OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Part IV - II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fireonk

Registered User
Jan 10, 2006
1,920
2,510
I get it, but if NY is at a point that they are sending ventilators to other states, it makes one wonder.

Look, I get it. But just how you say "What choice is there?", so too do I state when it comes to needing to open up the economy. The alternative is Hoovervilles springing up.

Not needing ventilators at this point means we aren't currently overrun in NY (or at least as overrun as was feared.) But, that is a different argument than not getting decimated again. When you still have this many new cases a day (more than any other country is getting in total) and no way of preventing millions of people sitting on each other's laps during the rush hour commutes and no way of accurately testing enough yet the number of deaths would be astronomical in a month.

I know you are of the opinion that no matter what happens there wont be a 2nd lockdown, but thats exactly how you get a 2nd lockdown. The hospitals would be filled up again in no time.

There are plenty of places in the country that are much lower risk that you can start looking at opening things again. But New York? Would just be absolutely catastrophic right now.

Let me hear about some initiative for antibody testing the masses (not directed at you) and being able to test the ones that don't come back as having them and then I think we can at least have some path to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnSandvich

NYR Viper

Registered User
Sep 9, 2007
46,995
16,749
Jacksonville, FL
So here's a question I don't really know the answer to:

With NYS beginning to give away ventilators, does that mean that they had enough for the patients that required them and both they and the Federal govt have done a good job in getting those necessary supplies up to this point?
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Consumer confidence is bolstered by actually being able to go to work, not being actively prevented from going to work. When you have money in your hands, you can do with it as you will. Collecting an unemployment check is not the same thing as being employed. And those benefits eventually run out. And if you have managed to kill off entire industries, what is there for one to do?

Think of the industries which cannot survive with social distancing: Fitness, Food and Beverage, Day Care facilities, Movie theaters, Grocery stores (from the biggest to the smallest), ANY type of sporting activities (from pee wees all the way through pros). The amount of people is virtually incomprehensible. Driving the unemployment rate to over 35% is a staggering amount. 10 years of jobs growth was undone in just a month.

And then when Apple starts to lay off employees because their stores are not meant to operate on 50% capacity and the demand for their product in general is decimated, they then begin to lay off their corporate employees that have been isolating and working from home. And then those people who have been preaching that more patience is needed, are now the ones who scream that the economy needed to be opened sooner rather than later.

Some food for thought. By my office, the Whole Foods today was "temporarily" closed. I have no idea if that was due to someone testing positive and now they need to clean the entire place (best choice) or because as I said, they cannot possibly hope to run on 50% capacity. Think of what happens to the country if the food stores begin to shut down.

As I said, I think that we are basically at the point where the cure is worse than the disease. And the amount of unrest that is coming will be extremely loud. The same people who are inside collecting pay checks will be on the outside demanding the right to work.

I guess I think much of, if not all of that happens if they reopen too by trying to go back to "normal"

Who is going to go to the grocery store without social distancing unless they absolutely need to? If they absolutely need to and there is a spread of the virus, like they contract it there and go to work, and get others sick, back to the exponential infections... I think the grocery stores will all start to, or increase their ability to have people shop from home and pick up or even deliver. They will adapt because there will be more and more demand for shopping from home. Maybe farms will be able to market themselves, set up a viable quick shipping, pick up, drop off infrastructure reducing the need for people to go what we know as traditional grocery stores?

Does Apple really need a brick and mortar store? Or did they do that just to increase their profitability or brand? Couldn't they repurposed those employees, perhaps by bringing some form of manufacturing back to the US? Or perhaps they teach them how to make apps for their phones? Can they set up virtual real time meetings to help their costumers? I just received an email form my doctors saying I could just do appointments virtually for what would be classified I guess as easy to diagnose and prescribe ailments. Again I think that will be something where those companies will adapt.

Sports, I know currently is a giant enterprise, perhaps they too will have to figure out some way to safely allow for them to commence? Maybe they need to wait for real antibody tests? In the mean time could they not have people working on building a better streaming infrastructure in case the demand from the consumer to be there live takes a long time to resurface, if it does at all?

Kids sports, again I do not have the answers, yet I would think if parents felt comfortable allowing for them, and the virus did not spread in some way by allowing it, it would go back to more or less normal, perhaps there is no locker-room in it's current form, perhaps all sports require some sort of face covering, clear face masks, I don't know. Perhaps basically real time testing will be required.

I do not expect things to be the same as they were, normal changes over the generations. We no longer view lots of traditional, or old time stuff the same as we did.
 
Last edited:

Fireonk

Registered User
Jan 10, 2006
1,920
2,510
The other thing I will say on an economic level for New York opening back up. You would essentially be creating a leper city in Manhattan and what used to be the tourist capital of the world will quickly lose that status. All hotels, restaurants near hotels, Broadway shows, tourist traps, etc will basically have no chance.

So you'd still have a significant part of the new york economy never bouncing back AND you would have an overrun healthcare system and massive amounts of deaths.
 

NYSPORTS

back afta dis. . .
Jun 17, 2019
7,993
4,459
Based on the Harvard paper posted earlier, this is the best opportunity to open the economy while the potential for autumn bomb is real.

Open it now b/c i think we’re headed to another lockdown in the Autumn.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Now add on the fact that as they are closed, that also kills more jobs. Summer camps survive on fringes, like restaurants and bard. An entire season without them and you have just killed off an industry.

HS sports keeps kids off the streets. Do away with that and bad things happen. Mentally and physically. Not to mention that at that point, the layoffs start to happen to teachers. And what happens to the kids that had chances to get college scholarships? This is just another small faucet of where the cure becomes deadlier than the disease itself.

Honestly, I’m more in favor of opening things up than most people here but in the grand scheme of things certain things will be more delayed. I’m not ready to open up summer camps just to save that industry and put numerous kids at unnecessary risk. Hopefully they can all get open during the summer but in reality I think certain regions will see more of a delay. I don’t think you can make a blanket statement for everyone everywhere.

I disagree on the sports issue. It sucks, but this spring season is already gone in terms of HS sports. I fully expect most/all to be back by next school year. It sucks but HS kids aren’t going to be starting a season in mid/late May or June and suddenly win a scholarship. Most seniors are probably committed already - maybe some fringe kids miss out. As far as teachers involved - maybe some coaches miss some money but the kids will all be back next year so I don’t think you’ll see massive teacher lay-off.

I’m largely on board with opening things off but that doesn’t mean I’m for throwing all caution to the wind.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I do not expect things to be the same as they were, normal changes over the generations. We no longer view lots of traditional, or old time stuff the same as we did.
I think your scenario is the end of the country. If Apple does not need a brick and mortar store, then what retail does? The adaption, as you have described it, is all well and good, but it also carries with it a 35-50% unemployment factor. Try swallowing that one. And that unemployment has no chance at future employment. Add on to it an entire generation growing up with depression and obesity. I think that there are somethings that are very, very easy to say when one is receiving a paycheck. Or one does not have a 3 year old that is not smiling anymore.

Yes, I do believe that there are people that will never come out of their house again. There are people that will never shake hands again. There are people who will only have their kids home schooled. There are those that will only come out when there is a vaccine that works, which will not be in 2020. But there are those that would run out of the house and lick telephone poles. There are many, many risks to driving a car. But yet most people have decided that the positives outweigh the risks. 60 thousand deaths against 25-35 million unemployed? People have to decide what they want and do not want. And what is worth a risk.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I disagree on the sports issue. It sucks, but this spring season is already gone in terms of HS sports. I fully expect most/all to be back by next school year. It sucks but HS kids aren’t going to be starting a season in mid/late May or June and suddenly win a scholarship. Most seniors are probably committed already - maybe some fringe kids miss out. As far as teachers involved - maybe some coaches miss some money but the kids will all be back next year so I don’t think you’ll see massive teacher lay-off.

I’m largely on board with opening things off but that doesn’t mean I’m for throwing all caution to the wind.
I actually do not disagree with you. Maybe I wrote incorrectly. Or am being melodramatic. Let's put it this way, I agree that when schools are open in fall, HS sports is in full swing. And it would be a mass miscalculation to cancel them or decide not to open schools up. That is what I was mostly talking about.

I am not one to throw caution to the wind, but I also believe that once you start to open things up, the dominoes on social distancing folding on itself starts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barnaby

Oscar Lindberg

Registered User
Dec 14, 2015
15,641
14,463
CA
The country is going to force a hard reboot of the economy within the next few weeks and there's a high chance it will blow up in our faces.

The leaked document about the administrations plan talks a lot about sending kids back to school. People aren't sending their kids back to school if they don't feel safe.

Forcing businesses open while people don't feel safe going out surely can't go south
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,083
12,423
Elmira NY
I mean I understand your point, but if we just let this thing paralyze us with fear about everything forever the economy will never open up again and we will see widespread poverty, hunger and more than likely suicide/crime.

What makes you think I might be paralyzed with fear? Conversely the same argument could be made for those wanting to open things up--that they're the ones who are paralyzed with fear and want to rush back to work because they're afraid the economy is going to die. I think I'm more concerned about doing this right the first time. There were less deaths today--it dropped to 606 in NYS--hopefully it drops significantly again tomorrow though having looked at trends in Italy and Spain--sometimes it plateaus at a certain level for a while before it rises or drops again. But really I think if we do this right we could mitigate any second wave and if we do it wrong we're probably going to get hit hard by a second wave and the people who pay the price for that won't be just older people who get it and die--the much larger % of people who actually have got it is that working age group of 18 to 49 and yeah probably they survive but they still spread it around and not just to old people but to the first responders and the nurses and doctors in the hospitals who pretty much have already had the shit kicked out of them and badly need a break. I think a lot of people are taking those front line people for granted.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
I think your scenario is the end of the country. If Apple does not need a brick and mortar store, then what retail does? The adaption, as you have described it, is all well and good, but it also carries with it a 35-50% unemployment factor. Try swallowing that one. And that unemployment has no chance at future employment. Add on to it an entire generation growing up with depression and obesity. I think that there are somethings that are very, very easy to say when one is receiving a paycheck. Or one does not have a 3 year old that is not smiling anymore.

Yes, I do believe that there are people that will never come out of their house again. There are people that will never shake hands again. There are people who will only have their kids home schooled. There are those that will only come out when there is a vaccine that works, which will not be in 2020. But there are those that would run out of the house and lick telephone poles. There are many, many risks to driving a car. But yet most people have decided that the positives outweigh the risks. 60 thousand deaths against 25-35 million unemployed? People have to decide what they want and do not want. And what is worth a risk.

I think you missed my general point, companies will adapt to the changing demands of their consumers even when there is no social distancing or a stay at home order is in effect.

Certain industries will have a much more difficult time than others adapting to their consumers not wanted to risk getting sick, and some of them may not find a way to do so.

Perhaps government gets their act together and can figure out a real nation wide infrastructure plan to reduce unemployment? (Unlikely given the partisan and greed based nature yet perhaps at some point)

Just opening everything up and telling people all is now fine does not equate to people believing that and going right back to what they were doing. If the consumer does not trust and spend, (whether they are worried about getting sick, or not trusting they can spend that money due to a poor economic environment) the rise in unemployment is not going to cease.
 

Oscar Lindberg

Registered User
Dec 14, 2015
15,641
14,463
CA
Conversely the same argument could be made for those wanting to open things up--that they're the ones who are paralyzed with fear and want to rush back to work because they're afraid the economy is going to die. I think I'm more concerned about doing this right the first time.
That's exactly what is happening right now at the levels where decisions are being made. Worried about the short term, and not the long term

Can't imagine why they'd be worried about the short term....
 

NYR Viper

Registered User
Sep 9, 2007
46,995
16,749
Jacksonville, FL
What makes you think I might be paralyzed with fear? Conversely the same argument could be made for those wanting to open things up--that they're the ones who are paralyzed with fear and want to rush back to work because they're afraid the economy is going to die. I think I'm more concerned about doing this right the first time. There were less deaths today--it dropped to 606 in NYS--hopefully it drops significantly again tomorrow though having looked at trends in Italy and Spain--sometimes it plateaus at a certain level for a while before it rises or drops again. But really I think if we do this right we could mitigate any second wave and if we do it wrong we're probably going to get hit hard by a second wave and the people who pay the price for that won't be just older people who get it and die--the much larger % of people who actually have got it is that working age group of 18 to 49 and yeah probably they survive but they still spread it around and not just to old people but to the first responders and the nurses and doctors in the hospitals who pretty much have already had the shit kicked out of them and badly need a break. I think a lot of people are taking those front line people for granted.

I think we have a miss-communication. You're speaking specifically of NYC/S. I am not. I'm speaking of the thousands of other cities/towns throughout the US that don't have this same issue getting back on their feet faster
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barnaby

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I think you missed my general point, companies will adapt to the changing demands of their consumers even when there is no social distancing or a stay at home order is in effect.
I got your point. But my point is that while yes, some companies will adapt, but some will only be able to adapt certain segments of their business. An some will not be able to adapt at all.
Certain industries will have a much more difficult time than others adapting to their consumers not wanted to risk getting sick, and some of them may not find a way to do so.
Which leads to a 35-50% unemployment rate.
Perhaps government gets their act together and can figure out a real nation wide infrastructure plan to reduce unemployment? (Unlikely given the partisan and greed based nature yet perhaps at some point)
Here is where you are missing my point. Yes, something needs to be done to reduce it. But there is no way to make it a meaningful enough number to possibly mitigate such a high percentage. There is also not nearly enough money to support such a high percentage. Which means that unemployment benefits will run out for people quicker.
Just opening everything up and telling people all is now fine does not equate to people believing that and going right back to what they were doing. If the consumer does not trust and spend, (whether they are worried about getting sick, or not trusting they can spend that money due to a poor economic environment) the rise in unemployment is not going to cease.
I have never suggested opening up everything on May 1 and telling people that everything is fine. Eventually the not trusting to spend will be much, much more due to being unemployed rather than fear of getting sick.
 

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
Forcing businesses open while people don't feel safe going out surely can't go south
I agree that you cannot force anything open. But there is a world of difference between forcing open and not giving a small business a chance at anything other than folding.
Can't imagine why they'd be worried about the short term....
And I cannot believe that no thought is being done on thinking about the long term at all.

Like I said (this is not directed at you), it is far easier to play the patient game when you are collecting pay checks. It becomes much more hard to do, when the pay checks stop, there is no prospect for work and your children stop smiling.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Thanks! So it was a change in treatment

I do not know, just something I read which seems like a plausible reason, at least partly. My guess the difference in request versus need may have come down to a combination of something like that, plus the effect of social distance rules, stay at home, and what the infection rate was at the time versus what is turned out to be given the steps they took.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
I don’t totally get why we keep extending the date in NY for example... I feel like it should be a week to week thing. I’m not suggesting everything goes back to normal next week but what is served by making proclamations about a month or more ahead?
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
I'll go back to just posting stuff that I am reading in case anyone is interested. (I'll do my best to limit it to stuff that should not be that controversial)

How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

How the Horrific 1918 Flu Spread Across America | History | Smithsonian Magazine

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act

A super long read which I have not finished yet. For the history buffs. It's a PDF.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ontext=govhp&usg=AOvVaw3ImVDX1x3mP9Y_Fbr3WW_I
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYR Viper

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
I think it’s obvious that a data based reopening makes the most sense. There are places around the country that could reopen today and there are places that can’t... maybe a few weeks or a couple months from now a place like NYC can begin rolling out some type of a controlled opening.

I don’t think it’s realistic that we flip a switch tomorrow and reopen everything. I also don’t think it’s realistic to keep the whole country on lock down for 6 months or more until we think every case of CoVid is gone and we have no risk. It would crush our economy. It would crush the world economy. That’s not insignificant. Add to that people not getting surgeries they need, rides in drugs, alcohol, depression etc... Eventually we can possibly get to a place here when we can continue to support/quarantine high risk people, people who can work from home continue to do so, but eventually a lot of people are going to have to get back to work. Wear your mask/gloves.
 
Last edited:

GordonGecko

First Ping Pong Ball
Oct 28, 2010
9,049
1,030
New York City
I don’t totally get why we keep extending the date in NY for example... I feel like it should be a week to week thing. I’m not suggesting everything goes back to normal next week but what is served by making proclamations about a month or more ahead?
Yeah it makes no sense. We're coming down from the peak now, and that's not going to take 4 weeks. It's time to start phasing in a return to public for most people - we just need to have mandatory face masks on all public transportation, local to international and massively ramped up testing
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barnaby

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Not needing ventilators at this point means we aren't currently overrun in NY (or at least as overrun as was feared.) But, that is a different argument than not getting decimated again. When you still have this many new cases a day (more than any other country is getting in total) and no way of preventing millions of people sitting on each other's laps during the rush hour commutes and no way of accurately testing enough yet the number of deaths would be astronomical in a month.

I know you are of the opinion that no matter what happens there wont be a 2nd lockdown, but thats exactly how you get a 2nd lockdown. The hospitals would be filled up again in no time.

There are plenty of places in the country that are much lower risk that you can start looking at opening things again. But New York? Would just be absolutely catastrophic right now.

Let me hear about some initiative for antibody testing the masses (not directed at you) and being able to test the ones that don't come back as having them and then I think we can at least have some path to it.

But can’t a bunch of those workers that commute to Manhattan work from home?

There is a bunch of things you can do. Just issue guidelines and recommend companies to instruct all workers who can perform their work from home to do so. In today’s PC society most would comply. And which office worker can’t just as well work from home efficiently today?

Put up guards and only allow 50% capacity in the subway. Whatever.

Sweden isn’t closed at all, they have only banned public gatherings of more than 50 people. Granted Stockholm is not Manhattan 2 in any way or form, but in terms of crowdedness the soft guidelines recommending people to work from home and to avoid unnecessary trips, as well as that everyone with any kind of flu symptoms must stay at home, has easily reduced the crowdedness with like 75%.
 

GunkWinger

Registered User
Oct 21, 2008
153
99
CT
Yeah it makes no sense. We're coming down from the peak now, and that's not going to take 4 weeks. It's time to start phasing in a return to public for most people - we just need to have mandatory face masks on all public transportation, local to international and massively ramped up testing

Maybe they know right now that they dont have the resources/tests to allow that yet? My guess as to why they might not be going week to week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad