Areas opening/big parties/protests....are these showing spikes?

[katilac]

10 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I said that would happen and people thought it was nuts. But there you go. Think through the logic. You report and your friends now can't go to work when they need money. Of course there's going to be pressure (internal or peers) not to report, not to test. 

If they can't go to work due to Covid, they would get the $600 per week federal payment on top of their state's unemployment, which is an exceedingly sweet deal for most people. So I don't really see the fear of not being able to go to work at play here, at least not while the federal payment is there.

Edited May 25, 2020 by katilac

[PeterPan]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

 

I think what we have is a political battle that's encouraging people to treat these public health measures as divisive. And that's unfortunate. It's not at all obvious to me that there's be the same "battle of cultures" without encouragement from the top. 

Look, Trump took a lot of flack when he said something about NY. I've been to NY, Oregon, lots of places. I like America all the way, everywhere. But there's a lot of diversity and Trump is a *reflection* of what people are thinking, not the driver. Like I said, we drove through multiple states this week. We spent a bunch of days in Missouri, which I had never been to before. What an amazing place, with the mountains and rivers and forests. Unabashedly pro-Trump, with guns and elephants everywhere. Literal elephants. I've lived in a lot of strongly republican places, but I've never seen such a thing. It would be a mistake to assume Trump is some anomaly just because he doesn't reflect where you live. 

[vonfirmath]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

Something I'm noticing is that the US numbers this weekend do not look right. I mean, they are always low on a Sunday (reporting lag), but today, they look even more wrong than usual. 

I expect we won't have good data (except from here in NY, which seems to not have lags) for the next 3 days or so, due to the holiday. And given the current state of things, that makes me nervous. 

 

I don't know. My husband is essential personnel (And salary so he isn't getting paid extra for this work. He thinks he might get some sort of bonus for Memorial Day because they asked for volunteers -- but he would have volunteered anyway because they needed help and he's available because I can stay home and watch kids) in Texas who works M-F and normally gets memorial day off. he worked today (They've added in extra weekend hours for the team) and is working tomorrow to for the entering coronavirus testing data part of his job.  (And they had almost a full day today because of all the work to do).  So they are actually trying to keep up despite the holiday.

Edited May 25, 2020 by vonfirmath

[Farrar]

4 hours ago, Ottakee said:

Then how do we make any sort of educated guess as to what is the best course of action.....for the virus, economy, mental health, etc?

More testing. I really think it's the only way.

Like, we had to make a very hard decision about whether or not ds could attend a ballet intensive this summer. In the end, we decided no. They had originally hoped to test kids when they came in. They were not able to do that. So we can't trust it. But if they did... well, it would still be a risk, but the whole picture changes. And that's true for everywhere. If everywhere could test all the time, we could open. Need to open your factory? Test everyone. Want to resume college classes? Everyone gets tested. Want baseball to start again? Test every single one of them every single week. And then we still have to potentially go isolate again or distance more if an outbreak comes... but then we'll have early warning detectors. Outbreaks won't be that 60 people get infected and then they go infect their families, who then infect others and suddenly you've got 500 new cases and those are just the detected ones. It'll be 60 people get infected and they go home and few family members are infected and it stops there and everyone is isolated. Because it's a bit random... but it's also based on the odds. The more people interact, the higher the odds that an outbreak will happen. Every interaction is a gamble. The risks of bigger interactions grows exponentially. So then we have to continue to limit those... to some extent. But we don't have to stop them like we have been if we can test and trace. And we CAN.

Tracing can work in central Africa. In impoverished villages in India. It's something that was working decades ago. Heck, John Snow (the other one) solved the mystery of cholera with tracing in the 1800's before disease theory was really fully understood. This can be done. But we've convinced ourselves that America is somehow so exceptional that we can't even do this. We can. We just have to trust the government like a tiny, tiny bit and also not want to infect others. That's literally it. It's so little.

 

[beaners]

47 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I think what we have is a political battle that's encouraging people to treat these public health measures as divisive. And that's unfortunate. It's not at all obvious to me that there's be the same "battle of cultures" without encouragement from the top. 

 

I am beyond baffled at the way some of these things have turned. Contact tracing. I have encountered so many people who didn't know that contact tracing was already a thing that health departments did. One of the kids we adopted came home with Giardia and we had to help the health department figure out where he may have gotten it. An immigrant situation wasn't the norm for the area so they ended up filing it as he had been drinking unfiltered water. (In Ukraine.) But now people think it is a brand new thing designed to steal your rights. It has always been there. Most people have just not encountered it until this point.

Masks have always been a thing. Our family has always used them in high-risk settings both for risk of spreading and risk of catching. A local police officer had an off-the-record conversation with my husband that no one in the precinct thinks masks work, and they have no interest in requesting people follow mask requirements. I know I have friends who would high-five and cheer about that. People here are dividing so strongly over issues that other countries do not see as divisive at all. A first family of one of my kids from Ukraine reached out to make sure that we are safe *here* because of what they are seeing.

[PeterPan]

Just as a follow up to the high stats of 84 for Saturday's Ohio covid deaths, the Sunday deaths were 13. https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200524/coronavirus-in-ohio-state-reports-13-new-covid-19-deaths-on-sunday-none-in-greater-akron

[Sneezyone]

Darwin. All we can do is to take care of ours to the best of our ability. My mom and sister live in a high-risk area of Arkansas where the Gov. 'opened up' long before it was safe to do so and a high school "swim party" caused a brand new cluster of cases. Cmon...who has private pools? You already know who. My sister is also PG and "essential", working in the area. It's a giant cluster. New and big outbreaks are inevitable.

[Pam in CT]

re relationship between testing and getting the economy going again

30 minutes ago, Farrar said:

More testing. I really think it's the only way.

Like, we had to make a very hard decision about whether or not ds could attend a ballet intensive this summer. In the end, we decided no. They had originally hoped to test kids when they came in. They were not able to do that. So we can't trust it. But if they did... well, it would still be a risk, but the whole picture changes. And that's true for everywhere. If everywhere could test all the time, we could open. Need to open your factory? Test everyone. Want to resume college classes? Everyone gets tested. Want baseball to start again? Test every single one of them every single week. And then we still have to potentially go isolate again or distance more if an outbreak comes... but then we'll have early warning detectors. Outbreaks won't be that 60 people get infected and then they go infect their families, who then infect others and suddenly you've got 500 new cases and those are just the detected ones. It'll be 60 people get infected and they go home and few family members are infected and it stops there and everyone is isolated. Because it's a bit random... but it's also based on the odds. The more people interact, the higher the odds that an outbreak will happen. Every interaction is a gamble. The risks of bigger interactions grows exponentially. So then we have to continue to limit those... to some extent. But we don't have to stop them like we have been if we can test and trace. And we CAN.

Tracing can work in central Africa. In impoverished villages in India. It's something that was working decades ago. Heck, John Snow (the other one) solved the mystery of cholera with tracing in the 1800's before disease theory was really fully understood. This can be done. But we've convinced ourselves that America is somehow so exceptional that we can't even do this. We can. We just have to trust the government like a tiny, tiny bit and also not want to infect others. That's literally it. It's so little.

 

Right.

We want to re-open and get back to Normal, but we also want to do it on the cheap.  We are not willing to make the investments -- in testing, in expensive contact tracing, in trading off (perfectly real) privacy concerns. 

But The Economy!! cannot go back to Normal when employees in crowded workplaces are smitten, when accrued medical bills for the "mild" cases pull households under, when every interaction and every transaction and interaction involves unknowable assessments of probabilities of possible infection/ probable severity if infected/ possible transmission to other household members.  It just can't. Fast-forward back to Normal isn't on the table.

The economy of the nation is related to the health of the nation.  We don't get to choose one or the other, they are intertwined.  Getting the economy "moving" again will entail investing in public health -- repeated and free testing, contact tracing that is more invasive than many of us are comfortable with, a larger government role than many of us would prefer.

It's a pandemic. We can't deal with it cheaply or quickly, and there's no return to Normal without dealing with it. 

(Neither can any other countries either... but most of our peer nations seem to have cottoned on faster and more fully than we have that this can't be addressed on the cheap or without substantial disruption to the old way of life.)

[kbutton]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Fwiw, I wouldn't interpret too much till you know *where* those deaths occurred. There have been a lot of cases in the prisons and news sources have been saying our nursing/assisted living deaths represent 65-70% of the covid deaths in Ohio. 

I have been watching the nursing home numbers in the next county over because we're on the county line--we shop in that county, my DH works in that county, and people from that county go to school in our area (big private Catholic school is on our side of the line). Nursing home cases are not explaining the vast majority of cases, and the jail is actually in my county and supposedly only guards have tested positive there. So, I am not convinced that it's just a nursing home/jail problem everywhere in the state. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

If they can't go to work due to Covid, they would get the $600 per week federal payment on top of their state's unemployment, which is an exceedingly sweet deal for most people. So I don't really see the fear of not being able to go to work at play here, at least not while the federal payment is there.

Many places are also giving their employees special paid Covid leave for a wide variety of situations, including being quarantined. Both mine and my husband’s do. My niece just finished two fully paid weeks in quarantine and didn’t need to use any of her leave time. Her mom has a similar program. I don’t know how widespread it is, but it is the norm in my immediate family.

[klmama]

I thought nursing homes were the likely cause of high numbers in a nearby county.  After talking with someone who works there, I think it's more likely because most people there just don't bother wearing masks and haven't really stopped getting together.  😒

[Frances]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Look, Trump took a lot of flack when he said something about NY. I've been to NY, Oregon, lots of places. I like America all the way, everywhere. But there's a lot of diversity and Trump is a *reflection* of what people are thinking, not the driver. Like I said, we drove through multiple states this week. We spent a bunch of days in Missouri, which I had never been to before. What an amazing place, with the mountains and rivers and forests. Unabashedly pro-Trump, with guns and elephants everywhere. Literal elephants. I've lived in a lot of strongly republican places, but I've never seen such a thing. It would be a mistake to assume Trump is some anomaly just because he doesn't reflect where you live. 

 

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Look, Trump took a lot of flack when he said something about NY. I've been to NY, Oregon, lots of places. I like America all the way, everywhere. But there's a lot of diversity and Trump is a *reflection* of what people are thinking, not the driver. Like I said, we drove through multiple states this week. We spent a bunch of days in Missouri, which I had never been to before. What an amazing place, with the mountains and rivers and forests. Unabashedly pro-Trump, with guns and elephants everywhere. Literal elephants. I've lived in a lot of strongly republican places, but I've never seen such a thing. It would be a mistake to assume Trump is some anomaly just because he doesn't reflect where you live. 

I don’t think he’s an anomaly at all. That’s almost the most frightening thing about him.

[Farrar]

38 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re relationship between testing and getting the economy going again

Right.

We want to re-open and get back to Normal, but we also want to do it on the cheap.  We are not willing to make the investments -- in testing, in expensive contact tracing, in trading off (perfectly real) privacy concerns. 

But The Economy!! cannot go back to Normal when employees in crowded workplaces are smitten, when accrued medical bills for the "mild" cases pull households under, when every interaction and every transaction and interaction involves unknowable assessments of probabilities of possible infection/ probable severity if infected/ possible transmission to other household members.  It just can't. Fast-forward back to Normal isn't on the table.

The economy of the nation is related to the health of the nation.  We don't get to choose one or the other, they are intertwined.  Getting the economy "moving" again will entail investing in public health -- repeated and free testing, contact tracing that is more invasive than many of us are comfortable with, a larger government role than many of us would prefer.

It's a pandemic. We can't deal with it cheaply or quickly, and there's no return to Normal without dealing with it. 

(Neither can any other countries either... but most of our peer nations seem to have cottoned on faster and more fully than we have that this can't be addressed on the cheap or without substantial disruption to the old way of life.)

Yes yes yes.

This whole thing reminds me of some times I've made stupid consumer decisions because I'm trying to save money. First, I try to make it myself with stuff I've already got. Hey, look at this hack for the furniture I need, it's fine, it looks cute, I can do this! So then I invest all this time and end up spending money to get the right glue or whatever and make a stupid thing and realize, oh, this is crap. So then I spend all this time shopping, nickel and diming every bit. Ooh, I don't want to spend that much. Surely I can find this for $100 less. And I buy some cheap knockoff. And then it arrives broken. Double crap. It doesn't do the job. So then, after like three months of wasted time not having the thing I need and trying to save money... I end up buying the thing I should have just invested in from the start. I have done this in homeschooling so many times... like, ooh, I can just put the science kit together myself. Geez. You'd think I'd learn.

[Pam in CT]

re role of "personal responsibility" / individual risk minimization

54 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Except that there might very well be another way forward, because personal responsibility may also be a way out of this! If we all minimized our own risk taking, that might cut virus transmission quite a lot. And that would make a huge difference. 

Of course, as we can see, that is absolutely not happening everywhere. I mean, if you believe that masks are ineffective, that should be a reason to go out less, not more -- if masks don't help, then you are more likely to be contributing to spread if you go out. But it's definitely not the case that people who aren't masking are staying home... 

Sure.

My whole family loves to travel, both domestically and internationally; and we also have family members sprawled up and down the Eastern seaboard.  In a typical year each of the 5 of us takes several international & domestic flights, several RT trains to WDC and/or Boston, innumerable road trips, hotels and apartment rentals and restaurants, plus all sorts of sightseeing and etc.  This year there will be no air or train travel at all; perhaps one road trip to a suitably remote open-air cabin setup if I can organize something with my mother that we can all feel comfortable with.  Maybe.

My youngest (high school junior) was planning to do a residential filmmaking program this summer at university. It has been canceled, but even if it were operating we would not feel comfortable with it.

I really really really love going to theater and dance and museum openings and indie movies. Nope.

It's all i"personal responsibility" and "individual risk assessment" and it still contracts the economy.

You're on the UWS.  My launching-age daughter lives on the UWS (well, in real life she does; in COVID life she's hanging out here). How many people are, say, looking to buy apartments on the UWS?  How many people -- based on their personal risk assessment and judgment about where things are headed -- are looking to make that kind of investment?  Around here real estate is at a complete standstill.  Because based on "individual risk assessment" the market is contracting.

 

Investment in the really-big things (apartments, houses) requires trust that real estate values won't languish or crash. Investment in the pretty-big things (new car, kitchen remodel) requires trust that those savings won't be needed for (say) massive medical bills or other emergencies around the corner. Consumption in large discretionary things (travel, Disney, theater, professional sports events) requires trust both that those funds won't be needed for (say) massive medical bills around the corner and also trust that going to such places won't be a transmission vector.

In other nations, testing and contract tracing (along with masking and PPE where called for) are tools used to BUILD that trust and SUPPORT return to safe employment, return to safe interaction in smaller and safer and better-ventilated contexts, return to renewed consumption in the marketplace.  If we persist here in viewing them as too expensive, or incursions on liberty, or worthy of scorn... well, OK.  Decision-making by default, perhaps; to not-take actions that other nations are taking.  It still contracts the economy.

It's a pandemic. There are no shortcuts. We cannot fast-forward to the end. We cannot get through it on the cheap. One way or another there will be costs.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Pam in CT

[PeterPan]

46 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I have been watching the nursing home numbers in the next county over because we're on the county line--we shop in that county, my DH works in that county, and people from that county go to school in our area (big private Catholic school is on our side of the line). Nursing home cases are not explaining the vast majority of cases, and the jail is actually in my county and supposedly only guards have tested positive there. So, I am not convinced that it's just a nursing home/jail problem everywhere in the state. 

The nursing homes/assisted living are 65-70% of the *deaths*. 

A total aside, but I was playing around with the numbers and it looked to me like when you divide out cases and population, the county near me with a major city had the same *ratio* of cases to population (or was it deaths? no, I think I was looking at just flat cases) as my county which is mostly towns. I was expecting it to be higher. Now me, I'm not going to that big city because I think that's risky. They're dense, tighter in, and I don't know just doesn't seem wise to me. But I was really surprised that the ratios were basically the same. That was a week or two, could have changed.

So then, if you want to get a little more curious, in this more town county where I live, mask usage is quite low at this point. One store has up a sign *requesting* mask usage, which I honestly had not seen the couple times I had been in, oops my bad. That explains the 50% mask usage there. But almost anywhere else I've been around here, mask usage is about 20%. But per boardie accounts, mask usage in the big city in that neighboring county is QUITE HIGH, like 75%. So that's kind of curious too.

DeWine was on the national news today begging people to wear masks. So clearly he doesn't think he has the level of support he wants, and it's kind of curious if the data is the SAME either way. 

I think the next phenomenon we're going to see is people thinking masks keep them safe. Our governor is saying masks are a courtesy, masks help you not share the germs you might not realize you have, fine. But I'm saying there's a level of the populace that thinks the masks are keeping them safe, their kids safe, that they don't have to distance if they have a mask on, etc. I'm getting really tired of people thinking it's ok to come up too close because they have a mask on. 

[Frances]

39 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

The nursing homes/assisted living are 65-70% of the *deaths*. 

A total aside, but I was playing around with the numbers and it looked to me like when you divide out cases and population, the county near me with a major city had the same *ratio* of cases to population (or was it deaths? no, I think I was looking at just flat cases) as my county which is mostly towns. I was expecting it to be higher. Now me, I'm not going to that big city because I think that's risky. They're dense, tighter in, and I don't know just doesn't seem wise to me. But I was really surprised that the ratios were basically the same. That was a week or two, could have changed.

So then, if you want to get a little more curious, in this more town county where I live, mask usage is quite low at this point. One store has up a sign *requesting* mask usage, which I honestly had not seen the couple times I had been in, oops my bad. That explains the 50% mask usage there. But almost anywhere else I've been around here, mask usage is about 20%. But per boardie accounts, mask usage in the big city in that neighboring county is QUITE HIGH, like 75%. So that's kind of curious too.

DeWine was on the national news today begging people to wear masks. So clearly he doesn't think he has the level of support he wants, and it's kind of curious if the data is the SAME either way. 

I think the next phenomenon we're going to see is people thinking masks keep them safe. Our governor is saying masks are a courtesy, masks help you not share the germs you might not realize you have, fine. But I'm saying there's a level of the populace that thinks the masks are keeping them safe, their kids safe, that they don't have to distance if they have a mask on, etc. I'm getting really tired of people thinking it's ok to come up too close because they have a mask on. 

I’m not sure any real conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of masking from a few anecdotal accounts in different locations. 
 

I do agree there is still lots of confusion over masks. Masking has worked much better in countries where there is a consistent national message from the very top. Leading by words and example with a clear and consistent message is very important, especially when it comes to public health measures that need widespread buy in from the public. Of course countries like South Korea with an adequate supply of affordable n95s for everyone due to early government and industry cooperation on both production and distribution are also at an advantage because then masks can both protect the wearer and others. 

[Bootsie]

9 hours ago, katilac said:

If they can't go to work due to Covid, they would get the $600 per week federal payment on top of their state's unemployment, which is an exceedingly sweet deal for most people. So I don't really see the fear of not being able to go to work at play here, at least not while the federal payment is there.

These are unemployment benefits.  Do they extend to if someone is employed but not able to go to work because of being ill or quarantined?  

[TCB]

7 hours ago, PeterPan said:

The nursing homes/assisted living are 65-70% of the *deaths*. 

A total aside, but I was playing around with the numbers and it looked to me like when you divide out cases and population, the county near me with a major city had the same *ratio* of cases to population (or was it deaths? no, I think I was looking at just flat cases) as my county which is mostly towns. I was expecting it to be higher. Now me, I'm not going to that big city because I think that's risky. They're dense, tighter in, and I don't know just doesn't seem wise to me. But I was really surprised that the ratios were basically the same. That was a week or two, could have changed.

So then, if you want to get a little more curious, in this more town county where I live, mask usage is quite low at this point. One store has up a sign *requesting* mask usage, which I honestly had not seen the couple times I had been in, oops my bad. That explains the 50% mask usage there. But almost anywhere else I've been around here, mask usage is about 20%. But per boardie accounts, mask usage in the big city in that neighboring county is QUITE HIGH, like 75%. So that's kind of curious too.

DeWine was on the national news today begging people to wear masks. So clearly he doesn't think he has the level of support he wants, and it's kind of curious if the data is the SAME either way. 

I think the next phenomenon we're going to see is people thinking masks keep them safe. Our governor is saying masks are a courtesy, masks help you not share the germs you might not realize you have, fine. But I'm saying there's a level of the populace that thinks the masks are keeping them safe, their kids safe, that they don't have to distance if they have a mask on, etc. I'm getting really tired of people thinking it's ok to come up too close because they have a mask on. 

Just wondering if you had considered this - maybe your instinct that cases would be higher in the larger city is a good one. It makes sense to me that a higher density would mean higher cases. Maybe the higher level of wearing masks in the higher density area is mitigating that higher risk in some way, which is keeping their level a bit lower than you might expect.

[Joker]

44 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Oh, I agree with you. I think we will keep contracting the economy via individual actions. However, I do think there’s a world in which people do their best to support the economy (getting takeout/buying from stores/traveling) but also not attending any unnecessary gatherings. And in that world, it’s easier to rev the economy back up.

Technically, we were considering buying an apartment on the UWS ;-). I figure prices will go down and it may be a good time to do so.

But your point stands. Our economy functions on trust and a feeling of safety. Take that away, and you have a very different world.

This is another thing that is going to vary on where you live. I can’t believe how “normal” things are here - except for masks. I was just reading how our housing market is doing better right now than at this time last year. A house just sold on my street and was only on the market about a week. On our walks we saw them having many showings. My mom even decided the pandemic was a good time to buy a new car. It just seems so weird to me because I see the news of other places and read the stories here but it’s so normal where I’m at. We did trade our NYC vacation for an RV trip in two weeks but we’re mostly staying in and just hoping it all doesn’t come crashing down.

[Pam in CT]

The NYT has a good in-depth dive this morning on how various facets of the pandemic have hit different geographic areas differently, and thus -- to the points being made on this thread -- the on-the-ground realities that different segments of Americans are seeing are quite different.  It speaks to many of the issues we've discussed and provides some explanatory power to why different segments are seeing the risks, tradeoffs and policy issues so differently.

(They've suspended the paywall for COVID coverage.)

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

One would hope so?

Unless I missed something in the legislation, unemployment benefits are only for unemployment situations, not for sick or quarantine leave.  There were some provisions for federal subsidizing of sick and quarantine leave, but as usual, it was complicated in that it only applied to companies with fewer than 500 employees and there were exceptions.  

Extending unemployment benefits to those on sick leave would be extremely problematic.  The state unemployment systems are already swamped with applications.  To have people using that same system to report 2 weeks of quarantine leave would just back those systems up more.  The systems are not set up to accept those types of applications.  States are already looking at much larger than ever anticipated withdrawals from their systems and are facing unprecedented financial strains.  Would someone on two weeks sick leave count against a company in states that tie unemployment insurance taxes to company histories of layoffs?   What about employees with paid sick leave?  Do they receive their regular paid sick leave and the unemployment benefits?  

And, those who are entitled to unemployment benefits, are not necessarily even receiving their benefits yet.  DS lost his job in mid-March when his employer went out of business.  It took weeks for him to get through the system to apply.  He has qualified for benefits but still has not received a payment.  

[Bootsie]

17 minutes ago, Joker said:

This is another thing that is going to vary on where you live. I can’t believe how “normal” things are here - except for masks. I was just reading how our housing market is doing better right now than at this time last year. A house just sold on my street and was only on the market about a week. On our walks we saw them having many showings. My mom even decided the pandemic was a good time to buy a new car. It just seems so weird to me because I see the news of other places and read the stories here but it’s so normal where I’m at. We did trade our NYC vacation for an RV trip in two weeks but we’re mostly staying in and just hoping it all doesn’t come crashing down.

If your housing market is doing better locally than this time last year, it is not the norm.

Regionally, sales in the Northeast fell 16.9% monthly and 18.2% annually. In the Midwest, sales were down 12% monthly and down 8.3% from a year ago. In the South, sales dropped 17.9% monthly and 16.8% annually. In the West, where prices are highest, sales fell the most, down 25% monthly and down 27% from a year ago.  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/april-home-sales-drop-18percent-as-inventory-decline-pushes-prices-to-record-high.html

[Joker]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

If your housing market is doing better locally than this time last year, it is not the norm.

Regionally, sales in the Northeast fell 16.9% monthly and 18.2% annually. In the Midwest, sales were down 12% monthly and down 8.3% from a year ago. In the South, sales dropped 17.9% monthly and 16.8% annually. In the West, where prices are highest, sales fell the most, down 25% monthly and down 27% from a year ago.  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/april-home-sales-drop-18percent-as-inventory-decline-pushes-prices-to-record-high.html

Oh, I know it's not the norm. That's why I said it just feels weird here to me right now. 

[Wheres Toto]

9 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

e really-big things (apartments, houses) requires trust that real estate values won't languish or crash. Investment in the pretty-big things (new car, kitchen remodel) requires trust that those savings won't be needed for (say) massive medical bills or other emergencies around the corner. Consumption in large discretionary things (travel, Disney, theater, professional sports events) requires trust both that those funds won't be needed for (say) massive medical bills around the corner and also trust that going to such places won't be a transmission vector.

In other nations, testing and contract tracing (along with masking and PPE where called for) are tools used to BUILD that trust and SUPPORT return to safe employment, return to safe interaction in smaller and safer and better-ventilated contexts, return to renewed consumption in the marketplace.  If we persist here in viewing them as too expensive, or incursions on liberty, or worthy of scorn... well, OK.  Decision-making by default, perhaps; to not-take actions that other nations are taking.  It still contracts the economy.

It's a pandemic. There are no shortcuts. We cannot fast-forward to the end. We cannot get through it on the cheap. One way or another there will be costs.

Yes.  This is another thing I haven't understood from the beginning.  Just letting this run rampant wasn't going to make the economy normal.   Besides the whole 'sick and dead people can't work', people won't spend normally when they are scared.  

We had a couple vacations planned that we cancelled, we were putting new flooring in our house that we cancelled, we're watching spending on anything non-essential.  Our financial situation has actually changed very little but we want to hold on to what buffer we have because of the uncertainty. 

[vonfirmath]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

 

Oh, I agree with you. I think we will keep contracting the economy via individual actions. However, I do think there’s a world in which people do their best to support the economy (getting takeout/buying from stores/traveling) but also not attending any unnecessary gatherings. And in that world, it’s easier to rev the economy back up.

Technically, we were considering buying an apartment on the UWS ;-). I figure prices will go down and it may be a good time to do so.

But your point stands. Our economy functions on trust and a feeling of safety. Take that away, and you have a very different world.

And we are looking at buying a car. We were talking about it earlier this year and know we will need to very soon so decided this was the best time plus it supports a segment of the economy.

 

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

Just wondering if you had considered this - maybe your instinct that cases would be higher in the larger city is a good one. It makes sense to me that a higher density would mean higher cases. Maybe the higher level of wearing masks in the higher density area is mitigating that higher risk in some way, which is keeping their level a bit lower than you might expect.

I would assume this is true. Mask usage here is very high. So is population density. They’re helping balance each other out. A lot of my suburban friends aren’t wearing masks at all. And I’ll admit - we take them off if we find somewhere genuinely empty to take a walk... but then we pop them back on the second we see folks. If people don’t have them in the first place in less dense areas, that’s not an option. On the macro level, these things are a big influence on the numbers.

[Pam in CT]

re various routes to economic disruption

1 hour ago, Where's Toto? said:

Yes.  This is another thing I haven't understood from the beginning.  Just letting this run rampant wasn't going to make the economy normal.   Besides the whole 'sick and dead people can't work', people won't spend normally when they are scared.  

We had a couple vacations planned that we cancelled, we were putting new flooring in our house that we cancelled, we're watching spending on anything non-essential.  Our financial situation has actually changed very little but we want to hold on to what buffer we have because of the uncertainty. 

Right.  The "let 'er rip 'til 'herd immunity' is achieved naturally" presumes -- nobody SAYS, but that route is based on the unvoiced premise -- that every pocket of America gets to something like ~70-80% immunity.  Which the best data yet collected, more will be collected in June once blood banks start doing antibody testing as part of their basic screens, is ~4x the level that NYC has thus far "achieved."

So play that out, in terms of economic disruption. Not lives or health or scaredy-cat fears of transmission, just the economic disruption alone.  Not of SIP measures but of the illness itself. NYC has not merely lost 16,000 lives, which is more than 5x the number of lives lost in 9/11, 16,000 people who are no longer working or paying taxes or going to restaurants or buying stuff.  There were another ~50,000 "mild case" New Yorkers who languished in hospitals for days or weeks -- also not working or going to restaurants or buying stuff... and left afterwards not just weakened for weeks thereafter, but also with bills that entail postponing or canceling expenses before they can dig out.  Thousands others fear, not irrationally, that the uncertainty associated with the illness itself puts their jobs at risk, so even if they're still pulling a paycheck they aren't spending nearly as much, out of uncertainty about the future.

Uncertainty that is WARRANTED. Because it's a PANDEMIC.  Not a red-blue Rohrschach blot like we've all become accustomed to and in a real sense still long for.  An actual disease that makes people dead and sick and thus unable to participate in The Economy.

What we appear to have chosen, by default, is to let FOUR TIMES the NYC-level economic disruption play out through the nation's economy.  Because NYC has only "achieved" ~20% exposure citywide, and to get to "herd immunity" they - we - every geographic pocket in America -- has to get to something like 70-80%.  That is the economic plan we are by default choosing.  The costs -- not just lives and health costs, economic costs -- that the disease has wreaked there, needs to be wreaked everywhere, 4x as much. That is the (unstated) premise of "naturally occurring herd immunity."

(This is NOT a bleeding heart  or moralistic plea about how all lives matter even urban / elderly / minority / undocumented lives.  I believe all that but it is not the point at hand. The point is that those human beings ARE PART OF THE ECONOMY, at all levels.  Retirees fuel the tour group, cruse ship, hospitality sectors.  Undocumented workers fill crucial essential services that we take very much for granted like, as we have already seen, meatpacking and food processing. And etc.  All lives matter as an ethical matter sure, but all lives also have economic consequences.)

 

There cannot be a healthy economy built on the backs of a workforce through which a deadly virus is running rampant and a consumer base who's making "individual risk assessments" staring down life-or-death potential consequences for riding airplanes or public transport / facing down staggering financial catastrophe in the event the virus hits their families. 

There is no choice between public health and The Economy. They are intertwined.  They are intertwined whether we choose the Hammer and the Dance with widespread masking/ close monitoring/ ubiquitous testing/ mass investment in contact tracing/ phased stop-and-go re-opening like most of our peer nations are choosing, or if -- as seems the default to which we're headed-- we choose Let Er Rip. 

Either way there will be massive economic disruption.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Pam in CT
eta *4 times* NYC costs to date

[Pam in CT]

re unstated premises

10 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Except that people advocating for this simultaneously think people around them won't die as they careen towards herd immunity. It's not a logical stance. It's the "well, we'll get herd immunity, but it won't be a problem" stance. It requires making some assumptions which, given the current data, seem unwarranted. 

Most disagreements ultimately peel back to premises. Most premises are unvoiced. 

It is actually remarkably difficult to see our own.  (That is IME the greatest gift of interfaith / other sustained encounters across substantive differences -- the experience of having people ask enough questions and probe deeply enough in enough unexpected places that we begin to "see" our own never-once-considered assumptions and how that affects the worldview we've built atop in ways we hadn't before understood.)

[Kanin]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

Most people in February in NY were betting that something essentially different about America that would keep them safe. Right now, lots of places in America are betting that there's something essentially different about rural places that would keep them safe. Are they right? We're about to find out. But I'm scared to watch this play out.

Me too. In my area, we've had 20-30 new cases per day in the entire state for weeks. Recently, it's been more like 40-80 per day. We are "doing more testing," but does that really explain the increase? I just don't know, and I can't find out. Our state is calculating the positivity rate only once a week, and until recently was including antibody results in the rate, etc. It's just a mess. But people keep saying, "This isn't NYC! This isn't Massachusetts!" like it's out of the realm of imagination for someone from MA to drive the 3 hours to our state. Our governor just opened said that hotels can open on June 1, despite cases increasing. But I thought that decreasing cases was one of the criteria for opening more, so.... I'm losing trust with my elected officials.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

32 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Except that people advocating for this simultaneously think people around them won't die as they careen towards herd immunity. It's not a logical stance. It's the "well, we'll get herd immunity, but it won't be a problem" stance. It requires making some assumptions which, given the current data, seem unwarranted. 

Because they somehow think that if it rips through their town, community or family that it will all be asymptomatic , very mild, cases because “we’re healthy “.   

[Pam in CT]

re explicit premises and "logic"

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

For me, personally, mathematical training has been helpful with that. In mathematical proofs, you have to think about what you're assuming, and whether you know that thing. And I can tell you that people are not naturally good at this, even in mathematical contexts. It takes some conscious effort to line your thinking up logically and linearly. 

Not that I never make unwarranted assumptions, and not that it's not helpful to have me called on those. But I do try to examine them myself as well. 

Funny.  I first became conscious of the critical importance of premises in microeconomics, where every problem set started out with a prelude along the lines of...

Quote

Assume the following:

• Conditions of perfect competition on the supply side (ie no barriers to entry, perfect information about pricing, equal access to all financial and capital markets, no large companies wielding coercive power over supply chain players)
• Perfect labor mobility (ie if a firm in ND wants to hire, workers will instantly and seamlessly pick up and move without cost)
• Consumer decisions based on rational maximization of "utility" against price (ie advertising and marketing has no effect on consumer preferences)

which from the outset struck me as so wildly not-relevant to the lived realities of the real world that I felt the entire (beautifully logical, arithmetically elegant) field was an intricate house of cards built on a pile of sand. 

I nonetheless did a graduate degree. 

But I've pondered the business of premises ever since; and have noted that some of the fields that have some of the best CAPACITY to be explicit and rigorous about exactly what the premises are -- philosophy, statistics and other social sciences -- are more often than not quite silent on the subject.

Whereas for me, plumbing comparative *religion* with other IRL people who were stumbling and faltering just as I was to put words to things I'd never considered any more than air or gravity, was where I finally began to be able to see my own premises.  I am still not at all good at it -- really it is surprisingly hard to see the ground beneath my own feet -- but I did begin to appreciate that they are there, down deep and unseen and unvoiced and driving me in ways I cannot see.

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

 

I'm curious how much actual population density winds up mattering. Here's a graph of country population density versus coronavirus deaths per capita, for example: 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density

As you can see, that's a graph that's a whole lot of noise and not a lot of trend! And that's true even if you restrict your attention to Europe, where I more or less trust the data. 

It might look more meaningful if you graph it by smaller entities like cities or towns... anyone know of such a graph? 

That's fascinating. I don't know how you'd adjust either. Like, the behavior I'm seeing around me is radically different from the behavior I'm hearing about in much of the rest of the country. I don't know how much that's affecting things. And it's just as all over the place in Europe. Some countries have a lot of mask usage and others don't really have any.

If you look at the counties with the highest numbers per capita, it's also all over the place, so maybe our assumptions are wrong. But... some of the things that seem to go with high case rates, like meat packing plants, are in rural areas. And some of this has got to be based in behavior. Like, I refuse to believe that urban areas are less susceptible to a disease that likes crowds. This has got to be partly people engaging in riskier behavior... right?

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Because they somehow think that if it rips through their town, community or family that it will all be asymptomatic , very mild, cases because “we’re healthy “.   

 

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

 

I'm curious how much actual population density winds up mattering. Here's a graph of country population density versus coronavirus deaths per capita, for example: 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density

As you can see, that's a graph that's a whole lot of noise and not a lot of trend! And that's true even if you restrict your attention to Europe, where I more or less trust the data. 

It might look more meaningful if you graph it by smaller entities like cities or towns... anyone know of such a graph? 

I am not sure how meaningful it is to look at population density for a country.  Canada is a large country, but population-wise is concentrated in a small amount of the area.  When you look at population density for the US you are mixing the population density of NYC with the population density of New Mexico.  Even when you break it down by state, the population density in Houston in much different than the population density of Muleshoe, TX.  Even when breaking thing down to counties there are problems in that counties with equal population densities can have very different levels on non-county traffic entering and mixing with the population.  

I think one of the advantages that lower population areas have is that it is easier to contact trace and isolate.  

[Bootsie]

15 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Which is why I'd love to see more data. On the other hand, the "highest density" countries on that list are quite connected and have some higher density cities. So I don't see that it's a pointless comparison. 

But it's not as good as the city by city comparison. Is there data on that? Some cursory Googling results in Chinese data, but I don't really trust their numbers. 

You're right that it's easier to contact trace and isolate in lower population areas. But it might also be harder to test and the healthcare system is easier to overload. So there are lots of things going on here. At this point, I could get a PCR test across the street, if I felt like it. I doubt that's true in lots of other places. 

What would really by helpful is a statistic on the percentage of the population of a country (or state) that live in a square mile of at least X density, but I don't know of that being available.  I had not realized how densely populated Monaco is.  The linked chart is in log, switching to linear all other countries in Europe are stacked on top of each other because Monaco is such an outlier.  

[Bootsie]

25 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

But the thing is, it might only like some sorts of crowds. For example, it might like unmasked crowds that spend more than an hour together indoors. For all we know, that's how it spread in NYC -- we simply have no idea, since we had no testing and no contact tracing back them. 

But if that's the case, you would expect religious gatherings to be MORE of an issue than transit (which is going to have masks and be short term), say. And in fact, there has been a fair amount of spread via religious gatherings already -- the big South Korea outbreak was driven by one, for example. 

I think going by "density" misses a lot, because there might only be some types of density that are problematic. And right now, we're continuing to blindly grope about for what that type of density might be, instead of learning all we can and limiting it. 

It is puzzling how there can be one high density/prolonged contact situation such as a church service where a higher percentage of people are infected and many other similar events where there is not equal spread.  So, if you see that out of 100,000 church services with 100 people in attendance there is one service where 50 people are infected but cannot tie spread at any of the other services what can you conclude? 

If you have 10,000 people riding public transportation in 1000 different places and 1 person is infected each of those places, what can you conclude?   For the people attending church services the overall rate of infection was 50/million.  For the public transportation riders it was 1000/million.  Do we pay more attention to an outbreak that we can tie to a specific event?  Or, do we pay more attention to broader spread that is a little here and a little there?

[EmseB]

We just got a big spike in my county. Over 100 cases in one day's worth of testing at a prison about 30 minutes from me. I don't know how many tests they did, but it's part of an initiative to test everyone in the prisons regardless of symptoms.

My county also breaks down the origin of positive cases on our web page (travel, close contact, community spread, and still being investigated). The travel category is leftover from when that is where most people were getting it in the US. I feel like our county must be doing pretty good contact tracing because the close contact number is high, but that could also be because of the prison and meat packing plant tests.

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, if that's true, that's interesting. But those aren't actual numbers, are they?

No, these aren't actual numbers; I was just trying to structure some way of thinking about the issue.   There have been several incidences of a large percentage of participants at a church service, for example, who have been infected.  This gets media coverage and gets our attention; we think of the X% that were infected at that service.  But, we don't consider in that calculation all of the church services where no one was infected.   

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

These are unemployment benefits.  Do they extend to if someone is employed but not able to go to work because of being ill or quarantined?  

It is completely tied to your state's unemployment system. If you are approved for state unemployment, you can get the additional federal money. Each state has different rules for unemployment. Some states have waiting periods, some do not. 

If you are employed not paid for your sick time/quarantine due to Covid, then you might be eligible for unemployment. 

It all comes back to what your state is doing. 

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

<snip> 

Extending unemployment benefits to those on sick leave would be extremely problematic.  The state unemployment systems are already swamped with applications.  To have people using that same system to report 2 weeks of quarantine leave would just back those systems up more.  The systems are not set up to accept those types of applications.  States are already looking at much larger than ever anticipated withdrawals from their systems and are facing unprecedented financial strains.  Would someone on two weeks sick leave count against a company in states that tie unemployment insurance taxes to company histories of layoffs?   What about employees with paid sick leave?  Do they receive their regular paid sick leave and the unemployment benefits?  

And, those who are entitled to unemployment benefits, are not necessarily even receiving their benefits yet.  DS lost his job in mid-March when his employer went out of business.  It took weeks for him to get through the system to apply.  He has qualified for benefits but still has not received a payment.  

Bolding by me: there's really not much difference in processing quarantine leave applications than any other kind. You click "unemployed through no fault of my own" and then have to provide an explanation. The volume is unprecedented, yes, but I don't see why the process would be very different. They are very accustomed to reading the explanation and deciding if it fits the rules. 

No, Covid claims are not counting against employers. 

No, you cannot be employed and paid and also get unemployment. Exception: reduced hours, you can usually file for the difference. 

Yes, there are delays due to the huge volume. I don't think anything can be done about that. 

[rebcoola]

17 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I am just trying to wrap my head around this.....so people are afraid if they get tested and are positive that someone will call from the Health Department and try to determine who all that person has exposed to the virus.  Is this basically what they are fearful of?

They are afraid of being locked up.  They think you will be forced to test and isolate.  Their is a clause here for forced isolation for people who may be a grave danger to the public.  The law has been around forever and as near as I can tell never used.  But it was paired in the conspiracy theory videos with the centers voluntary isolation and people from group homes to isolate.  

Their is a slightly more reasonable group. That thinks you shouldn't get tested because it may effect future career choices like if you don't get tested than you don't have to worry about getting in the military or whatever later.

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Did those church services have a COVID positive person at them? That would be the question. 

Our rector was the first documented COVID positive case in our county.  He apparently became infected while he was at a conference out of town.  He had no reason to believe he had been exposed and performed church services and interacted with higher-risk parishoners, staff, and his family.  He became ill and was tested for flu--twice.  After feeling better he returned to the church and conducted a service.  The next morning he was in the ER with pneumonia--at which time he was finally tested for COVID-19.  Since it was the first case in the area, his family, church staff, and individuals attending the church service were quarantined (thinking containment in the US was possible).  No one else got sick. There is not one case tied to his plane travel, work, family, or church services--anyone who had been in close contact for an extended period of time.  

That is one anecdote, but we hear one anecdote about 50 people getting infected at a church service and it has a major impact on our thinking of the riskiness of a church service.  

At this point, there are many people who have been infected who do not know where or how they were infected.  Some cases are easy to track; we just need to be careful that we do not conclude more from those publicized cases than is warranted.  

[katilac]

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

It is puzzling how there can be one high density/prolonged contact situation such as a church service where a higher percentage of people are infected and many other similar events where there is not equal spread.  So, if you see that out of 100,000 church services with 100 people in attendance there is one service where 50 people are infected but cannot tie spread at any of the other services what can you conclude? 

One obvious factor is  that Church A could have an infected person attend while Church B does not. 

But let's assume that both churches have an infected person attend and both have exactly 100 people there. What are additional factors? 

The size of the church. Are the 100 people crammed in or spread out or somewhere in between? This can obviously make a big difference. 

The style of the service. Is it a more sedate service where the pastor does all of the talking and the congregants mostly mouth the words to any songs? (yeah, I'm Catholic 😄) Or is it a lively service where almost everyone sings with volume and enthusiasm, and there is a lot more speaking and 'shouting in the spirit' from the congregants? Another big risk factor.

What happens after the service. Do people nod, wave, and leave? Or does a crowd gather in the vestibule for hugs and lengthy conversations? 

I'm sure there are more. Number of people in attendance is not enough of a factor to be meaningful. 

 

[Bootsie]

16 minutes ago, katilac said:

It is completely tied to your state's unemployment system. If you are approved for state unemployment, you can get the additional federal money. Each state has different rules for unemployment. Some states have waiting periods, some do not. 

If you are employed not paid for your sick time/quarantine due to Covid, then you might be eligible for unemployment. 

It all comes back to what your state is doing. 

Bolding by me: there's really not much difference in processing quarantine leave applications than any other kind. You click "unemployed through no fault of my own" and then have to provide an explanation. The volume is unprecedented, yes, but I don't see why the process would be very different. They are very accustomed to reading the explanation and deciding if it fits the rules. 

No, Covid claims are not counting against employers. 

No, you cannot be employed and paid and also get unemployment. Exception: reduced hours, you can usually file for the difference. 

Yes, there are delays due to the huge volume. I don't think anything can be done about that. 

I know that in some states, the computer system was set up so that people who would honestly answer a question that would have disqualified them from unemployment insurance benefits several months ago under the states traditional rules would be automatically rejected.  There were ways to appeal, but that was a time consuming process.  Someone who has a job but is out sick, for example, is not at least in my state "unemployed through no fault of my own."  If someone was new to the labor force and had only worked a few months would be kicked out from the program.  People who were self-employed (and covered by the federal COVID coverage) would be kicked out of the system.  The data intake was such that it did not just default to where people provided an explanation that was then read by a human.    

 

[ktgrok]

I can say that my county has had a steady trend upward for the past week. 

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Huh. Well, that's one possible decision. I would say that public health-wise, that's a bad decision. 

This isn't so much a decision.  This is they way the computer program data intake was developed by people who did not foresee COVID-19 or needed to get the data required by the new government program.  That system had to be reprogrammed while the state was having to deal with record numbers of claims; a system that was designed to handle 13,000 calls per day had over 3 million calls in a 24 hour period.    The state all of a sudden how to collect more information than before while at the same time collect information from many more people than before. 

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I can say that my county has had a steady trend upward for the past week. 

So I'm not picking on you but wanting to know what people consider a trend upward? In cases, hospitalizations, percent positive? All of the above? I find it so hard to put all of this in context. Like I said, our data shows a big spike now but it is in the prison only, no other positives in the entire county. I can't look at the numbers on our county page and evaluate relative risk. I had to search the news to figure out what caused the spike.

[Pawz4me]

We had a record number of cases reported on the 23rd, and a record number of hospitalizations reported today. Worrisome.

[Bootsie]

14 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

That's fair. But South Korea reports no cases due to public transit, and it ought to know. The South Korean church thing isn't an anecdote: it's literally the most important factor in their outbreak so far. 

Most people apparently don't infect anyone else at all, as the link I cited said. And then some people infect 60 people. The point is that if no one interacts with 60 people in high-risk circumstances, you will not have super-spreader events. And if lots of people do, then you will have some random super-spreader events. And how many do we need for it to be a genuine problem for a place? We don't know. 

Has South Korea been able to report the source of each case?  I haven't seen that type of data.  What percentage of the cases in South Korea are tied to the one church event?  For what percentage of cases can they pinpoint infection?

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, square_25 said:

But that's much less true in countries that are actually contact tracing. And they are reporting a very specific kind of outbreak driving this pandemic. The issue isn't that it's a church: the issue, as @katilac said, is what they do. 

I'll be curious to see whether public transit is a driver of this pandemic or not. We'll know more soon enough. I frankly hope it's not, because we use a lot of public transit day to day. If need be, I guess we'll switch to taxis and walking. But I hope we don't have to. 

Which countries are doing a lot of contact tracing?  For what percentage of cases are they actually able to determine a source?

[Jean in Newcastle]

https://time.com/5842139/japan-beat-coronavirus-testing-lockdowns/

[Frances]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

But that's much less true in countries that are actually contact tracing. And they are reporting a very specific kind of outbreak driving this pandemic. The issue isn't that it's a church: the issue, as @katilac said, is what they do. 

I'll be curious to see whether public transit is a driver of this pandemic or not. We'll know more soon enough. I frankly hope it's not, because we use a lot of public transit day to day. If need be, I guess we'll switch to taxis and walking. But I hope we don't have to. 

At least where I live, so many bus drivers got infected that they shut down the busses for awhile. I’m not sure they’ve ever been on top of contact tracing enough to know about passengers. Perhaps partly due to this, public transportation is the only time the general public is required to wear masks in Phase 1 opening.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Frances