Will this end up being the pandemic that cried wolf?

[cabanafrau]

de Blasio tweeted something on March 2 that looks very bad in retrospect. Weird to think about how things would be if instead he shut things down that day, on several levels. NYC wouldn't have gotten hammered, and he'd probably end up getting a ton of flak from the people making fun of him for not shutting things down quickly enough.

(I say that as someone who is very annoyed about how de Blasio has handled this, but it's all a strange situation)

Thank you. I totally missed all of that taking place. I'm not in the NY area.

No matter who it is, it can't be an easy thing to step up and make the call - close, open, who, when, how much. Hopefully more times than not either the right calls are being made, or dumb luck steps in to prevent bigger disaster. Hopefully those who are making the calls are getting good information, are putting it to good use and really trying to come up with the method that balances the highest priority needs in a way that benefits the most people possible, preferably everyone, but sadly that's usually not possible. Most of the time it's trying to do the best with what you know right then -- and then woulda, coulda, shoulda after things get a lot clearer after it's all said and done.

I just don't think I'll ever understand the idea that the staggering death totals aren't enough to hit the pause button in some fashion and take a minute to see if we can figure out a way to prevent them from climbing higher and higher and faster and faster in hopes that there will be enough doctors and nurses to answer the call.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

And yes, there are people who want to lock everyone up in their homes for a month or until a vaccine.

But that was not the discussion being had. The poster I quoted, who was responding to something I said, said nobody had said open it all back up at once and that was incorrect.

Just like I would tell somebody who said keep it closed until there is a vaccine also isn't the answer. But I haven't had that discussion with anybody.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Thank you. I totally missed all of that taking place. I'm not in the NY area.

No matter who it is, it can't be an easy thing to step up and make the call - close, open, who, when, how much. Hopefully more times than not either the right calls are being made, or dumb luck steps in to prevent bigger disaster. Hopefully those who are making the calls are getting good information, are putting it to good use and really trying to come up with the method that balances the highest priority needs in a way that benefits the most people possible, preferably everyone, but sadly that's usually not possible. Most of the time it's trying to do the best with what you know right then -- and then woulda, coulda, shoulda after things get a lot clearer after it's all said and done.

I just don't think I'll ever understand the idea that the staggering death totals aren't enough to hit the pause button in some fashion and take a minute to see if we can figure out a way to prevent them from climbing higher and higher and faster and faster in hopes that there will be enough doctors and nurses to answer the call.

I think that one group is blaming the slow reaction on the federal government and another group is blaming it on local/state governments. That is nuts. Both acted appropriately when it became clear what we were facing.

Could either/both have acted faster? Yes. In hindsight, they should have. But no one in America was ready to sign up for these shut-downs then, just as so many are ready to end them early now. So, blame is easy. Leading in a time like this is hard. As long as I am convinced that either/both were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of their constituents at the time, I'll give the a pass.

 

[xuxa777]

Sorry, I mixed it up with Iowa. Georgia is June 19th. And that's the White House model and reported on CNN

View attachment 490437

Figured that is what the source was, IHME model - even the model author says that the model is not to be used to make open and close decisions by the government, just a one of many references.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Figured that is what the source was, IHME model - even the model author says that the model is not to be used to make open and close decisions by the government, just a one of many references.

Agreed - and that model is proving to have adjusted to far down using the cell phone data to estimate the effectiveness of social distancing. We will blow past their August death total in a week.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Thank you. I totally missed all of that taking place. I'm not in the NY area.

No matter who it is, it can't be an easy thing to step up and make the call - close, open, who, when, how much. Hopefully more times than not either the right calls are being made, or dumb luck steps in to prevent bigger disaster. Hopefully those who are making the calls are getting good information, are putting it to good use and really trying to come up with the method that balances the highest priority needs in a way that benefits the most people possible, preferably everyone, but sadly that's usually not possible. Most of the time it's trying to do the best with what you know right then -- and then woulda, coulda, shoulda after things get a lot clearer after it's all said and done.

I just don't think I'll ever understand the idea that the staggering death totals aren't enough to hit the pause button in some fashion and take a minute to see if we can figure out a way to prevent them from climbing higher and higher and faster and faster in hopes that there will be enough doctors and nurses to answer the call.

I have family and friends in the area. Guess I thought most everyone had heard since it became an epicenter

 

[Sanchez]

Sigh - nope - that had nothing to do with it, but go ahead with the hate.

For my own sanity and the fact that I have no expertise to offer on the subject I have stayed out of the DIS Corona wars. I hate to address one person because the number of self-proclaimed experts is astonishing, but you really should take a break. Every day, all day you seem to have all of the answers.

 

[sam_gordon]

We can't use the extremes. I mean, there are people who have actually said that they are happy to let the at risk die, but they are the fringe and can't be used in rational discussion about possible solutions, either.

I agree. But people shouldn't be bringing them up either. And many posters have done that.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Figured that is what the source was, IHME model - even the model author says that the model is not to be used to make open and close decisions by the government, just a one of many references.

Agreed - and that model is proving to have adjusted to far down using the cell phone data to estimate the effectiveness of social distancing. We will blow past their August death total in a week.

I understand that. This particular part was updated Tuesday based on current information.

But it doesn't matter. Every model shows GA opening today is too early. They have not met the criteria from the White House in order to do so.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I agree. But people shouldn't be bringing them up either. And many posters have done that.

Why? When those very people have brought it up on THIS thread? We're not allowed to reply to something said here? Sorry, not going to happen.

 

[xuxa777]

I understand that. This particular part was updated Tuesday based on current information.

But it doesn't matter. Every model shows GA opening today is too early. They have not met the criteria from the White House in order to do so.

Not true, "not every model" but no need to discuss further here

 

[elle21]

These are the thoughts and opinions of a professor of economics at a university in Illinois. It’s long but an important read. We must open our country again. Soon. (I also saw a mini documentary from a large dairy farm in MI. The farmer is a friend of a friend and in her words “not an alarmist” He explains that the food supply is already in crisis from this. Our food supply. The people who provide food to your grocery store will be going out of business in a few months. Let that sink in.)


“We are paying $3 trillion per month to maintain social distancing. Now I am all for it if you can answer the following question. How will it save lives?

We obviously cannot afford $3 trillion per month for very long. It is not a matter of wanting to spend the money but a matter of having the money to spend. We don't have the money and we can't borrow the money. Let me put this in perspective. We are spending $100 billion per day to maintain social distancing. Our biggest item in our federal budget is defense. We spend approximately $900 billion per year on defense. That means in the next nine days, we will spend as much staying in place as we spend on our largest budget item for the whole year. How long is that sustainable? Not long.

Unless you can show me how $3 trillion per month is sustainable, I must conclude that social distancing must end in the not-to-distant future. When we do, COVID-19 will be waiting for us. Social distancing cannot eradicate the virus. It can only push it off to some point into the not-to-distant future. All these lives we are supposedly saving now will die then. We haven't saved any lives. We broke the bank with a non-solution.

We need a solution, not a $100 billion per day stalling tactic. Science tells us what that solution is. Herd immunity. That will eradicate the virus. Social distancing won't. What is the cost of obtaining herd immunity? It is the cost of protecting the vulnerable populations while the virus blows through the non-vulnerable populations. I don't know how much that would cost but I am sure it is a fraction of the $3 trillion we are spending on shelter in place. And, since we are protecting the vulnerable during the crisis and then letting them return to their normal lives once this is over, then we are actually saving lives.
Stay at home orders are like a temporary stay of execution. Once it expires (as it must due to it being unsustainable), then people die. We haven't saved lives. Focusing on protecting the vulnerable and letting herd immunity develop is like a pardon. Lives will be saved. People will be temporarily protected when they need to be protected. Then they won't need to be protected because the threat will be eradicated.

So, we can continue spending $3 trillion on a non-solution where the vulnerable are at a huge risk. Or we can spend a lot less doing what nature and science tells us to do to eradicate the threat. I choose doing what science and nature tells us to do. I like the fact that it actually saves lives. And, I like the side benefit that it comes with a price tag we can more likely afford.”

 

[godisney14]

These are the thoughts and opinions of a professor of economics at a university in Illinois. It’s long but an important read. We must open our country again. Soon. (I also saw a mini documentary from a large dairy farm in MI. The farmer is a friend of a friend and in her words “not an alarmist” He explains that the food supply is already in crisis from this. Our food supply. The people who provide food to your grocery store will be going out of business in a few months. Let that sink in.)


“We are paying $3 trillion per month to maintain social distancing. Now I am all for it if you can answer the following question. How will it save lives?

We obviously cannot afford $3 trillion per month for very long. It is not a matter of wanting to spend the money but a matter of having the money to spend. We don't have the money and we can't borrow the money. Let me put this in perspective. We are spending $100 billion per day to maintain social distancing. Our biggest item in our federal budget is defense. We spend approximately $900 billion per year on defense. That means in the next nine days, we will spend as much staying in place as we spend on our largest budget item for the whole year. How long is that sustainable? Not long.

Unless you can show me how $3 trillion per month is sustainable, I must conclude that social distancing must end in the not-to-distant future. When we do, COVID-19 will be waiting for us. Social distancing cannot eradicate the virus. It can only push it off to some point into the not-to-distant future. All these lives we are supposedly saving now will die then. We haven't saved any lives. We broke the bank with a non-solution.

We need a solution, not a $100 billion per day stalling tactic. Science tells us what that solution is. Herd immunity. That will eradicate the virus. Social distancing won't. What is the cost of obtaining herd immunity? It is the cost of protecting the vulnerable populations while the virus blows through the non-vulnerable populations. I don't know how much that would cost but I am sure it is a fraction of the $3 trillion we are spending on shelter in place. And, since we are protecting the vulnerable during the crisis and then letting them return to their normal lives once this is over, then we are actually saving lives.
Stay at home orders are like a temporary stay of execution. Once it expires (as it must due to it being unsustainable), then people die. We haven't saved lives. Focusing on protecting the vulnerable and letting herd immunity develop is like a pardon. Lives will be saved. People will be temporarily protected when they need to be protected. Then they won't need to be protected because the threat will be eradicated.

So, we can continue spending $3 trillion on a non-solution where the vulnerable are at a huge risk. Or we can spend a lot less doing what nature and science tells us to do to eradicate the threat. I choose doing what science and nature tells us to do. I like the fact that it actually saves lives. And, I like the side benefit that it comes with a price tag we can more likely afford.”

Glad that’s just an opinion from an unknown professor at an unknown university.

 

[RamblingMad]

Great segment on Sky News today called American Reckoning. You can also find it on YouTube. Or watch it on Sky News via PlutoTV. Check it out.

 

[elle21]

Glad that’s just an opinion from an unknown professor at an unknown university.

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean...it’s invalid because I didn’t list his name?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Much like the discussion around lockdown vs stay at home I think open up needs to be specified in more in-depth terms. I'm unaware of any state that is opening up in a sense that it's a free for all once the stay at home order is up but admit I have not studied all 50 states in what they are doing so I may be incorrect in that.

To my knowledge there are however plans for phases in reopening with respects to an entire state or a community or both. I do think it's fair to discuss if a phase within a given state or area of a state may be too aggressive in how many things are allowed and too lax in consideration of the virus. I would however say none of us are necessarily aware of the intimate details of each area within the U.S. that might give more context to a particular situation. Still fair to discuss IMO just at least myself I'm keeping that aspect in mind.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

These are the thoughts and opinions of a professor of economics at a university in Illinois. It’s long but an important read. We must open our country again. Soon. (I also saw a mini documentary from a large dairy farm in MI. The farmer is a friend of a friend and in her words “not an alarmist” He explains that the food supply is already in crisis from this. Our food supply. The people who provide food to your grocery store will be going out of business in a few months. Let that sink in.)


“We are paying $3 trillion per month to maintain social distancing. Now I am all for it if you can answer the following question. How will it save lives?

We obviously cannot afford $3 trillion per month for very long. It is not a matter of wanting to spend the money but a matter of having the money to spend. We don't have the money and we can't borrow the money. Let me put this in perspective. We are spending $100 billion per day to maintain social distancing. Our biggest item in our federal budget is defense. We spend approximately $900 billion per year on defense. That means in the next nine days, we will spend as much staying in place as we spend on our largest budget item for the whole year. How long is that sustainable? Not long.

Unless you can show me how $3 trillion per month is sustainable, I must conclude that social distancing must end in the not-to-distant future. When we do, COVID-19 will be waiting for us. Social distancing cannot eradicate the virus. It can only push it off to some point into the not-to-distant future. All these lives we are supposedly saving now will die then. We haven't saved any lives. We broke the bank with a non-solution.

We need a solution, not a $100 billion per day stalling tactic. Science tells us what that solution is. Herd immunity. That will eradicate the virus. Social distancing won't. What is the cost of obtaining herd immunity? It is the cost of protecting the vulnerable populations while the virus blows through the non-vulnerable populations. I don't know how much that would cost but I am sure it is a fraction of the $3 trillion we are spending on shelter in place. And, since we are protecting the vulnerable during the crisis and then letting them return to their normal lives once this is over, then we are actually saving lives.
Stay at home orders are like a temporary stay of execution. Once it expires (as it must due to it being unsustainable), then people die. We haven't saved lives. Focusing on protecting the vulnerable and letting herd immunity develop is like a pardon. Lives will be saved. People will be temporarily protected when they need to be protected. Then they won't need to be protected because the threat will be eradicated.

So, we can continue spending $3 trillion on a non-solution where the vulnerable are at a huge risk. Or we can spend a lot less doing what nature and science tells us to do to eradicate the threat. I choose doing what science and nature tells us to do. I like the fact that it actually saves lives. And, I like the side benefit that it comes with a price tag we can more likely afford.”

This only works when we know what herd immunity looks like - or if there will be any. Until then, this isn't a solution.

And again, I am not advocating for keeping SIP long term or until there is a vaccine. But "soon" is also up for interpretation.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Every day, all day you seem to have all of the answers.

Why, thank you, but I think you are being too generous.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

So, we can continue spending $3 trillion on a non-solution where the vulnerable are at a huge risk. Or we can spend a lot less doing what nature and science tells us to do to eradicate the threat. I choose doing what science and nature tells us to do. I like the fact that it actually saves lives. And, I like the side benefit that it comes with a price tag we can more likely afford.”

That is a suggestion to do what we are already doing, which he says we can't do. I am confused.

 

[hopemax]

"I don't know how much that would cost but I am sure it is a fraction of the $3 trillion we are spending on shelter in place. "

Nope. No economist worth anything would ask people, to make a decision this important without showing us the peer-reviewed math. Or even the back of the envelope math. Even if you think this is a plausible strategy, I would hope people would demand to see the math.