I believe Louisiana has the worst rate of increase in cases in the entire world at a state/region/province level. Of course, New Orleans is there, so its probably just the godless heathens causing the problem.

Probably a lot of spread going on during Mardi Gras. I expect a similar spike in Houston in a couple of weeks due to the Rodeo. Then again, you can't have lots of cases if you don't test!


SI

I'm not saying Easter (that's pretty silly, IMO), but at some point we need to find a way to let people who have had/recovered and lower risk groups get back to their jobs. I think we still try social distancing (esp in regards to not having concerts/sports events open to the public and limiting bars/restaurants), but we can't just be sitting at home in September and expect to have a country/economy. I think it's early for the president to start naming a date, but I can't believe anyone thinks that we will all still be on home lockdown come the fall - do they?

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump's golf courses will be given top priority.

Well, Trump is absolute worst person to manage it - but even if we had a good president I wouldn't want them in charge of divvying out supplies like that. The red tape/hoops would have to be ridiculous. Imagine giving a bunch to Seattle on Friday only to find that people are dying in NY because they didn't get enough on Monday - ugh

I'm basically with you on the date issue - we just don't know enough yet. We don't know what drugs even have an effect on this. We don't know if it'll do what most viruses do and regress somewhat in the summer. Which would probably mean a big fall resurgence - the flu pandemic a century ago actually killed more people then because they thought it was gone and nope, it really wasn't - how much more the thing mutates, etc. We don't know how much we'll be able to ramp up production of ventilators/repurposed hospital space/etc. I find it incredibly disturbing that I can't find hardly any hard news on that now - I mean, are we even doing it at remotely the rate we need to be?

There's just too many variables in this. I'll be surprised if it can be lifted without massive consequences before sometime in May, but speculating beyond that is just ill-informed speculation. Lots of people looking for answers that just aren't to be found yet.

How should it managed then? Someone who is looking at the whole picture should figure it out. There is no way to please everyone that's for sure.

I think Trump is just doing it to prop up the markets, but I can't believe he thinks we will be "back to normal" by Easter. Best case is maybe we start transitioning and lowering the social distancing (maybe up to 25 again) sometime in May. But that's even a stretch.

Here's the thing with the President (and other people's comments). If they had said something like "We want to hit the ground running for when it's safe to do so, so we're going to look at plans about getting low-risk people out and about to try to keep the economy going whenever possible", I don't think that there would have been much bother. But to make a blanket statement like that smacks of "Who cares who dies. ECONOMY NUMBER MUST GO UP!"

But yeah, in 3-4 weeks, maybe, if there's a good sign that we've flattened the curve and not filled every hospital bed available, I would be glad to see loosening of the restrictions. Trust me, even though I'm stuck at home for the next 2-3 months regardless, I want to see life go back to "normal" for as many people as possible as soon as realistically possible

Maybe, but the Federal Government needs to create rules around this right now if we're going to do it that way. The issue with that seems to be states buying what they can based on what they can afford/be the highest bidder on, instead of the states with the highest immediate need receiving help.
Equipment MUST get to the places in the greatest immediate need as far as their hospital systems being overwhelmed. I believe a number of stories were shared here a few days ago regarding price gouging for masks, with states AND the federal government bidding against one another for supplies.

From a report on Governor Cuomo's press briefing on March 22nd:


Coronavirus: Andrew Cuomo says states are bidding up cost of supplies - Business Insider

Each state should go out and use any means necessary to get what they need. Private, public, different countries - all cards are on the table. Then, they get reimbursed by the Feds (to a certain level) after the buy. I think that's the only way this has a chance of working. Having the Feds be a traffic cop for equipment that passes every state's regulations and gets fairly moved seems like a logistical nightmare. Maybe the feds can supply a small, base amount to each state based on need - but that can't be the majority of equipment. It just won't get there soon enough.

I'm taking this reply over to the Trump thread, Arlie. I think you'll understand why.

I can't remember what it was, but I think it was masks.

Cuomo had an agreement to buy a lot of masks. Then someone else over bid him and he lost those masks. It's not a good way to do it.

Put the military in charge of it. This is the sort of thing they manage on a daily basis.

Doesn't that necessarily mean that all 50 states are competing against each other and driving up each other's costs?

Which do you think a state would prefer:

1. Paying 130% and getting a bunch of equipment tomorrow.
2. Paying 90% and waiting until next week for it (when the gov't decides they need it).

I'm pretty sure all of them would prefer 1 - esp if the government is partially subsidizing that cost. if it gets out of control, the feds can always put price controls on them.

Now do the 49 other states that DIDN'T get that first batch of supplies.

So you would rather Seattle buy 500k masks when they only need 200k and have NY get nothing because Seattle paid more?

There needs to be a central point of distribution.

Hey Mr. med supplies man I have 250k masks coming your way on Tuesday.

Thank you Mr. mask maker. Please send 100k to NY, 75k to Seattle, 25k to LA, 10k to DC, and the rest to NO. Thanks.


Or Seattle can just buy them all because they can.

So about a week ago, an epidemiologist who was advising our Church Synod about the coronavirus indicated that from her info it was likely that Covid 19 would have 30k cases by Sunday in the US, which would mean 10mil cases by Easter. I believe it was actually 35k cases on Sunday, and Governor Cuomo has said it's spreading faster than they expected.

So, I think that 10mil number by Easter may be low...

This is where the reimbursement comes in. Maybe the feds say Seattle only needs 200K, so they won't reimburse after 200K. So, if Seattle buys another 300K, they won't be getting reimbursed and be going up against a state (maybe getting their first 200K) that is getting reimbursed. And the Feds can always step in if one state is hoarding. I don't think that is the case though, I think all states are scrambling and would like more options than what the Fed is currently using.

I think we are close to 1 mil nationally right now. I bet we are way over 10 mil in Easter. The question is what strain will that put on our system if 1 mil have it now and we are at the strain we are.

I don't think there is anyway to save the economy at this point, not like Trump wants to.

We are going to end up with a shit economy and a lot of dead people instead of a shit economy and not so many dead people.

Are you guys going to go back to work the Monday after Easter because Trump says go for it when there are 150k new cases of this on Easter Sunday?

I'm not going back to the office until I believe it is safe and there's nothing Trump can do to make me believe that.

It is a shame Fauci has been grounded.

Well on masks its 830% right now. Just saying.

So you want the Feds still doing oversight & budgeting while the states compete with each other to raise prices? This does not make much sense to me.

Yeah, people (including Trump) seem to forget, not know or ignore that the average time between infection and onset of Pneumonia is thought to be 10-11 days and hospitalisation a little later still days. And the people they have infected are likely to become seriously ill another 10 days later. And you dont infect the first other Person they meet. Which means essentially 3 weeks before one can take an educated guess how the various counter measures affected the spread. Even in Italy it is likely that all the dead today were infected at least 2 weeks ago (right before the lockdown) and those dying in the next days by relatives or colleagues that were infected 3+ weeks ago.

Which is why further spikes in the next week or 10 days will regardless of any measures taken in the last few days. You take measures to flatten the curve in 2 weeks and prevent deaths in 3.

And it is exactly why you cant think you put up these measures for a week or 10 days and that's sufficient.

Everything you're saying would make sense if states weren't competing against one another for critical resources. This is the exact situation where the federal government should step in. It makes zero sense for states to drive up the price while the highest bidder gets medical equipment and others get nothing.

Your world example doesn't reflect what we're seeing. It's not pay 30% more now or wait a week. It's pay up to hundreds of percent higher or get nothing.

Why have 50 competing voices when you can have 1?

And that's why companies don't want Trump to use the DPA. States bidding against each other is good for profits.

I think sadly the numbers will speak for themselves and Trump will back off his statements about opening the country. He'll make statements about how no one could have predicted it would be this bad when I said that. I think in a week it'll be political suicide to goto business as normal.

I do think we have to look at the nos. If we are still trending up, or plateauing, or early in a decline, he'll have to back off. No one will follow his "orders".

If the nos. are declining significantly (don't know the definition yet), then sure I can see a gradual re-opening of the economy with the understanding it may take 2-4 months for it to fully ramp up again. This re-opening can be ordered/prioritized by less impacted states (e.g. like ND, SD). However, this has to be accompanied by good monitoring & fast testing/results in case pockets pop up again.

Just some examples that I would be okay with initially ...

-- Restaurants & fast food open up for take out orders. Restaurant workers have to be checked once-twice a day etc.
-- Stores open up and limit number of people. Those they let in get temperatures taken
-- Similar for manufacturing companies, corp offices etc.

However ...

-- Schools stay closed for remote learning at least until next school year/Sep
-- Airlines are screwed. Businesses are going to limit travel to "essential" only long past Easter
-- Cruise lines are screwed

Bottom-line: look at numbers to determine when to begin re-opening. Doesn't hurt if government and private sector start now to plan how a re-opening could look like - set the guidelines, provide the process and equipment for temperature screening, process for what to do if someone is "positive" etc.

No one is going to go out while this is still taking place. The only way to fix the economy is to get this virus under control. We're taking the wrong approach.

The risk of ending coronavirus social distancing now, in one chart - Vox

Yeah, a lot of difficulty getting data for that period but hard to see it as coincidental.

You have to leave measures in place at least until you have more effective treatment available OR a better chance to test and quarantine infected. Which can only happen when new cases are considerably lower than now.

Fauci is back!

Hah thanks. Turned on the TV to watch

Did I miss a D/R talking points memo where I cant simultaneously be worried about my 78 year old parents, my children and wife's health, my cancer surviving brothers health, my health and also my money for my childrens college, my in laws and parents retirement money, my houses value, the economy in general? Just asking as it seems to be either/or now and I cant care about both without either wishing millions dead or wanting the market to go to zero.

I think we all agree it's probably not safe to go back now and a little absurd to wait 2 or more years. So it's some point between those right?

What policies are you suggesting should change?

There you go Fauci. Talk about the other drugs in clinical trial.

Nothing in particular. Just seems like when its discussed that lockdowns need to end at some point it's always catastrophic death numbers on here(more liberal) and over on reason where I also hang out every policy is crashing the economy. Miss the days where there weren't sides already determined on every issue. (Maybe I long for a day that never existed?)

Have you missed my fair-and-balanced commentaries? :)

Almost all the catastrophic death numbers I've seen come from doctors and scientists.

Pence said Apple is donating 9 million n95 masks. My first thought was ... is this accurate and my second thought was ... wtf took so long Apple?

Fauci looks down a lot when Trump is speaking. I think that is his secret signal.

Trump said the re-opening will be guided by Fauci and Deborah. Fauci said Easter is "very flexible" and have to evaluate the feasibility, looking at the data. He seems to indicate possibility of re-opening by different areas vs entire country.

Trump should just say "I spoke to Fauci/Birx and I told them I want to target Easter with the understanding we will look at the data etc. before making a final decision. Here, let me have Fauci speak ..."

Just an FYI, but all three things you listed above are OK in most states right now. I'm pretty sure a big chunk of manufacturing companies are exempt from any "stay at home" order due to being critical industry.

I think the steps would be opening restaurants up to allow smaller gatherings (say 25 people) and allowing salons/services to begin running again. I think we are some time off that happening though.

Thank Zeus!

So apparently 300,000 tests have been conducted in the US, based on the numbers from the afternoon press conference. We are at just over 53k cases, so that means about 1 in 6 people getting tested have it.

And we're heavily biased towards testing people we think likely have it. For what it's worth.

I actually think both parties are concerned about both of those things as well. Given this is a 'non-political' thread, the furthest I'll go here is to observe that there a lot of people who think that in this situation you simply can't preserve both of those things; and there's a lot of truth to that. It's a Polyanna fantasy in this situation to imagine (I don't think you're saying that here) that there isn't going to be deep economic pain from trying to preserve public health, and vice versa.

Most people come down somewhere in the middle, but some think it might have already been too long on the economic side. Others think we can survive another couple of months like this, but that it's suicidal to push it further, and so on. It's a very real debate on that that will only intensify, and while I disagree with those who have suggested in this thread that we need to call off the dogs sooner rather than later, I definitely understand that perspective. It does seem to me in general that people are looking for a 'relatively normal' way to get through this, not realizing that there is no such thing and nothing really close to it. It's a really, really hard balance to walk and we're probably going to miss the best path by a good distance.

That's the thing I find you in the very middle of the political spectrum but you are far right here.

Congrats FOFC. Gov. Cuomo reads this board.

Gov. Cuomo says he has group working on restarting state economy

Who is being tested? Is it the critically ill and hospitalised, or are people with all the symptoms but in a mild form also being tested?

Far right? As in siding with Trump? I believe I lean more to the left in this situation in criticizing the poor response, Trump's initial obliviousness, and now Trump's repeatedly out-of-context half-truths and BS.

But I will say that although much of the Trump criticism is well deserved, we all know there would also be a lot of fails by Hillary/Biden in the same situation. It's just that Hillary/Biden wouldn't bluster and BS us as much as Trump.