How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[the_fixer]

Meanwhile here in Colorado....

https://castlerocknewspress.net/stories/castle-rock-business-draws-crowd-against-public-health-orders,29872

Supposedly a 2 hour wait to get a table and standing room only.

They had an interview with the owners and they were talking about how they are not going to be forced to wear masks because it infringes on there freedom and if it results in an outbreak that all of their customers are all adults an ok with it.

This looks like a photograph that could have been taken in May 2019, not May 2020.

This makes me wonder if this is one part of one state, what other similar disregard is taking place elsewhere? Opening a restaurant like this and having this many people enter the premises and then continuing to serve them is pretty much outright pandemic denial. It's a miniature "super spreader" event. There is no social distancing, no masks, no hand sanitiser. Even if there were masks and hand sanitiser, it would still be tragic because those things are very much secondary to social distancing.

I could only see the photograph, I couldn't see any text with the article here in the UK. Was there any mention of the police shutting it down and the owners being fined, or is this totally fine in Colorado?

I've just quickly Googled and had a read of this article - https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-state-by-state-guide-to-coronavirus-lockdowns-11584749351

It seems like most states are now unlocked and everything written in that article seems very much open to interpretation, so I'd bet that people that aren't cautious are just carrying on as per the Colorado restaurant in @the_fixer 's post.

========

Here in the UK, we're opening up. The Prime Minister announced last night on national TV are bunch of stuff that didn't really mean anything, hinted at lockdown being lifted in the future if things go well and certainly didn't say that lockdown was lifted entirely and instantaneously. The result?

The public transport network in parts of London was overcrowded this morning, worse than the Colorado restaurant above, there are way more people on the streets and in parks as we can now exercise (i.e. fck about outdoors) as much as we want rather than just for 30 minutes per day and there's a load more traffic on the roads as people are now allowed to drive anywhere in order to go for a walk.

Also, if people promise to maintain a distance of 2 metres (6 feet 6 inches) they can meet other people from outside their home, as long as group size doesn't exceed 2 people at any one time. These rules are so vague and easily open to abuse that they're basically un-policeable and have just opened to floodgates to a second wave. So many people will now be hanging around and meeting up in groups in "secret" because the very limited number of police simply cannot be everywhere at once.

Restaurants are supposed to be curbside / takeout only in Colorado at this point but several have opened up in defiance, some have been shutdown by the state but it is a slow process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nereo]

Oh I agree with that, we have no idea. But folks are going to live their lives as they see fit. Some are going to be really conservative and some are going to say IDGAF and go back to normal as well as everything in between. People will die, but life will also go on in our "new normal".

This is why I worry about a 'crisis of confidence'.  If the IDGAF crowd causes a spike in cases and deaths, it's going to further erode trust in the very businesses which rely on lots of in-person customers.  If there is a sizable percentage of conservative folks out there that won't return to "business as usual" until they feel safe, then this economic hardship could drag out far longer than it needs to.  We've seen it before.

Yesterday over Mother's Day videochats we discussed with our various family members whether we should have our family reunion-vacation as planned in early July - the general consensus was no one was willing to commit to buying plane tix, booking hotel rooms etc. at this time.  I'm sure conversations like this are going on all over the place.

[kenmoremmm]

here in very liberal puget sound, i observed a clear breakdown in all social distancing practices. i'm quite certain that most of america will be at this point within the next month. warm weather. locked in. not happening. sorry.

[Plina]

Oh I agree with that, we have no idea. But folks are going to live their lives as they see fit. Some are going to be really conservative and some are going to say IDGAF and go back to normal as well as everything in between. People will die, but life will also go on in our "new normal".

This is why I worry about a 'crisis of confidence'.  If the IDGAF crowd causes a spike in cases and deaths, it's going to further erode trust in the very businesses which rely on lots of in-person customers.  If there is a sizable percentage of conservative folks out there that won't return to "business as usual" until they feel safe, then this economic hardship could drag out far longer than it needs to.  We've seen it before.

Yesterday over Mother's Day videochats we discussed with our various family members whether we should have our family reunion-vacation as planned in early July - the general consensus was no one was willing to commit to buying plane tix, booking hotel rooms etc. at this time.  I'm sure conversations like this are going on all over the place.

I agree about the reluctance. Personally, I feel very reluctant towards going to a restaurant because I know there a certain percentage of IDGAF persons out there. Also I don’t think it is realistic to expect everything will get back to ”normal”. When the unemployment rises people don’t have the same amount to spend or choose not to spend as the employmentsituation is shaky.

I have basically cancelled all thoughts about a vacation outside of the country this year.

[Telecaster]

But less economic damage.

In a few years when all is done and dusted and people can look at this in the cold light of rationality (rather than through the lens of fear), we can assess the final death toll and economic toll, do some QALY calculations and see which approach was the preferable one.

Actually, it appears the economic damage in Sweden will be about the same was other countries in Europe.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-to-contract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html

[JGS1980]

But less economic damage.

In a few years when all is done and dusted and people can look at this in the cold light of rationality (rather than through the lens of fear), we can assess the final death toll and economic toll, do some QALY calculations and see which approach was the preferable one.

Actually, it appears the economic damage in Sweden will be about the same was other countries in Europe.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-to-contract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

[mathlete]

Yeah, Swedish exports as a percentage of GDP is around 30%, with it's main partners being it's EU neighbors and the United States. Lockdowns elsewhere will hurt any participant in the globalized economy.

And of course, if it turns out that there was excess death that could have been prevented, that takes consumers out of the economy.

[Free Spirit]

here in very liberal puget sound, i observed a clear breakdown in all social distancing practices. i'm quite certain that most of america will be at this point within the next month. warm weather. locked in. not happening. sorry.

I'm in the deep south so there's already a high percentage of deniers here and this has been my experience as well. I work in an area that is heavily dependent on tourism and if I were to compare the past week with last years numbers I would be willing to bet that it's busier now even with the distancing guidelines. Memorial Day weekend is usually the kick off to the season but with people out of work and schools closed early, people are heading here to celebrate. A great majority have decided it's over and that we won or they are eager to go out and announce to the world what a big hoax it was to begin with.

 I wouldn't step foot in a restaurant right now, in fact, I've convinced my boss to let me do admin work from home so I don't have to go in. I work in a restaurant that's part of a hotel. The customers aren't wearing masks, half of the staff is incompetent at wearing them and even though the company laid out strict rules about it, nobody is enforcing it. This is in the number 1 rated restaurant for our area and it's fine dining. It's a total shit show and I'm thinking of quitting altogether to be honest. I'm totally freaked out at the level of flippancy that's happening right now.

[mathlete]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

[JGS1980]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, no near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

[ender]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

I don't think anyone can really determine whether or not:

• Sweden will hit meaningful herd immunity
• Team-lockdown countries can reopen meaningfully anytime soon
• The economic medium/long term impact of either choice

[waltworks]

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

And if we had to pick teams, I guess I'd be on team open stuff up - but likewise, I'm rooting for whatever outcome is best in the long run. I'd love it if Sweden is doing it right. But I'm not going to "double down" to the extent that I refuse to recognize that thus far Sweden doesn't look to be in any better shape than anyone else.

We will probably never really know, given the ad-hoc mixtures of policies in different places with different climates/demographics/economies. So probably the whole thing will just be a political football forever, which is a bummer.

-W

[mathlete]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

I don't think anyone can really determine whether or not:

• Sweden will hit meaningful herd immunity
• Team-lockdown countries can reopen meaningfully anytime soon
• The economic medium/long term impact of either choice

For sure. Which is why I've tried to focus on the virus itself, and the spread. Based on my research, it largely seems to be as deadly as advertised. Assuming world leaders want to stay world leaders (i.e., they have the economy's interest at heart), I'm guessing that what most countries are doing fits in a reasonable range of rational responses. Say that five times fast!

The next thing I'm interested is how "opening up" affects the reproduction rate.

[Wings5]

Why are we surprised that people aren’t following social distancing guidelines? We all speed, we all take extra napkins from the restaurant to stuff in our glove box, and everyone has picked their nose when people aren’t looking.

[mathlete]

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

And if we had to pick teams, I guess I'd be on team open stuff up - but likewise, I'm rooting for whatever outcome is best in the long run. I'd love it if Sweden is doing it right. But I'm not going to "double down" to the extent that I refuse to recognize that thus far Sweden doesn't look to be in any better shape than anyone else.

We will probably never really know, given the ad-hoc mixtures of policies in different places with different climates/demographics/economies. So probably the whole thing will just be a political football forever, which is a bummer.

-W

Perhaps you can take some comfort in knowing that it would have become a political football no matter what. Vaccines are perhaps the single greatest public health victory since sanitation became a thing. And those are still turned into a political football.

[OtherJen]

Oh I agree with that, we have no idea. But folks are going to live their lives as they see fit. Some are going to be really conservative and some are going to say IDGAF and go back to normal as well as everything in between. People will die, but life will also go on in our "new normal".

This is why I worry about a 'crisis of confidence'.  If the IDGAF crowd causes a spike in cases and deaths, it's going to further erode trust in the very businesses which rely on lots of in-person customers.  If there is a sizable percentage of conservative folks out there that won't return to "business as usual" until they feel safe, then this economic hardship could drag out far longer than it needs to.  We've seen it before.

Yesterday over Mother's Day videochats we discussed with our various family members whether we should have our family reunion-vacation as planned in early July - the general consensus was no one was willing to commit to buying plane tix, booking hotel rooms etc. at this time.  I'm sure conversations like this are going on all over the place.

My extended family has already cancelled our late July reunion. First cancellation in 74 years.

So many festivals and tourist attractions in my state are either cancelled this year or have delayed opening until June, at least. Even if the state govt said "fuck it, let's allow everyone to open if they want, no restrictions," things would be far from business as usual.

[nereo]

Oh I agree with that, we have no idea. But folks are going to live their lives as they see fit. Some are going to be really conservative and some are going to say IDGAF and go back to normal as well as everything in between. People will die, but life will also go on in our "new normal".

This is why I worry about a 'crisis of confidence'.  If the IDGAF crowd causes a spike in cases and deaths, it's going to further erode trust in the very businesses which rely on lots of in-person customers.  If there is a sizable percentage of conservative folks out there that won't return to "business as usual" until they feel safe, then this economic hardship could drag out far longer than it needs to.  We've seen it before.

Yesterday over Mother's Day videochats we discussed with our various family members whether we should have our family reunion-vacation as planned in early July - the general consensus was no one was willing to commit to buying plane tix, booking hotel rooms etc. at this time.  I'm sure conversations like this are going on all over the place.

My extended family has already cancelled our late July reunion. First cancellation in 74 years.

So many festivals and tourist attractions in my state are either cancelled this year or have delayed opening until June, at least. Even if the state govt said "fuck it, let's allow everyone to open if they want, no restrictions," things would be far from business as usual.

Yeah.... I live in a state where a huge chunk of the economy is summer tourism.  Many, many businesses do >70% of their business in the ~100 days between memorial Day and Labor Day... so much so that many of them don't even both opening during the winter, or run severely reduced "off-season hours".

Memorial day already looks like a bust, with lodging vacancies at all-time highs and few front-facing businesses allowed to open.  We're hoping for a big turnaround by 4th of July, but that seems far from certain as many families are canceling summer plans right now.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, no near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

[mathlete]

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

A sustained reproduction rate of less than 1 will get a virus to zero after sufficient time.

[JGS1980]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, or near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

Sorry, that should have said "ZERO, OR NEAR ZERO"

Would this be very hard to do? Yes.  Does it mean we shouldn't bother to try?

Even getting the new cases down to <100 per day would save thousands of lives.

I my opinion, a "functioning society" should do it's utmost to save the members of that society. To throw them under the bus is simply cruel.

It appears our current policy is to say, "aw shucks, we slowed down a bit for 6 weeks, lets just open things up again despite still getting 25000 new cases per day".  I don't think this policy is reasonable at all.

[JGS1980]

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

A sustained reproduction rate of less than 1 will get a virus to zero after sufficient time.

I agree with Mathlete again, however we had not achieved this before opening up in many states. This will lead to increasing infection rates again, which will then merit ANOTHER lockdown, which will just repeat until a vaccine is available.

That is why I believe a total lock-down early on would be best. Better 6 weeks of pain than 6 months, which is where we are all headed, together.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, or near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

Sorry, that should have said "ZERO, OR NEAR ZERO"

Would this be very hard to do? Yes.  Does it mean we shouldn't bother to try?

Even getting the new cases down to <100 per day would save thousands of lives.

I my opinion, a "functioning society" should do it's utmost to save the members of that society. To throw them under the bus is simply cruel.

It appears our current policy is to say, "aw shucks, we slowed down a bit for 6 weeks, lets just open things up again despite still getting 25000 new cases per day".  I don't think this policy is reasonable at all.

Have you thought any of your wishful thinking through, though?

If the government announced a 4-6 strict lockdown to be enforced by the National Guard, can you imagine the run on banks? Grocery stores?

What about healthcare workers that *need* to be out? Doctors? Nurses? STNAs? Janitors?

What about service workers that *need* to be out? Wiremen? Plumbers? HVAC contractors?

What about the food supply chain? Farmers? Production plants? Packing plants?

What about transportation? Bus drivers? Subway operators? Truck drivers?

What about government services? Water departments? Street departments? Police? Fire? Sanitation?

I could go on and on and on and on. State governments did stay-at-home orders of all but "essential" businesses and that still meant 50-60% of the economy had its lights on. 

To think we could have gone down to near zero and locked everyone inside is just wishful over-simplification that ignores any sense of reality.

The best part? Even if we did this, it takes one person traveling from abroad to start it all over again.

[wenchsenior]

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

A sustained reproduction rate of less than 1 will get a virus to zero after sufficient time.

I agree with Mathlete again, however we had not achieved this before opening up in many states. This will lead to increasing infection rates again, which will then merit ANOTHER lockdown, which will just repeat until a vaccine is available.

That is why I believe a total lock-down early on would be best. Better 6 weeks of pain than 6 months, which is where we are all headed, together.

100% agree. One of the main reasons I think this would have been the best course of action is that Congress is only impelled to act in the face of a crisis, or what feels like a crisis.  The first couple months of the pandemic are when you have the most political unity, and the greatest will to take the pain and pour money out to sustain the economy. The longer this drags on , the less support there will be from Congress to stimulate the economy (one of govt's primary functions during an economic crisis). We already see this...daily death tolls are becoming normalized, elements of both parties are starting to politicize the crisis and the subgroups within the economy that might see any further aid, etc. The longer the situation drags on, the less our gov't will be capable of mobilizing to really offer help.

The gov't wasted a large amount of opportunity offered by even the haphazard initial lockdown, in terms of ramping up production of testing capacity and having consistent messaging on guidelines for re-opening.  Congress acted very fast during the first month, but this month the shilly-shallying has begun.  Now we are going to go into a protracted and unnecessary whack-a-mole phase that will only prolong the recession and cause many more people to die needlessly.

[frugalnacho]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, no near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

Not that I trust the official numbers coming out of China...but have you compared our numbers to theirs? Even if they are understating the number of cases and deaths by a factor of 20 they have fared better than the USA, and that doesn't even account for the population difference.  The US approach is just wrong. 

[JGS1980]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, or near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

Sorry, that should have said "ZERO, OR NEAR ZERO"

Would this be very hard to do? Yes.  Does it mean we shouldn't bother to try?

Even getting the new cases down to <100 per day would save thousands of lives.

I my opinion, a "functioning society" should do it's utmost to save the members of that society. To throw them under the bus is simply cruel.

It appears our current policy is to say, "aw shucks, we slowed down a bit for 6 weeks, lets just open things up again despite still getting 25000 new cases per day".  I don't think this policy is reasonable at all.

Have you thought any of your wishful thinking through, though?

If the government announced a 4-6 strict lockdown to be enforced by the National Guard, can you imagine the run on banks? Grocery stores?

What about healthcare workers that *need* to be out? Doctors? Nurses? STNAs? Janitors?

What about service workers that *need* to be out? Wiremen? Plumbers? HVAC contractors?

What about the food supply chain? Farmers? Production plants? Packing plants?

What about transportation? Bus drivers? Subway operators? Truck drivers?

What about government services? Water departments? Street departments? Police? Fire? Sanitation?

I could go on and on and on and on. State governments did stay-at-home orders of all but "essential" businesses and that still meant 50-60% of the economy had its lights on. 

To think we could have gone down to near zero and locked everyone inside is just wishful over-simplification that ignores any sense of reality.

The best part? Even if we did this, it takes one person traveling from abroad to start it all over again.

You're being obnoxious. Stop being obnoxious.

Yes, I like to think things through. Nowhere in my previous message did I suggest everyone just staying home and starving to death. I'm done responding to you now as I see that you are going to extreme lengths to make a thoughtful discussion impossible.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Not that I trust the official numbers coming out of China...but have you compared our numbers to theirs? Even if they are understating the number of cases and deaths by a factor of 20 they have fared better than the USA, and that doesn't even account for the population difference.  The US approach is just wrong.

Fixed that for you.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

You're being obnoxious. Stop being obnoxious.

Yes, I like to think things through. Nowhere in my previous message did I suggest everyone just staying home and starving to death. I'm done responding to you now as I see that you are going to extreme lengths to make a thoughtful discussion impossible.

I'm not being obnoxious.  I'm asking the necessary questions that follow from your suggestion.

You said you support "Wuhan-style" lockdown enforced by the "National Guard."  And I'm asking the questions that, in my opinion, absolutely have to be asked when investigating that suggestion.

Calling me "obnoxious" instead of answering my questions is just a convenient way for you to dodge the unfortunate realities that many of our governors also faced several months ago.

[SuperNintendo Chalmers]

here in very liberal puget sound, i observed a clear breakdown in all social distancing practices. i'm quite certain that most of america will be at this point within the next month. warm weather. locked in. not happening. sorry.

I'm in the deep south so there's already a high percentage of deniers here and this has been my experience as well. I work in an area that is heavily dependent on tourism and if I were to compare the past week with last years numbers I would be willing to bet that it's busier now even with the distancing guidelines. Memorial Day weekend is usually the kick off to the season but with people out of work and schools closed early, people are heading here to celebrate. A great majority have decided it's over and that we won or they are eager to go out and announce to the world what a big hoax it was to begin with.

 I wouldn't step foot in a restaurant right now, in fact, I've convinced my boss to let me do admin work from home so I don't have to go in. I work in a restaurant that's part of a hotel. The customers aren't wearing masks, half of the staff is incompetent at wearing them and even though the company laid out strict rules about it, nobody is enforcing it. This is in the number 1 rated restaurant for our area and it's fine dining. It's a total shit show and I'm thinking of quitting altogether to be honest. I'm totally freaked out at the level of flippancy that's happening right now.

Me too.  And similar to what others have said, I think the floodgates are opening and more and more people will openly flaunt/disregard transmission mitigation practices en masse, regardless of political affiliation.  There also seems to be a small but growing sense of ridicule/hostility directed to those who do wear facial coverings, etc., and this will increase as well. 

I think we're past the point where any logical discussion will change people's behavior.  It seems the only thing to do is to try to hunker down if you can and ride out the potential second waves/shutdowns, and try to keep your loved ones safe.  Great if you have the means to do so.  If you don't, or have to go to work and interact with people, not so much.

[frugalnacho]

Ok, I guess large red font negates the rest of my post.   Do you really believe China has proportionally as many infections as the USA? That would give them nearly 6M cases and 350k dead. Quite a bit different from the 83k cases and 4.6k dead. Do you really think their lockdown was that much of a failure and they are hiding that many cases and deaths?  I don't trust their official numbers, but that just sounds insane to me. 

[nereo]

You're being obnoxious. Stop being obnoxious.

Yes, I like to think things through. Nowhere in my previous message did I suggest everyone just staying home and starving to death. I'm done responding to you now as I see that you are going to extreme lengths to make a thoughtful discussion impossible.

I'm not being obnoxious. 

Personally, I find magnifying a specific clause in someone's message in giant red font, followed by "fixed that for you" to be obnoxious.  The poster clearly mentioned that the official numbers could be off by a factor of 20 and they would still be doing better than us by at least the public-health metrics.

As for everythjing else in your list - yes, certainly they need to nbe considered.  But by all accounts we haven't had a strict lock-down in this country.  We allowed many businesses to remain open under the justification that it's vital to the business or sector, rather than society in general. For reasons we can endlessly debate we didn't do a more thorough shutdown.  It isn't that we DON'T know what sectors are absolutely vital for the short-term functioning of scoeity, it's that we chose not to take such an extreme measure.  Other regions and countries have. 

[Michael in ABQ]

I'm on a military base and we've been in practicing social distancing for a couple of months (with reasonably high compliance given that it's the military). However, the sentiment among most people is that we're generally young and healthy and might as well just let it run through everyone and be done with it. The Theodore Roosevelt had 5,000 sailors aboard and 1,000 tested positive with 60% of those asymptomatic. There was one death. We've already had a death on base from natural causes a few months ago and the reality is that with a population that's 90% under the age of 40 and generally healthy with few comorbidities there would likely only be a couple of deaths. I'm still enforcing social distancing among my Soldiers but the only time we're wearing masks is if we're in a vehicle. The wet bulb temperature is 90-95 degrees during the day (translation hot and humid AF) so very few people are wearing masks aside from the workers in the dining facility.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Personally, I find magnifying a specific clause in someone's message in giant red font, followed by "fixed that for you" to be obnoxious.  The poster clearly mentioned that the official numbers could be off by a factor of 20 and they would still be doing better than us by at least the public-health metrics.

My doing this was in response to another poster, and not to JSG, who called me "obnoxious" merely because I asked questions. But this is not the first time I've been called obnoxious so I guess I'll wear the label.

Ok, I guess large red font negates the rest of my post.   Do you really believe China has proportionally as many infections as the USA? That would give them nearly 6M cases and 350k dead. Quite a bit different from the 83k cases and 4.6k dead. Do you really think their lockdown was that much of a failure and they are hiding that many cases and deaths?  I don't trust their official numbers, but that just sounds insane to me.

I do not trust anything -- not a single thing -- coming out of China for the same reason I do not trust anything come out of Russia.  They are a communist nation-state with zero free press and they throw minorities and dissidents into gulags. Economically, watch "The China Hustle."  It's a country of shadows and mirrors from top to bottom.

No, I do not believe anything coming out of China. Yes, I believe they would be lying 100 fold (or worse) so that other countries still felt confident doing business with them.

[nereo]

Personally, I find magnifying a specific clause in someone's message in giant red font, followed by "fixed that for you" to be obnoxious.  The poster clearly mentioned that the official numbers could be off by a factor of 20 and they would still be doing better than us by at least the public-health metrics.

My doing this was in response to another poster, and not to JSG, who called me "obnoxious" merely because I asked questions. But this is not the first time I've been called obnoxious so I guess I'll wear the label.

How about we just avoid it entirely?  Discussion seems to flow better that way, no?

No, I do not believe anything coming out of China. Yes, I believe they would be lying 100 fold (or worse) so that other countries still felt confident doing business with them.

I suppose time will tell, but I'm doubtful that 1) China has the ability to cover up something that large and 2) I don't understand what the end-game would be for China.  Certainly the can't keep lying by an order-of-magnitude indefinitely and keep foreign countries in the dark. Even if they could keep what's happening to their own populace under wraps (and it didn't seem to work for more than a few weeks back around New Years) foreign-nationals living or doing business in China would be another whole ball of wax. Seems to me that would be a very short-term gain for very long-term pain.

Like their economic numbers I'm sure they try to fudge them, but they've got to be within the rhelm of possibility or the lie won't list long at all.

Like I said... time will tell.  If China really does have the level of mortalities you suggest we'll know about it soon enough.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I suppose time will tell, but I'm doubtful that 1) China has the ability to cover up something that large and 2) I don't understand what the end-game would be for China.  Certainly the can't keep lying by an order-of-magnitude indefinitely and keep foreign countries in the dark. Even if they could keep what's happening to their own populace under wraps (and it didn't seem to work for more than a few weeks back around New Years) foreign-nationals living or doing business in China would be another whole ball of wax. Seems to me that would be a very short-term gain for very long-term pain.

Like their economic numbers I'm sure they try to fudge them, but they've got to be within the rhelm of possibility or the lie won't list long at all.

Like I said... time will tell.  If China really does have the level of mortalities you suggest we'll know about it soon enough.

China has (mostly) been successful covering up gulags with millions of people for almost 70 years now.  To think we are ever going to hear the truth about COVID from their government does not hold water for me.

[nereo]

I suppose time will tell, but I'm doubtful that 1) China has the ability to cover up something that large and 2) I don't understand what the end-game would be for China.  Certainly the can't keep lying by an order-of-magnitude indefinitely and keep foreign countries in the dark. Even if they could keep what's happening to their own populace under wraps (and it didn't seem to work for more than a few weeks back around New Years) foreign-nationals living or doing business in China would be another whole ball of wax. Seems to me that would be a very short-term gain for very long-term pain.

Like their economic numbers I'm sure they try to fudge them, but they've got to be within the rhelm of possibility or the lie won't list long at all.

Like I said... time will tell.  If China really does have the level of mortalities you suggest we'll know about it soon enough.

China has (mostly) been successful covering up gulags with millions of people for almost 70 years now.  To think we are ever going to hear the truth about COVID from their government does not hold water for me.

In which case we are left with two possibilities:
1) China has been much more successful at limiting the human cost after being the center of the outbreak, or
2) they have not, and it's all a lie.

If it's #1, that says a great deal about how we could have handled our situation differently.  If it's #2 we could still learn a great deal by comparing how their economy fares relative to our own.

Either way, the next several months should be informative

[Bloop Bloop]

Interesting prospective from the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html

Basically an pandemic ends in 2 ways.

1. Is medically - basically a vaccine or effective treatment.
2. Is socially - we just get used to living with it, and deal with the effects of it long term.

This is definitely I think how many of us are feeling. We just got tired of the fear and uncertainty. We decided that we are going to move past it and we will control what we can and deal with what we cant.

We have reached our limits of lock-down/isolation/emotional stress. Time to move forward as the way we were living before was just not sustainable. We've accepted that avoiding crowds and masking are probably with us for the near future.

I think that former generations who dealt with things like world wars would laugh their asses off at how quickly Americans now excuse themselves for 'reaching their limits'.  If people weren't dying, it really would be comic.

It's hard to ask 100% of the population to lock themselves down for the net benefit of 20%.

[Telecaster]

It's hard to ask 100% of the population to lock themselves down for the net benefit of 20%.

I'd feel like a monster if I was unwilling to make a small sacrifice for 20% of the population. 

[Kris]

It's hard to ask 100% of the population to lock themselves down for the net benefit of 20%.

I'd feel like a monster if I was unwilling to make a small sacrifice for 20% of the population.

Yeah, me, too.

And then there is the hubris of being so convinced one is definitely not going to be part of the 20%.

[ender]

It's hard to ask 100% of the population to lock themselves down for the net benefit of 20%.

I'd feel like a monster if I was unwilling to make a small sacrifice for 20% of the population.

What is a "small" sacrifice to you might be considerably more significant to many other people.

[nereo]

Interesting prospective from the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/health/coronavirus-plague-pandemic-history.html

Basically an pandemic ends in 2 ways.

1. Is medically - basically a vaccine or effective treatment.
2. Is socially - we just get used to living with it, and deal with the effects of it long term.

This is definitely I think how many of us are feeling. We just got tired of the fear and uncertainty. We decided that we are going to move past it and we will control what we can and deal with what we cant.

We have reached our limits of lock-down/isolation/emotional stress. Time to move forward as the way we were living before was just not sustainable. We've accepted that avoiding crowds and masking are probably with us for the near future.

I think that former generations who dealt with things like world wars would laugh their asses off at how quickly Americans now excuse themselves for 'reaching their limits'.  If people weren't dying, it really would be comic.

It's hard to ask 100% of the population to lock themselves down for the net benefit of 20%.

I don’t follow how it only benefits 20% of the population.
We do all sorts of things that don’t benefit us directly, but benefit society in general, thereby benefiting us indirectly.

[Abe]

I think for some of the rural US states, the population at risk is closer to 40% due to the large percent of elderly population, obesity and associated diseases. Even if they don’t die (most obviously won’t), many will have significant short to medium-term disability from hospitalization (even without intubation, critical illness, etc). It’s an unfortunate situation that many of the people at high risk of covid are also high risk of poverty. People are portraying it as these are separate populations but they aren’t. So basically you have several scenarios:
Rich, low risk = stay at home & telecommuting if possible
Rich, high risk = same
Poor, low risk = work or unemployment insurance
Poor, high risk = stay at home, unemployment insurance coverage

The fraction in each category vary from area to area. If states have a framework for monitoring high risk, poorer individuals then its reasonable to open up. Most states in the US do not. The risk of widespread illness in the poorer segments of society (who can least afford illness) is being discounted by many calling for reopening.

[T-Money$]

here in very liberal puget sound, i observed a clear breakdown in all social distancing practices. i'm quite certain that most of america will be at this point within the next month. warm weather. locked in. not happening. sorry.

I'm in the deep south so there's already a high percentage of deniers here and this has been my experience as well. I work in an area that is heavily dependent on tourism and if I were to compare the past week with last years numbers I would be willing to bet that it's busier now even with the distancing guidelines. Memorial Day weekend is usually the kick off to the season but with people out of work and schools closed early, people are heading here to celebrate. A great majority have decided it's over and that we won or they are eager to go out and announce to the world what a big hoax it was to begin with.

 I wouldn't step foot in a restaurant right now, in fact, I've convinced my boss to let me do admin work from home so I don't have to go in. I work in a restaurant that's part of a hotel. The customers aren't wearing masks, half of the staff is incompetent at wearing them and even though the company laid out strict rules about it, nobody is enforcing it. This is in the number 1 rated restaurant for our area and it's fine dining. It's a total shit show and I'm thinking of quitting altogether to be honest. I'm totally freaked out at the level of flippancy that's happening right now.

Me too.  And similar to what others have said, I think the floodgates are opening and more and more people will openly flaunt/disregard transmission mitigation practices en masse, regardless of political affiliation.  There also seems to be a small but growing sense of ridicule/hostility directed to those who do wear facial coverings, etc., and this will increase as well. 

I think we're past the point where any logical discussion will change people's behavior.  It seems the only thing to do is to try to hunker down if you can and ride out the potential second waves/shutdowns, and try to keep your loved ones safe.  Great if you have the means to do so.  If you don't, or have to go to work and interact with people, not so much.

The floodgates are open because the government did not moderate their policies.  In Pennsylvania, the Governor is refusing to open up much of the state.   Several counties (Democratically run) have taken it upon themselves to open up anyway, so the Governor — who with time seems to be less about science and more about his own irrational fears — threatens funding, calls people cowards, etc. 

So the public is fixing the problem for the state politicians.  Whether it be PA or CA or anywhere else, the inability for the state government to act without moderation has caused a collapse in willingness to deal with their irrational and destructive policies.  They could have opened up a bit, here and there, given people and children a break, but no...problem solved.

Of course there will be a significant increase in death.   People will not tolerate a return to lockdown.   

[Gremlin]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, no near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

Seems to have worked for NZ.  Now it looks like they'll open up just about faster than any other nation on earth - and I reckon their economic growth over the next five years will outstrip just about everywhere else on the planet as a result.  They also didn't seem to need a National Guard type approach, just the occasional "eh bro, don't be a dickhead..." from the cops.  And a month without KFC.  It's amazing what can happen when the people have a strong leader who inspires trust to get them through a disaster.

Of course, the longer you argue about whether it's possible, the harder it becomes to implement.

[Seadog]

Sweden experiment boosters, any thoughts?

What I think they would say is that Sweden will still end up ahead "because they are dealing with the pain of achieving herd immunity sooner rather than later". Overall mortality will be very similar in the long run. All the while maintaining a better quality of life for the majority.

AKA They will double down.

I'm largely on team lockdown, but I don't want to root against the Swedish experiment just to be correct. If there is a better path forward, we should know about it.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would much rather Sweden be right. I just don't think they are.

I am actually on team "total lockdown with the National Guard" China style, actually, as I feel this would get us to ZERO infections, no near zero infections in the smallest amount of time (4-6 weeks) leading to the least amount of total deaths and least amount of time in isolation. However, I'm pretty sure this would be a no-go in the USA no matter who was in charge.

This mindset demonstrates the arrogance of some -- that we can defeat a virus to ZERO if we just locked down enough.  That is a complete and total impossibility in a functioning society, both from a scientific and economic standpoint.

Exactly, as I understood it, flattening the curve doesn't necessarily result in fewer infections, just more spread out so that the total number of sick people at the same time are always less than the number of beds available. The price you pay for this of course is that the virus remains a problem for that much longer, and the economic/social hardships and deaths that come with that. Even all those charts they show to demonstrate flattening the curve. The total area under the curve appears to be about the same.

Unless you're proposing completely eliminating the virus from the world small pox style, super lock down would merely delay everything.

I think part of it is also the psychological fallacy of the more you sacrifice, the better off you'll be. The idea that if you just spend enough money on a weight loss program, somehow you can circumvent the unpleasant work of denying yourself food and huffing and puffing up hills. Same idea here. Some people feel that if we just sacrifice enough, do enough damage to the economy, then the virus will go away.

[HBFIRE]

I'd feel like a monster if I was unwilling to make a small sacrifice for 20% of the population.

Unfortunately it's not so clear cut and simple.  The long term death/economic costs of said sacrifice could ending up causing far more devastation than the virus itself, this remains to be seen.  A Depression level event would cause catastrophic consequences and human toll.  A true lock down might end up being the most "monstrous" decision we could make long term.  I'm not stating which decision is best, I'm just pointing out that the consequences of various policy decisions are not really that simplistic.  This is why a more nuanced and surgical approach is likely optimal -- it's not a simple binary choice of "lock down" or "open up".

[Seadog]

Of course there will be a significant increase in death.   People will not tolerate a return to lockdown.

As callous as it is to say, people will tolerate a human cost for their conveniences.

Make cars illegal and mandate everyone bike or walk? No more car deaths, everyone's in way better shape, and it will even be safer since you won't have idiots looking at their cell phone trying to run you down.

However; as a society we have said that the 1/5000 or so risk of death each year from a car, and losing that percent of our drivers and associated health consequences is a price we're willing to pay to zip around at 70 mph in climate controlled comfort. We vote with our actions and our wallets.

Regardless of your stance on the virus, it seems that many people are similarly voting with their feet and lack of social distance, that the risk of catching/spreading/dying from the virus isn't worth the sacrifices demanded and acquiesced to for the first month or two. 

[MudPuppy]

That’s a terrible analogy.

[Wrenchturner]

I'd feel like a monster if I was unwilling to make a small sacrifice for 20% of the population.

Unfortunately it's not so clear cut and simple.  The long term death/economic costs of said sacrifice could ending up causing far more devastation than the virus itself, this remains to be seen.  A Depression level event would cause catastrophic consequences and human toll.  A true lock down might end up being the most "monstrous" decision we could make long term.  I'm not stating which decision is best, I'm just pointing out that the consequences of various policy decisions are not really that simplistic.  This is why a more nuanced and surgical approach is likely optimal -- it's not a simple binary choice of "lock down" or "open up".

Yup.  New Zealand, other controlled countries might experience second/third waves or economic damage related to shutdowns caused by second/third waves.  Sweden should not experience any additional waves if they establish a reasonable herd immunity.

Most of this we will only know in retrospect.

[Telecaster]

Exactly, as I understood it, flattening the curve doesn't necessarily result in fewer infections, just more spread out so that the total number of sick people at the same time are always less than the number of beds available. The price you pay for this of course is that the virus remains a problem for that much longer, and the economic/social hardships and deaths that come with that. Even all those charts they show to demonstrate flattening the curve. The total area under the curve appears to be about the same.

Partially correct.  The point of flattening the curve is so you don't initially overload the medical system, as you point out.  The next step is to then do extensive testing and contact tracing such that clusters can be quickly identified and individuals can be quarantined instead of everybody.

For some reason, the US federal government is disinterested in testing and tracing.  It is not clear to me why this is.  But track and trace is critical to being able to safely open up the economy. 

[Gremlin]

Exactly, as I understood it, flattening the curve doesn't necessarily result in fewer infections, just more spread out so that the total number of sick people at the same time are always less than the number of beds available. The price you pay for this of course is that the virus remains a problem for that much longer, and the economic/social hardships and deaths that come with that. Even all those charts they show to demonstrate flattening the curve. The total area under the curve appears to be about the same.

Partially correct.  The point of flattening the curve is so you don't initially overload the medical system, as you point out.  The next step is to then do extensive testing and contact tracing such that clusters can be quickly identified and individuals can be quarantined instead of everybody.

For some reason, the US federal government is disinterested in testing and tracing.  It is not clear to me why this is.  But track and trace is critical to being able to safely open up the economy.

The White House has made extensive testing a very high priority... for those in the White House - apparently there are several in the West Wing who are tested on a daily basis.  Extensive testing a high priority for the average American?  Not so much...