Im not pro-reopening, but I'll play devil's advocate and here's one argument for it. The UN released a report that without an economic recovery, there is a risk of mass starvation, including in developed countries.
For most this is the answer. I am pro-reopening and mainly so that I don't run out of money/company doesn't go out of business in an economy that would be hard to find a new job in. Do it responsibly though, wear masks where appropriate, wash hands, understand that if you're higher risk you need to mitigate that by restricting contact with others or groups. Added to that if you're not willing to accept the risk, you have that choice and shouldn't be ripped on for making it, just like those who chose to wear a mask shouldn't be shamed for it. Some parts of the country cannot reopen on the same schedule because of population density and/or Covid saturation, they will have to wait it out a bit longer. Here in Indiana we've been trending down on new cases even though we are reopening a bit at a time and hopefully that trend continues but we'll have to watch how any spikes treat our hospital capacity and react accordingly. The government (all of them) need the tax revenue or the whole system could get a little unstable, though I'm not sure how long that would take or what it would look like. I was talking to a buddy who (I don't have a reference for it but his profession is one where he might have some insight) said over 100,000 businesses have failed and closed already. I don't know how many jobs that translates to but they aren't coming back in that form. Who knows how long until new businesses take their place and pick those people up? I don't have that answer and really, I'm not sure anyone does. There is a happy middle ground in all of this which I think is important because hard facts and answers are hard to find. Push to hard one way (opening too quickly) or the other (staying closed until there is a vaccine) could both be dangerous.
I'm pro-reopening intelligently, since this isn't going anywhere for the next few months. I am worried that outbreaks will flare up, and the shutdown option needs to be reserved, especially for places with high population density. If you remain closed down too long, there will simply be no appetite for shutting down again if it becomes necessary. Also, the notion of enforcement starts to get really difficult as this wears on, and we are already asking first responders to ignore certain guidance out of necessity. I'm not saying there will be widespread civil unrest, but looking at cops in Missouri and Baltimore in recent years, yeah...there's tension around enforcing new rules that might be explosive. I think the dichotomy between "the economy" and "the virus" is false. The "muh liberty" crowd is dangerously ignorant, and not worth addressing. I also think there are plenty of things that simply cannot be brought back online in the next year or so, because they can't maintain physical distance, can't safely deliver services with restrictions in place, or can't assume the risk. So, yeah I think people need to be able to go to the beach and eat at a restaurant, if they can do so safely. Things like going to a baseball game or getting on a crowded metro will likely wait. And I think you can forget consistency or logic in the re-opening parameters: You can't eat with an effective mask in place, so that's not required in a restaurant or bar, but you will need one to get a haircut. The biggest reason I think this dichotomy is being pushed is due to the election. The Trump camp needs a rapid and impressive recovery before November, and that hinges on things re-opening and a "disaster bump" of pent up demand being spent. I don't think it will be enough, and we are in the early stages of a major economic decline that will take more than a few months to recover from. I like to think everyone wants the 40+ million unemployed get back to work soon, but I don't see how a good 10-20% of those laid off get right back to work, like nothing ever happened. Simply put, we'll see businesses forced to operate at partial capacity and they have to assume new burdens of PPE, cleaning, etc, so they will suffer accordingly. The system, especially from a financial standpoint is dangerously unstable right now. We are in a recession, and it's going to get worse as we see things reopen but don't get back to full capacity. Look at what's going on in parts of Georgia: open, but empty and short-staffed. That's going to be the tale for a few months, maybe years and only the largest businesses can sustain operations like that. This will exacerbate inequality across the board, and that's going to hurt. I also think the idea of "ride this out until there's a vaccine" isn't viable either. That's putting a tremendous amount of faith in getting a viable vaccine, which if you go by best reliable estimates would be 18 months minimum. 18 months of being shut down for some things is an eternity, and it's simply unlikely they return to full strength if at all.
I'll have to take slight issue with this part. There is not an inherent instability in the US (or North American) economic system. Comparisons by the media to the 2008 crisis, 1992 recession, Great Depression and others are meaningless. Those were brought about by underlying factors such as runaway inflation, lack of functional monetary policy and more recently, a lack of regulation around mortgage bonds classifications/ratings. Sure, based solely on unemployment numbers, this qualifies as a recession (well, technically it wont apply officially until the end of Q2). But there are no widely accepted economic models that are going to predict how the economy will respond over the next 12-18 months. What is fairly certain, is that it wont be a 10-year climb out of the hole like the 2008 crisis. "Stability" in terms of recovery will probably be measurable through: 1) Household willingness (and ability) to spend; 2) Small business bankruptcies and capital rescue needs; 3) Real human capital. This includes unemployment, but also the intrinsic cost of hiring and training new workers; 4) State and local government financing. This includes how these jurisdictions manage their cash flow from tax income. Gradually cutting unemployment and other benefits and raising additional tax revenue to stay compliant with balanced-budget requirements.
Fair, and let me clarify: Thinking about the stats that suggest most people don't have a spare $400, most businesses can't float payroll more than 6 weeks without incurring debt, and a frightening chunk of mid-sized businesses are leveraged to such an extent that they are insolvent with 2-3 months of lost revenue, the instability is present in the actors, rather than the system itself...but what difference does that make? This is uncharted territory, and not caused by a structural or systemic flaw like other recessions. This, however is a paradigm shift and it will cause confidence to wane, especially in the short-term. It also seems to be following the disaster pattern of economic disruption thus far. The question is does the "recovery bump" actually happen if the conditions causing the downturn are still threatening?
States that are largely able to be entirely self sufficient on a whim such as the US will never be at risk of starvation without the will of the government, or the lack of will to bend capital to its needs, allowing it to happen.
The US and Canada are some of the few nations of earth that could self-sustain together on their own food and energy supplies forever. But without a functional supply chain, starvation will occur in the short-term, which is all the time needed for malnourished to starve to death. On the first point, it makes a difference in terms of how things go overall, even in a diminished or muted way. In 2008 people were booted out of their homes within 3-4 months and the economy cratered literally overnight. On the second point, that’s the 10 trillion dollar question. I’ve seen predictions with Z-curves, U-curves, V-curves and L-curves. There are a million factors changing in real-time. The models for future pandemics are being drafted now unfortunately.
It is my understanding that the report most explicitly did not include developed countries. It was more focused on third world countries with heavy reliance on either tourism or oil exports and on the ability to import food.
There were 55 nations identified as being at-risk for famine, as they already have issues with food shortages. Some of the supporting documents suggested a continued decline in oil prices and commerce could begin having starvation impacts on developed nations, particularly Southern Europe and Asia. NA will probably be largely spared.
Well, I live in PA, which has notoriously strict liquor laws, and our state is now allowing bars and beer distributors to sell open containers of alcohol for you to take home! It's like a win-win...state gets revenue from alcohol sales AND DUI busts!! ...and yet I still can't get my grays dyed. ETA: I should clarify - they make you put a lid on your alcohol before you walk out the door, but there's no enforcement once you walk out of the establishment. Also, while it bothers me that I can't get a haircut, the wishy-washy nature of our governor bothers me more.
I think your last sentence is the killer. The amount of uncertainty why the nature of the virus keeps any meaningful economic predictions in the purely speculation realm until a vaccine or treatment or wholesale burn off of deaths occurs. I think it’s troubling that the amount out pure deficit spending could lead to a traditional issue run away inflation that can cause a serious downturn.
Fair, and it's really fucking hard to not scream at people not wearing masks when my uncle is in lung cancer remission and has a compromised immune system. It's really fucking hard to not think of people who are actively advocating against masks and distancing as selfish assholes because they wouldn't be directly affected by my uncle dying. They don't have to worry about not having a funeral, or being unable to physically support other family members. A "just emotional" response is valid in this case. The coronavirus kills people. It has killed roughly 100,000 people in the United States. That is roughly the same amount of service members that have been killed in every major conflict since the end of WWII, combined. It appears to affect those that are older, have compromised immune systems, or an underlying condition. In my uncle's case, he has all three. I agree that emotional responses driven by conspiracy theories on social media and other extremist websites on the right or left are invalid. You can't cherrypick between "Did X wear a mask when they went out shopping?". Either they did or didn't. If they didn't, they actively contributed to not helping stop the spread of a potentially fatal virus. If you see them shopping without a mask, you don't need any further proof beyond what your eyes are showing you. There is no Photoshopping something that is literally occurring literally a few feet away from you. There is no questioning the veracity of the existence of a mask that is clearly not there. Every single action a person takes to prevent the transmission of this disease is making life or death decisions on behalf of people like my uncle. That matters.
Can you blame them? Think of the situation they're facing: Start with the scientific basics. They're facing a novel virus that we are still actively studying and responding to as quickly as we can. Information about contagiousness, morbidity, treatments, immunity, and other issues are evolving day by day. Now add the fact that the federal response has been not just wildly inadequate, but has been actively self-contradictory as well. The President himself is running a political campaign attacking people for following his own administration's recommendations. Finally there are actual armed protests with no small overlap with wild-eyed conspiracy theorists braying about 5G towers and Bill Gates' planned holocaust. Who the hell knows what may set them off and spark a serious terrorist attack. The governor has to balance all of those factors, as well as economic predictions that are even less concrete than the epidemiological predictions, to come to a decision on how to respond.
Concern for the compromised is valid to an extent and you won’t get any argument from me that the muh constitutional right not to wear a mask isn’t retarded. But the emotional “one life is too many, if we don’t stay hunkered down you’re a callus asshole who want my elderly sick relatives to die” isn’t a real world argument as far as a workable standards of moving forward. My question I guess would be where do you think the line is as far as measures we need to take? I got it wearing mask is a bare minimum but what is your higher end? The one life is too many isn’t feasible in the face the whole reality of the situation. Downanddirty has laid out his agency’s plan to implement openings. That means your uncle will be at a higher risk. Do you think that risk is too much? What do you think think of say California banning AA meetings but keeping liquor stores open? Are they selfish for creating vectors that put your uncle at risk to protect tax revenues? Larger, the population demanding access to these vectors just to buy a drink? Ultimately there will be a line where any decision is going to cost lives. It’s a hard truth of life. I’m generally curious as to what you think of the whole question. I may have missed it but I’ve only seen you really rail against the obvious low hanging fruit with the conspiratards about mask.
There actually is a valid public health reason for this. Alcohol (the legal safe drug) has very severe withdrawals for those who are physically dependant on it. It often requires hospitalization medication and can result in death if untreated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome Keeping liquor stores open is actually intended to help keep alcoholics out of the hospital.
The primary focus (at least where I'm involved) is keeping the healthcare system operational, at a level of care that is a function of material resources, effective staff, and the workload. Keep the new cases popping up at a low enough level that they can be taken care of in hospital. That, right now, is the limiting factor on the rate and manner of re-opening. And it's super hard to do with up to a 2 week delay on the outcomes. For instance, here in Ontario, we have 2 more weeks of restrictions because we just had a week of record high new cases (and deaths) because (they assume) people ignored the recommendations over Mother's Day. Now they're putting the brakes on the re-opening a bit while they wait to see how the numbers settle out. Once they settle back down, they'll re-open some more stuff, and then measure the results. The province is now telling anyone/everyone to go to a local testing centre, as we're only testing at about 2/3 of our capacity... so no more restrictions. If you want to be tested, go get tested. The whole "wear a mask" thing is just something that everyone can do to help reduce the spread more, to allow more re-opening to happen at a faster rate... so that the resulting "credit" of normal infections/spread that happen from not wearing a mask can now be spent on the re-opening side of the equation. If you don't have that reduction of spread due to mask wearing, then you have to slow the re-opening efforts as a result. It's also about not being a dick... it's a small thing you can do to help others, and it appears to have a measurable positive outcome to the spread as a whole.
Italian doctors say new mutations of COVID-19 less-lethal, less-contagious anyone know how accurate that is? The article is a reuters story.
I feel like the Italian 2nd wave is going to be big if this is the narrative that they are pushing. COVID-19 of a few weeks ago is different from COVID-19 of today? That isn't how scientists talk. If it was a mutation they'd have some kind of new name attached to it. Even if it was like COVID-19-B and the previous strain getting a COVID-19-A tag. Just like there are six or seven types of hepatitis, with C being the real bad one, and B having a vaccine.
Wouldn't that just make the old strain the more prevalent and more dangerous one anyway? Not like the old strain goes away when a new one pops up....
People are starting to get increasingly angry that not all of our offices are open and that some are only open for emergency appointments. Like flipping the hell out that they can't get their teeth whitening treatment. I so want to tell them to just wear a mask and they'll solve multiple problems at once.