US economy

[DoraBora]

20 hours ago, Bootsie said:

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.  

You are correct.

[SKL]

33 minutes ago, square_25 said:

He may have been wrong, you know. Also, that hospitalization rate is unlikely to be that high. 

Given current projections, the death tolls for coronavirus will be 10-50 times higher. Now, this could be wrong. However, as soon as ICUs fill up, people panic and life isn't normal anyway. The flu does NOT overwhelm our ICUs. Coronavirus does. It already is in some parts of the country. Isn't that enough data to warrant being cautious for now?? 

Proactiveness includes the government procuring existing spaces for additional hospital space and getting producers to prioritize related products, which has been happening and is helped a lot by the long incubation periods.

Nobody is advocating against being cautious.  Shutting down the economy (and normal human interaction) indefinitely is not what I'd call caution.

[Bootsie]

And now you can pay the US government to borrow money from you...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/25/negative-rates-come-to-the-us-1-month-and-3-month-treasury-bill-yields-are-now-negative.html

[SKL]

38 minutes ago, square_25 said:

By the way, if your governor did a good job, it will seem like he overreacted, because there were never that many people in hospitals or that many deaths. That would be a good thing. 

It's now abundantly clear NY is not overreacting. You don't really want to be us :P. 

I agree we don't want to be NY right now.

But as to whether our governor did a good job if he seems to have overreacted, that is questionable.  His panic-inducing announcement did not change the number of people who had the virus at that moment.  If there aren't 100,000 people with the virus today it's because there weren't anywhere close to 100,000 with it in Ohio when he made the announcement.  (He predicted the 100,000 based on the fact that *1* case to date had been labeled a "community spread" case.)  Many Ohioans decided that if there were that many with the virus already, it was inevitable that we would catch it so avoidance was futile.

I am very happy with proactive decisions such as making arrangements to use empty hotels and dorms should the hospitals overflow.  I agree with stopping travel and some of the closings, but the closings need to be as short as reasonably possible.  I've heard people talking about as many as 18 months.  Nope nopey nope.

[prairiewindmomma]

A few thoughts:

1. It's staggering how much of our workforce is in the service industry, which particularly offers comparatively low salaries and few benefits.

2. The near national stay at home orders is decreasing demand for a lot of items---including those that are imported and in short supply right now.  We started to see gaps in retail stores here; perhaps we will have a smoother time as factories get up and going again in China and shipments start to make it across the Pacific.

3. A number of key drugs (blood pressure, psych, antibiotics, IV solutions) are in shortage right now because other countries have stopped exports. We need hard quarantine measures right now to get this under control so that countries will relax and start exports again.  It is REALLY frightening to contemplate a world where people have heart attacks or a simple infection but die because the health care system has collapsed and is so overrun with covid cases that it can't cover basic stuff.  We are a hairsbreadth from that here, especially with all of the clinics closed so that the only option is ER.

[catz]

IF resources and brains and national leadership on this start falling into place, the US could be much more able to do fast and aggressive testing and tracing/directed quarentines like some countries that have been much more successful dealing with this.  The response and readiness and fragility of our medical establishment is shocking.  

Wuhan is coming out of lock down April 6.  So no, I don't think we will be in full lock down for 18 months if our initial push here is good.  Until a vaccine is in place to vaccinate high numbers?  Yes.  Until then we will need to be vigilant and prepared.  

[HeartString]

I have a question that is turning itself around in my head.  Say that the US opens for business on the presidents preferred time table, back to work by Easter.  Other countries are not following that.  They are all locked down tight trying to control thus virus.  What is our relationship going to be like with these other countries?  They are all killing their economies to squash this, I doubt they just let Americans come visit for a holiday and risk one of us bringing the virus in with us.  What are the ramifications, long and short term, of us taking such a different approach to this virus and how is that likely to effect our economy?  

[HeartString]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

think that's an interesting question, but it's not going to happen in the US either, so it won't get answered. I would bet money. 

 

You think we’ll stay locked down beyond the presidents suggestion of mid-April? 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

IF resources and brains and national leadership on this start falling into place, the US could be much more able to do fast and aggressive testing and tracing/directed quarentines like some countries that have been much more successful dealing with this.  The response and readiness and fragility of our medical establishment is shocking.  

Wuhan is coming out of lock down April 6.  So no, I don't think we will be in full lock down for 18 months if our initial push here is good.  Until a vaccine is in place to vaccinate high numbers?  Yes.  Until then we will need to be vigilant and prepared.  

 

Sadly, the likelihood of achieving the kind of compliance and group effort that Asian countries can/will achieve (from Japan and Korea to Singapore and India) is slim/none. It will take us a lot longer to come out of this. Do I think it will be 18 months? No. But whether you call it 'individualism' or 'selfishness', the western world is seemingly incapable of this kind of discipline. I'm laying odds on September for the nation and July/August for today's current hotspots.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Sneezyone

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

he country will not go back to normal while there's exponential growth of cases. No way. And we are not locked down enough to prevent that. 

I hope you’re right.  

[Corraleno]

Just now, Cnew02 said:

You think we’ll stay locked down beyond the presidents suggestion of mid-April? 

I don't think there's a chance in hell we'll be "reopened" in mid-April. I think there are a lot of people who do not understands exponential growth, who are only looking at existing numbers and not understanding that we are at the beginning of a very steep upward curve. An article published by the Hoover Institute a little over a week ago was apparently being widely circulated among the administration in support of reopening the economy. That article predicted the maximum number of deaths from Covid-19 would be 500. We are already over 800 deaths, and both the number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths are currently doubling every 4 days. Apparently some people can't do the math on that, because unless that level of increase slows waaaaay down very soon, things are likely to look much worse in two weeks than they do now.

[KungFuPanda]

On 3/24/2020 at 10:12 AM, ScoutTN said:

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. 

I think we have to ask "Is this financial depression worse than what we'd face if a member of my household died?" I get that people have bills and that it's getting really bad.  However, I think most of the people who are angry about the shut down and want to go back to work are pretty much counting on not being one of the people who dies in the next few months. How would we treat this crisis differently if we had a crystal ball that showed someone in our immediate family dying from this? I think we behave differently when we think of it less abstractly.  

I'd love to see testing ramped up the point that people who show antibodies are free to move about the cabin and slowly wind the economy back up.  I think that would be a decent compromise between a total shut down and a free-for-all that overwhelms the hospitals.

[Pawz4me]

10 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

 

You think we’ll stay locked down beyond the presidents suggestion of mid-April? 

Absolutely. The local authorities--from governors to mayors to county boards of commissioners--are the ones who are in control of the stay at home orders. Not to get too political, but POTUS has made it known that no one should expect much or any help from the federal government. So local authorities have no reason to care what his wishes are.

[Paige]

Economy or lives is a false choice. It's economy and lives. We have to try to mitigate the effects on both. It's not about the death rate, but the health burden and disability rate, it's about the cost to keep people alive, how people will be able to afford their medical bills, and how the economy will react if we overwhelm the system and people are dying untreated in the hallways, streets, and their homes. 

Wuhan was locked down in a way we never would or could. Our timeline will probably be longer because of that. They also implemented policies like mass temperature scanning, testing, and removing sick people from their homes to prevent family members from catching it. We aren't doing any of those things and many of them would never be accepted here even if the government wanted to. 

The president didn't lock down the states, so he can't open them up. It will be up to individual governors. 

I think the idea that we'll lose 1-2% of the people who are infected but everything else will be ok if we open up the economy is wishful thinking. If that were possible, I bet we'd be doing it! 

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think we have to ask "Is this financial depression worse than what we'd face if a member of my household died?" I get that people have bills and that it's getting really bad.  However, I think most of the people who are angry about the shut down and want to go back to work are pretty much counting on not being one of the people who dies in the next few months. How would we treat this crisis differently if we had a crystal ball that showed someone in our immediate family dying from this? I think we behave differently when we think of it less abstractly.  

I'd love to see testing ramped up the point that people who show antibodies are free to move about the cabin and slowly wind the economy back up.  I think that would be a decent compromise between a total shut down and a free-for-all that overwhelms the hospitals.

And the assumption that CV19 won't kill them since they're not in a high-risk category ignores the fact that if hospitals are overwhelmed with CV19 patients, and heath care providers and equipment are in short supply, then there are also going to be higher death rates for heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, and many other injuries and diseases that could very well affect them. 

[historically accurate]

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

And the assumption that CV19 won't kill them since they're not in a high-risk category ignores the fact that if hospitals are overwhelmed with CV19 patients, and heath care providers and equipment are in short supply, then there are also going to be higher death rates for heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, and many other injuries and diseases that could very well affect them. 

Yes, I am allowing my kids to ride bikes & rollerblade currently in our cul-de-sac. I've already told them (they're teens, so I'm not telling them anything they don't know or terrorizing them) that if it looks to get bad here, those activities will stop because I can't have them breaking a bone at that point in time. 

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

And the assumption that CV19 won't kill them since they're not in a high-risk category ignores the fact that if hospitals are overwhelmed with CV19 patients, and heath care providers and equipment are in short supply, then there are also going to be higher death rates for heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, and many other injuries and diseases that could very well affect them. 

That's true regardless.  I have health concerns that won't be looked at until this whole thing blows over one way or another.

But allowing some industries to go back to work with precautions should not significantly affect the hospital situation.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

You can mandate things reopening. What you can't mandate from up high is level of panic... 

 

You can't mandate a private business to open its doors without, for example, using the wartime legislation that is apparently off the table. Thus, this 'wish' is just that. Pie in the sky nonsense. Local restaurants in this area had meat/veggie sales this week to clear their fridges and freezers of perishables.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

How many? Enough to restart the economy for real? Or just to limp along and drag this out longer? Some industries are working as is. 

 

Seriously. Small landscaping crews won't keep the economy afloat.

[HeartString]

36 minutes ago, square_25 said:

37 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

 

I think the states have a lot of discretion here

Just quoting you as a jump point.  If the president does wish to loosen instructions, some of the governors will follow his lead. Even now some are resisting lock downs.  I’m not sure of the economic impact of say Texas going back to work and just letting the virus run while neighboring  states are under shelter in place orders. Its something we have to do together or not at all. 

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Ah, I see. I don't think that'll happen. It'll be the UK model, lol -- they'll say everything is fine and we're moving forward until they overwhelm the ICUs, then they'll quickly shut things down. No one is actually willing to have a nonfunctioning healthcare apparatus, whatever they are saying now. 

I’m so needing this optimism today.  I’m feeling a little bit like the sky is falling.  

[TechWife]

On 3/24/2020 at 11:54 AM, HeighHo said:

There are also reports of people who meet the ventilator criteria recovering without it, using just oxygen.  Sharing of data and analysis will get this sorted out quickly. 

That doesn’t mean that the standard of care should change. 

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

I’m so needing this optimism today.  I’m feeling a little bit like the sky is falling.  

 

The sky definitely isn't falling but we do have to assume personal responsibility for our own selves and families b/c leadership is so spotty across the country. What I worry about is states that have managed the situation relatively well being overrun by refugees or 'tourists' from states with more lax standards. I worry that this will create a second wave.

[HeartString]

16 minutes ago, square_25 said:

, I do not think of what I am saying as optimism

It’s what passes for optimism!  😋 Honestly being reminded that governors don’t want their hospitals over run and will probably try to prevent that is helpful.  They all have Departments of Health and are likely to listen to them.  I hope. 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think we have to ask "Is this financial depression worse than what we'd face if a member of my household died?" I get that people have bills and that it's getting really bad.  However, I think most of the people who are angry about the shut down and want to go back to work are pretty much counting on not being one of the people who dies in the next few months. How would we treat this crisis differently if we had a crystal ball that showed someone in our immediate family dying from this? I think we behave differently when we think of it less abstractly.  

I'd love to see testing ramped up the point that people who show antibodies are free to move about the cabin and slowly wind the economy back up.  I think that would be a decent compromise between a total shut down and a free-for-all that overwhelms the hospitals.

We would treat many things differently if we had a crystal ball that could show someone from our immediate family dying from an activity--whether it is getting in a car, going swimming, sitting in a particular area where a tree will fall, or walking down the sidewalk.  When the statistics indicate that it is more likely that someone in my immediate family does not die from this rather than that someone in my immediately family will die from this, it is rational, not simply abstract, to behave as if someone in my immediate family probably will not die from this.  

[Paige]

We have 7 people in our immediate family (ages 2-50), so the chances are pretty high that if covid 19 went through our family that 1-2 of us would need hospitalization. We'd likely all survive, but I don't take hospitalization and possible ventilation lightly. A recovery from being sedated and on a ventilator isn't easy, fun, or quick. 

The odds of someone in your family being quite dangerously sick are very high- especially if they are over 70.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Paige

[Sneezyone]

My mom used to joke that when's she gets old, she'd like to crawl away into a forest and quietly decompose so we woundn't need to do much. If that's the route a person wants to take, I support that too. Just don't be a drain on already scarce resources, mkay? Folks can even set up camp and live off the grid. That's great too! Unless or until folks choose to avail themselves of those options, we are all dependent on the same limited resources. Deaths aren't the only way to assess the burden stupidity and selfishness can create.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Arcadia]

20 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I'm in CA, and most people aren't being tested. It's here in much larger numbers than what is being tested. 

Napa?

15 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Where in CA are you?

Below is for my county 😞

 

“COVID-19 Cases in Santa Clara County as of 5:00 p.m. on March 24, 2020.   

Total Confirmed Cases 459 Hospitalized 137 Deaths 17 Close Contacts of Known Cases 88 Presumed Community Transmission 217”   ETA: https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ “2,974 confirmed cases in California 63 confirmed deaths in California 1,162 confirmed cases in the Bay Area”

Edited March 25, 2020 by Arcadia

[DoraBora]

3 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Absolutely. The local authorities--from governors to mayors to county boards of commissioners--are the ones who are in control of the stay at home orders. Not to get too political, but POTUS has made it known that no one should expect much or any help from the federal government. So local authorities have no reason to care what his wishes are.

Well, off the top of my head, I know that the federal government, through FEMA, will fund 100% of the cost of deploying the National Guard in states whose governors activate that option, and that those governors will still remain in control of Guard operations.  FEMA is providing large medical stations containing thousands of beds in NY, CA, and WA.  US Navy hospital ships are being sent to LA and NY.  An admittedly smaller-than-ideal number of ventilators are being provided to NY and I suspect the president has negotiated with GE and 3M to encourage them in their reported plan to manufacture more ventilators and masks.

(Respectfully, that type of sweeping statement is the opposite of not getting too political. )

 

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by DoraBora

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

I think we don’t much know what to do with probabilities like 3 percent when it comes to death. The normal probabilities are much lower.

For instance, the chance of someone you care about dying is quite high.

Even in Italy right now the chance that someone is infected is less than 0.1%; in other words it is 99.9% that a particular person in Italy does not have covid.  Even with poorer outcomes in Italy than in other parts of the world, it is about 90% likely that a patient will survive.  .

[HollyDay]

I too am very concerned about what all this is doing to US economy and world economy.  Many small business are certainly being hurt.  I keep hearing on the news and other media to "buy local."  I know many who would love to support local businesses via online shopping or take out.  However most I've spoken with IRL are concerned with losing their incomes through furlough.  Many have already been furloughed.  Many are told to expect furlough.  Colleges are online now and many "kids" have moved back home which means increased spending on necessities and in many cases, no refund (yet).  That means not much margin for non necessities.  I don't know a good solution here.  But if businesses remain closed and jobs are lost or furloughed, the economy cannot grow

[Bootsie]

21 minutes ago, square_25 said:

This is assuming you lock things down, though. We need to change the model if we decided to let it spread. 

Some of Italy has been locked down to a larger degree than other parts of Italy.  So, I do not think you need to have a total lockdown of the entire US for weeks to prevent having worse outcomes than Italy.  

[Bootsie]

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Italy is also currently a disaster. Maybe it won't be by the end. 

Yes, it is a disaster in the Lombardy region.  When that region was first going on lockdown tens of thousands of people fled from the area to southern Italy.  Southern Italy has seen a rise in cases, but nothing like the Lombardy region,  What has happened in Lombardy is horrible, but it has not been what has seemed to happen in all other areas.  So, when it is highly unlikely that someone, even in Lombardy, has died from covid, I find it hard to project how it is likely, or probably, going to be that someone in one's immediate family will die from covid.  

[ktgrok]

On 3/24/2020 at 10:29 AM, SamanthaCarter said:

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. 

This is true. But I don't see a way around it right now. 

On 3/24/2020 at 11:30 AM, Mom2mthj said:

 

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. 

They have done the studies/projections of that idea - just keep the high risk/elderly home. It still overwhelms the hospital system by 800 percent above what they can handle. So, yeah. That's not really a viable option. 

On 3/24/2020 at 11:33 AM, 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.  The many who have poor hygiene need masks if they cannot cough without covering, and they need to stay home if they are feverish.

You do understand that people with no symptoms can have and spread the virus, right? So sending home people with say, a fever, won't keep it out of schools. And I don't see how they can have desks 6 feet apart in any standard classroom. 

On 3/24/2020 at 12:16 PM, 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.

Maybe. The list of essential is pretty large - I know lawn care stores are included. 

On 3/24/2020 at 12:25 PM, Fifiruth said:

 

 

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. 

 

or your exessive measures are keeping the numbers low. 

On 3/24/2020 at 3:34 PM, SKL said:

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.

I'm not expecting zero tolerance. But lets say 30% of the country gets this - I've seen projections anywhere from 20-80% so that's on the lower end. That's over 100 million people in this country who have it. Lets say the death rate is 1% (people seem to be predicting 1-3% so I'm using the low end again). That's 1 MILLION people who die. Plus 20 million hospitalized. That's almost unimaginable. 

10 hours ago, SKL said:

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.

It is always stated by medical professionals that one of the benefits of the flu vaccine is that even if you get it, you get a more mild case. So it can reduce deaths even in people who get the flu. We don't have a vaccine for this, it is 10-30 times more deadly, and 10 times more people require hospital stays. 

5 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

Please don't post your thoughts as mine. 

  What I"m saying is that when push comes to shove, don't write off the people just on oxygen.  Johns Hopkins is doing a lot of data crunching; they will be coming up with more refined guidelines as to who might do just as well on oxygen as on a ventilator.  In the meantime, no need to look at everyone and call hospice, consider the oxygen alternative is there.  And don't just order ventilators.

Doctors don't like to put people on ventilators if they don't have to. It can cause damage on its own. No one is putting people on vents if they think they can avoid it. 

3 hours ago, Paige said:

We have 7 people in our immediate family (ages 2-50), so the chances are pretty high that if covid 19 went through our family that 1-2 of us would need hospitalization. We'd likely all survive, but I don't take hospitalization and possible ventilation lightly. A recovery from being sedated and on a ventilator isn't easy, fun, or quick. 

The odds of someone in your family being quite dangerously sick are very high- especially if they are over 70.

And don't forget the economic impacts of all those medical bills - especially with so many under insured or un insured! Plus they aren't working if they are in the hospital anyway. 

[ScoutTN]

6 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think we have to ask "Is this financial depression worse than what we'd face if a member of my household died?" I get that people have bills and that it's getting really bad.  However, I think most of the people who are angry about the shut down and want to go back to work are pretty much counting on not being one of the people who dies in the next few months. How would we treat this crisis differently if we had a crystal ball that showed someone in our immediate family dying from this? I think we behave differently when we think of it less abstractly.  

I'd love to see testing ramped up the point that people who show antibodies are free to move about the cabin and slowly wind the economy back up.  I think that would be a decent compromise between a total shut down and a free-for-all that overwhelms the hospitals.

Right, I didn't say that the shutdown shouldn't be happening or that the economic effects are not worth the saved lives.

This thread is about the economy. The OP asked about people being worried about the economic effects and I answered the question. People with secure jobs can weather this as a huge inconvenience.  Hundreds of thousands (at the very least) of small business owners  will be utterly devastated, losing their life's work, all their capital, and 100% of their income. From middle class to poverty in weeks. No government aid package will even come close to repairing or replacing this damage. People won't starve or lose their homes, but the effects will be enormous for millions of people.

And some of those people will get sick or lose family members to CV too. Even when they've obeyed all the rules perfectly.

Edited March 26, 2020 by ScoutTN

[ScoutTN]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Is that true? Will government aid not help? 

Help a bit. Keep people in food and from being homeless, sure.  Help employees more than owners.

Replace millions of dollars of lost capital when businesses have to be closed or sold? Replace the value in the community of a family owned, three generation, non-chain restuarant that sources it's food locally? Get their building back for them? All their equipment, their fabulous staff? Not replacable. 

[ScoutTN]

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Why does it have to be closed or sold right now? I'm not being snarky... I'm genuinely curious. 

Because they do not have enough income. They cannot operate in the red. Almost zero income for several weeks - they can't pay the rent or insurance or untilities or pay vendors or employees. Restaurants work on very small margins, esp non-corporate ones and ones that use high quality, local ingredients. 

Edited March 26, 2020 by ScoutTN

[ScoutTN]

Just now, square_25 said:

I hope something can be done about that :-(. Like forgiveness from landlords and utilities or something. I really don't know what the options are, but it really sucks that this is hitting people hard. 

To be clear, though, this is very likely to hit restaurants hard whether anything is done or not. Once the numbers get high where you are, people WILL hunker down and stop going to restaurants, even if they aren't allowed to stop going to work. 

If creditors are forced to forgive debts, then they too become financially imperiled at some point. Chase or Bank of America can afford that on a sizable scale, my local credit union cannot. 

[Sneezyone]

Is business interruptions insurance not a thing people do?

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Is business interruptions insurance not a thing people do?

Depends on where you are. In florida my business owning friends say it is not anywhere near affordable, and not always even an option at any price, due to the hurricanes we get. No insurance company wants to take on that risk. 

[Selkie]

16 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Is business interruptions insurance not a thing people do?

Insurance companies are claiming that loss of business due to a pandemic is not covered.

https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-insurance-fight-looms/289-75421fc8-2712-4402-ada7-b902936afae9

[prairiewindmomma]

My next door neighbors own a restaurant. I am hoping they didn’t use their house as collateral because I like them.

No one was in their restaurant for two weeks before the formal lockdown. Once we hit community spread, a lot of people hunkered down and others began budget cutbacks. People downshift from $15-30 entrees to Chipotle takeout, iykwim.

If they opened our town up tomorrow, I don’t know that it would change anything for them. Everything is in contraction. Business will only pick up when people feel safe—physically and financially.

[Sneezyone]

40 minutes ago, Selkie said:

Insurance companies are claiming that loss of business due to a pandemic is not covered.

https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-insurance-fight-looms/289-75421fc8-2712-4402-ada7-b902936afae9

Insurance companies gonna insurance company...I guess. It seems like they do this after every disaster. Money>people.

[KungFuPanda]

It feels like this pandemic is a big test for capitalism and I'm not sure we're going to even squeak by with a C.

[Hadley]

I’m checking back in to say that I have appreciated what y’all have had to say.  I don’t have anything to add.  My heart hurts for my country.  

However, I DO believe that this country will come back.  I DO believe that Capitalism works (and don’t want to get into the weeds with this, but the evidence is clear.  Capitalism=less poverty).  I DO believe in America.  I just wish we could wake up tomorrow morning with this all behind us.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Hadley

[KungFuPanda]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

A test how? 

With so many nations and economies going through this at the same time, it'll be interesting to see how they each recover and how the populace fares once the health crisis is behind us.  I'm curious to see how different countries handle recovery and how soon we can return to business as usual without fear of catching this.  We can make predictions, but we really have to wait and see.  

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I think it's going to be an evaluation of lots of things. For example, having relatively independent states is good for some things and bad for others, and I'm going to guess it's not good for this. But we'll see :-(. 

 

Yes and no. Obviously some states are way behind in shutting down then they go and spread it to other states. Arghhh

 

But the Feds especially the CDC completely failed the American people as far as testing was concerned and kept some states, University labs and others shut down from producing tests and getting the ball running. 

So we seem to fail no matter if we are independent states or under Federal direction. 

[ktgrok]

So, the idea that "high risk" is just great grandpa who isn't contributing to the economy anyway and so he should be willing to die for said economy....this shows that those who are high risk make up over 40% of the adult population. So, yeah. 

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/how-many-adults-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/

[TechWife]

9 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

Please don't post your thoughts as mine. 

  What I"m saying is that when push comes to shove, don't write off the people just on oxygen.  Johns Hopkins is doing a lot of data crunching; they will be coming up with more refined guidelines as to who might do just as well on oxygen as on a ventilator.  In the meantime, no need to look at everyone and call hospice, consider the oxygen alternative is there.  And don't just order ventilators.

I posted my thought, thanks. I stand by it. Anecdotes aren’t a valid basis for changing the standard of care. Patients needing ventilator support as evidenced by their condition should have it. Anything less is a systemic failure. The only reason the “data  crunching” is occurring at this point is because there is a massive systemic failure. They are looking for the second, third and fourth best treatment options because the standard of care isn’t guaranteed to be available. It will take a long tome  to develop these “refined guidelines” and adopt them as a standard of care. It’s nice to be optimistic, but science is based in reality. Just because some patients that should have been placed on ventilators but weren’t due to the lack of equipment survived, it isn’t sufficient cause for abandoning the standards. You made your point, I’m making mine. 

[Bootsie]

7 hours ago, square_25 said:

Is that true? Will government aid not help? 

The help of government aid is limited.  The government doesn't have money lying around to use. To spend more money the government has to (1) tax people more or (2) borrow more money--and tax people more in the future.  If the economy is not operating, the damage is there.  If workers are not at work, their productivity is lost, GDP is smaller.  Looking at whether there is government aid, or insurance, or loan forbearance , only determines WHO bears the burden of that loss.