Depending on your timeline, it looks like we started to shut down the U.S. economy somewhere around March 16. On March 12th, March Madness was cancelled along with many other major events. Keep in mind we only had about 4,500 U.S. confirmed cases during this time. Today, as of writing this, we have about 770,000 + confirmed cases (70,000+ recovered). Now we are talking about opening back up. If now we have almost 200x as many cases as we did when we shut down, why does it make sense to open it back up? Looking back, we shut this thing down because of the uncertainty about this virus. Which I think was a prudent decision given all the unknowns.
Now that the government is talking about opening back up, I think this is the government softly admitting that this whole thing was exaggerated to begin with. They aren't going to say this because they'll get roasted for this.
Sure, you can talk to me about herd immunity with the 70,000 or so recoveries and growing quickly and somehow having less than 1% of the U.S. population having antibodies means something (assuming you believe we can't catch the virus again). Or perhaps you believe the confirmed cases is very understated (which I would agree with you) and that a larger population is immune to it. If that is the case, then I think you're also admitting that this was less serious than originally thought and you're lightly agreeing with me.
What are your thoughts?
I think the point is that the flames of the virus have already ran through mayor cities which were the places where the health system had the highest risk of oversaturation and thus having people needlessly die due to lack of treatment. Now that that is out of the way, and that the virus has been slowed down in general, it does make sense to start opening back up the economy. I'm sure many places. People will still get sick but it will nowhere as bad as NYC and for those that do get sick we have a higher certainty that there will be medical resources available.
But personally if I was supreme dictator I would have just shut down the economy in these big cities.
I log back into WSO to see if the discussion here on COVID-19 is any more intelligent.
Clearly not. "This virus was exaggerated" is a shockingly dumb take.
The notion behind the reopening of the economy is advocated at the federal level. President Trump has openly admitted that the thought process behind this is purely transactional and shallow. He associates a thriving economy with his popularity and considers that if he reopens the economy, it will directly correlate to his re-election.
In truth, reopening the economy amid the continued exponential growth of COVID-19 with nearly 30,000 new cases each day is by far the worst decision the United States can make. Even in rural areas or areas hit less significantly, it prolongs the quarantine and further strains the healthcare system. The primary fault in the spread of the virus is the lack of adherence towards the World Health Organization's protocols by the citizens (obviously the loudest minority) and the contradictory statements provided at the federal level that has caused some to underestimate or completely ignore the severity at a human level.
dude you have smart people saying the opposite too. there is no fucking “expert” on this. no one has a fucking edge on what could happen and if you are very bias in one direction, you sir, you are a fucking moron cuz you don’t have better information but you think you have the right perspective.
and don’t forget viruses are supposed to be more predictable than financial markets....what does that say?
Grow up
I would argue that doctors and scientists that have advocated adherence to WHO protocols are experts on this. Respectfully, the top expert, Dr.Anthony Fauci has advised and reiterated the severity of this virus in press briefings, talk shows and daily shows through every outlet to educate the majority.
The fact of the matter is that the quarantine is NOT to eradicate the virus, it's to slow the spread of the virus thus allowing the crippling healthcare system to continue functioning and treatment. If the quarantine is lifted, the dramatic influx of patients will spike the mortality rate and further hinder the US economy. The eradication can only occur once a vaccine has been tested and is made publicly available or there are no new cases for greater than 14 days (the perceived duration the virus lasts) in any single state or the country as a whole.
I haven't read on a single medical professional that supports the reopening of the US economy in any particular state. There have been politicians (Mayors, Governors) that have advocated for this due to the economic hardship they personally face with no implementation plan outlined or any specific strategy.
If you know of any doctor or scientist that supports reopening the economy under the current circumstances, by all means, share the source.
Hindsight is 20/20. I don't think hindsight is the same thing as "exaggerated." I think we have caught up on the needed medical supplies (by the looks of it, there is no ICU or ventilator shortage), gained greater clarification on treatments, and have a lot more data now for us to look back and (unfairly?) judge our decisions as of 5 weeks ago. I do think, ultimately, when looking back at the data several years from now, we will find that shuttering the economy had no material impact in the final death toll, BUT I don't think we start blaming people and calling them hysterical--the reality is, we just didn't have the data and the models we had told us to do certain things. We did those things. It may not have been needed. We learn from that lesson in future pandemics.
The data we have now is key. If I recall, a random sampling of 3,300 people in Santa Monica, CA (was it Santa Monica?) saw an infection rate 56 times higher than the official confirmed rate. If that's the case, then there is no further point in keeping things shuttered indefinitely since the vast majority of people will inevitably be infected.
If we have proper medical supplies and if further quarantines will have no appreciable effect on infection rates, then what is the logical justification for keeping the economy shuttered?
I saw an article about that study that also pointed that if cases end up really being that understated, the death rate is actually between 0.1 and 0.2%. The flu is 0.1%. Will be very interesting to see more of these antibody sampling tests come out, curious to see how accurate that information is.
Data in Chelsea MA has been similar. A sample had 30% of people testing positive for antibodies. Based on sewer system analysis, MIT said there were about 100-115k cases in an area with about 443 confirmed cases.
COVID has killed as many people in a month as the flu kills in a year, in a completely locked down environment. You cant just look at how deadly it it, you also have to factor in how easily and quietly it spreads.
very possible. does seem ten times more contagious though. so social distancing likely helped.
A few problems with this:
The death rate in New York City is already at a level that shows that IFR there was higher than 0.1%. The 0.1% IFR estimate isn't credible at this point. (See Carl Bergstrom on this - he's quite vicious about the bad methodology of the Santa Monica study, as most academics seem to be.)
The true IFR for flu isn't actually 0.1%. If we were testing for flu in the way that we are now testing for Covid-19, we'd find far higher incidence - but we don't normally look for, or know about, flu that is asymptomatic or very mild. A study from a few years ago by Adam Kocharski, a UK epidemiologist, and others suggested it was maybe more like 0.03%, on a basis comparable to the way Covid-19 IFR is now being measured.
We don't have a vaccine or other built-up immunity for Covid-19, so, all other things being equal (including IFR), Covid-19 is more dangerous.
Covid-19 seems to spread more easily than flu, so more people will get infected, faster, and that makes it harder to control.
I think your point has some merit. But there is a lot more to this.
First, 1 case study in 1 region is definitely not indicative of the entire country. In order to get a much better estimate of the "True" infection rate, you need similar studies done nation wide at cities/towns of different population sizes, population densities, and various other physical conditions and population statistics. Even then, the estimates might not be good as there are more variables in play that affect the infection rate. Essentially, as of now, we don't fully understand most of the variables that can impact the infection rate. Hence, it is not reliable to make any conclusions using just a handful number of studies. Rather, these studies should fuel further research efforts. Once we understand all or most of the variables that does correlate with or have causal relationships with the infection rate (And the ways to mitigate these variables), then we can start talking about reopening the economy. Even then, we need to be very very careful. Of course, I'm assuming that a cure and/or vaccine won't be developed and supplied fast enough.
Second, medical supply shortage being resolved NOW doesn't mean we can handle further spread of the disease. We still have partial shortage, particularly for tests, and it'll take some more time to get manufacturing speed up there where we can produce in excess. (Think of WW2, it did take about a year or so for the US to start producing enough weapons and military equipment. During the first year of the war, many soldiers fought with WW1 gear). If reopening the economy goes sideways, there will be new hotspots for COVID and a lot more patients in places that already have high concentration of COVID patients. Is the production rate fast enough? Is our logistical capabilities effective enough? Do we have enough doctors and other medical professionals?
Third, with virus like COVID, it's a very very high risk situation. Even if you collect all the data you possibly can and make all the right analyses, and they tell you that opening it back up might work, you still have a chance of being wrong. And it's not minimal. In this situation, you only really get 1 shot. If you get it wrong, then the consequences most likely outweigh the rewards (millions more get infected and hundreds of thousands more die). IMO, reopening the economy should only be on the table when we definitely know we can control the disease - either through vaccines/cures or through various preventive measures that are put into place.
How little critical thinking ability do you have?
Perhaps, and this is just a thought, it was the very measures which you're criticizing that helped keep the death total down? I understand that doesn't fit your preferred worldview, but objectively speaking, this is exactly the scenario which most epidemiologists seemed to think ideal - one in which everyone complained that the whole thing was no big deal and that it was all an overreaction. Because that means millions of people didn't die
I don't disagree with you that there would be more cases and more deaths had we kept open. I think my main argument is it makes no sense in already opening back up. Tell me this, are you for opening up the economy back up this quickly?
I’m not. MIT’s ML algorithms predicted that opening the economy back up now makes all what we’ve done for nothing.
Maybe they’re wrong. Neural networks are not fully understood right now. But if I were to make a bet on trusting some of the most advanced tech we have versus a reality TV star who got famous by inheriting his dad’s fortune... I would go with the former.
No, I'm not. And I apologize, my reading of your argument was that you were in tacit agreement with the idea that this is all less serious than epidemiologists were predicting it could be.
The problem that your argument doesn’t address is what has actually changed since the first lockdown to motivate reopening? Why will the spread be slower now?
I am in agreement. I misread the post I was responding to as being in favor of an early re-opening. Apologized for my bad reading comprehension and agreed with ya'll up thread.
Clearly it wasn't "exaggerated". It's currently the number 1 cause of death, projected to reach 60k deaths in the next two weeks. The opening is about politics and the desperate economic situation.
I agree. But I think people would rather see the deaths to feel justified for taking action. Humans love to react, not anticipate. It’s a fatal flaw in most people’s brain structure somehow. It goes to show with how most Americans live life- without thinking ahead, without proper planning, and with a total disregard for truth.
It could be worse mate. The Italian government is currently evaluating a proposal to make citizens choose between a tracking app or movement restrictions. Not a single totalitarian state in history has gone that far.
Except for the US Government that’s been doing that for years. Not placing restrictions, but thinking your every movement can’t be tracked is wrong. We’ve had this ability for many many years.
Possibility and obligation are two different things.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that any serious government official is walking back from the situation being serious. The government is walking back restrictions both because its an election year where some semblance of the economy needs to survive, and because they know large portions of this country won’t survive Great Depression levels of unemployment for an extended lockdown period. Effectively we are comfortable with the death rate be it as low as 0.6% which is what S. Korea reported early on or 3.4% by WHO which is definitely an overestimate. At least, as a society we are more comfortable accepting this than harming our own livelihoods. That seems cold but from the perspective of your average Joe with a family living paycheck to paycheck who doesn’t even think he’ll probably contract it, it’s logical. I don’t agree but given the relative privilege I have, I’m not in any position to judge. If I had any say I would be coordinating a phased reopening of the economy with vulnerable groups or those over 50 staying home for an extended period.
Like what Britain tried to do originally, only to almost immediately abandon the plan after it led to a spike in infections, almost killed their Prime Minister, and then necessitated an even more stringent lockdown?
Great plan!
Be honest, what Britain was trying to do was create general herd immunity a ridiculous plan completely ignoring how overwhelmed their health system would be by COVID and non-COVID deaths. For people between 20-40 the fatality rate is akin to the flu, and the severity of cases have been shown to be much, much lower, something the healthcare system is capable of handling. You can give me MS because its not a PC answer, but the point of ‘flattening the curve’ is not to eradicate the disease but to protect us from unnecessary death arising from waves of COVID cases. COVID has an estimated R0 of 2-3 people, the flu is like 1.4? 1.5? Are we going to eradicate it like we did the flu? It doesn’t mean you can give up mitigation but you can’t pretend you can sit out the crisis working from home, telling people on the internet they’re irrational while people lose their entire livelihoods. To pretend the situation isn’t nuanced and that an entire country of people the majority of which can’t absorb an unforeseen $500 expense can just sit tight 6 months for a treatment or 18 months for a vaccine is basically the polar opposite wrong of wanting to reopen everything immediately.
In other words, the current federal administration believes that boosting it's re-election chances is more important than Americans dying, and therefore wants a speedy response. The implication in Mr Trump's response, and subsequent statements on shelter in place, is pretty chilling. They know they won't be re-elected under current conditions, so they'll roll the dice that there won't be a second spike, leading to tens of thousands more deaths, on the chance that the economy recovers a bit.
I don’t think it’s a question of rolling the dice, there will be more death - and I agree with you, but coming from the Trump administration are you really that surprised? He’s trying to foment civil war on Twitter against state governments in the middle of this.
In my opinion it seems like everything shut down that same week of March Maddness.
I don't think it was too over exaggerated, I think we did a good job slowing the spread of the virus and now just need to maintain low infection numbers. I think at the time it was the best option and it probably helped make it a lot less prevalent than it could be.
Although I don't know anyone that is confirmed sick, I'm under the impression that this thing has run through a lot of communities already and that we just don't know how widespread it already is. I had a number of family members/friends and coworkers that were wildly sick right at the end of January through early March. I have family member that took a week off work and went to the doctors and urgent care in early February with a sore throat, aches, terrible cough and came back negative for the flu, strep and bronchitis. Had a coworker whose kids got ridiculously sick at the start of March, kids were out of school for a couple weeks.
When we begin to open things, I would love to see it work on a staggered scale, where we could do something along the lines of maybe 1 person per 200 sq ft, so if you have a 2,000 sq ft barbershop, you could do 5 patrons and 5 barbers, and then over time begin to improve those ratios until you hit fire-code.
If they end the quarantine there will definitely be a second wave of Corona in NYC. Once people start moving back to NYC from where they lived, I'm positive someone sick will infect others and will start another wave of this virus.
Maybe they can make the quarantine more lenient for states that are at lower risk of the virus spreading, like Virginia where people aren't on top of each other like sardines? But for populated states I think things should remain the way they are now for a while. I would also ban travel to these populated states unless you live there/have a valid reason for going there.
I think that goes along with Trumps plan where it will be on Governors to reopen as they see fit.
New York will definitely see some hurt, but they are a very dense city where it's impossible not to be on top of each other. A good portion of America still commute in a one person car and live in a single family home. I live in a major west coast city, and when my office, the gym and the bars shut down, the amount of people I come into close contact with on a daily basis dropped by at least 90% almost overnight.
As others have already said, I think re-opening the economy has less to do with overreacting in the first place and more to do with the fact Trump wants to be re-elected and he is more likely to achieve that with a "strong" stock market (in inverted commas because we can all see what's going on with the market right now..). He is also strategically criticising individual states for not opening up sooner so that he can deflect the blame and essentially say, if the economy crumbles, that it is not his, but the individual state's fault.
Our goal should be to open up the economy, as a closed economy is terrible for everyone. The issue is when do we do it? And to that question, I do not have an answer. The timing of opening up the economy should be based on population density and medical progress in terms of testing, treatment as well as a vaccine . I do not anticipate NYC opening up for a long time. If you are working in NYC, I would not expect to go back to the office until some time in 2021. Most people who work in NYC are commuters who pack themselves into crowded trains, subways, and to a lesser extent, buses. Hopefully, NYC employers will do the right thing and let their employees work from home for the rest of the year.
Regarding the original post, I do not think opening up the economy is an admission of an exaggerated situation. With that said, the current administration has very little power to open up the economy. Ultimately, it is up to the individual states to decide the best course of action.
Just heard that a sample of 200 non-symptomatic people in Chelsea in Massachusetts found that 1/3 had already had C19 and recovered. The Santa Monica sampling had that rate at 10% with C19 (no anti-body test, I believe, but with active cases). Similar samples with similar results out of Italy, Scotland, Germany, NYC, etc.
I think the point many are making is that the spread can't be contained via quarantine. And if it can't be contained via quarantine then there is no point to the quarantine going forward. I don't think that means people who advocated for it 5 weeks ago are dumb or exaggerated (I wasn't super bullish on it, but I supported it and obeyed the quarantine), but we do have new evidence and new evidence demands new policy.
Who is calling for a quarantine for the public? The medical community has and continues to suggest that mitigation such as social distancing has been working to reduce the spread of the virus.
Uhhh, a lot of people--that's the current policy of much of the world and the U.S.. The mass quarantines are what are implemented all over the world and the U.S. Stores are closed, parks are roped off, in many places you can't be outside at all without special exceptions. "Social distancing" is narrower and is about behavior (avoiding large groups, standing 6' apart in line, not shaking hands, etc.). The mass public quarantines and shuttering of the economy is what I thought I was pretty clear in discussing...
That study in Chelsea does not surprise me at all. I've been thinking that this thing already ran through the country before the quarantine, and we basically had no idea what it was.
Any study relying on antibody tests at this point is useless. False positives are >80%. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/834497497/antibody…
False choice between staying shut down and going back to normal.
Where the country has failed most is in failing to do thoughtful analysis about the right middle ground. How do you open back up in a logical way that allows people to live at varying degrees of normal, based on their risk level.
Shutting down completely saves lives in the obvious way, and costs lives (probably far more) in the long-term economic damage and the indirect lives lost from that.
Doing the opposite (i.e. putting no limits on any activity) would've obviously been dumb too.
Hysterical people on both sides. Hopefully one of the 50 governors in this country can take a common sense approach and show everyone else how to open back up in a thoughtful way.
Probably far more? Probably not.
The idea that letting the virus run rampant as opposed to shelter in place orders would in any way help the economy is as stupid as southern governors opening their states up this week. Mass deaths aren't good for the economy. Extending the amount of time this virus ravages our community isn't good for the economy. Overwhelming the hospital systems aren't good for the economy. Making everyone scared shitless by showing absolutely no leadership isn't good for the economy.
It's not like people are going to suddenly go back to normal because the White House or their Governor tells them to. I'm certainly not going to a restaurant on Monday even though they'll be "open."
Guess we'll never know.
Generally though, economic damage costs way more lives than academics can easily estimate because they aren't allowed to extrapolate much. If it's something straightforward, like looking at spikes in suicides in areas of spiking unemployment, they're allowed to do a study like that. But if economic strife causes worse living conditions that lead to worse dietary habits and stress which in turn leads to more heart disease and so forth . . way too many steps, even though it likely happens. Or imagine more disconnected cause/effect like lower GDP today yields under-investment in research that yields more cancer deaths 30 years later.
I understand there needs to be limits on how much causality a person can assume, but my experience is that economists and most academics are very tied down in this way. They're under immense pressure to publish simple research based on indisputable relationships and it leads to a massive under-counting of the true impact of economic damage.
I didn't throw the MS by the way.
I agree for the developed world, but I'm not as confident that a global depression won't be devastating from a lives lost perspective for the developing world (not that I have any data to support that viewpoint, it just seems like the rational outcome).
Really bad take, just so you can keep feeling good about ORANGE MAN BAD. Unemployment leads to many secondary effects such as drug use, domestic violence, divorce, and suicide. We have no good way to fully measure what the current policies will ultimately lead to, but it can (and probably will) be quite devastating.
Saw a tweet that said "turns out, if they open things back up, you are under no obligation to participate."
I would hazard a guess that people in this forum have not lost their jobs in this. For a minute, take the perspective of somebody who has. Somebody young and healthy who is at so little risk for any complications from this, yet you are preventing him from providing for his family. I'm fortunate not to be in that position but appalls me to see my peers look down their noses at the protesters, with the gall to call them selfish.
The lockdown was originally advertised as way to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. Well, in 99% of America, hospitals are so far below capacity, that they are below normal levels. People under 40 or even 50 with no comorbidities have a hospitalization and mortality rate so low, it's hard to make the argument they can't return to normal. Now governors are talking about fully eradicating the virus before returning to normal life?
If you are over 50/60 or have any underlying condition, then stay home? Everybody is already going to the grocery store as is. We can cater to their needs with delivery, etc. Why would opening up for the rest have an overwhelming effect on the vulnerable?
Great post.
If anything, I’d think a vulnerable person staying home would prefer that the rest of the world is getting back to daily activities, making the economic situation one less problem to worry about.
You must not live or work in NYC. The answer to your question is: if no mitigation steps are implemented, the younger people could become infected and get no symptoms at all and then spread it to vulnerable people.
I don't think a single person on any side of the debate is advocating fo no mitigation steps to be taken. As others have said, the pro-quarantine crowd seems to be creating a false dichotomy where society is forced to pick between martial law and licking doorknobs. I think those of us on the anti-quarantine side of the discussion are trying to say that arbitrarily shutting down some businesses and leaving others open is an ineffective quarantine that still results in economic devasatation.
I think if people like Fauci and Birx and the surgeon general are going to advocate for quarantine, which they still are, they are going to have to explain their gameplan. Their quarantine-330-million-people-until-there-is-a-vaccine policy really seems like a basketball team down 25 points with 60 seconds left fouling to try to desperately extend the game. It makes no logical sense. You can't win in that situation. At the rate C19 is spreading, practically the whole population would be infected before there is a vaccine. They are going to have to explain the logic behind their policies. Appealing to authority doesn't cut it.
He could not have defined a potential mitigation effort more clearly: Protect the vulnerable population. He even defined a second mitigation effort for an age group who should remain socially distant longer than those who should not. What did your post provide? Nothing.
Here is another proposal: When gyms open, no one over the age of 65 is allowed entrance until a vaccine is distributed. It’s even reasonably enforceable by key swab/app data.
I am from NYC, what does that matter? You more than anyone should have a vested interest in thinking of middle grounded plans and solutions that could return the businesses and services we enjoy.
I’ve seen quite a few LinkedIn posts from professionals I know who are now finding themselves unemployed because of this virus. FWIW.
Do it like South Korea. They never locked down their country, their total number of cases has been hovering around 10k for a few weeks now. A great testing regime is what it takes to return to normalcy. Their testing simply outpaces infection, they're moving faster than the virus, and that's the ideal model for other countries.
For other countries, lockdown is just buying time to enhance testing capability, the economy must be reopened after a couple of weeks.
It is impossible to do that here to date because the US has failed at testing in every way imaginable.
So yes, you are correct, but we still have yet to get anywhere close in terms of implementation.
Edit: And for the snowflakes throwing shit - let's compare the two countries.
On February 20th, neither country had a recorded death from the virus.
On March 20th, South Korea had 100 deaths while the US had 150
On April 20th - yesterday - South Korea had 236 deaths, while the US is soaring past 40,000.
And before someone brings it up, if you adjust for population, the US death rate is 25x+ worse. The US has 6x+ as many people but 160x+ as many deaths.
What is the main difference outside of competent leadership? Testing. Full stop. The US response has been a complete, unmitigated, and ongoing failure.
Don't always agree with you but you're absolutely right when it comes to this.
Just adding a few thoughts on the discussion: Check the case of Hokkaido. Second wave ravaging. This after managing well the first wave. Apparently, testing is very limited. Check the case of Sweden. Everything (to date) still open. Let's see how they manage. They're banking on common sense and the discipline of the population. Check Austria, perhaps one of the countries reopening very quickly after managing well the first wave after taking very Draconian measures for that purpose very early. Check the case of Korea. However, I'll be very careful to extrapolate that into the US or any Occidental country. They are wearing masks, which does seem to help, testing like crazy, monitoring and isolating focused groups, very disciplined population. It is hard for the average Joe with families to keep on with a shut down economy. It is true. Would it be a solution to isolate only risk people, bite the bullet of many deaths and open the economy hoping for larger immunisation rates? I don't know. It would be more successful, if measures such as masks, testing, monitoring are in place. I'm not saying they are good, just effective. Apparently there is a risk of second infection (and sickness) or carrying the virus for longer than anticipated. Apparently the virus isn't properly understood yet. Some say it's the trombosis in the lungs killing, not the pulmonic illness/infection. In addition, it seems to travel and nest in other organs (kidneys etc.) And lethally attacking those. Seems to be an ugly germ we managed to caught this time. Erring on the safe side is the most sensible thing to do. Obviously, there is a limit to what the economy can support. On the other hand, a ravaging second wave may be even more harmful than extending the restrictions. But yeah, it's populism at its best to attack and the polarization gets yet another topic to punch on, instead of uniting us in helping each other and finding a way to muddle through.
Let's take a nuanced view on this. Several things are true at once. First, most politicians and the media did not take the virus as seriously as they should have (looking back in hindsight). Second, a temporary shutdown was necessary to flatten the curve. Third, the forecasting models that were widely used and cited (IHME and Imperial College in particular) wildly overestimated deaths and hospitalizations even when taking into account shutdown and social distancing measures. Fourth, with testing ramping up, we now know that the mortality rate is below 1% (in some areas, far below 1%). Fifth, the economic damage has been significant, and this will result in higher suicides, drug addiction, domestic abuse, and other negative consequences.
Taking all of this into account, we as a society need to weigh the costs and benefits of gradual reopening. The problem is that many have engaged in the classic "moving the goalpost" and strawmen argument. Flattening the curve was initially about ensuring that our hospitals are not overwhelmed. That has not happened. In fact, the opposite is the case. But now they insist that flattening the curve is about bringing down new deaths to 0 and that those who want to slowly re-open will have blood on their hands. Absurd charge. Even if a foolproof vaccine were introduced (this will probably take 1-2 years), people will continue to die from the virus for some time. It will most likely be years before new virus deaths become nonexistent. We saw this happen with the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Moreover, we need to have an honest conversation about the enormous damage that the shutdown is doing and ascertain at what point the damage from the shutdown is worse than that of the virus itself. This is a totally reasonable and necessary policy discussion as society constantly has to make difficult tradeoffs. We do not like seeing people die from this. But we also hate seeing people lose their livelihoods, students not being able to get a quality education or get jobs, poor parents having to figure out a way to make a living while taking care of kids who are stuck at home, women who are terrified of domestic abuse from their angry partners, etc.
That language sounds very familiar...
The shutdowns are negatively impacting lots of people, including me. I fully support a reopening of many businesses provided that we take significant precautions. I think we have to start small, though. I do not know how people are going to be allowed to go on crowded subway trains and be involved with similar type situations in the near term Have you ever walked to NYC's Penn Station at rush hour?
Agree that the reopening should be gradual. Large dense gatherings such as concerts/sporting events/parades/conventions/schools, should still be banned. We know that nearly all the infections spread in dense indoor settings where people were clustered for an extended time period, hence why crowded subways were so detrimental to NYC.
Each state and city has different dynamics of course, but I think something like the following could work. Most restaurants/stores/businesses can re-open but operate at 50% capacity, with a certain amount of distance between adjacent tables. At restaurants customers would need to leave within say 45 minutes of getting their food. This will reduce the chance of contagions and allow the restaurant owners to make up for lost revenue by serving as many customers as possible within reason (as opposed to a group sitting for 2 hours eating and drinking). Again, the logistics and implementation will be a bit tricky but certainly not impossible.
There will inevitably be people who will be afraid to go into those venues. People tend to follow the herd, so once they see that a gradual reopening is not resulting in a cataclysmic outcome and that things are not as nearly as bad as advertised, they will slowly regain confidence and start going out. Of course, the elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions should continue to self quarantine.
We care about safety and lives. We also care about people making a livelihood and ensuring that we don't fall into a great depression. The two goals are not incompatible.
Voluptate quod debitis quos minus. Cupiditate dolor eum rerum quam.
Incidunt non saepe tenetur enim distinctio. Fuga molestiae rem aut eum sit. Voluptatibus aut iusto dolore minus assumenda sapiente rerum. Ea voluptatibus distinctio maxime doloribus iure itaque.
Corrupti iure officiis dolores in voluptate numquam et natus. Est labore ea voluptas. Doloribus mollitia excepturi omnis perspiciatis molestias ea. Dolor quis nam fugiat et.
Officiis optio repellendus libero animi dicta. Quam omnis expedita debitis. Nihil non optio veritatis libero.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui veritatis consectetur et impedit aut eius velit laborum. Numquam impedit sit recusandae saepe dolore ipsum perferendis. Ea odit vero consectetur ducimus minima.
Expedita numquam labore et ut temporibus. Ullam culpa occaecati quia ut quia. Atque adipisci voluptatibus quaerat nostrum repudiandae dolor voluptatem. Necessitatibus vitae deserunt veniam aut voluptas.
Commodi minima asperiores consequatur ipsam. Facilis ex voluptatem non quaerat aut labore ex.
Est et minus nesciunt illo. Accusamus aliquid itaque ea.
Molestiae quia est molestiae recusandae accusantium earum facilis. Id adipisci et quia porro amet minima aut. Ex molestias possimus optio saepe ipsa. Explicabo esse dignissimos iure quia.
Odit aut neque illo accusamus assumenda. Illo omnis at asperiores. Minus omnis sequi qui deserunt et facilis dolorum nulla.
Labore alias eius et porro. Dicta facere vero voluptatem voluptatem ipsa rerum impedit voluptas. Quia nihil sapiente quae eius provident.