is the impact from that chain of decision making as much, greater, or less than the impact from other sources, such as immigration? Be fascinating to find out.

Perhaps some of this has to do with "small government" philosophies? Some situations are so extreme that only a large and complex entity like a national government can begin to implement a response. But you cut the funding, cut the agencies, and on and on -- now when you want/need it -- it isn't there.

I am not saying that any, all, or even parts of what I speculate about above are true or applicable to the current crisis. However, I think that in the absence of firm data points, they are just as plausible as illegal immigration soaking up all the extra resources in the system.

- - - Updated - - -

Those are the questions that I don't think anyone has a good answer to, but they had better figure it out in a hurry.

If I had to guess, where they will probably start is by keeping bans on large crowds, but letting stores and businesses other than grocery stores open back up. Maybe they come up with some better way of doing things so that you are not face-to-face with the cashier while you are paying, for example. And if people are not comfortable going to work and can manage on their own for a few weeks, they don't have to. Stuff like that.

Also, I think a big difference that will work in favor of controlling it in the absence of a full lockdown is that the great majority of people are aware of the issue now. If people are naturally avoiding unnecessary contact, you'll do a lot better.

I suspect that someone does have a good answer to it. I suspect epidemologists and virologists are pretty sure about much of what we are speculating on. Again, I haven't looked into it and I am not going to at the moment -- but I believe it is basically either you eliminate ALL contact between people or you might as well allow all of it.

[steelreserve]

I suspect that someone does have a good answer to it. I suspect epidemologists and virologists are pretty sure about much of what we are speculating on. Again, I haven't looked into it and I am not going to at the moment -- but I believe it is basically either you eliminate ALL contact between people or you might as well allow all of it.

Well then, maybe that is what we are looking at. But simply because it is a "bad look" to tell people go ahead and do whatever you want, I doubt they will just throw it wide open.

What would be really good if they knew was, is it practical to still isolate the highest-risk people and will that work, or are they all just fucked. Like, I imagine a 79-year-old might choose to lay low around his house for another few weeks even if restrictions are lifted (and could probably afford to do that a lot more easily than a 35-year-old single parent with three kids.)

Yeah, that might not stop the disease in its tracks, or maybe that's not quite how you would do it ... but they HAVE to have thought about some intermediate scenario where the goal is to prevent the worst of it.

Like, if the only plan they have is "total lockdown or nothing," then they've done a piss-poor job, because that is just not realistic for long.

[tom444]

[pczach]

Don't know. I would like to see some actual data on any of that before coming to a conclusion. How much does any of what your speculating actually happen? The numbers I have seen (in the past and likely out of date) indicate the actual usage of services and the feared usage of services are two vastly different numbers.

Alternatively, we could turn this all around in another direction. Why are we low on hospital beds and ventilators and basic healthcare equipment? Maybe it has something to do with the astronomical profits and ruthless free market principles that have been applied to the healthcare industry. Empty beds and unused equipment eats into profit margins and represents inefficiency. So scrub that out of the system, maximize profit margins, and now you have zero extra capacity in the system. Is the impact from that chain of decision making as much, greater, or less than the impact from other sources, such as immigration? Be fascinating to find out.

Perhaps some of this has to do with "small government" philosophies? Some situations are so extreme that only a large and complex entity like a national government can begin to implement a response. But you cut the funding, cut the agencies, and on and on -- now when you want/need it -- it isn't there.

I am not saying that any, all, or even parts of what I speculate about above are true or applicable to the current crisis. However, I think that in the absence of firm data points, they are just as plausible as illegal immigration soaking up all the extra resources in the system.

It's difficult to have incredibly accurate data when the people that want the illegals to come into the country don't want people documented. How do you have accurate numbers when the people in favor of it want everyone left alone and not even accounted for so you can get the most accurate data? Then, the people on that side of the issue that don't want them documented claim lower numbers than those that are for closed borders. Most say between 11-15 million, but many believe it's much more than that with the methods they use for calculating their numbers. There is also a lag in those calculations, so the numbers people are giving you are almost always calculated from several years ago.

It is a serious issue, as are your concerns on the healthcare system in general and the way pricing and billing occurs with a complex and confusing system of providors, doctors, and insurance companies. Combine that with the exorbitant amounts of money that drug companies charge for medicines. I know there is tremendous research and development costs, trials, losses due to potential lawsuits that seem inevitable on nearly every drug ever developed. It needs to be better, but I'm not smart enough to figure it all out.

There is certainly room for improvement with many things within our system my friend.

[tom444]

Like, if the only plan they have is "total lockdown or nothing," then they've done a piss-poor job, because that is just not realistic for long.

Stop whining.

[Mojouw]

It's difficult to have incredibly accurate data when the people that want the illegals to come into the country don't want people documented. How do you have accurate numbers when the people in favor of it want everyone left alone and not even accounted for so you can get the most accurate data? Then, the people on that side of the issue that don't want them documented claim lower numbers than those that are for closed borders. Most say between 11-15 million, but many believe it's much more than that with the methods they use for calculating their numbers. There is also a lag in those calculations, so the numbers people are giving you are almost always calculated from several years ago.

It is a serious issue, as are your concerns on the healthcare system in general and the way pricing and billing occurs with a complex and confusing system of providors, doctors, and insurance companies. Combine that with the exorbitant amounts of money that drug companies charge for medicines. I know there is tremendous research and development costs, trials, losses due to potential lawsuits that seem inevitable on nearly every drug ever developed. It needs to be better, but I'm not smart enough to figure it all out.

There is certainly room for improvement with many things within our system my friend.

No doubt. I just assumed it would be easy to calculate the % of resources that illegal individuals take out of the healthcare system. Every time the hospital billing and records encounters a bogus name or whatever. Then track that. Or guestimate it or whatever. I suspect someone knows.

What is really interesting is almost all the information that shows readily on Google is totally focused on the $$$ cost of healthcare for illegal immigration. None of it is discussing the impact to the healthcare system. For example (https://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...re-resources):
"Undocumented residents accounted for 1.4% of total U.S. medical expenditures despite making up 5% of the population, responsible for $96.5 billion of healthcare spending from 2000 to 2009 compared with $1 trillion spent on U.S.-born individuals during the same period."

I just can't shake the idea that from immigration to cost to deliver modes to capacity -- one of the outcomes of all of this is that each of us should fundamentally question if we want the prioritized answer to every question to be cost.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then, maybe that is what we are looking at. But simply because it is a "bad look" to tell people go ahead and do whatever you want, I doubt they will just throw it wide open.

What would be really good if they knew was, is it practical to still isolate the highest-risk people and will that work, or are they all just fucked. Like, I imagine a 79-year-old might choose to lay low around his house for another few weeks even if restrictions are lifted (and could probably afford to do that a lot more easily than a 35-year-old single parent with three kids.)

Yeah, that might not stop the disease in its tracks, or maybe that's not quite how you would do it ... but they HAVE to have thought about some intermediate scenario where the goal is to prevent the worst of it.

Like, if the only plan they have is "total lockdown or nothing," then they've done a piss-poor job, because that is just not realistic for long.

I think all of that sounds reasonable. And without rambling on and on about why I think this...I am wondering that as soon as anyone comes out of the house our daily networks mean that containment is over. So it may very well be an all or nothing proposition.

And no, it is not realistic over a long time period from an economic point of view. But there are ways to mitigate that. Wouldn't it be great if there was someone in charge of modeling, planning, and simulating all these types of scenarios? Oh. Wait. There was...wonder what happened to that?

[tom444]

You never know what this guy is going to say, or do, but on this he is dead on:

Lindsey Graham: "There is no functioning economy unless we control" the coronavirus

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted Monday that he is basing his decisions for coronavirus policy on information from "healthcare professionals like Dr. Fauci and others, not political punditry."
Why it matters: In an apparent public rebuke, Graham added a link to a Washington Post article about the Trump administration's signals that it might move to loosen restrictions on businesses at the end of the White House's 15-day social distancing period as an economic salve, as reported by Axios' Jonathan Swan. "There is no functioning economy unless we control the virus," he said.
What he's saying: "Try running an economy with major hospitals overflowing, doctors and nurses forced to stop treating some because they can’t help all, and every moment of gut-wrenching medical chaos being played out in our living rooms, on TV, on social media, and shown all around the world," Graham tweeted.

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-li...378d89956.html

[steelreserve]

No doubt. I just assumed it would be easy to calculate the % of resources that illegal individuals take out of the healthcare system. Every time the hospital billing and records encounters a bogus name or whatever. Then track that. Or guestimate it or whatever. I suspect someone knows.

What is really interesting is almost all the information that shows readily on Google is totally focused on the $$$ cost of healthcare for illegal immigration. None of it is discussing the impact to the healthcare system. For example (https://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...re-resources):
"Undocumented residents accounted for 1.4% of total U.S. medical expenditures despite making up 5% of the population, responsible for $96.5 billion of healthcare spending from 2000 to 2009 compared with $1 trillion spent on U.S.-born individuals during the same period."

I just can't shake the idea that from immigration to cost to deliver modes to capacity -- one of the outcomes of all of this is that each of us should fundamentally question if we want the prioritized answer to every question to be cost.

- - - Updated - - -



I think all of that sounds reasonable. And without rambling on and on about why I think this...I am wondering that as soon as anyone comes out of the house our daily networks mean that containment is over. So it may very well be an all or nothing proposition.

And no, it is not realistic over a long time period from an economic point of view. But there are ways to mitigate that. Wouldn't it be great if there was someone in charge of modeling, planning, and simulating all these types of scenarios? Oh. Wait. There was...wonder what happened to that?

If it really is all-or-nothing, though, then we are still playing out the worst case, because no matter what, most of us still have to go to the store to get food and things. Last week I was at Walmart, not because I wanted to be, but because things like milk and bread don't last much more than a week, and there must have been 300 people standing in line for toilet paper being handed out from the storage area. If it was an all-or-nothing proposition, we might as well have just taken off our clothes and had a big gay orgy.

I've GOT to believe they have considered that and concluded that there is a big difference between the minimum necessary contact and just doing whatever you want. Because if not, that means they have been putting us all through this for nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Try running an economy with major hospitals overflowing, doctors and nurses forced to stop treating some because they can’t help all, and every moment of gut-wrenching medical chaos being played out in our living rooms, on TV, on social media, and shown all around the world," Graham tweeted.

I mean, you could certainly run an economy that way. It wouldn't be ideal, but everything else is not going to cease functioning because the hospitals are full.

[Mojouw]

If it really is all-or-nothing, though, then we are still playing out the worst case, because no matter what, most of us still have to go to the store to get food and things. Last week I was at Walmart, not because I wanted to be, but because things like milk and bread don't last much more than a week, and there must have been 300 people standing in line for toilet paper being handed out from the storage area. If it was an all-or-nothing proposition, we might as well have just taken off our clothes and had a big gay orgy.

I've GOT to believe they have considered that and concluded that there is a big difference between the minimum necessary contact and just doing whatever you want. Because if not, that means they have been putting us all through this for nothing.

To be fair, I meant once we go back to work. Not just leave the house to get essential supplies. I am thinking that there is a threshold level of "contact" that if each person stays under, then this all kinda works from a containment point of view. I suspect that threshold level is so low that anything more than getting food once a week or so and you have crossed it.

[tom444]

People, it is right and fair that we should all have our opinions, but, our opinions are weeks behind. I don't want to increase the alarm but I'm afraid we ain't seen nothing yet. Those who are taking the conservative view and pushing for social distancing, and shutdowns, are taking the long view. As destructive as it is to the economy we have to protect our own personal health and our health system first and foremost.

[steelreserve]

To be fair, I meant once we go back to work. Not just leave the house to get essential supplies. I am thinking that there is a threshold level of "contact" that if each person stays under, then this all kinda works from a containment point of view. I suspect that threshold level is so low that anything more than getting food once a week or so and you have crossed it.

Well, in that case, it'd be damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hopefully, since the mortality rate is so vastly different for certain groups than others, they will figure out an intelligent way to do it so that things can more or less function without being dangerous to those people, and get on with it.

[silver & black]

Well..... WHERE THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GO?.com

[tom444]

Well..... WHERE THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GO?.com

Go for a ride:

[AtlantaDan]

Since "15 days to slow the spread" had a shelf life of ... checks notes ... 7 days before that was determined to be too difficult to handle, guess we are going to be hearing "we are not going to let the cure be worse than the problem" a lot as the new truth

[tom444]

Well, in that case, it'd be damned if you do, damned if you don't.

LBJ about Vietnam: "I feel like a jackass caught in a Texas hailstorm. I can't run, I can't hide and I can't make it stop."