The solution is aggressive, continuous testing so that people can feel safe going back out.
1. Make hundreds and millions of the rapid tests available.
2. Deploy them to every business, every institution.
3. Test everybody coming into work every morning.
4. Isolate and quarantine the positive ones.
5. Elderly and immunocompromised self-quarantine.
Lets find the actual contours of this infection within the population. And then squeeze it down.
- Want to get into a theme park? You need a negative test result on your phone from this morning.
- You got tested at one of the thousands of mobile test stations. You received a code with your test.
- 15 minutes later, you get a test result on your phone - also sent to a national database in real time.
- The theme park worker scans your phone and validates the result.
This is not a fool-proof system. But it or something like it will instantly reduce anxiety of people trying to work.
If you knew that everyone at your coffee house, at your gym, in your lecture hall, etc. tested negative in the morning. You'd feel safer and we'd all be able to move forward.
It all comes to what part of the curve the country is now, the choice being total lockdown incl. economic shutdown vs aggressive testing.
Considering US lapsed on aggressive measures in the beginning and that proper test kits are just being flown in from Italy; total economic shutdown seems to be the only option left.
P.S. There are still high-risk countries which hasn't gone into lockdown neither doing aggressive testing as of now, claiming the number of cases are low although the day-to-day delta is increasing exponentially.
Italy correspondent of Aljazeera gave this information multiple times on live, couldn't find static link to it as of writing.
That's quite the overreaction.
Italy found that among fatalities the median age is over 80 (older than the average lifespan of an Italian man).
99% of fatalities were among people with a prior illness. About 50% of the deaths were people suffering from at least three other illnesses.
To put it another way: most of the folks dying from COVID-19 were already dying. This disease is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Should we just give up on them? No! But instead of quarantining everyone, and sending us back to the stone age, we should work to quarantine these folks while the rest of us return to normalcy and build up our antibodies and herd immunity.
It's not just fatalities, hospitalisation i.e. exhausting healthcare facilities is the primary concern with COVID-19.
There is no guarantee that young people wouldn't make up high mortality list in a poor country with high younger population, rich countries should get their acts together to stop that from happening in vulnerable countries.
There are 40 million 40-somethings in the USA, you're proposing that 100% of them will have lung damage.
Let's imagine that 80% of the population is infected, that 80% of cases are symptomatic, and that 80% of the 4.90% of hospitalised cases (this 4.90 is direct from the report) get damaged lungs. This is one million 40-somethings, not the entire population.
1 million sounds like a lot, but its only 2.5% of the population at that age range, and assume worst-case.
You know what causes reduced lung functionality in adults? Asthma, driven by air pollution from vehicles and coal power plants. 7.7% of adults have Asthma. Where is the war-scale drive to eliminate fossil-fueled vehicles and power generation?
Vaping. I see most of the young adults doing this. Its probably why they're having the higher hospitalization rates with coronavirus. They already have lung damage.
Might as well just shut the economy down to eliminate that.
(my bad, it's not easy to go through the slides on a phone)
Edit: by "skew" I imply mix the two categories COVID Vs "all other causes" and will give false average if we are trying to focus only on the COVID cases.
The narrative that this disease only affects the economically unproductive is dangerous at best, and inhumane at worst.
My feeling is that I'd rather be chronically sick in a good economy than in a depression. What happens when medicine becomes unavailable due to supply chains being cut off?
I'd rather a strong, comprehensive public health response than trying to economic recovery ourselves out of this problem. IMHO, the economy is a distraction to numb us from the tsunami of ICU patients and deaths to come.
The economy is not sacred, and is cyclical, and needs a good purge and rebalancing every 8 years or so. Recessions reallocate capital to be used more efficiently. After 2008 they were politicized as something to be avoided at all costs.
What isn't sacred are the people who own all that. They are as disposable as are any other parts of the economic machine. Replacing them is probably a good idea.
I expect the economic impacts to be rough either way. We don’t have a choice for “no economic impact” anymore. Either we do it in a coordinated and somewhat controlled manner now while we still have a handle on cases vs illness, or the impacts hit, roll, and peak along with the cases of illness while well/well-ish people try to improvise individual responses which probably have similar econ impacts but may not be as effective.
Or did we think that thousands on thousands falling ill at once wasn’t going to hurt economically?
To me it seems likely the difference between a recession (guaranteed) and a real, extremely serious depression which will be fully capable of exacting its own toll on lives.
Second, I expect that the illness impacts will hit even broader, both in sheer numbers and crossing demographic expectations, resulting in people directly absent from work and consumption for weeks at a time.
Those are the first order effects. The second order effects on psychology among a large number of folks having loved ones dying and acquaintances suffering are going to produce some behavior changes. Some of them would be similar to those we're seeing with lockdown, but as I said, improvised rather than coordinated, probably combining some degree of the same impacts but with less of the benefits.
The recession might be milder if we trade a higher death toll. Might.
But the financial markets sure didn't think we were going to escape one even before US civil measures started ratcheting up.
The state with the lowest incidence of hypertension still has roughly 1 in 4 adults with hypertension. West Virginia is at the top with more than 1 in 2 adults. What do you think happens to them when they develop COVID-19? Hypertension is at the top of the list of co-morbidities that worsen outcomes. Medication to treat hypertension is often extremely inexpensive even without insurance ($10-$20/mo at the low end) and thus hypertension is often easy and inexpensive to manage.
How many folks working at pharma companies do you think have hypertension? What happens to the supply chain when people are incapacitated?
Even if a minority of the population will need hospitalization (hell, even if the minority is small enough to avoid overwhelming hospitals)... how many do you think will work through a SARS-CoV-2 infection?
The gravity with which I treat this pandemic is in large part based on government action. China quarantined nearly 100 million people. Iran is building mass graves. The uber-pro-business trump crony that serves as the secretary of the treasure took one look at the GOP plan and essentially said "double it, and make it cash with no means testing."
The folks arguing for immediately disruptive action aren't ignoring the economic consequences, they've decided that the economic consequences of doing nothing will be worse.
Obviously, the illness itself was always going to cause an economic blow by killing and sickening people.
And then there would be damage from behavioral changes. People were pulling kids out of schools, canceling events, and avoiding travel without being ordered to do so.
It doesn't seem like the "good economy" you suggest was ever an option.
It’s a solution ( it wouldn’t work the way you think, but it’s an option), but at least admit it clearly and live with it.
How long can you just shut down industries, keep kids out of school and will it make a significant dent in the total mortality? It could be that a couple of weeks of social distancing will be enough but can it be months and what are the comparable effects.
I know it is more dangerous than the normal flu and I will not downplay that but take Italy (that yes, would be worse of without shutdowns) you have 4k deaths so far; mostly old people while a couple of seasons ago they had 24k deaths attributed to a bad flu season.
The social distancing and shutting down society needs to work reasonably fast otherwise I wonder if it is worth it, at least in countries where you already have widespread disease.
Do you just assume we'll treat chronic health issues as a priority in a depression? I'd like to think we do as well, but the point is that things may well just stop working.
You make the error of assuming that (A) high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease mean that a person is "already dying," and (B) people who survive don't become debilitatingly sick.
The virus is just a convenient excuse; a crisis would have hit at the first sign of trouble.
Sure, the market was seeming to be overheated and due for a correction.
Without the virus, maybe it's 2008.
With the virus, it's starting to feel like 1929 again.
Huge numbers of people are unemployed right now that wouldn't be in a normal recession.
Wait till the unemployment numbers come out.
This thing has evolved three strains with only a couple hundred thousand cases. A couple billion turns it into a shit show.
Selection bias. They're so overwhelmed they're using age as a primary factor to triage patients. Clearly, if you put your medical resources towards saving the younger patients, the younger people are going to have a better survival rate. Lack of a ventilator, when you have a severe lung disease, is a massive risk factor at any age.
> 99% of fatalities were among people with a prior illness. About 50% of the deaths were people suffering from at least three other illnesses.
Again, if you look at the oldest people, you're probably going to find more diseases there. This could easily be just another consequence of age-based triage.
Here is why you'll get tarred and feathered, because right now the media is covering the health costs of the virus extensively, but it's not covering the economic costs, which are already unfolding now in the form of businesses dropping vendors and announcing layoffs because their anticipated revenue until further notice is zero.
I've seen so many bros on my feeds who puffed out their chests a month or two ago and said, this virus is not a big deal. Then there were cases in their state and the media was reporting the deluge of new cases in the US and they said oh I was wrong, we need to be on total lockdown, and they're hiding in their apartments.
What will happen next is the jobless claims will come in, which we can clearly predict based on current business activity, and they will break records. I saw one estimate of around 1.5 million jobless claims this week, which is a record. I guess the bros will start squawking about the economic damage in 2-3 weeks once the media has covered this widely and people they know are out of work.
Small businesses (and some large ones too) typically don't have large cash reserves like Google. They also don't know whether this will last for one month or six. So they are in the process today of shutting down and telling everyone to go home without pay, they have to do this until they know what the long-term outlook is.
Nothing changes, most people are sheep, they parrot whatever's in their feed, they are poor at prognostication and self-examination, their attention is occupied by whatever narrative is being shouted most loudly. Nothing you can do.
This is true, but what about the overcrowded hospitals this causes? People who weren't gonna die will now die. And what do we do about the doctors and nurses who are pleading with everyone to act?
Perhaps something along the lines of strict contact tracing could have been done, but now it seems like it's out of hand.
So far... wait until you get the number of critical cases above the number of ICU beds and you'll see 18 year olds dying from this
”As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.”
They reached maxed capacity of beds or ventilators right? We read stories of doctors having to make life & death decisions. Where are the dead 18 year olds?
Spreading info like that on a hunch, or an exaggeration, is counterproductive if not damaging.
The idea that relatively young (most of folks here) will be just fine is not true. With overwhelmed healthcare, most criticals will simply die. Once doctors will get sick (and they will), it will make everything, I mean literally any disease and injury much more dangerous. Sure, most will survive, hopefully without any permanent lungs/kidneys/testes damage (was this confirmed or just a rumor?).
Maybe as humanity we've grown weak and can't tolerate medieval mortality rates anymore, but this is who we are right now. There is no easy solution to this. There is unavoidable harsh economic impact coming. Nobody has clue which option will be at the end better than others.
Accept it, and try to find ways to help fellow human beings instead. We are in this all together, rich and poor, left and right alike.
I don't think any one is under some kind of delusion that some young people will die. The only question is what percentage and what changing those numbers will cost. Picking specific examples of bad outcomes and pretending the risk is as high as older people isn't doing anyone any favors.
I don't know about the law in Switzerland but unless you are lying that is something she could be fired for in many countries.
They just started to reach max capacity, and not in every region, every hospital at the same time...
”Pandemics begin with an investigation phase, followed by recognition, initiation, and acceleration phases. The peak of illnesses occurs at the end of the acceleration phase, which is followed by a deceleration phase, during which there is a decrease in illnesses. Different countries can be in different phases of the pandemic at any point in time and different parts of the same country can also be in different phases of a pandemic.”
So, we know not all the hospitals are experiencing the same levels at the same time. A big reason I wish we were more precisely targeting shutdowns and quarantines.
It doesn’t make sense to throw these blanket executive orders over entire states. As we can see from the slides, the economic consequence are dire. Why not target the cities entering acceleration only?
In the meantime, start building drive thru testing. Distribute thermometers. Practice social distancing & aggressive sanitation, but not destroy out national security in the process.
But this part,
”All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions”
Sure it’s early, but even in Italy, in one of the worst places in the world for the virus right now, that information should be very illuminating to us I think.
Because the long incubation period and the lack of sufficient testing makes it impossible to know which cities are infected early on.
And, to put more bluntly, because we have two models to look at and choose from: the Chinese one, with harsh containment measures that were very effective (if you believe their numbers) and the Italian one, with moderate containment measures and a lack of sense of urgency from the populace, which resulted in a downward spiral with more deaths than China despite having only ~58% the number of cases.
> I should have said, ”In some areas”.
And no, you shouldn't have said that, you should just wait another week.
Quantifying undetected COVID-19 cases and effects of containment measures in Italy
"With demand outpacing supply of beds and respirators, medical workers are told to prioritize younger patients."
"The principle of "first come, first served" has been abandoned, said Mario Riccio, an anesthesiologist who works at a hospital in Cremona."
Maybe the no-contact thermometers could be a scalable approach. Go to the bank? Forehead scan to get in. Go to the grocery store? Same. At least until--and maybe even after--we can scale the RNA testing.
This is the reality in China. Literally every single public place have a remote thermometer they scan on your forehead. supermarket? scanned. subway? scanned. restaurant? scanned. If you have a fever you'll go into quarantine in no time.
And think about it, I'm only talking about getting up to 10 mil or so here. We'd need a lot more than that to implement the plans being proposed on this thread. Logistics really does demand that medical personnel, and emergency responders be tested regularly to ensure their continued fitness for purpose under such schemes. Consider, there are right around 12,000 law enforcement officers alone in Washington state. Not counting doctors, nurses, EMT's and firemen. (And lest we forget the most important emergency worker of all right now, the Walmart stock boys.)
Add all that up. Multiply it by 50 states, some much larger than Washington. Under the plans you guys are proposing, we'd need multiple tests as the crisis goes on for each of these workers to make sure they aren't out infecting citizens when they interact with them. (Or when they put food on shelves that a customer picks up 4 hours later.)
Please, try to be reasonable. Maybe the current approach is not tenable, but the ideas being proposed on this thread are problematic as well.
Also, where do you draw the numbers of primer production capacity from? IIUC, the only other things that an amplification needs are enzymes (just DNA polymerase for PCR) and "food" (nucleotides), but that I assume is not a bottleneck?
How difficult is it to safely dispose of amplified samples? Can you basically just dump them in the toilet?
Like in war profits will probably be huge but if there is enough pressure government cna seize stuff too.
On the other hand, we cannot pause the economy for too long. The damages are already done but what is going to happen if we wait too much?
I cannot imagine the level of stress the people working at the government must be under now... Whatever solution they come up with could be the collapse of the US as we know of now.
Pretty sure that ship already sailed.
Why not? This is a matter of survival. If the economic system breaks because of one pandemic that will last less than a year maybe that economic system needs to die and be replaced by something more solid and useful for most.
Let me put it in simple word: you'll loose your job. Your friends and family will loose their jobs.
As a result, when your savings run out, you'll loose your appartement. And so will your friends and family.
You won't be able to afford food without government assistance.
And even if shutdown lasts only 30 days, it'll wreck the economy for a long time. Once a restaurant defaults and closes, it won't just re-open. Those jobs will be lost for a long time.
Now, maybe you're one of the lucky ones with enough savings to ride this out and this won't affect you. But it'll affect millions of others.
Even without this pandemic, we live in a World where there is enough shelter, food and drugs for everyone but we still have homeless people, people starving or at the least malnourished and people dying in a rich country because they have to ration fucking insulin.
This economic system is not working at all. People die every die directly because of this system. This pandemic just brings it to light.
Of course socialism is a failed economic model but hey maybe this time it will work /s
Just go ask Argentina, collapsing months after IMF was praising the "good" work Argentina was doing and how a good Capitalist country it has become.
This pandemic just made most people feel what the lives of billions is like all year long under Capitalism. And your dismissive comment is just shameful and disgusting.
ohh I dont know, the millions upon millions that have died in starvation due to socialism over the many decades that it has been tried
but those where not "real socialism" right....
Pointing to one good that some people can not afford (the reason is largely due to government control not capitalism BTW) does not in any way "prove capitalism failed"
it is true that sometimes with capitalism you will get breadlines, but with socialism sometimes you get bread
If humanity can't react appropriately to pandemics like this, then how can we expect to survive in the eventuality that something even worse comes along? And any economic system that gets crushed by this proves that it simply wasn't prepared and needs to be replaced, lest it cause even more damage to individuals.
that's the wrong way to think about it, and also a misunderstanding of economics.
If a teacher is paid the way a CEO is paid, there won't be enough money for very many teachers. You'd find it hard to afford a teacher for your kids, let alone free education.
A doctor, back in the middle ages, is only affordable to the nobility. These days, doctors are still quite highly paid (too high imho), and that is one reason why medical services are expensive.
Imagine if you associate the "importance" of a resource with its price. Water would cost more than diamonds and gold! Water is needed for sustaining life - you die without it. Therefore, in theory, it's so important that you end up paying infinity amount of money to have it, under your system!
The fact that we have water so cheap (literally 0.000001 cent per cup), is a good outcome. Everybody can afford water.
> If a teacher is paid the way a CEO is paid
You are thinking about it wrongly. We should pay the CEO the same as the teacher. Managing a bunch of adults can't possibly be harder than teaching children. Education is an actual investment. Bullshit inc not so much.
Anyone is free to start a corporation, name a CEO, and pay him whatever they want to (from their money). They can even name themselves CEO!
This is not true for publicly traded companies - where the board (consisting mostly executives at other companies) determines compensation on behalf of the owners
We have a finite amount of labor and a finite amount of resources available to us.
The thing our governments lack since the days of lords and god kings is direction. This is necessary since a group of people poorly working together isn't smarter than the smartest person in that group.
We all do stupid shit at times, if a lot of people decide to support the same stupid thing it is entirely possible to dedicate all time and resources to throwing virgins in the volcano, smoking opium or borrow money in stead of printing it. Who knows, someone might create the ultimate video game, we could retool our entire civilization to play the game non stop.
A [proverbial] god king would have other priorities, there might be a war coming with the neighboring country, there might be regular floods, there might be an insect plague, there might be a disease or the food might be running out.
We have distributed wealth recklessly (to put it blunt) and ended up with millions of little emperors who pay their little generals whatever they like. They are constantly at war with the next little empire.
The plague or the flood simply become economic developments that one can leverage for ones advantage. What is left of our government is a vending machine that one can use as a weapon to do whatever each little empire is willing to pay for.
I should mention we've made a ton of technological progress with this role playing game. It might just be that we've created the ultimate game already and that everyone is playing it. If so I'd have to argue we have one shitty dungeon master. The adventures planned out for most of us are not very interesting. Most of us are simply chasing the carrot on the stick. The heroes are not gaining as much experience points as they could, they are not learning as many new skills and abilities as they could. We can do better and we know it.
Say you are in charge for sake of argument. The orc's are getting ready to attack from the east, the goblins from the west but all your population cares about is opium. Would you dedicate resources to making swords and training or would you give the CEO of Opium inc in his competitive struggle with Meth corp the 10 000 men he wants for a promotional parade? The people might be enraged. If we make swords who will care for the poppy fields??
> Anyone is free to start a corporation
Indeed, I could create a product triggering superior production of endorphins. I could win a large market share and then present myself as if a philanthropist on a mission to help humanity with its struggles. I could prove it by moving funds into a non profit organization that might not do anything by design or struggle hard not accomplishing anything.
It's almost funny, the real needs retooled into a vehicle for public relations. If you play enough candy crush we will be sure to defeat the orc's.
Thanks for your time.
There is an infinite amount of labor available - because of improvements in efficiency. The manpower required to make a shirt has declined by something like 99% in the last 200 years. For growing food has dropped a similar amount. And on and on.
Resources are infinite because they can always be re-used and re-purposed for other things. For example, despite everyone eating chicken and ham, there is no looming shortage of chickens or pigs, because people figured out how to raise them efficiently.
Gradually manpower to make a shirt has declined by 99%. It happened gradually so we continue to have more garment workers than needed. This is driving down salaries and it removes job security which again improves productivity.
I've seen stuff from up close that was much to ridiculous and I live in the Netherlands. I take all kinds of weird jobs just to see what things are like.
The latest trend is to reduce the work week from 5 to 2-3 days and the work day from 8 to 4-5 hours. That way you can make people work at insane speed. (Speed no one could work at for 40 hours)
In one such job (which wasn't the most idiotic example at all) a group of 5 people produced half a million boxes of cookies in a day. The conveyor belt moved so fast one couldn't scratch himself. After taxes I got 35 euro per day.
I kept getting back to the same thought. Do I need cookies to cost 99 cents per box? How terrible would it be if they cost 1 euro? Would we raise our nose and push the shopping cart ahead thinking "how dare they ask this much money for cookies?!" When shopping I couldn't care less if it costs 99 cents or 1 euro. I'm not saying we should pay people 1000 euro per day. I'm saying the customer certainly doesn't care if prices go up by that much. Only the Joneses would cry about it. They would demand salaries to go down to the appropriate 35 euro in a country where rent is 800. You'll just have to work 8 weeks to pay for it, you figure it out! You should have paid more attention in school then someone else would have had to package the cookies!
I can see how that line of reasoning works on an individual level and ill certainly make it work for me myself and I. I don't consider the societal puzzle solved like that.
On the second day I asked a manager if I could take a box of cookies. He couldn't look at me, he looked at the floor, then at the wall, then at the ceiling, then back at the wall. After 10 long seconds of silence he said, no not today sorry.
It took me days to figure out what thoughts were behind that expression, it was a simple yes/no question in my book... Then it struck me! The legal limit of gifts for employees (which includes product) is 1% of the salary! Having worked only 2 days there was no room to gift me the 99 cent pack of cookies.
At the end of the 3rd work day I found the manager at the exit. He proudly pointed out a pallet of test product. 1 box per person! He said!
Since I take such jobs somewhat as a corporate spy I had already learned that those boxes will be unpacked and the cookies will be sold as pig food.
Reading the expressions on his face this charade was much more painful for the manager than the employees.
The rules for taking cookies home were much less strictly enforced when people worked full time. No inspector would have considered it paying salary in cookies.
For the 4th time they are building a whole new factory now. I'm sure they will ramp up production to at least a million boxes per day. 3 out of the 5 jobs can be automated easily.
1 cent extra would then allow us to pay 5000 euro per day. Imagine how angry people would get?
"On average, they worked 60 hours a week and earned an hourly rate of 28 taka (the equivalent of $0.95 in purchasing power parity). They earned less than the minimum hourly wage 64 percent of the time and there was significant evidence to suggest that the more they worked, the less they earned."
forget ppp, 28 taka is $0.33
I'm simply suggesting we should build that world you portray rather than pretend it already exists.
Out of curiosity, why do you think it's likely that something more solid and useful to most is likely to come out of an economic collapse? Economic collapses have happened before - are there any instances of a solid and useful system coming out of them (maybe the new deal after the great depression? That one is arguable though).
We all work in the system, some would make more than others but even those who work the least or not at all would not be left behind. So if you make more you can enjoy more "stuff" and gadgets and if you make less you are still stress free about life.
Would we have $1000 phones or shopping shelves filled with hundred of fake choices? Most likely not but at least we won't have people rationing insulin or people living in the street of the richest city in the richest country.
We live in a world with so much production and people spend their time worrying about surviving and getting ahead instead of relaxing and making the world a better place.
Are there reasons you see why a more robust cannot be developed? I suspect HN could easily come up with a substantial list of improvements. Limiting stock buybacks seems like a good place to start.
Didn't even last a decade until they got themselves an emperor.
> Arguably the Russian Revolution if you accept the USSR as a step up from feudalism.
Considering that the USSR killed orders of magnitude more of its own people than feudalism under the Czars ever did, I'm going to vote "no" on this one.
Not that it's a model to imitate. Although some folks in this thread sound rather ready to sacrifice millions of people, for the sake of keeping the economy limping along...
That’s because they believe they are young and would fight off the virus with no problem. Change one of those variables and they will change their tune.
So Sweden has right now 1,639 confirmed cases with 16 deaths so far. There are some young people treated in critical care but so far it has been older people who has passed away, often with other diseases as well. Sweden currently only tests older people, people with severe symptoms, healthcare workers and similar personal and those who can work from home these days and travel is discouraged.
One expert estimated that we have around 100k infected in total right now and discussed that some things like shutting down schools for younger kids will have a large effect on society but not do that much on the spread of the virus. Instead you should focus on protecting vulnerable groups, stay home if you feel any symptoms of cold etc.
100k out of 10 million population would fit roughly with Iceland who did random sampling and found 1% of their population affected.
Of course he acknowledged that there is no way to know and taking extreme measures are better than taking too small but emotional/political reactions vs practical is really a discussion to be had.
No, this is people breaking. Peoples lives and livelihoods break due to this kind of economic and social strain.
And the quarantine effects everyone severely, not just 14% of people.
The Swiss Federal Council is setting aside billions of CHF (I think the total is currently at 32 billion) for exactly this: some relief for small and medium sized businesses. They've recently announced a process to have 80% of your salary insured up to a certain high cap, between 150k and 200k CHF.
There might be vastly different political and scale differences between the USA and Switzerland that make this infeasible for the USA. But Switzerland is showing that in principle it can be done. Making your blanket statement for the whole world, false.
And yes with these measures essentially any income is now assured: Salaries, salaries of SMB owners (normally excluded from unemployement benefits for obvious reasons), hourly workers, limited contracts, internships/apprenticeships, self-employed (i.e. without being employed by an LLC or something else like that) business like artists. Also daily stop-gap money if you have to stay home for more than a few days to figure out how to take care of your homeschooled kids.
Plus like 20 billions in credit guarantees for small businesses to avoid a cash flow squeeze.
All measures use existing infrastructure for paymenet (commandeering the banks for the cash flow squeeze credits) to guarantee the money has arrived by end of the month, latest. And that it will continue to flow, like regular pay check.
I disagree, and strongly.
This would be a knee-jerk, hyberbolic, and woefully ineffective over-response.
Typical for the times.
The only thing this might achieve is creating an even greater climate of fear and loathing.
There will be false positives. And false negatives.
There are with every medical test.
Back-of-the-envelope calculation: Assuming we "test everybody", and assuming both a 5% rate for both false positives and false negatives -- which is better than we currently do with influenza testing! -- we would needlessly quarantine 12.5 million people, and fail to quarantine an equal number of infected carriers.
Not to mention, the data about COVID-19 is all over the map. We still know very, very little about this disease. Understanding it well enough to calculate the appropriate response will take time.
Testing is part of the solution, yes. But the economic and social impact of "test everybody, every day" would be catastrophic.
Until then, in the short term, there are things we can, and should, be doing, as individuals:
(1) Limit your physical contact with others.
(1a) Especially at-risk individuals. The elderly, young children, etc.
(2) Support your local businesses through delivery, online ordering, and gift certificates.
(3) DON'T HOARD SUPPLIES! You do not need a decade's worth of toilet paper. Three months' worth is fine.
(4) Related to the above, maybe use this as an opportunity to live a bit more sustainably.
I'm down to four sheets per wipe -- certainly fascinating, relevant, and not at all disgusting to all of our readers -- which means that a single CostCo-sized pack of TP might keep my household going for well over six months.
On that note, I'm learning to garden. Let's see if I can manage to actually grow a fucking potato this year, all I got last year was a big leafy plant with zero tubers.
A discussion on government policy in response to this is a big ball of... things that require four sheets of Kirkland Signature, so I'm so not going there.
There is a massive gap between "test everybody!" and "test nobody!"
We have a finite capacity to test. Tests have accuracy limitations. We can work within both of those limits to mitigate risk as much as possible.
Drastic times require effective measures.
As opposed to needlessly quarantining 300 million people?
Well, the failure the quarantine would be the false negative rate times the infection prevalence. A significantly smaller number than the false quarantine rate, until the whole gadonkun no longer matters.
I assume in your system that everyone would need to be tested before going to work every day, because that's the most common in-person gathering for most people. The USA has run fewer than 50,000 tests in the months since this began. Your plan would require 100,000,000 tests in the USA every day.
No need to make the test stations "mobile". You could put 1,000 in every city, and they'd never have time to be moved. Every sidewalk downtown would be lines of people waiting for a test -- which itself would be a bigger gathering for me than just going to work.
If everyone is tested, the disease can be controlled:
In their panic, people want "something" to be done. In a couple years, we will be talking about how 90% of policies enacted during this crisis were a net negative, and 50% of them directly made the problem worse. Not to mention the ethical concerns of legal overreach.
* Disclaimer: It's a serious situation and I do not endorse a hands-off approach. That doesn't mean we can't have a civil debate about the complexities of trying to mitigate it, though.
Well in my country (Poland) with all the noise and confusion some rational procedures get implemented. Supermarkets limit strictly the number of customers inside. Cashiers get physical protection from customers. Contactless payment limits have been doubled. Etc.
So we are getting time for implementing changes and the life can start returning to 'new normal'.
Compared to what? An exponential explosion, like what we saw in Italy, prior to the measures, but ten times worse, because you don't even do anything to check it?
They are shutting down many businesses, and more or less forcing people in to situation where the virus will spread further.
the Panic in society currently right now will do more to spread this virus than anything.
But hey lets destroy our economy as well, that will do wonders to stop the panic
By the time you're done developing the app, deploying "thousands of mobile test stations", figuring out a way to get test results in 15 minutes (!!!) and implementing security checkpoints at each establishment from gyms to workplaces, we'll all be infected.
> Want to get into a theme park?
Nobody cares about theme parks right now. We care about getting infected at the supermarket, or bringing infected bags home. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Is that actually true though? What resource are we low on? Do we not have enough nonperishable goods or public funds to pay for utilities and basic infrastructure?
Debt has metastasized and spawned many industries, so its retraction is unlikely to be a peaceful event. But it is a cancer that will kill our society some time. The only question is if now is that time, or if some patching will get the system through this and we can go back to pumping the stock market as a false idol of productivity.
* work to be done
* people willing and able to do the work
* resources with which to do the work
So what exactly is stopping us from putting those three together?
The worst case on such a scenario is that an economy sits on rationing for a period of time, followed by a strong and possibly inflationary demand spike, but businesses and people's balance sheets could be partially paused.
We need to develop that capability. Imagine the next pandemic was worse, spread more asymptomatically and/or required a longer isolation time to get over without spreading combined with higher fatality rate, or fatalities in a younger demographic.
This could also help us learn how to deal with more tangentially related things like grid disruptions (hopefully we don't eliminate cash in response though as that might hurt in that scenario).
Thinking abstractly, why not? If the businesses are open, the money is there to pay everyone. If you send everyone in the economy home, where has that money that would have been used for salary gone?
Someone is holding it rather than distributing it, that's the only reason. So, take a look at who is hoarding money like a dragon sleeping on a pile of gold, tax it, and pay everyone else enough for a roof and food.
I am voluntarily (10% family-preservation, 90% community service) staying in my house. I’m now “hoarding” (to use your hyperbolic term) all the money that would normally go to fuel, eating out, and entertainment.
The restaurant, movie theater, and gas station owner would, circumstances permitting, surely prefer to be able to serve me and I likewise.
Why don’t I just mail checks to people that I’d normally buy from? Because I don’t know what my own economic future looks like. Will I have a job in 6 months? What will my retirement savings look like then? Plus, I can’t just send the money where it would have gone and also send it to the people who are now selling me more at-home food or new goods/services that I need to be productive at home.
I’m fortunate to work as a W-2 office worker/spreadsheet miner, at least for now. If I were a bar, movie theater, or auto repair shop owner or worker, I’d be in a lot worse shape.
This is not a Bezos, Gates, Musk driven problem. This is driven by the inability of the consumer to consume normally.
As a moral issue, we are choosing to continue to pay our every-other-week house cleaner to not clean our house. Everyone else is getting paid iff they provide current goods/services. We have our own financial survival to look out for until more is clear about the economic outlook.
The economy is a circular river system. If it stops one day, there is going to be areas of drought in places, as well as huge reservoirs protected by dams. Money does not disappear, it only moves. You lose money on stocks, someone else on the other side of the world made money with their short position.
Perhaps that dollar is held up in some whale's cash account after they closed their positions. You would tax that whale for that cash, and redistribute it to the working class to afford food and shelter.
In any recession, the big stall is capital being too skiddish to pay for labor, resulting in lowered consumer spending, justifying less demand for labor, and creating a worsened financial crisis due to even lower consumer spending levels. If you are able to keep the working class afloat, you can conceivably keep consumer spending afloat, and therefore keep the economy afloat, even if capital is fearful.
The economy is the collective action of people producing the goods and services that you and I consume - food, haircuts, medicine, video games. Money is a claim on some portion of that stuff that has been or will be produced. Redistributing money is not going to suddenly make us productive again when most people are only leaving their house once a week to stock up on groceries.
Example: I go to a clothing store and give them an amount of money that I value less than the clothes they give me in exchange. We are both better off because we have made that mutually-beneficial exchange. If the exchange doesn't happen because the store is closed, then there is no revenue (let alone profit) to divvy up.
The only way to simulate that transaction in a way that gives money to employees is to literally take it from customers who receive nothing in return.
My solution would be to tax you redistribute that money from your pocket to the people who need food and shelter, the same people who stimulate consumer spending, because you are unable to currently do that yourself due to shelter in place orders and/or perceptions of the state of the economy.
What you are describing is essentially how to ration the dwindling supplies of goods during the epidemic.
Enacting arbitrary taxes where the government simply appropriates funds from entities that have it and gives it to those who don’t is unfair, dangerous, and will undermine trust in the rule of law. It will be ripe for abuse and predatory behavior. It is also a system that loses the critical information market mechanisms provide, instead replacing with “command” based allocation which is a dangerous precedent.
The way to achieve what you propose that is not at odds with civil society is for the government to “print” new money, and distribute it through moderately means based criteria.
The US has unlimited capacity to increase its money base as a sovereign entity. Normally this is done through the Fed buying bonds from the treasury. The treasury has the authority to create money directly if they choose.
This has the effect of devaluing the currency as a whole. By distributing the new currency ti citizens that need it, it is effectively a transfer of wealth that is distributed throughout the economy in a decentralized and proportional way.
It is only necessary to target those who need help, opposed to harder problem created when the need to target who can “afford” to sacrifice their savings is added.
This doesn’t address the problem of productivity lost, but it allows what productive output there is to be more fairly rationed.
It also less subject to being the legal and political nightmare your suggestion entails.
There are two sides of our society; production and consumption. If we aren't producing, how are we continuing to consume?
Instead of going to a restaurant, I make a sandwich, instead of buying a new shirt, etc. GDP has indeed dropped, and some people have no cash flow (fixable), but I'm not seeing physical (excluding the abstraction of the banking system) reasons why this can't be sustained for months if necessary.
That's what happened in South Korea, as far as I understand. They missed just one guy out of 31, and he started a massive infection.
Yes, massive testing is indeed better than what we do now, but if you let people to just walk around, it will do absolutely nothing.
Also HIPPA laws prevent what you propose.
And most importantly, those with immunity can go on to lead a normal life and participate in the economy.
So there’s a middle ground here somewhere.
South Korea has been aggressively testing, contact chasing, and quarantining from day 1. Look at their number of tests per capita compared to ours.
China did indeed shut down the entire economy for months for provinces containing 900M people iirc. In barely hit provinces they have teams of thousands of people doing aggressive testing, contact tracing, and quarantine.
I mean, yes, that's great, but it's not as widespread as people are implying.
The article you linked is based on a single day’s new case count.
China’s approach (lots of temperature taking, testing everyone with a fever) might not eradicate the disease here, but it could keep it manageable until a vaccine is deployed.
The issue really isn't the virus but the fact that people who end up spreading it, don't know they have it. Shutting down the economy is a backwards way of solving this...it is assuming that everyone has it.
I am not sure how exactly we get to that point and you are kind of hoping that people who have it isolate...but testing really should be priority. My govt is ramping up but the numbers they are talking about are still ludicrously small...total tested is 0.1% of population, and they are saying it is a resource issue (whilst they are spending literally hundreds of billions on stuff that is being caused by their testing strategy).
Unfortunately, this virus is highly contagious (to the point that the vast majority of countries won’t contain it) and fairly lethal. We don’t actually know how lethal, but it appears 1%-3%, but without widespread testing we wouldn’t know.
At the moment, we just reduced our GDP by 30%-50% in regions under quarantine. Think about that for a second...
Now consider the fact that the supply chain is also all kinds of messed up and with the loss of jobs people have less money.
Finally, save this, but I don’t think the US quarantine is going to do much to lower the curve. Simply put, the west is not prepared. Our checkouts are run by people without masks or gloves. People still are closer than 2 meters (or 6 feet).
To lower the curve we’d need strict quarantine (no leaving the house) for a month or two. Even then we won’t have enough masks, hopefully we’d have enough ventilators and tests by then...
Point is, we are tanking our economy and mark my words — it won’t work. People voted, had spring break, celebrated st. Patrick’s day went out shopping in droves. It’s likely too late, one sick per household and they infect the whole house.
All this to say: we are losing our economy and probably this isn’t effective.
Last week my brother suggested instead of working from home I work from a Starbucks.
I feel like people don’t understand how serious this is and it’s really bothering me.
People should cooperate and keep distance, but it's not a big deal to just be outside a reasonable distance from small numbers of other people.
Then I remember I’m at the park too...
And it might help to keep them from going stir crazy from being cooped up inside too long...
Doing my part (I have asthma), I haven't left the apartment since Sunday :^)
Usually Hacker News middlebrow skepticism is just in poor taste. On this topic, it is foolish and farcical. One of our doctor friends is already telling us that her hospital is under stress and she's not in one of the hardest hit states.
You absolutely do not know that and should not be saying any such thing with confidence!!!
Generally, clusters are OK for people that live together anyway.
Shibuya Crossing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vishEDtgdw
Times Square: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRe-514tGMg
You’ve seen the critical, largely elderly population get tested and from that you get that number that’s freaking people out.
Stop spreading panic. With those kinds of numbers China alone would have 10M+ dead. In Japan, Singapore, surrounding nations more millions dead.
Use a bit more common sense. We know we haven’t tested enough in the US, yet we don’t have bodies piling up on the street. You don’t have families of 4 where 2 suddenly die. This has been going on for greater than 3 months now.
Stop spreading fear. The only thing to fear is the terrible consequences of those stuck inside the fear bubble
26 dead at the washington nursing home, 50 tested positive: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-deaths-washingto...
Death rates by preexisting condition: https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2020-03/13/2...
America has 42% obesity rate and a huge population with diabetes and heart issues, the numbers for 30-60 year olds might end up looking a lot worse than in Asia and Europe.
It would probably be much easier to see who is infected, and thus "eliminate" the problem. In the US, there are plenty of bullets and guns everywhere.
Also those co-morbidities like high blood pressure have the all important age distinction missing. So yeah if you’re 70 and have high blood pressure it’s worse.
It’s perverse to stop world for some low rate CFR for the elderly. The world is made for the young. We shouldn’t destroy it for the elderly.
Also actuarial tables for a 75 year old is extremely haunting. People magically forget that a sick 75 year old doesn’t have much time left to live in the first place.
We should treat them as best as possible but not by stopping the world.
Look up the actuarial tables for a 70 year old. Living another year is significantly different than for a 45 year old.
Then lookup the survival rates for a 70 year old with influenza, suddenly the numbers keeping you up at night start looking weak in comparison.
Flu varies by season but it’s no where near that for the same age group.
Obviously when this matures that rate will go lower because the denominator will grow but the denominator that people care about is the one we have now: who is sick enough to need a test because if I get sick, and thus become part of that denominator, the current rate gives me a good picture of my chances. Was the parent comment slightly hyperbolic, maybe. But you are way underselling the seriousness of this disease and the rationality of being scared of it.
What you see going to the hospital and getting tested CLEARLY is the most critical number of cases. It’s possible that for every person tested, there are 100 or more that are asymptomatic. Run some numbers on this “highly contagious” disease.
Another point why we are in a fear bubble is that everyone parrots the same fear gospel and there’s very few dissenters.
Bring on the downvotes you scared folks
In Guangdong province, for example, there were 320,000 tests done in people coming to fever clinics, outpatient clinics. And at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47 percent of those tests were positive. People keep saying [the cases are the] tip of the iceberg. But we couldn’t find that. We found there’s a lot of people who are cases, a lot of close contacts — but not a lot of asymptomatic circulation of this virus in the bigger population. And that’s different from flu. In flu, you’ll find this virus right through the child population, right through blood samples of 20 to 40 percent of the population.
If you didn’t find the “iceberg” of mild cases in China, what does it say about how deadly the virus is — the case fatality rate?
It says you’re probably not way off. The average case fatality rate is 3.8 percent in China, but a lot of that is driven by the early epidemic in Wuhan where numbers were higher. If you look outside of Hubei province [where Wuhan is], the case fatality rate is just under 1 percent now. I would not quote that as the number. That’s the mortality in China — and they find cases fast, get them isolated, in treatment, and supported early. Second thing they do is ventilate dozens in the average hospital; they use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [removing blood from a person’s body and oxygenating their red blood cells] when ventilation doesn’t work. This is sophisticated health care. They have a survival rate for this disease I would not extrapolate to the rest of the world. What you’ve seen in Italy and Iran is that a lot of people are dying.
Regardless, the death tolls kind of speak for themselves. What's more, the increase in death toll too. In Italy alone there are over 4000 dead, with a few hundred more a day now. Italy has a population of 60 million. Extrapolating even the current death count in Italy to the rest of the world, and that's 400k deaths. All indications are that it'll be higher than that uncontrolled.
Maybe people are overreacting. But in this case isn't it better to error on the side of caution? Otherwise by the time we realize we're wrong and millions are dying, what do we do then?
1. Significantly older population
2. Shitty healthcare
For context many years ago, the state of Ohio in the US had more MRI machines than all of Canada combined. It’s very possible that due to budget constraints and other things, they have terrible health infrastructure.
Why do we believe that all nations are equal? I can take a look at the Olympics and notice that isn’t the case. Italians make better cars as compared to the French. So maybe they have terrible elderly healthcare? That seems more likely than “super disease kills only Italians and now comes after Americans”
Importantly, "It did, however, show efficacy against SARS and MERS in vitro" So the drug is promising. Not saying it's a silver bullet but definitely promising.
1. Chloroquine is hepotoxic and since cytokine storms is already one of the way covid19 leads to death there is a lot of question whether chloroquine can actually help (in terms of aggregate effect on CFR).
2. Remdesivir didn't work for ebola (original target) and there is no reason to think it would work for covid19.
3. Favipiravir shows activity against many viruses (SARS-CoV-2 included), but doesn't actually reduce mortality for other viral illnesses (unknown for convid19).
Key to understand, many things show activity with the virus but don't actually improve the disease progression.
They may still have those numbers after they lift the quarantine.
As governor Pritzker said: "I fully recognize I am choosing between saving people's lives and saving people's livelihoods, but ultimately you can't have a livelihood if you don't have a life."
This the the doctors delima, that does not factor in quality of life in to the "life" equation, life with no quality is not much of a life.
Further I have big problems with the Governer or the government making that choice, it should not be the government choice of my livelihood over my life, in either direction. No only is it shocking how fast people willing toss the economy aside and expect government checks to save them, it is also shocking how fast people simply toss aside all civil liberties.
I don't envy the local governments trying to contain this with almost no data and no help or direction from the federal government.
In our system of government the State Governments are suppose to be the most powerful, not the federal government
it is a Union of States after all.
The fact that in the last 100 years or so we continually have centralized more and more power into the hands of the federal government is a huge issue, but instead of recognizing that issue people seeming want to put more and more power federally and continue to strip their local governments of power
The smaller the unit of power the faster it can react to local changes. In situations like this it SHOULD be local government leading the charge not a slow monolithic federal government
Especially if you think Illinois is a model everyone should be following
This only ends with a vaccine and enough people recovered after infection we arrive near enough herd immunity. Until then this will have to burn through populations. Regardless, I can appreciate and support Pritzker’s response, and efforts to “flatten the curve”. It’s an unfortunate situation with no clear path to success.
The cases from 2 weeks ago are seeking medical care.
I'm slightly optimistic, testing has ramped up the last few days with a large spike instead of an unimaginable one, and we will get a clearer picture as they start broadening the criteria.
If hospitals can get the supplies they need, and testing and health department capacity is there to do contact tracing, the lockdowns can loosen, and our economy can start back up. Bonus points if the warmer weather in the coming months helps fight the virus.
Is this true though? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but according to reports, ~15% of the infected need hospitalization, and the distribution of those people are mostly over 60. Is having these people hospitalized on a large scale more detrimental to the economy than shutting everything down? Serious question.
But also, if there's enough people sick enough to overwhelm the hospitals, your average workplace is going to have a bunch of people out sick, and that's going to be an issue. Plus, like everybody who is well is going to be out for the funerals of the old people.
Part of the reason my kid's school shut down before they were compelled to was that they were having trouble with staffing, because staff were sick or in the vulnerable groups. No school means less workers for other jobs too.
If this continues for more than a few weeks - 50% of American business dies. 50% of America is unemployed. Contagion from massive defaults and write-offs spreads throughout the entire economy. Money printing at a rate heretofore unimaginable and probably hyperinflation to follow.
It is no less than committing hari-kari in a moral panic. Hopefully we will wake up from the fever dream before it’s too late.
“Flatten the curve” is a terrible lie. The extent and duration of the measures required would bankrupt 95% of the country.
ICUs being overrun is actually an argument for getting the COVID cases out of the way quickly, not dragging it out over, say, 24 months.
If you can get your head around the scale involved, if 80% of people are going to be infected and 14% of those are going to need serious treatment (doubtful, but the same assumption the “flatten” exercise is based on), there is actually no way to keep COVID cases “at or below” ICU capacity. They will absolutely take 100% of capacity and beyond for more than a year, if you drag it out.
The longer you have COVID cases overwhelming your system, the longer you have non-COVID routine emergencies getting untreated.
Either you can contain it in a few weeks or you have to let it burn through. There is no “slow smolder” scenario I can see that leaves society intact.
Your personal attack is entirely inappropriate. I suggest perhaps it’s you that should take a break from the discussion.
As we can see just looking at how different countries have responded, there is a wide spectrum of responses, and countries have been successful getting R0 below 1 with different approaches other than total shutdown.
Even the Imperial College report notes that there are no easy choices here;
> We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made. Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term.
It’s crucial to note that there cannot be population health without economic health. It is not a choice between shutting down to save lives versus keeping the economy running and costing lives.
Computational Biologist Francois Balloux (Director of UGI at UCL) raises the point;
> The covid-19 pandemic is not just an epidemiological problem. It is a ‘Global Health’ problem, that can only be tackled with an integrated and global approach. For example, there is no such thing as a choice between managing the pandemic vs. protecting the economy. (11/12)
> Health and the economy are closely linked. The correlation between per-capita GDP and health (life expectancy) is essentially perfect. If the covid-19 pandemic leads to a global economy collapse, many more lives will be lost than covid-19 would ever be able to claim. (12/12)
I’m not the least bit surprised.
Yes, my attack is personal, in the sense that it’s aimed directly at you and your reckless disregard for people’s lives. You’re spreading dangerous and false ideas in the face of a global pandemic, ideas that will cost tens of millions of lives if people take them seriously. There’s no reason anyone should listen to you, since you have no expertise, you’ve been wrong about everything all along, and you continue to disagree with the experts, as you have all along.
But like you said, you stand by every statement you’ve made.
Edit: unfortunately, it turns out that you've been doing this so much that I've banned your account (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22659159). Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
You couldn’t be more wrong with your accusations, and I will continue to lend my perspective to this debate with a slant toward long-term macroeconomic thinking that I believe is essential in managing a global health crisis, and saving the most lives long-term.
I have no doubt you can produce a “citation” of someone that agrees with you, especially if you twist their words to support your point. But you’re not seeking the truth, you made up your mind a long time, which is why the vast majority of experts disagree with you.
And I have zero doubt that you lack the shame and introspection to stop posting now, about something you know nothing about and have been wrong about all along. You should be ashamed though, you’re part of a movement costing lives. And I won’t be “civil” while you do so.
This happened repeatedly in China; in fact, the nature of a lockdown sort of encourages this. But an infected household of 5 ppl is significantly easier to contain than 1 infected person going on to infect 4 people from 4 different walks of life.
I got my groceries from people wearing masks. Everybody in the store kept 6 feet distance.
I've been working from home for 2 weeks and will continue to do so for at least 3 more. Company wide mandate.
Almost every business other than groceries/other essentials (where some are surprisingly "essential", granted) are closed so people have no reason to break quarantine except to perform essential tasks. So overall, I'd say we are doing exactly what we need to be doing. Hopefully the rest of the country follows suit
Of course better compliance from larger numbers of people has even more impact, but it's not a binary condition.
That said, we probably aren't doing enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, or to even push that very far into the future.
Projections are 500k dead by June. Maybe with the precautions we can slow the millions dead by the end of the year. It remains to be seen.
Looks fairly exponential to me. (log y axis) And that's just confirmed cases.
We'll come around, once it's too late. "Americans will always do the right thing — after exhausting all the alternatives."
Sounds a lot like Philly' Spanish flu parade, as compared to St. Louis' lockdown during the same.
That’s the fatality rate within a functioning medical system. It’s safe to assume that if the virus is uncontrolled the rate will be substantially higher.
The most vulnerable groups, the working class that pack like sardines in public transit every day, either continue work or are laid off. Tenement conditions still exist in Los Angeles, with multiple families cramming into a 1br apartment.
Quarantine is really only affecting the knowledge workers who make up a minority of the population, and who interact with a sliver of the population to begin with. Effective quarantine would include protections for the working class, but there isn't any political will.
I'm legitimately fearful of hitting the breaking point. Maybe some would call it overblown, or hysteria, but this is a city that endured three days of looting after a verdict, requiring the national guard to stabilize the situation. Men with rifles used to take positions on the roof of my grocery store. This isn't ancient history, unfortunately, it's who we are when pushed past our limits with nothing left to lose.
Fixed this for you.
(Additional comment: I will counter with I'm really amazed how quickly people threw away the economy in an effort to reduce lost lives. Normally, I expect people to be much more mercurial)
The economy will recover, especially since EVERY country is taking a hit, I don't think it will take very long for the capitalist engine to roar back to life. That's the beauty about capitalism -- you're turning the ingenuity of humans loose to be productive. As humans we're great at figuring out how to be productive.
The percentage of effectiveness isn't really measurable if the standard isn't followed. You're assuming its 50%, but it very well could be 0% because your equipment is just as contaminated as your hands. So you have not helped yourself, AND you have decreased supply of essential equipment from someone who ACTUALLY needs it. That's a big fail.
I'm not assuming that they are 50% effective either, I pulled the 50% number out of my ass, but so is your 0%, and I find it hard to imagine a physical reality where me keeping a 6 feet distance to an infected person decreases my infection probability significantly more than that person wearing a mask. Anecdotally, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, where wearing masks is quite commonplace all seem to be doing better in transmission rate than the Western world, and all that without killing their economies. And considering that we're producing around 2 billion disposable plastic bottles a day, I'd currently bet money that we should be able to ramp up the supply of cheap masks for a sum that's a lot less than that of halting 50% of the Western economy for several months. Obviously, it can't happen in a day, but I'm not really seeing anyone try, except for perhaps Trump after his recent epiphany that Corona is not a Democrats' hoax. I'm willing to be dissuaded by someone who's actually thought it through, but sadly I haven't seen any such analyses.
So believe what you want, but I'm gonna go with the experts on this, not someone who's only support is his own conjecture lol. They're not even the only ones saying this. Go Google some reputable sources yourself and stop guessing.
If your collaborators can point you to peer-reviewed studies that rebut these results, or to a serious current analysis that shows the impossibility (or estimates the price and time frame) of ramping up PPE production, please post it.
Dismissive tone? Take a look in the mirror pal. I'm done.