Objectively intelligent.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Zeke Emmanuel, retired with University and Health Care System pension, has argued we need to lock down for 18 months. Not a misprint: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/...al-81719365650

Putting aside the arrogance of this self-annointed (nice to have a brother in high places) brahmin's pronouncement that we "must" do what he says (we certainly will not be doing anything like it), he notes in a worst case scenario that we would have 2 million dead.

I don't know where he got 2 million from, but if we assume he's correct, that's .006 of the population.

For sake of this post, I'll assume that number is one based on what would occur if we went back to work on May 1, 2020.

The cost of not restarting the economy at least to some extent by May 1, 2020 will be many multiples of those 2 million lives, spread over many years. The economy will not immediately bounce back. It will take 1 - 2 months before people start behaving in a semblance of what was normal before the lockdowns.

Allowing the young low risk population (under 50 w/o co-morbidities) to start working on May 1 should allow some herd immunity to emerge w/o crushing the medical systems. (This date may vary for cities, where density risks overwhelming the systems. They may have to stay locked down a bit longer.)

Then allowing older workers without co-morbidities, say 50 - 65, to work after the third week of May would repeat the above process for that slice of the population.

After another three weeks, release the 65 and up w/o co-morbidities set to work.

And then finally, in late June, release the rest.

Throughout this, however, to ensure against overwhelming the health care system, direct all workers who can work from home to do so. And continue use of masks and enhanced attention to hygiene (hand washing), and refrain from mass gatherings as much as possible.

In other words, release people to work in waves, the most robust first, with three week intervals in between.

And get people like Emmanuel, making preposterous arguments for what is effectively "Nation Suicide," off the airwaves.

The death rate isn't as important as the hospitalization rate. That's generally at 20 percent of the cases. Which with that 2 million dead would be somewhere around 15-20 million hospitalized. The death rate probably would go up, too because capacity issues mean we can't take care of everyone who needs hospitalization.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Isn't Less saying that giving it to a private company to resell is not a public purpose (ala Kelo) and thus the initial taking was unconstitutional?

If he is, he is forgetting that Kelo held that giving the land to a private company redevelop was public-enough a use to permit the government to use eminent domain. But my question was, suppose it's entirely legit for the government to get ownership of the property (under, say, the DPA). What law prohibits rank corruption in the disposition of the property?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The death rate isn't as important as the hospitalization rate. That's generally at 20 percent of the cases. Which with that 2 million dead would be somewhere around 15-20 million hospitalized. The death rate probably would go up, too because capacity issues mean we can't take care of everyone who needs hospitalization.

NYC is reporting 10x the number of people dying in their homes lately. Pretty clear that the official death counts are way understated.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The death rate isn't as important as the hospitalization rate. That's generally at 20 percent of the cases. Which with that 2 million dead would be somewhere around 15-20 million hospitalized. The death rate probably would go up, too because capacity issues mean we can't take care of everyone who needs hospitalization.

But hospitalization rate can be based on fewer people need or fewer people get let in, or both.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

There's a Supreme Court election too, and it's the reason the WI GOP wouldn't let it be postponed, so as much as I'm for piling on Bernie, he's not the direct cause here.

Here's what i don't get- in Michigan an election that is only State Supreme Court (and scattered local propositions) would get very low turnout. A Presidential primary would get turnout. So having yesterday happen seems to me a bad idea for the GOP. You'll have way more D voters than you would have if it were held tomorrow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Here's what i don't get- in Michigan an election that is only State Supreme Court (and scattered local propositions) would get very low turnout. A Presidential primary would get turnout. So having yesterday happen seems to me a bad idea for the GOP. You'll have way more D voters than you would have if it were held tomorrow.

Maybe they were thinking that the pandemic would suppress voting in Democratic areas (especially Milwaukee) more than Republican areas.

It seems like any kind of process reform is impossible because Republicans will not agree to anything unless it helps Republicans.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe they were thinking that the pandemic would suppress voting in Democratic areas (especially Milwaukee) more than Republican areas.

It seems like any kind of process reform is impossible because Republicans will not agree to anything unless it helps Republicans.

Yeah but given Bernie was wavering I just think it would have been smarter to stall?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The death rate isn't as important as the hospitalization rate. That's generally at 20 percent of the cases. Which with that 2 million dead would be somewhere around 15-20 million hospitalized. The death rate probably would go up, too because capacity issues mean we can't take care of everyone who needs hospitalization.

His 2 mil number may include deaths caused as a result of lack of medical capacity. The Gates Foundation models I think include that factor in their peaking projections.

His 2 mil number may also include a projection of "deaths from Covid at home (or elsewhere) not attributed to Covid" that Ty refernces in his recent post.

But putting aside the 2 mil number, the concept of letting people return to work in waves makes sense. It allows for staggering in such a manner that hospitals would not be overwhelmed. If the anecdotes about treatments that keep people off ventilators turn out to be close to accurate and we can keep people out of ICUs, it is possible to let people back into work in order of least to highest risk.

But to channel Andrew Yang, it's going to compel Americans to think a bit more than they might want to. And for certain cities, due to population density, it won't be an option until a bit later.

The first step is to admit that the economy and the health crisis are not mutually exclusive. People will die of both, arguably in greater numbers from a depression than from Covid-19 itself. So people like Emanuel need to expand their data sets to consider the deaths that will occur from the depression and then re-run their numbers. Allow multidisciplinary thinkers who can consider the economic impacts and health crisis impacts at the same time, rather than elevate one over the other, to make the policy suggestions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

But hospitalization rate can be based on fewer people need or fewer people get let in, or both.

That's on the nose and gets to a point we'll have to address sooner of later: How many deaths are we willing to trade now to avoid more deaths from a depression later? That trade will be made at some level, necessarily.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If he is, he is forgetting that Kelo held that giving the land to a private company redevelop was public-enough a use to permit the government to use eminent domain. But my question was, suppose it's entirely legit for the government to get ownership of the property (under, say, the DPA). What law prohibits rank corruption in the disposition of the property?

None, after Kelo.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

None, after Kelo.

Nothing in the Constitution, but I bet there are federal statutes and regulations that apply.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This thread from J.D. Vance is a pretty good response to a lot of what you hear from conservatives lately.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nothing in the Constitution, but I bet there are federal statutes and regulations that apply.

being that the Constitution is worth less than the toilet paper being sought after by many, I am thinking those federal statutes are right up there in value with New York Sports Club memberships.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If he is, he is forgetting that Kelo held that giving the land to a private company redevelop was public-enough a use to permit the government to use eminent domain. But my question was, suppose it's entirely legit for the government to get ownership of the property (under, say, the DPA). What law prohibits rank corruption in the disposition of the property?

Ah, right, I was confusing the finding in Kelo with the reaction to the finding in Kelo. My bad.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This thread from J.D. Vance is a pretty good response to a lot of what you hear from conservatives lately.

That's an excellent thread, and his first three counter-arguments are well made. The fourth, however, is too dependent on restaurant stats.

Restaurants are perhaps the most discretionary consumer choice out there. Some considered a luxury. It's not surprising consumers would pull back from that purchase in the face of a possible pandemic. They're also a leading indicator of consumer sentiment, and that sentiment wasn't exactly robust before the emergence of Covid-19. One of the first elective expenditures people drop in a recession are restaurant purchases.

A better example would be nail and hair salons, which many women do not view as discretionary spending. I've heard a black market for home delivery of these services has sprung up in our area. I'd bet if allowed to continue, those businesses would have seen a decrease in revenue, but would continue to enjoy a steady flow of customers. The same would apply to non-essential medical procedures like dermatology, plastic surgery, orthodontics. Those offices would likely have continued to see a decreased but significant revenue stream.

Golf courses around here have been raided by police because members have been informally playing (walking, no carts) rounds. Same with outdoor tennis facilities.

Liquor stores in New Jersey are enjoying a huge windfall because PA's stores are closed. People are waiting in lines, in cramped spaces, to buy in mass quantities.

If you need to see an eye doctor because something is compromising your vision, you're going to see that doctor.

I know from firsthand experience that people will continue to purchase non-essential health services right through the teeth of a pandemic. They didn't even stop doing so after the governor's order. This was why our governor issued a scary follow-up order in which he said he'd shut down non-essential health care providers using police. Many nevertheless persisted even after that. Finally, the governor did two things. First, he issued a shelter in place decree, which gave consumers significant pause. Second, they ordered that to provide any kind of care, health care providers would have to use a form of water and air filtration none of them could possibly have, and wear PPE the state knew none of them could acquire. That scared employees and made the exercise of trying to remain open entirely cost prohibitive.

If Trump says "We're open for business" on May 1, there are three forms of consumer response:

1. Balls out. "Let's do everything just like before!" This will be a low information consumer, probably 35% of people.
2. Cautious. "Let's wait a couple weeks and see if it's safe." This is probably 40% of people. They'll start consuming, but only in order of necessity first, putting things like restaurant purchases or movies at bottom of list.
3. Scared. "I'm not going near anyone." This is another stripe of low information consumer. Neurotic. This is the temporary hole in the economy we'll have going forward. Will only emerge from cocoon via peer pressure over several months. But this person will resume normal activities eventually, as FOMO and the human biological urge to follow and be with others will be overwhelming.

I see tremendous pent up demand being unleashed in summer if this thing peaks and fades a bit by early May. Keep in mind -- in past pandemics, people did not have social media. They didn't know the town down the road, where the virus had not been as severe, was open and people were enjoying themselves in cafes. Now, the shut-ins will see their friends having a blast on Instagram and Facebook. The pull to resume normal activities will be like crack. And shit will be really cheap for a while, just like after 2008.

I see many reasons to be depressed about the next few months, but I also see huge potential upside. Particularly if that malaria + z pak therapy (or some other one) gives a clear method by which to keep people off ventilators.