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

[steelreserve]

OK. So turn it on its head. What are the mathematical benchmarks and metrics that would have to be in operation for you to feel that the current response level was appropriate? At what level do you stop asking questions and would just say "Yeah. This is what needs to happen."

Killing double digit percentage? Start killing prime aged adults at an increased rate? If so what is that rate? Don't worry about what is or actually will happen. That is not what I am asking. What would trigger a massive response if you were in charge of it all?

Ah, now THAT is really the entire question, isn't it?

This particular response, what we are doing right now, is an apocalyptic response that should be reserved for apocalyptic crises. A plague with a 50% death rate (literally a Black Death/12 Monkeys situation, nothing less). An active war zone with ongoing random mortar fire. The week or two after a hurricane when it is basically anarchy. That's it. Period.

Should this virus right now trigger a "massive response?" Absolutely. That does not mean a wartime lockdown, though. All the mobilization of medical and industrial resources - great idea. Postponing, or at least modifying or discouraging, large events - super idea. Encouraging changes in day-to-day-behavior, thinking twice about things - totally on board with that. Even things like split shifts at jobs, closing schools for a period - you could convince me. De facto martial law for 2-3 months, nobody leaves the house, tens of millions lose their jobs - BUZZ. It had better be the plague.

All of the things on that list, save the last one, were done to varying degrees in the 1918 epidemic (which I believe had a 10-15% death rate) and others, and were deemed pretty successful, reasonable precautions. No denying it would help to a measurable extent with the current situation. Does going from there to here help even more? Probably. Is it worth it? That's a hard no from me. Reasonable precautions, not crazy ones, that's what I am for. These are crazy.

[Hawkman]

Ah, now THAT is really the entire question, isn't it?

This particular response, what we are doing right now, is an apocalyptic response that should be reserved for apocalyptic crises. A plague with a 50% death rate (literally a Black Death/12 Monkeys situation, nothing less). An active war zone with ongoing random mortar fire. The week or two after a hurricane when it is basically anarchy. That's it. Period.

Should this virus right now trigger a "massive response?" Absolutely. That does not mean a wartime lockdown, though. All the mobilization of medical and industrial resources - great idea. Postponing, or at least modifying or discouraging, large events - super idea. Encouraging changes in day-to-day-behavior, thinking twice about things - totally on board with that. Even things like split shifts at jobs, closing schools for a period - you could convince me. De facto martial law for 2-3 months, nobody leaves the house, tens of millions lose their jobs - BUZZ. It had better be the plague.

All of the things on that list, save the last one, were done to varying degrees in the 1918 epidemic (which I believe had a 10-15% death rate) and others, and were deemed pretty successful, reasonable precautions. No denying it would help to a measurable extent with the current situation. Does going from there to here help even more? Probably. Is it worth it? That's a hard no from me. Reasonable precautions, not crazy ones, that's what I am for. These are crazy.

Wow....California must be a little different than Virginia, here, it’s even suggested we get out and play golf.....No Marshall Law.....yet.

[Mojouw]

Ah, now THAT is really the entire question, isn't it?

This particular response, what we are doing right now, is an apocalyptic response that should be reserved for apocalyptic crises. A plague with a 50% death rate (literally a Black Death/12 Monkeys situation, nothing less). An active war zone with ongoing random mortar fire. The week or two after a hurricane when it is basically anarchy. That's it. Period.

Should this virus right now trigger a "massive response?" Absolutely. That does not mean a wartime lockdown, though. All the mobilization of medical and industrial resources - great idea. Postponing, or at least modifying or discouraging, large events - super idea. Encouraging changes in day-to-day-behavior, thinking twice about things - totally on board with that. Even things like split shifts at jobs, closing schools for a period - you could convince me. De facto martial law for 2-3 months, nobody leaves the house, tens of millions lose their jobs - BUZZ. It had better be the plague.

All of the things on that list, save the last one, were done to varying degrees in the 1918 epidemic (which I believe had a 10-15% death rate) and others, and were deemed pretty successful, reasonable precautions. No denying it would help to a measurable extent with the current situation. Does going from there to here help even more? Probably. Is it worth it? That's a hard no from me. Reasonable precautions, not crazy ones, that's what I am for. These are crazy.

Wow....California must be a little different than Virginia, here, it’s even suggested we get out and play golf.....No Marshall Law.....yet.

Are you sure, you are not confusing things a bit? I mean, I certainly don't live in California, nor do I really watch news reports on California -- but .2 seconds of internet searching revealed this is the order: https://abc7news.com/california-stay...rs-ca/6032237/

That hardly sounds like de facto martial law. From a total outsider, it seems there were only a small segment of places that were forced to close:

• Dine-in restaurants
• Bars and nightclubs
• Entertainment venues
• Gyms and fitness centers
• Public events and gatherings
• Convention centers

Any other closures were by "choice" of that business. Like I said in an earlier posting, we have basically the same rules in my state. Some businesses decided to pivot and find ways to stay open. Others did not. Is the order from the state house totally to blame? Likely not. Some state regulation, some public fear, some individual business owner decisions...mix them all together and find your answer.

[AtlantaDan]

might need to take a break and play some video games.

[tom444]

[steelreserve]

Are you sure, you are not confusing things a bit? I mean, I certainly don't live in California, nor do I really watch news reports on California -- but .2 seconds of internet searching revealed this is the order: https://abc7news.com/california-stay...rs-ca/6032237/

That hardly sounds like de facto martial law. From a total outsider, it seems there were only a small segment of places that were forced to close:

• Dine-in restaurants
• Bars and nightclubs
• Entertainment venues
• Gyms and fitness centers
• Public events and gatherings
• Convention centers

Any other closures were by "choice" of that business. Like I said in an earlier posting, we have basically the same rules in my state. Some businesses decided to pivot and find ways to stay open. Others did not. Is the order from the state house totally to blame? Likely not. Some state regulation, some public fear, some individual business owner decisions...mix them all together and find your answer.

Basically, the situation is that the only things open are gas stations, stores that sell groceries and hardware, and hospitals. All museums (I can see that one), parks, and hiking trails (???) closed until further notice. Even the regular doctor's offices have closed down and gone into hiding. For example, I've had what is clearly an ear infection for about a week, and the blanket response from in-network physicians is "sorry, that office has been closed for safety precautions, go to a hospital if it gets really bad." Finally managed to get a phone appointment today, in the hopes that they will at least call in some antibiotics ... of course, the only in-network pharmacy that has not been closed is also at the hospital.

While not an "official" statewide order yet, the mandate (which IS being enforced by cities and counties, especially the larger ones) is you are not allowed to leave your house except for food and medicine, or to see a doctor. Limited exercise within your immediate neighborhood. Don't drive anywhere except the store or the doctor. Police can stop and question you if they see you out, and can cite and/or arrest you if you are deemed to be in violation. National Guard mobilized, and while not yet used for that purpose, has standing authorization to detain anyone violating stay-at-home orders.

There are still some things open (not many), some restaurants doing take-out ... if this article is any indication, that is not exactly sustainable at perhaps 5 percent of usual business. Out of the dozen or more other businesses and agencies I can think of who were supposed to either send someone to our house or have us go to them in the past couple of weeks, including for some fairly important shit, every last one of those has been canceled due to the order against groups of 5 or more people. The City of Los Angeles is threatening to turn off the water and electricity of businesses that they deem non-essential and do not shut down. That is the situation here. Whether you want to call it martial law, short of martial law, or just a suggestion, it is not anything resembling a functioning civilization, and I cannot imagine how half the population is making a living.

Wow....California must be a little different than Virginia, here, it’s even suggested we get out and play golf.....No Marshall Law.....yet.

I'll tell you a funny story. The other day, I was walking with one of my kids in the neighborhood just to get him out of the house. Along the way, we had to go across one of the main streets and walk up it for a short distance. As we were going up the sidewalk, a cyclist came riding toward us in the bike lane. As he passed us, he swerved out into the middle of the road to maintain his 6-foot social distancing, instead of the 4 or so feet it would've been otherwise. Keep in mind, this is one of those four-lane roads with a speed limit of like 55 mph that goes through an area without houses, and it was NOT clear of traffic.

I immediately started cracking up, because I could not think of anything that better summarizes the response to the coronavirus.

[tom444]

[Mojouw]

None of this is going to matter anyways. Jared is on the case and will soon be getting things sorted out. After all, he brought us Middle East peace.

"...Andrew Cuomo, said that the state would need 30,000 ventilators at the apex of the coronavirus outbreak, Kushner decided that Cuomo was being alarmist. “I have all this data about I.C.U. capacity,” Kushner reportedly said. “I’m doing my own projections, and I’ve gotten a lot smarter about this. New York doesn’t need all the ventilators.” (Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top expert on infectious diseases, has said he trusts Cuomo’s estimate.)"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/o...ronavirus.html

For the record, I have taken shits that are smarter and more capable of complex reasoning than Jared Kushner.

[steelreserve]

None of this is going to matter anyways. Jared is on the case and will soon be getting things sorted out. After all, he brought us Middle East peace.

"...Andrew Cuomo, said that the state would need 30,000 ventilators at the apex of the coronavirus outbreak, Kushner decided that Cuomo was being alarmist. “I have all this data about I.C.U. capacity,” Kushner reportedly said. “I’m doing my own projections, and I’ve gotten a lot smarter about this. New York doesn’t need all the ventilators.” (Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top expert on infectious diseases, has said he trusts Cuomo’s estimate.)"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/o...ronavirus.html

For the record, I have taken shits that are smarter and more capable of complex reasoning than Jared Kushner.

Well ignoring for a moment one's personal opinions of Jared Kushner versus Divine Emperor Fauci, what is the math on that claim?

At the current rate of ~3% of detected cases eventually needing ventilators, 30,000 would mean 10 million people were infected and need them at exactly the same time, out of a population just under 20 million. About 40x the current national total and 10x the world total, all localized in the same city at once.

If it's true that almost half those infected never show any symptoms and never get tested, as in the Iceland study and the quarantined cruise ship examples, then the entire state, 100% of them, would need to be sick all at the same time.

I have no great love for our boy Jared, but the governor is smoking crack.

[Mojouw]

Well ignoring for a moment one's personal opinions of Jared Kushner versus Divine Emperor Fauci, what is the math on that claim?

At the current rate of ~3% of detected cases eventually needing ventilators, 30,000 would mean 10 million people were infected and need them at exactly the same time, out of a population just under 20 million. About 40x the current national total and 10x the world total, all localized in the same city at once.

If it's true that almost half those infected never show any symptoms and never get tested, as in the Iceland study and the quarantined cruise ship examples, then the entire state, 100% of them, would need to be sick all at the same time.

I have no great love for our boy Jared, but the governor is smoking crack.

"The state’s predictions come from Weill Cornell Medicine, the CDC and the consulting firm McKinsey and Company."

-- https://nypost.com/2020/03/27/corona...-it-overblown/

So, your position, is that your back of the envelope math is more trustworthy than the CDC? Just want to be clear where we are all starting from.

[steelreserve]

"The state’s predictions come from Weill Cornell Medicine, the CDC and the consulting firm McKinsey and Company."

-- https://nypost.com/2020/03/27/corona...-it-overblown/

So, your position, is that your back of the envelope math is more trustworthy than the CDC? Just want to be clear where we are all starting from.

Sure looks that way. Is your contention that you need a license to do math now? Numbers are numbers, they don't really care.

[Mojouw]

Sure looks that way. Is your contention that you need a license to do math now? Numbers are numbers, they don't really care.

No. As I have repeatedly stated, I strongly suspect there are multiple complicating factors that your math is failing to account for. Like, I'm a pretty smart guy. I look at some of the various numbers out there and they seem strange to me. Then I look at the fact that the CDC, WHO, Johns Hopkins, and a variety of other places where they employ other pretty smart people who have specific expert knowledge and experience in this particular field all saying that the numbers are legit. Makes me curious about what I don't know and what I am missing in my knowledge. Honestly, because I got other shit going on in my life, that is about as far as I get with it.

On the other hand, you have decided that basic multiplication and addition is all that is needed to see through the veil of bullshit. I guess that is a way to go.

[steelreserve]

No. As I have repeatedly stated, I strongly suspect there are multiple complicating factors that your math is failing to account for. Like, I'm a pretty smart guy. I look at some of the various numbers out there and they seem strange to me. Then I look at the fact that the CDC, WHO, Johns Hopkins, and a variety of other places where they employ other pretty smart people who have specific expert knowledge and experience in this particular field all saying that the numbers are legit. Makes me curious about what I don't know and what I am missing in my knowledge. Honestly, because I got other shit going on in my life, that is about as far as I get with it.

On the other hand, you have decided that basic multiplication and addition is all that is needed to see through the veil of bullshit. I guess that is a way to go.

Not so much that basic addition and multiplication reigns supreme over all. Asking the right questions combined with that does go a long way, however.

In this case, "The Experts" have outlined a situation that would appear to be impossible. Doesn't even say who really came up with that number - medical experts, or the governor extrapolating from various medical sources with his own back-of-the-envelope math (seems more likely) or how it was arrived at.

If that kind of number is not impossible, or at least highly implausible, I would be interested in knowing how. Given no information about that whatsoever, though, I would be inclined to say it sounds dubious.

On the other hand, a reaction of "Don't ask any questions, you're not qualified" ... well, as I said before, that's the language of religion, not science.

When you have a situation in which even the experts are making up a plan as they go along, and on top of that you have the governor winging it on his interpretation of that information, and that particular individual has already earned a reputation for making dramatic embellishments in this specific crisis, and the basis is a vaguely attributed statement in a tabloid newspaper ... yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say the burden of proving that kind of bold and bombastic claim is on them. Nice graph, though. I mean, really, good try.

[tom444]

Of course why would the Governor of NY invest in getting it right vis-a-vis just winging it? What does he care?

((((sarcasm))))

[steelreserve]

Of course why would the Governor of NY invest in getting it right vis-a-vis just winging it? What does he care?

For a politician, bigger and bolder statements equals decisive. This one in particular has kind of become known for that. The media source in question is also rather known for that. No, don't ever question any questionable statements, though.

[Mojouw]

Not so much that basic addition and multiplication reigns supreme over all. Asking the right questions combined with that does go a long way, however.

In this case, "The Experts" have outlined a situation that would appear to be impossible. Doesn't even say who really came up with that number - medical experts, or the governor extrapolating from various medical sources with his own back-of-the-envelope math (seems more likely) or how it was arrived at.

If that kind of number is not impossible, or at least highly implausible, I would be interested in knowing how. Given no information about that whatsoever, though, I would be inclined to say it sounds dubious.

On the other hand, a reaction of "Don't ask any questions, you're not qualified" ... well, as I said before, that's the language of religion, not science.

When you have a situation in which even the experts are making up a plan as they go along, and on top of that you have the governor winging it on his interpretation of that information, and that particular individual has already earned a reputation for making dramatic embellishments in this specific crisis, and the basis is a vaguely attributed statement in a tabloid newspaper ... yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say the burden of proving that kind of bold and bombastic claim is on them. Nice graph, though. I mean, really, good try.

At this point, you are just trying to be dense. Very little of what you attributing to my response was ever what I said. It is a clever rhetorical trick to narrowly redefine the conversation to something you feel that you can answer and invent lines of attack that the others in the discussion have not taken up in order to dodge the legitimate questions that you can not address. But it isn't really a new one. And it is fairly transparent.

I have never said that you couldn't or shouldn't ask questions. I have never once taken up the line of attack that someone needs a specific set of qualifications in order to think about or attempt to question authority on any given subject.

You can read pretty detailed news reports that Cuomo is pulling models from 3 fairly reputable sources. Those models are returning 140K hospitalized and 40K on ventilators in what seems to be a "worst" case projection out of the standard "worst", "middle", "best" division of contingency planning. I find it not that unreasonable that a Governor would be making serious efforts to ensure that their state is covered for the "worst" case. Since, logically, if you can weather the worst case, you have the other 2 models covered as well.

But you have started and never waivered in your convictions that some pre-concieved notions and ideas that you had were and will continue to be correct. That is the part I have repeatedly argued against. You are making a case from a specific set of self-selected starting assumptions and then loading in some personal biases. That is fine. We all do that. It is essentially fundamental to how we all reason, make decisions, and reach conclusions. But, sometimes, it is useful to step back and take a look at what assumptions and biases we are using in a given situation.

I started all this with the strong belief that it was all over-hyped bullshit and it would blow-over in a month. The more I read and the more I saw, started to change my mind. I still have my reservations about some of the most dire predictions, but, as I said above, I am also coming to the realization that people with a crap-ton more information and expertise than I have are driving some of those predictions. Since I am a massive believer in the value of expertise and education, I have a natural tendency to defer to it. Is that right? Not always. Is it in this situation? Not certain. But it is one of the biases that I bring to the table.

[tom444]

No, don't ever question any questionable statements, though.

Oh I question every post you put up.

[teegre]

All the mobilization of medical and industrial resources - great idea. Postponing, or at least modifying or discouraging, large events - super idea. Encouraging changes in day-to-day-behavior, thinking twice about things - totally on board with that. Even things like split shifts at jobs, closing schools for a period - you could convince me. De facto martial law for 2-3 months, nobody leaves the house, tens of millions lose their jobs - BUZZ.

As I’ve posted several times, up until the bold part, that was what was being done. Alas, people were crowding into bars and packing themselves into the boardwalks. The hiking trails (where I go every weekend) that usually have 20-30 people max, suddenly had 500 people on them. People were holding BBQs and parties as if it was a vacation. I’ve seen soccer & football teams holding practices.

What... the... fuck!?!

Because people chose to act stupidly, the Government was forced to mandate “stay at home” orders.

Even now, people are ignoring this mandate. Ergo, starting tonight, fines will be issued for group gatherings.

[tom444]

You can read pretty detailed news reports that Cuomo is pulling models from 3 fairly reputable sources. Those models are returning 140K hospitalized and 40K on ventilators in what seems to be a "worst" case projection out of the standard "worst", "middle", "best" division of contingency planning. I find it not that unreasonable that a Governor would be making serious efforts to ensure that their state is covered for the "worst" case. Since, logically, if you can weather the worst case, you have the other 2 models covered as well.

Cuomo has stated many times that he is planning for the worst and hopping for the best. That's what strong leaders do.

But you have started and never waivered in your convictions that some pre-concieved notions and ideas that you had were and will continue to be correct. That is the part I have repeatedly argued against. You are making a case from a specific set of self-selected starting assumptions and then loading in some personal biases.

It's called BS.

[Mojouw]

Cuomo has stated many times that he is planning for the worst and hopping for the best. That's what strong leaders do.

That is certainly an intriguing point. I tend to agree. In a "crisis" situation (fortunately I have been in very very few in my own life), I believe that "leadership" is the willingness and ability to make a decision and take decisive action. Whether that decision and action are the "best" is, for me, another separate consideration. I am not phrasing this very well. Obviously, I wouldn't want someone making a series of terrible decisions and rushing to failure just to be seen as leading. But I do want the folks in charge to actually make decisions and take action.

Hopefully, I have made some sense.

[Mojouw]

As I’ve posted several times, up until the bold part, that was what was being done. Alas, people were crowding into bars and packing themselves into the boardwalks. The hiking trails (where I go every weekend) that usually have 20-30 people max, suddenly had 500 people on them. People were holding BBQs and parties as if it was a vacation. I’ve seen soccer & football teams holding practices.

What... the... fuck!?!

Because people chose to act stupidly, the Government was forced to mandate “stay at home” orders.

Even now, people are ignoring this mandate. Ergo, starting tonight, fines will be issued for group gatherings.

Basically the same story in my neck of the woods. Officials put out guidelines and suggestions. Not enough people followed them, so they basically forced people to follow them. There has been some interesting reporting on how different countries/cultures are handling all this. An emerging pattern is that in societies with a high amount of trust of the government and education in the population, they can seemingly weather this without resorting to enforcing strict social control measures. I think I read that Sweden and some of the other countries up that way are having moderate success without having to force much of the same measure we see here.

Again, for me, we are back to self-inflicted wounds with all this. The really scary bit is that I was reading earlier today that the this thing is really just starting to hit across the American south. Where people have been either blatantly ignoring government directions or the government has philosophically been opposed to any social distancing stuff (because liberal conspiracy?). The models, which I guess shouldn't be trusted, are predicting at least one version where this thing hammers those states like a biblical plague. Should be really fun. Can't wait.

Honestly, I hope every single prediction is wrong and this ends up going out with a whimper. That would be an amazing gift for all of us. But...

[steelreserve]

Oh I question every post you put up.

I take that as a good indicator that I'm on the right track. Thanks!

At this point, you are just trying to be dense. Very little of what you attributing to my response was ever what I said. It is a clever rhetorical trick to narrowly redefine the conversation to something you feel that you can answer and invent lines of attack that the others in the discussion have not taken up in order to dodge the legitimate questions that you can not address. But it isn't really a new one. And it is fairly transparent.

I have never said that you couldn't or shouldn't ask questions. I have never once taken up the line of attack that someone needs a specific set of qualifications in order to think about or attempt to question authority on any given subject.

You can read pretty detailed news reports that Cuomo is pulling models from 3 fairly reputable sources. Those models are returning 140K hospitalized and 40K on ventilators in what seems to be a "worst" case projection out of the standard "worst", "middle", "best" division of contingency planning. I find it not that unreasonable that a Governor would be making serious efforts to ensure that their state is covered for the "worst" case. Since, logically, if you can weather the worst case, you have the other 2 models covered as well.

But you have started and never waivered in your convictions that some pre-concieved notions and ideas that you had were and will continue to be correct. That is the part I have repeatedly argued against. You are making a case from a specific set of self-selected starting assumptions and then loading in some personal biases. That is fine. We all do that. It is essentially fundamental to how we all reason, make decisions, and reach conclusions. But, sometimes, it is useful to step back and take a look at what assumptions and biases we are using in a given situation.

I started all this with the strong belief that it was all over-hyped bullshit and it would blow-over in a month. The more I read and the more I saw, started to change my mind. I still have my reservations about some of the most dire predictions, but, as I said above, I am also coming to the realization that people with a crap-ton more information and expertise than I have are driving some of those predictions. Since I am a massive believer in the value of expertise and education, I have a natural tendency to defer to it. Is that right? Not always. Is it in this situation? Not certain. But it is one of the biases that I bring to the table.

Look, here's my deal. At the very start of this, I was, like many, convinced this was overblown and hopefully much ado about nothing. Clearly it turned out to be something that should be taken more seriously than that, and there is no doubt about that, which I have freely admitted. I believe that is reflected in the type of stuff I have been arguing for or against over time (it has changed, believe it or not, from approximately "it's all bullshit" to "be reasonable, not crazy".)

It is probably very easy to interpret that as simply being consistently "against" whoever or whatever is calling the shots, because I was against what was being done then, and I am against what is being done now. Although I can see how it could come off that way, that is not exactly it either. I was skeptical of the (now comparatively moderate) measures about a month ago as out of proportion to what was going on at the time. I probably would not be too skeptical of that anymore. The reason why I do remain opposed to what is going on now is not because it is out of proportion to the current situation, but because it is out of proportion to any situation at all.

That is possibly just a matter of personal preference and tolerances. The medical worst case, to me, is probably not worse than the medically ordered lockdown. We long ago passed the point at which you cut your losses and say "you know what, this sucks, but there is only so much you can do before you are acting crazy, so we stop here and hopefully we can still avoid the absolute worst of it."

Here is the part that I think does not compute for some: Are you crazy? What if that means half a million dead? And the answer is: Then it means half a million dead. But you wouldn't even try to stop it? You have to! Well, not exactly. You try to stop it, but you admit your limitations. You're advocating for letting thousands of people just DIE? No, not advocating. Accepting it while doing the best within reason. It may be appalling to many, but yes, to me, something on the order of half a million or a million people dead can indeed still fall under the category "shit you just can't control," and crossing that line that you shouldn't can well be quixotic.

But that's the worst case, and the other big thing is - as you may have guessed - I tend to be extremely skeptical of the worst case. Way back toward the start of this argument, I believe I said something to the effect of, "Even if I am wrong about it blowing over, the real answer is probably not the worst case, it is somewhere in between." And despite everything, in a very general unscientific sense, that is STILL what appears to be playing out. It's never been the best case, but it's never been anywhere near the worst case either. So while it may be a dumb, completely

Adding to that skepticism of the worst case is the fact that the media has done about everything possible in the past several years to destroy any semblance of trust or credibility that it possessed, and it makes it difficult to know what is real or not. Figuring out what is bullshit and what is not has become a huge portion - probably more than half now - of reading the news, in many cases more important than what is actually printed. That is a huge problem, and really lends itself to the type of panic and confusion that abounds, not to mention the general acrimony and distrust. There are also many people who, for a variety of reasons, have clearly been chomping at the bit for something like this to happen, and are practically nutting in their pants at the chance to push it. Typing that makes me feel almost a bit tinfoil-hatty, but I don't think I have completely lost my mind yet.

The bottom line is that I do not think I know more about science than a scientist, or more about medicine than a doctor (although some people I went to school with, who later became doctors or lawyers, are the kind of people where you go "wait, THAT guy's a doctor?") ... but there really IS so much bullshit out there that once it all filters through, it is difficult to take a lot of it seriously. Usually, it is not that I am fighting with a medical expert, I am fighting with a journalist and whatever his or her own personal take on the facts is. Do I know enough to win that fight? You're goddamn right about that.

Anyway, I hope that at least explains where I am coming from, and that it is not just "all these experts with fancy degrees are idiots spouting bullshit, and I'm the only one who knows anything." That's kind of dumb. Knowing better than a journalist or a politician, though, or thinking that they might be spewing bullshit? Not a stretch at all.

[silver & black]

Man.................... you guys just keep butting heads about everything to do with this.

I will put myself out there.... I think all of you have viable arguments. I will say that I fall more in line with steelreserve. Having said that... I do think we need to be cautious. I also don't think we should be destroying the economy over it. I just got home from my GF's house..... breaking the law! I'm not really all that worried. Call me/say what you want. I will go on record as to agreeing with steelresrve... a little more than the rest of you. I guess I'm a criminal now?

[tom444]

That is certainly an intriguing point. I tend to agree. In a "crisis" situation (fortunately I have been in very very few in my own life), I believe that "leadership" is the willingness and ability to make a decision and take decisive action. Whether that decision and action are the "best" is, for me, another separate consideration. I am not phrasing this very well. Obviously, I wouldn't want someone making a series of terrible decisions and rushing to failure just to be seen as leading. But I do want the folks in charge to actually make decisions and take action.

Hopefully, I have made some sense.

You can't go wrong planing for the worst. It's a no brainer.

People who have been studying these things have been sounding the alarm for years, but the human mind has trouble holding on to warnings like that. They listen with one ear if you will. They make plans and then those plans are set aside as the warnings get lost in the present moment, or politics. It's human nature.

[tom444]

I take that as a good indicator that I'm on the right track. Thanks!.

See, another post of yours that should be questioned or better yet ignored. You're batting 1000%

[tom444]

I guess I'm a criminal now?

Thoughts aren't subject to the law. But I must be honest here and say when I read steelreserve I don't see a point.

[silver & black]

Thoughts aren't subject to the law. But I must be honest here and say when I read steelreserve I don't see a point.

Really? How can you be objective and not see the point?... unless you aren't objective???

[tom444]

Really? How can you be objective and not see the point?... unless you aren't objective???

Well than, what is the point? Any notion of an overreaction has long since been proven wrong, so what's he got?

[silver & black]

Well than, what is the point? Any notion of an overreaction has long since been proven wrong, so what's he got?

IMO... a lot. You can't discount what he has brought to the table. You may not agree with him, but he has made a viable argument about the wholesale cower in fear thing. I probably tend to agree with him more than I disagree. I think the welfare of the country/economy may very well be a bit more important than the total (OMG) response of the powers that be outlook on this. At what point is this worth destroying a vibrant economy? Discounting political beliefs. At what point do we deem acceptable the damage this inflicts on all of our financial well being?

[tom444]

IMO... a lot. You can't discount what he has brought to the table. You may not agree with him, but he has made a viable argument about the wholesale cower in fear thing. I probably tend to agree with him more than I disagree. I think the welfare of the country/economy may very well be a bit more important than the total (OMG) response of the powers that be outlook on this. At what point is this worth destroying a vibrant economy? Discounting political beliefs. At what point do we deem acceptable the damage this inflicts on all of our financial well being?

The historical facts are that the economies in places where sheltering in place is followed return much faster than the economies of places where they don't. So you can forget that concept.