US economy

[Hadley]

Please don’t let this get political.  I think that most rational people understand that this virus is affiliated with neither political party.

I am concerned about our economy.  I am fortunate in that my family has been able to shelter-in-place for the last two weeks, and will continue to do so until I am advised to do otherwise.  However, I do think that wise people are concerned about the overall damage that is being done to our country during this shutdown.

I think that fear over the virus is leading to a lot of anger, and I get it.  I’m currently livid with one of my acquaintances who decided now was a good time to drive her family south to visit Granny.  Livid.

That said, I don’t think it is evil or greedy to be concerned about our economy.  Corporations aren’t all evil.  Philanthropists don’t exist without money. I’m concerned.

Does anyone else see that this is not a black and white issue?  I would not trade places with our leaders who have to make these decisions.  I’m just praying that they make the right ones...

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Hadley said:

Please don’t let this get political.  I think that most rational people understand that this virus is affiliated with neither political party.

I am concerned about our economy.  I am fortunate in that my family has been able to shelter-in-place for the last two weeks, and will continue to do so until I am advised to do otherwise.  However, I do think that wise people are concerned about the overall damage that is being done to our country during this shutdown.

I think that fear over the virus is leading to a lot of anger, and I get it.  I’m currently livid with one of my acquaintances who decided now was a good time to drive her family south to visit Granny.  Livid.

That said, I don’t think it is evil or greedy to be concerned about our economy.  Corporations aren’t all evil.  Philanthropists don’t exist without money. I’m concerned.

Does anyone else see that this is not a black and white issue?  I would not trade places with our leaders who have to make these decisions.  I’m just praying that they make the right ones...

I think the economic impacts are going to be big.  I just don’t think they will get smaller by ignoring it and hoping it goes away until no one wants to go out because they’re too scared.  
 

for us in Aus we are already in a bad way due to drought and bushfire.  We are strongly tied to China so even if this never hit our shore we were going to feel the impact.  I also think on a scarier level it has the potential to disrupt global stability.

but all that said I lean on the side of an earlier and more solid shutdown then reboot rather than trying to limp along and watching things grow anyway.  

[Bootsie]

I agree that it is a complex situation, and I, too, am glad I am not in some leadership positions.  Any illness or death is unfortunate, for any reason.  However, we cannot get so focused on the worst-possible case scenario or the liability that we cannot function.  We have to have some balance between the costs of actions and the benefits of actions--which is basic economics (and to that I am referring more broadly to economic reasoning not profits of corporations or the macroeconomy).  

Ironically, I have read that one of the reasons few masks have been produced in America is fear of liability if someone uses one but gets ill.  Companies don't want to get sued because their product doesn't perfectly protect people from risk, so they don't produce something that could provide a great deal of protection.  When we start overly focusing on risks without balancing it with the benefits, we ended up with undesirable outcomes.  

[Hadley]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I agree that it is a complex situation, and I, too, am glad I am not in some leadership positions.  Any illness or death is unfortunate, for any reason.  However, we cannot get so focused on the worst-possible case scenario or the liability that we cannot function.  We have to have some balance between the costs of actions and the benefits of actions--which is basic economics (and to that I am referring more broadly to economic reasoning not profits of corporations or the macroeconomy).  

Ironically, I have read that one of the reasons few masks have been produced in America is fear of liability if someone uses one but gets ill.  Companies don't want to get sued because their product doesn't perfectly protect people from risk, so they don't produce something that could provide a great deal of protection.  When we start overly focusing on risks without balancing it with the benefits, we ended up with undesirable outcomes.  

So much this.  I can’t imagine suing anyone who tried to help me, but it happens.  My parents live in an area where doctors have literally been chased out of practice, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread!

[Pawz4me]

36 minutes ago, Hadley said:

 

Does anyone else see that this is not a black and white issue?  I would not trade places with our leaders who have to make these decisions.  I’m just praying that they make the right ones...

I rarely see any issue in black and white. I live in gray land. Sometimes I envy people who see most things as black-or-white, and sometimes I pity or have intense anger for them. Many issues are much more complicated than people want to admit.

Anyway, that's a soapboxy and rambling way of saying -- yes to the above.

[Bootsie]

I think another economic issue that is coming to the forefront is what is an "essential" worker or business.  The definitions that have been used in localized, short-term situations (hurricane, flooding, blizzard) are not necessarily useful when you are talking weeks across the country.  Police, firefighters, pharmacists are essential workers.  But, is a tire manufacturer essential?  Not over the next week, perhaps, but if the ambulance driver can't get tires, or the doctor can't get tires, or the farmer can't get tires for the tractor, then we have a big problem.    

[historically accurate]

32 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I agree that it is a complex situation, and I, too, am glad I am not in some leadership positions.  Any illness or death is unfortunate, for any reason.  However, we cannot get so focused on the worst-possible case scenario or the liability that we cannot function.  We have to have some balance between the costs of actions and the benefits of actions--which is basic economics (and to that I am referring more broadly to economic reasoning not profits of corporations or the macroeconomy).  

Ironically, I have read that one of the reasons few masks have been produced in America is fear of liability if someone uses one but gets ill.  Companies don't want to get sued because their product doesn't perfectly protect people from risk, so they don't produce something that could provide a great deal of protection.  When we start overly focusing on risks without balancing it with the benefits, we ended up with undesirable outcomes.  

I don't know that I believe that masks aren't being produced because of fear of lawsuits. If that were true, why would USA companies manufacture any products that also have large liability risk, such as hospital equipment, asbestos removal equipment, firefighting equipment, etc? I think it's probably the simpler answer: we just don't manufacture a lot here because we can get it cheaper from elsewhere; now those countries aren't exporting because they need them, and we're stuck. 

[Paige]

I am worried about the economy and how people will be able to live after this. I don't think, however, that loosening restrictions will help right now because overwhelming our healthcare systems would also tank the economy. It's a lose-lose situation as long as those are our choices. We (USA) are paying the price for poor investment in healthcare and misguided priorities of the past and I can't think of any way to avoid a lot of pain. 

I don't think there's a way to go back to normal and we should be looking for creative thinkers who can come up with some other plan! We can't be locked up for 18months and we can't let the virus run through the population. 

I know that I have had a problem with all the stuff made in China for years.  It has become increasingly hard to avoid in recent years so the current situation is not one iota surprising.  I think we have ourselves to blame because we demand things to be so super cheap to the point of being essentially disposable that no company can justify making things here.  China is willing to lie, pollute with abandon, and exploit their workers and we are willing to look the other way while going on about how environmentally and socially responsible we are.  When this is over I am redoubling my efforts to never buy anything made in China as long as their regime is in power.

I am very on board with travel restrictions and voluntary social distancing, but the comments from some on this board have become very disturbing lately.

[Bootsie]

39 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

I don't know that I believe that masks aren't being produced because of fear of lawsuits. If that were true, why would USA companies manufacture any products that also have large liability risk, such as hospital equipment, asbestos removal equipment, firefighting equipment, etc? I think it's probably the simpler answer: we just don't manufacture a lot here because we can get it cheaper from elsewhere; now those countries aren't exporting because they need them, and we're stuck. 

https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/evaluate/news/basicNewsStory.jhtml?symbols=MMM&storyid=202003051709DOWJONESDJONLINE000393&sb=1

I haven't had time to go through the entire history of this.  FDA approval of equipment limits liability.  

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/evaluate/news/basicNewsStory.jhtml?symbols=MMM&storyid=202003051709DOWJONESDJONLINE000393&sb=1

I haven't had time to go through the entire history of this.  FDA approval of equipment limits liability.  

The manufacturers were producing them for non-medical use. They wanted protection because their product hasn’t been tested/approved for medical use. It’s like off label use of prescription drugs.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Sneezyone

[ScoutTN]

This shutdown is devastating millions of Americans who own or work for small businesses deemed "non-essential". We personally know 4 families that have been wiped out. 

If this continues for months, we will be living in a Depression. 

[Ausmumof3]

There are a few economists I have seen a couple of months ago saying we were in for a recession and the virus will be blamed but it was always going to happen. I don’t know if there’s any truth to that.  I do personally know people losing jobs, losing chunks off their super etc.  
 

There’s at least one data analysis Ive seen that seems to put the epidemic curve at 6-8 weeks.  Whether that’s behavioural or natural is hard to know.  But I can’t see lockdowns lasting much longer than that if they aren’t working.

[Ausmumof3]

I also wonder if there will be some areas where there will be more jobs.  Here in Aus most fruit picking is now done by overseas labour.  This used to be a good kind of job you could do if you needed work in school holidays or as a fill in between jobs.  But now it’s really hard for kids to get these jobs because teams come in and do it and the farmers don’t tend to advertise or employ local kids as much.  And I do think potentially at least some suppliers and manufacturers may see the benefit of having at least some local production instead of everything offshore.

[SamanthaCarter]

I have two sisters that run their own businesses. They are being wiped out. I think the small business/self employed are the sacrificial lambs under the current political scenario, and the loss of these will have an impact, even if it’s not readily measurable. 

[DawnM]

I am very worried for many.

 I think we personally will be ok.  DH is an accountant and works for a firm that has so much work to do they can't find enough people, and his particular skill set and "rank" (years of service, etc....) will allow him to be one of the last let go, even if it means a demotion, which we can handle if necessary.   My job also is looking like it is secure.  Our district is short counselors and teachers already, so even if they downsize, I should be safe, even if I get a demotion (aka: have to go back to the classroom, which won't mean a cut in pay)

[Arcadia]

16 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There are a few economists I have seen a couple of months ago saying we were in for a recession and the virus will be blamed but it was always going to happen.  

There’s at least one data analysis Ive seen that seems to put the epidemic curve at 6-8 weeks.  Whether that’s behavioural or natural is hard to know. 

Economists do think recession occurs in economic cycles. It used to happen rather regularly every ten years but the globalization of trade has thrown off the regularity. People were expecting a recession to happen as early as 2018. 

Epidemic curves are usually naturally because of the worst hit dying. My guess is COVID would take longer because of number of asymptomatic cases.

11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I also wonder if there will be some areas where there will be more jobs.  Here in Aus most fruit picking is now done by overseas labour.  This used to be a good kind of job you could do if you needed work in school holidays or as a fill in between jobs. 

Here too. I hear many local people claiming no one in US wants to do the job because it is back breaking work.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Here too. I hear many local people claiming no one in US wants to do the job because it is back breaking work.

 

I hope that our economic reset will improve the priority (in terms of pay/benefits) that these jobs receive. It's certainly not something we can afford to outsource in a crisis and it is punishing (physically) work.

[Corraleno]

The way to handle a pandemic without shutting the whole economy down is to be very very aggressive about testing and tracing from the very beginning. We did the exact opposite. And there is still a massive shortage of tests, with most cases still going untested and uncounted, so decisions are being made without accurate data or modeling. One of the papers that is being widely circulated within the administration, in favor of releasing restrictions and getting back to work, predicted that total deaths in the US would not exceed 500 — we have already passed that and are nowhere near the peak. Decisions are being made based on information from "advisors" with no comprehension of epidemiology and totally inaccurate figures. 

It's absolutely tragic that so much of this financial damage could have been avoided if the people in power had been very aggressive and on top of things, instead of ignoring it and assuring the population that it was no worse than the flu, that the 15 cases would soon be zero, that it was totally contained — while many of them were secretly selling off their stock before the market tanked. Obviously we need to get people back to work as soon as possible, but not if it causes an even bigger catastrophe down the road. The suggestion that the elderly should just sacrifice their lives for the sake of their grandchildren's economic success is so offensive I don't even know where to start. Releasing restrictions and reopening businesses before we have the resources for adequate testing and tracing, before health care professionals have even the most basic PPE, before hospitals have the equipment they need to even handle the number of cases they are seeing at the beginning of the curve with everything shut down, is total madness. 

 

[WendyLady]

Strange times!

Edited March 24, 2020 by WendyLady

[Hadley]

Thank you to the majority of you who have managed to keep this non-political.  It would be easy to armchair quarterback in  this time period.

I wish I had a hugs emoji for so many of your posts.  This is yet another instance where “liking” a post seems not quite right.  Please know that I am praying for all of it: the jobs, the disease, the angst and anger. And know that I am not one who believes that prayer consists of empty words.  I know it’s powerful.

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The way to handle a pandemic without shutting the whole economy down is to be very very aggressive about testing and tracing from the very beginning. We did the exact opposite. And there is still a massive shortage of tests, with most cases still going untested and uncounted, so decisions are being made without accurate data or modeling. One of the papers that is being widely circulated within the administration, in favor of releasing restrictions and getting back to work, predicted that total deaths in the US would not exceed 500 — we have already passed that and are nowhere near the peak. Decisions are being made based on information from "advisors" with no comprehension of epidemiology and totally inaccurate figures. 

It's absolutely tragic that so much of this financial damage could have been avoided if the people in power had been very aggressive and on top of things, instead of ignoring it and assuring the population that it was no worse than the flu, that the 15 cases would soon be zero, that it was totally contained — while many of them were secretly selling off their stock before the market tanked. Obviously we need to get people back to work as soon as possible, but not if it causes an even bigger catastrophe down the road. The suggestion that the elderly should just sacrifice their lives for the sake of their grandchildren's economic success is so offensive I don't even know where to start. Releasing restrictions and reopening businesses before we have the resources for adequate testing and tracing, before health care professionals have even the most basic PPE, before hospitals have the equipment they need to even handle the number of cases they are seeing at the beginning of the curve with everything shut down, is total madness. 

 

If by “the people at the top” you mean the Chinese people at the top then sure, they could have done more.  They could have alerted the world instead of letting their own citizens travel until they couldn’t hide it any longer.  At the beginning yes you had a greater chance of dying from the flu because Chinese Coronavirus wasn’t here yet.  We also had very little actual data as to what was involved.  What did you expect the US officials to do?  Put cities on lockdown in January?

If the problem is lack of ventilators and protective equipment, that is coming.  Many US companies are ramping up production of both.  I think we would be much better served to protect the vulnerable and allow *them* to stay home rather than keeping *everyone* home.  I don’t have a problem with encouraging people to keep their distance or work from home if possible, but this lockdown police state is feeling like a power grab.  So many people seem to have lost their mind lately.  Yes, it may take 6 months to get over this, but we can’t all stay inside for six months.

[Sneezyone]

18 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

If by “the people at the top” you mean the Chinese people at the top then sure, they could have done more.  They could have alerted the world instead of letting their own citizens travel until they couldn’t hide it any longer.  At the beginning yes you had a greater chance of dying from the flu because Chinese Coronavirus wasn’t here yet.  We also had very little actual data as to what was involved.  What did you expect the US officials to do?  Put cities on lockdown in January?

If the problem is lack of ventilators and protective equipment, that is coming.  Many US companies are ramping up production of both.  I think we would be much better served to protect the vulnerable and allow *them* to stay home rather than keeping *everyone* home.  I don’t have a problem with encouraging people to keep their distance or work from home if possible, but this lockdown police state is feeling like a power grab.  So many people seem to have lost their mind lately.  Yes, it may take 6 months to get over this, but we can’t all stay inside for six months.

 

No one can control what has gone on before but each of us is responsible for the choices we make IN THE MOMENT. Yes, they could have done more. So could we. The two are not mutually exclusive. Based on what we NOW know, it is irresponsible to sacrifice thousands waiting for ventilators that are not even in production yet. Orders do not equal deliveries. The world has put in orders. Deliveries are few and far between and the economic consequences will be severe. China ordered up to 1000 ventilators that will take until June/July to deliver. Unless other industries convert to producing these, there is no help on the immediate horizon. And even if they DO convert, it will take months. We don't have months to spare. Even the masks being produced by Hanes and Christian Siriano are not medical grade. The non-woven materials to make them are in short supply also. They, too, come from China. There are no quick fixes. Adding healthy people to the mingling population (who can also need respirator support/hospitalization) will not help the situation.

No one wants to see the economy go to hell in a handbasket. NOBODY. We all have financial exposure and risk of varying levels. I agree with the post earlier that said reopening the economy comes at a cost too. This is about how many and which lives we're willing to sacrifice to both make money and keep it flowing. That's the choice here. There are no easy answers.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

21 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

I see an expectation that restrictions be kept in place until not one single case is detected anywhere. There is no tolerance for any hospitalizations, let alone deaths. Even though our society is not worried about the yearly flu, with most not even getting vaccinated, despite the tens of thousands that die every year. 

We have been getting told by the experts that the U.S. is “one to two weeks behind Italy” and that we would “know if we’ve been successful” in flattening the cure in one or two weeks (the end of March.) I have been reading and watching “everything” on the news stations and online every day since day one. First they said that the “the reports out of China” were saying that the coronavirus was hitting young people especially hard. So then we saw all the of universities shut down, Then they said, a week later, that actually it’s hitting the old and chronically ill and we all have to shelter in place to protect them. Now it’s back to “we’re worried about all the young people seriously ill.” Now we won’t “know” for another three weeks, or till end of summer....

The bolded is patently false. No one is even suggesting that the economy should stay shut down until "not one single case is detected anywhere." The goal of the shut down is to flatten the curve enough that hospitals can handle the level of illness and death that will occur until we have effective treatments and a vaccine. Letting the virus just "run its course," with no restrictions, will result in millions of deaths, not tens of thousands. If the hospitals don't have remotely enough beds and equipment for all the CV patients, if the health care providers themselves become ill and start dying, then there will be increases in deaths from the flu, heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, etc., on top of the CV19 deaths.  

The information in your second paragraph is not contradictory the way you imply. The death rate is highest in the elderly, but there are increasing reports of perfectly healthy younger people who are critically ill or dying. In the US, 20% of hospitalizations are people in the 20-40 age group, and there is a 12 year old in Atlanta with no preexisting conditions who is currently on a ventilator fighting for her life. I wonder how many of the "let old people die to save the economy" types would be so sanguine about the death rate if they felt their own children were at risk.

[kbutton]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think another economic issue that is coming to the forefront is what is an "essential" worker or business.  The definitions that have been used in localized, short-term situations (hurricane, flooding, blizzard) are not necessarily useful when you are talking weeks across the country.  Police, firefighters, pharmacists are essential workers.  But, is a tire manufacturer essential?  Not over the next week, perhaps, but if the ambulance driver can't get tires, or the doctor can't get tires, or the farmer can't get tires for the tractor, then we have a big problem.    

I get the impression that a lot of factories and manufacturing are allowed to continue (depending on the state), but they are supposed to be allowing social distancing, and they are supposed to offer hand sanitizer, etc. But whether they are doing that or not or can find hand sanitizer, etc. is another story. 

I have heard that people are saying their employers want them to have a negative COVID-19 test if they leave work sick and want to return, even if there are no tests available. My guess is that we need clear guidelines on when people can return to work who are sick and can't get tested. Not everyone who is sick right now even with consistent symptoms has COVID-19, but if you can't get tested, and you are testing negative for the flu, there should be some procedure for work re-entry. Some people are found to have flu or a more typical pneumonia (by x-ray or CT scan). Sometimes someone is tested, and the RNA test shows that they have a coronavirus, just not COVID-19. There needs to be a way to easily clear these people to go back to work because their workers are afraid if they go home sick, they won't be allowed back (local providers have reported this--I have no link).

To some extent, maybe each state needs guidelines on this, but I suspect the bigger problem is with employers who are stressed out and are putting the hard decision on the employee, not on themselves. 

46 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

But then you have our hospitals.  They have no cases right now.  But they cannot do elective surgery.  Even if they lifted it, would doctors risk the liability of their patients catching Covid by doing an elective surgery? 

I think the elective surgery situation has many facets, but one of the big ones is preservation of PPE. If we are flattening the curve, and we get an established and reliable supply of PPE, I think some elective surgeries will start up again. It depends on many things, and I think they are less worried about patients catching COVID-19 at the hospital as they are that they'll lose too many anesthetists. Intubation is a super high risk procedure right now. I am not sure how often respiratory people are involved in surgeries, but if they are involved a lot, that factors in as they are needed for COVID-19 patients.

I had a breathing test rescheduled because some kinds of testing (or breathing treatments given afterward) nebulize germs all over the room. Nebulizer treatments in healthcare facilities are being given only when all else fails right now as a result.

8 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

At the beginning yes you had a greater chance of dying from the flu because Chinese Coronavirus wasn’t here yet.  We also had very little actual data as to what was involved.  What did you expect the US officials to do?  Put cities on lockdown in January?

This might be a little flippant and too much hindsight is 20/20, but I think putting serious burden on conferences and cruises with lots of international mixing might have been helpful, though I am not sure what that would look like (something to think of for next time). Lots of people + lots of places + lots of together is not such a good idea. 

5 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

If we are going to continue have 30 to 45 students plus 1-6 adults in a  public school classroom, schools and bus cos need better means to control spread of pinkeye, flu, measles, etc.  We found here when pinkeye was coming in waves that there was no one designated to do biohazard cleanups of body fluids and no one designated to clean desks...school had to revise its practices and renegotiate its janitorial contracts.  Also found many many parents are handing a feverish child a fever-reducer and sending them to school -- community needs a ward somewhere, right now the ill wait in the classroom or nurse's office until they are picked up.  Sanitary practices need improved all over -- high schoolers for example have a hard time getting a hand wash before eating. 

Library and other public spaces also need a way to prevent sick people from entering.  Too many who have poor hygiene. 

Nurse's office? What nurse's office? Lol! It's like one nurse per school system some places. I am not laughing at you, just at how absurdly low priority school nurses have become in a day and age where everyone goes to school sick.

[Corraleno]

12 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

If by “the people at the top” you mean the Chinese people at the top then sure, they could have done more.  They could have alerted the world instead of letting their own citizens travel until they couldn’t hide it any longer.  At the beginning yes you had a greater chance of dying from the flu because Chinese Coronavirus wasn’t here yet.  We also had very little actual data as to what was involved.  What did you expect the US officials to do?  Put cities on lockdown in January?

If the problem is lack of ventilators and protective equipment, that is coming.  Many US companies are ramping up production of both.  I think we would be much better served to protect the vulnerable and allow *them* to stay home rather than keeping *everyone* home.  I don’t have a problem with encouraging people to keep their distance or work from home if possible, but this lockdown police state is feeling like a power grab.  So many people seem to have lost their mind lately.  Yes, it may take 6 months to get over this, but we can’t all stay inside for six months.

Are you aware that the US ran a simulation last year called Operation Crimson Contagion that demonstrated very clearly that we were totally unprepared for a pandemic, and yet the administration did absolutely nothing about it? The administration was warned, by their own HHS department, that we were totally unprepared for a pandemic, just two months before reports of a novel and very deadly virus started coming out of China, and we still did absolutely nothing. Actually what we did was worse than nothing, because we refused the tests developed by WHO, and insisted for weeks, as the virus rapidly spread, that only the tests produced by the CDC could be used, even though they didn't work, and only people with recent travel history from China could be tested, even though it was clear that community spread had already started. The FDA repeatedly told the researchers in Washington who discovered the community spread that they could not test for it; had they not defied those orders we would be in even worse shape. The government made no attempt to secure adequate stocks and availability of tests, PPE, or ventilators until it was already widespread. They knew this was coming and they knew the US was totally unprepared, and they did nothing.

The outbreak of the respiratory virus began in China and was quickly spread around the world by air travelers, who ran high fevers. In the United States, it was first detected in Chicago, and 47 days later, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic. By then it was too late: 110 million Americans were expected to become ill, leading to 7.7 million hospitalized and 586,000 dead.

That scenario, code-named “Crimson Contagion” and imagining an influenza pandemic, was simulated by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services in a series of exercises that ran from last January to August.

The simulation’s sobering results — contained in a draft report dated October 2019 that has not previously been reported — drove home just how underfunded, underprepared and uncoordinated the federal government would be for a life-or-death battle with a virus for which no treatment existed.

The draft report, marked “not to be disclosed,” laid out in stark detail repeated cases of “confusion” in the exercise. Federal agencies jockeyed over who was in charge. State officials and hospitals struggled to figure out what kind of equipment was stockpiled or available. Cities and states went their own ways on school closings.

 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

There is no need for a nurse per building right now because so many students have a nurse with them.  The nurse per district is capable of setting up the procedures each individual building uses for care.  Unfortunately many of these schools are so packed that there is no place to put a large group of ill people awaiting pickup, so they remain in spaces where they infect others.  Its time for a community sick care facility for children that can be disinfected easily.

 

How does one easily 'disinfect' children?

[pitterpatter]

And, millions of deaths will lead to economic crisis too. I can't imagine life insurance companies being able to pay out with so many deaths. And, there will be numerous families going from two working parents to one, which will lead to increased need for government assistance. Not to mention, there will be an increase in orphans and children being moved into less-than-ideal living situations. I read an article over the weekend about a mother who died and left 4 or 5 younger siblings to the oldest sibling who is a 24-year-old male. I feel so sad for him...all of them. The father had already died several years before.

31 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The bolded is patently false. No one is even suggesting that the economy should stay shut down until "not one single case is detected anywhere." The goal of the shut down is to flatten the curve enough that hospitals can handle the level of illness and death that will occur until we have effective treatments and a vaccine. Letting the virus just "run its course," with no restrictions, will result in millions of deaths, not tens of thousands. If the hospitals don't have remotely enough beds and equipment for all the CV patients, if the health care providers themselves become ill and start dying, then there will be increases in deaths from the flu, heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, etc., on top of the CV19 deaths.  

The information in your second paragraph is not contradictory the way you imply. The death rate is highest in the elderly, but there are increasing reports of perfectly healthy younger people who are critically ill or dying. In the US, 20% of hospitalizations are people in the 20-40 age group, and there is a 12 year old in Atlanta with no preexisting conditions who is currently on a ventilator fighting for her life. I wonder how many of the "let old people die to save the economy" types would be so sanguine about the death rate if they felt their own children were at risk.

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by pitterpatter

[kbutton]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

How does one easily 'disinfect' children?

The facility, not the kids. 

[ScoutTN]

Many businesses now shut down and classed non-essential could be up and running (as they were a couple weeks ago here) with sensible precautions in place. 

Our dry cleaners is drive through already. Many retail establishments besides restaurants could do this.

Lawn service and landscaping.

I am sure there are others.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, ScoutTN said:

Many businesses now shut down and classed non-essential could be up and running (as they were a couple weeks ago here) with sensible precautions in place. 

Our dry cleaners is drive through already. Many retail establishments besides restaurants could do this.

Lawn service and landscaping.

I am sure there are others.

 

My landscaper is continuing to work. His crew is under 5 people. He communicates by email. Payment is electronic. I never see his face. Our governor hasn't barred him from working. These kinds of changes/modifications could be lobbied for. The question would be, who needs dry cleaning and does not have the flexibility to work from home? Some of the closures are a direct result of lack of demand.

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

I NEVER suggested that we should “let the old people die.” 

I wasn't implying that you said that — obviously no one on this board would say such a thing. But there are people in power, including the Lt. Gov. of Texas, who are literally, explicitly, saying that, and I have seen similar sentiments repeated widely on social media by those who keep repeating that it really only affects the elderly and letting them die is a small price to pay to get "the economy" (which for many of these people is synonymous with the stock market) back up.

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

 

I NEVER suggested that we should “let the old people die.” 

You’re mischaracterizing my comments, and I don’t appreciate it at all.  I am totally behind trying to flatten the curve. However, MY state and the local media are keeping pretty quiet about the source of the majority of cases here, and yet the mayors and governor increased the shutdown to the stay in place level yesterday which further shut down even more businesses. Our low numbers in OUR STATE simply don’t justify the excessive measures. 

Our state politicians have publicly stated that the measures are in place so that we can “clear” the state of the virus. In other words, so that there won’t be a single case. The governor has stated his intention to test all 9 million residents as a means to that end. He seems to have forgotten that we have an airport, and that we are a major tourist destination.  He also seems to think that he has the power to force 9 million people to submit to a blood draw. 

ETA The teachers in my home city were told to include the flu screening to their diphtheria screening. Evidently, the teacher screened the children every day and sent home anyone sick. They were not allowed back until totally well.

 

This is kind of like that quote from Justice Ginsberg WRT the Voting Rights Act, or maybe it was Justice Sotomayor? If social distancing is effective (if the VRA is effective), people will assume the problem is solved when, in reality, the social distancing (VRA) was the thing preventing a major problem. Folks may disagree with that analysis but that is the alternative perspective. There has not been major spread outside of the DMV area in VA but it *is* present and could spread if given the opportunity. Schools were closed statewide 2 weeks ago and people seem to, mostly, be laying low. It seems to be working. We have not seen the exponential growth present in LA, NY, or CA. I appreciate our Gov's measured approach. Speaking of...my lawn guys are outside right now...working.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Sneezyone

[math teacher]

Our school nurse can't even send home students with lice anymore. They are sent back to the classroom, and a letter is sent to the students of that class.

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I wasn't implying that you said that — obviously no one on this board would say such a thing. But there are people in power, including the Lt. Gov. of Texas, who are literally, explicitly, saying that, and I have seen similar sentiments repeated widely on social media by those who keep repeating that it really only affects the elderly and letting them die is a small price to pay to get "the economy" (which for many of these people is synonymous with the stock market) back up.

Did he literally say "Let old people die"?  The reports I have seen is that he is saying that as an older person HE is willing to take some risk of dying to preserve the economy and lifestyle for his children and grandchildren and that he thinks there are other senior citizens who feel that way also.  

[Corraleno]

"as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” 

The America that I love doesn't put a higher value on stock dividends than the lives of grandparents. If he's happy to risk his life, I'm sure there are hospitals that would welcome him to work as an unmasked, ungloved volunteer since they are so short on PPE. 

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

"as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” 

The America that I love doesn't put a higher value on stock dividends than the lives of grandparents. If he's happy to risk his life, I'm sure there are hospitals that would welcome him to work as an unmasked, ungloved volunteer since they are so short on PPE. 

But he didn't literally, explicitly say, "let old people die".  
I have heard a number of elderly talk about this, and it is not stock dividends they are thinking about.  They have survived bombings, draughts, measles, polio, POW camps, cancer, TB, and many other situations and they are much more fearful of not living while they have the chance than of dying.  I know some who say they would much rather have a hug from their grandchild today and have some chance of dying than living in isolation so they can hug their grandchild in six months (if they haven't had a heart attack, died from cancer, had their grandchild die in a car wreck, gotten sick with the flu, or all of the risks they face that they may not be alive in six months anyway).  Some would like to see their grandchild graduate in May, some would like to see their great grandchild baptized, some would like to attend a memorial service for their sibling, some would like their child to be able to work and continue the family business.   

[SKL]

Yes.  Very hard to know exactly what is the right answer, but shutting down indefinitely isn't it.  At some point the damage and deaths from shutting down are going to outweigh whatever anyone thinks zero tolerance for virus deaths is going to accomplish.

How to say this without sounding cold ... there is no rationality in a zero tolerance for death.  If we can't tolerate any level of risk from this virus, then what about everything else that kills people?  At what point does this logic make it illegal to smoke, drink, drive, get pregnant if you are x age or have x condition, or really just about anything else depending on how far people are willing to take it?  Or will we all shelter in place forever because the flu also kills elderly people?  None of which changes the fact that some day we're still all going to die.

I hear that both suicides and domestic violence / child beating are already up.  Unemployment and a lack of free agency have costs beyond money.

I am NOT saying nothing should be done about this, but I do believe the "shelter in place" etc. needs to be as short as possible for these and other reasons.

I really hope that drug they are testing makes a lot of this discussion moot.

Edited March 24, 2020 by SKL

[Spy Car]

I think the economy will take less of a hit if--in the short term--nonessential workers stay home.

Those who show up to distribute food, medicine, and critical supplies are heroes. To say nothing of the doctors, nurses, and hospital workers who are on the front lines.

But we need to shut down and stay home if we are not essential to keeping supply chains functioning.

We are going to take an economic hit. But sheltering responsibly will flatten the curve and is the best thing we can do to slow or stop this pandemic in the immediate term.

Thinking we can return to a full economy now--or in a week or two--is absolute madness. We will pay much higher economic costs and we will lose a lot of citizens if we don't listen to the epidemiological experts. 

Bill  

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by Spy Car

[SKL]

I would add that an impoverished world will not be able to address future issues half as well as we are addressing this one.

 

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I have heard a number of elderly talk about this, and it is not stock dividends they are thinking about.  They have survived bombings, draughts, measles, polio, POW camps, cancer, TB, and many other situations and they are much more fearful of not living while they have the chance than of dying.  I know some who say they would much rather have a hug from their grandchild today and have some chance of dying than living in isolation so they can hug their grandchild in six months (if they haven't had a heart attack, died from cancer, had their grandchild die in a car wreck, gotten sick with the flu, or all of the risks they face that they may not be alive in six months anyway).  Some would like to see their grandchild graduate in May, some would like to see their great grandchild baptized, some would like to attend a memorial service for their sibling, some would like their child to be able to work and continue the family business.   

Um, my old people are hunkered down and taking this very seriously (though I haven't asked my MIL because she's nutters). I have heard literally no one I am personally acquainted with say this. They are, however, rather grim about their retirement portfolios.

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

I think saying "no death is worth it" is ridiculous and innumerate and a pet peeve of mine. Realistically, we do NOT spend infinite amounts of money to preserve human life. Not even close. 

I haven't heard people saying this either. I definitely haven't heard it in a press conference. I have heard that the people in charge do not consider one life more valuable than another and that they are trying to weigh their decisions based on that.

[PrincessMommy]

This came through my feed today.  I'm wondering what people think of some of these suggestions:

How To Avert an Economic Catastophe: Ideas for Top 5 Economists from NPR

Lots of interesting ideas for each of the economists.

[Ausmumof3]

We also don’t know what the death rate will be in younger people without lockdown.  China went in to full lockdown and death rate was much higher among the elderly.  If the hospitals get overwhelmed this is going to kill more younger people most particularly doctors and nurses.  We need to listen to the experts on this.
 

 

[frogger]

I see employment for those who had been in food service to move to stores. I would love to see pick up or delivery of all groceries even if it upped the cost 10% so workers could get paid decently.

This would increase employment for hourly workers. It would also make their work enviroment safer as dramatically fewer people would enter the building. Payments would be made online.  Employees can be trained and required to keep safe distances and other protical, customers are impossible. It would have a side benefit of decreasing theft. 

 

The bureaucracy that kept labs from testing is hugely hampering the whole economy. Capitalist economies are supposed to be more flexible but that isn't true here because we aren't actually capitalist. More like favoritist, where you give your buddy or donar favors. 

 

This is war. I don't entirily agree but history books all say war helps the economy. We are tooling up factories for all kinds of medical supplies. If we are fast we can do a mix of donating and selling to other countries also. We should also keep some of this business after too instead of outsourcing so much to China. I would rather see our gov't focused on getting as many factories going rather than just hand out money to everyone.

I do think helping people who lost everything in a transition is better than just throwing money out to everyone. 

To be very clear the flattening of the curve should just be buying us time to train more nurse assistants (nurses and doctors take too long for our immediate need). Get PPE in production and for pete's sake get testing going. 

South Korea did not choose between shutting down their whole economy and fighting the virus. They chose to make it a priority to track outbreaks and test and control. We let things spiral out of control. We just need to buy time and get the numbers down to something managable. 

Health is tied to the economy and the economy is tied to health. We need to make the decisions that will give us the most of both that we can have right now.

[mom2scouts]

7 hours ago, pitterpatter said:

And, millions of deaths will lead to economic crisis too. I can't imagine life insurance companies being able to pay out with so many deaths. And, there will be numerous families going from two working parents to one, which will lead to increased need for government assistance. Not to mention, there will be an increase in orphans and children being moved into less-than-ideal living situations. I read an article over the weekend about a mother who died and left 4 or 5 younger siblings to the oldest sibling who is a 24-year-old male. I feel so sad for him...all of them. The father had already died several years before.

 

This is what Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said today during his briefing. 

"The truth is that protecting people and protecting the economy are not mutually exclusive," DeWine said. "In fact, one depends upon the other. We save our economy by first saving lives. And we have to do it and do it in that order." 

He went on to say that the economy isn't going to come back anyway if people are dying and feeling unsafe.

[Shoeless]

6 hours ago, Math teacher said:

Our school nurse can't even send home students with lice anymore. They are sent back to the classroom, and a letter is sent to the students of that class.

 

They don't even send a letter to the students in the classroom here.  No one is sent home for lice, no one is notified. You only find out if your kid happens to spill the beans on a classmate or you find lice in their hair. 

[SKL]

One thought I keep having - the thing about if you are laid off from your factory then you can go work at the grocery, they are hiring.  How is that actually slowing the virus?  Work in a factory, you handle the same stuff and interact with the same few people every day.  Work in a grocery store, you interact with a lot more people every day.  Not really sure how the logic works there if we are really that concerned about isolating people who don't seem sick.

[SKL]

Speaking of current projections - this is the 13th day since our governor reported to the whole world that there were an estimated 100,000 people walking around Ohio with Coronavirus.  With a hospitalization rate of about 25%, that would imply we would have 25,000 people in the hospital right now.  Instead we have less than 150.

There will be a spike - and some of it will probably be because of all the people crowding the grocery store right after the governor made his 100,000 announcement.  Not to mention the panic buying that meant no hand sanitizer etc. for people who really need it.

I am certainly in favor of sustainable reasonable measures in the long term.  Like making sure there is a ready supply of protective equipment for health care workers, not just for Covid19, but for flu and everything else.  This can be done without shutting everything down for long periods (which for many means forever).

[SKL]

Also, I was looking at the vax effectiveness for the flu, and roughly half of the people who got the flu this season had the vax.  Tens of thousands have died and more will.  Nobody ever suggested shutting down for the flu - we recommend reasonable behaviors and understand we can't control everything.

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

One thought I keep having - the thing about if you are laid off from your factory then you can go work at the grocery, they are hiring.  How is that actually slowing the virus?  Work in a factory, you handle the same stuff and interact with the same few people every day.  Work in a grocery store, you interact with a lot more people every day.  Not really sure how the logic works there if we are really that concerned about isolating people who don't seem sick.

Workers in factories that make things that are considered non-essential, or for which there is little/no demand right now, are being laid off. And yes, that helps slow/stop the spread if those workers stay at home. But grocery stores are considered essential because (obviously) people need food and the stores desperately need additional help. So grocery store jobs are an option for laid off factory workers who need income. These things are not contradictory, but are a type of triage--close things that aren't essential, shift people who need an income to jobs that are essential.

As far as flu vax effectiveness (or lack thereof) -- That is an excellent argument for why C19 is so much worse. We have a vaccine for the flu that is at least partially effective.  We have four anti-virals that are approved to treat influenza. And yet we still have so many deaths. And for C19 . . . no vaccine, no currently approved treatments, much higher transmission rate, much higher hospitalization rate. These things have been discussed over and over and over. At this point I'm beginning to suspect the motivations of people who continue to bring up the very poor and very false "arguments."