Corona Virus 2019-nCoV

[exchemist]

I think it's too early to open up in most places but I like the idea of thinking about how you could widen the businesses that could be opened but not the ones that everyone is talking about...getting your haircut, etc.

Some people might think it's more important to get a haircut than to open up the local garden center but that's not the point. You can't stay away from people if you are cutting their hair.

People are home with nothing to do. They could go to a garden center, buy a few plants to come home and plant (as an example). You can have spacing by the cashier just like in the grocery store. You could limit the number of people in the garden center at any one time.

I'm sure there are other businesses out there like that when it is time to open things up a bit more if for no other reason than to limit the economic suffering of many lower paid employees and to reduce the sense of panic in the population as a whole. There is going to be a heavy price to pay by completely shutting down the economy for too long.

There are some states with relatively low numbers of people with the virus. Of course those numbers can increase rapidly but they don't have to if the businesses that open up initially are low contact and low density businesses....and that's not bars, restaurants and hair salons.

The other thing that strikes me more and more about this is: what determines R0? The figure we use for London is about 2.5. But it must be a function of how people interact in a given community, rather than some intrinsic property of the virus. I can quite easily imagine it may be only 1.5 for a spread-out community that des not uses public transport and does not do much office work. One issue must be whether we need the same lockdown conditions everywhere. Perhaps we need them more in the densely populated cities than we do in rural areas.

On the other hand, if one were to introduce differential degrees of control, I can see it might be thought lacking in solidarity if it were only the cities that were locked down, while suburbia and rural areas only carried out weaker social distancing measures. One could imagine a lot of resentment from those in the cities, thinking visitors from outside might reintroduce the plague to them, or that the rural areas were somehow getting a free ride on the back of their own misery. Even more explosively, in the US context, the cities tend to be Democrat and the rural areas Republican. So there would be huge scope for perverted campaigning, in which Republicans, say, might present the plight of the cities as the fault of their political opponents, rather than the epidemiological fact of closer contact. And then the Republicans might resent the Federal handouts that would be necessary for the cities, to get them through the epidemic. It could make US politics even more of a snake pit than it is already.

But it looks as if that may be the way the US goes, gradually, as some areas ease up and others don't.

Good luck!

 

[Seattle]

The other thing that strikes me more and more about this is: what determines R0? The figure we use for London is about 2.5. But it must be a function of how people interact in a given community, rather than some intrinsic property of the virus. I can quite easily imagine it may be only 1.5 for a spread-out community that des not uses public transport and does not do much office work. One issue must be whether we need the same lockdown conditions everywhere. Perhaps we need them more in the densely populated cities than we do in rural areas.

On the other hand, if one were to introduce differential degrees of control, I can see it might be thought lacking in solidarity if it were only the cities that were locked down, while suburbia and rural areas only carried out weaker social distancing measures. One could imagine a lot of resentment from those in the cities, thinking visitors from outside might reintroduce the plague to them, or that the rural areas were somehow getting a free ride on the back of their own misery. Even more explosively, in the US context, the cities tend to be Democrat and the rural areas Republican. So there would be huge scope for perverted campaigning, in which Republicans, say, might present the plight of the cities as the fault of their political opponents, rather than the epidemiological fact of closer contact. And then the Republicans might resent the Federal handouts that would be necessary for the cities, to get them through the epidemic. It could make US politics even more of a snake pit than it is already.

But it looks as if that may be the way the US goes, gradually, as some areas ease up and others don't.

Good luck!

I think it's got to be more than cities vs rural in one local area especially. Take this area for instance (Seattle). It's more likely for people in the city to be infected but if the rural areas are more opened up then some of the city people will go out into the rural areas (hiking, skiing, etc) for the weekend.

Now the rural people are more likely to get infected at a higher rate than the city people because the rural people are now more exposed.

This concept works better if you are talking about states that are mainly rural but since most states have rural and urban areas it's problematical. That is how it will probably work though. Nebraska, for instance, probably has a much lower risk especially if people are still trying to practice some self-isolation. In other words if they still maintain some awareness of the problem.

In Washington State, the people east of the Cascade Mountain Range are less at risk than those of us west of the Cascades.

 

[exchemist]

I think it's got to be more than cities vs rural in one local area especially. Take this area for instance (Seattle). It's more likely for people in the city to be infected but if the rural areas are more opened up then some of the city people will go out into the rural areas (hiking, skiing, etc) for the weekend.

Now the rural people are more likely to get infected at a higher rate than the city people because the rural people are now more exposed.

This concept works better if you are talking about states that are mainly rural but since most states have rural and urban areas it's problematical. That is how it will probably work though. Nebraska, for instance, probably has a much lower risk especially if people are still trying to practice some self-isolation. In other words if they still maintain some awareness of the problem.

In Washington State, the people east of the Cascade Mountain Range are less at risk than those of us west of the Cascades.

It's a debate that's coming, I think.

I see in the NY Times there's an interview with Stephen Moore, a right wing economist in Trumps' team, advocating an approach like this. From Trump's perspective it's great if the Republican areas get going again in time for the election of course and, oddly enough, it could be scientifically sound as well, so long as the boundaries are intelligently constructed, perhaps along the lines you suggest.

But politically it will be dynamite.

 

[Yazata]

Sooo, Georgia’s governor wants to reopen his economy starting this Friday. Bowling alleys, nail salons and barber shops are going to reopen.

They may need to rethink that. But it isn't a ridiculous idea. I see no problem with bowling, as long as it isn't crowds of people doing it in close proximity. Barber shops seem more problematic on the surface, but crowds of people don't congregate in barbershops. It's just the barber and the person getting their hair cut. The locus of transmission there would be the barber, if he/she catches the virus from one customer and then passes it on to others. Here in California, beauty salons are closed but stylists are still allowed to accept customers by appointment, so it's happening in left-leaning areas too. The difference is that the propaganda-media aren't turning it into a divisive political issue when it happens in the places they favor.

So the best plan would seem to me to be 1) be slower to reopen businesses where crowds gather, and 2) only reopen businesses where close contact between individuals occurs when the businessperson is being tested regularly. Or at the very least, be prepared to shut them down again if any evidence of transmission in those places arises. (I expect it might.) Same thing for gyms and other places like that. Perhaps nonessential medical services as well. Dentists will be a problem, since things like broken teeth and toothaches can be pretty insistent.

This is Trump’s fault - too many mixed messages and he started goading some states to protest the stay at home orders, of all things.

He didn't "goad" anyone. Some left-wing reporters tried to set him up as they always try to do at one of his corona virus briefings, hoping to get him to denounce the protesters. Instead the President said that the protesters were mostly good people and that he had some sympathy for their cause. I share that sentiment myself.

Just because there's an emergency doesn't mean that the Constitution has been repealed. (Just imagine the screeching if Trump announced that freedom of the press has been repealed for the duration of the coronavirus emergency. We'd see a lot more than "goading" if that happened.) In some places, local officials and their police enforcers are turning into little impersonations of Nazis, literally kicking in doors to ensure people are alone, arresting people who were sitting or exercising by themselves in parks and beaches. Tom Brady, the football star, was thrown out of a Tampa park by the police for exercising by himself. There doesn't seem to me to be any kind of "scientific" justification for that. Issuing citations to drivers because they were on the road and not headed to an essential destination. In Michigan, entire sections of stores were taped off with police tape and the stores forbidden to sell those items which weren't deemed essential.

And there's the whole issue of priorities. Should the top priority be to reduce the rate of infection to zero, or should it be to prevent the total destruction of the economy to the point where it can never reopen and the reduction of every American to third-world poverty? A balance needs to be reached there and it might not be an easy balance to reach. The United States is supposedly a democracy, not a top-down autocracy, and the American people need to have a voice in these decisions.

First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wish ...just for one day, Trump would act like the President of the United States.

And I wish that those that hate him so passionately and so irrationally, could set their hatred aside and be more reasonable and cooperative for the common good in a time of need.

 

[Yazata]

I think it's got to be more than cities vs rural in one local area especially. Take this area for instance (Seattle). It's more likely for people in the city to be infected but if the rural areas are more opened up then some of the city people will go out into the rural areas (hiking, skiing, etc) for the weekend.

Now the rural people are more likely to get infected at a higher rate than the city people because the rural people are now more exposed.

This concept works better if you are talking about states that are mainly rural but since most states have rural and urban areas it's problematical. That is how it will probably work though. Nebraska, for instance, probably has a much lower risk especially if people are still trying to practice some self-isolation. In other words if they still maintain some awareness of the problem.

They aren't just traveling for the weekend. Wealthy New Yorkers are moving to their second homes, in upstate NY or out of state. And wealthy Californians are moving to their second homes in Tahoe, or out of state in Aspen CO or near Missoula MT. That's generating considerable push-back from more middle-class locals in those areas.

That's why the idea has been floated that low-infection states might need to close their borders to residents of high-infection states, pending testing or quarantine.

 

[billvon]

I wish ...just for one day, Trump would act like the President of the United States.

Or step aside and let someone competent handle the crisis.

 

[billvon]

They may need to rethink that. But it isn't a ridiculous idea. I see no problem with bowling, as long as it isn't crowds of people doing it in close proximity. Barber shops seem more problematic on the surface, but crowds of people don't congregate in barbershops. It's just the barber and the person getting their hair cut. The locus of transmission there would be the barber, if he/she catches the virus from one customer and then passes it on to others.

Right.

When you are in public, you can stay six feet away from people. When you go to a barber shop you cannot. Most infections occur because people touch their face and then their mouth or eye, thus transferring the virus into their mouths or eyes. Thus the first time a barber has an asymptomatic coronavirus infection - everyone else he sees that after that will be exposed. You could expose 30 people a day.

Here in California, beauty salons are closed but stylists are still allowed to accept customers by appointment, so it's happening in left-leaning areas too.

Nope, false. Here's what the guidance says, at the very top of the page:

"Stay home except for essential needs. "

No exceptions for beauty salons. Of course, hair stylists can flout that guidance and do work "under the table" so to speak - but the guidance is quite clear.

So the best plan would seem to me to be 1) be slower to reopen businesses where crowds gather, and 2) only reopen businesses where close contact between individuals occurs when the businessperson is being tested regularly.

NO ONE is being tested regularly. NO ONE. We don't have enough tests. That's the whole problem.

He didn't "goad" anyone. Some left-wing reporters tried to set him up as they always try to do at one of his corona virus briefings . . . . .

This wasn't any left wing reporter trying to goad him. This was him tweeting.

“LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!”
"LIBERATE MINNESOTA!"
"LIBERATE MICHIGAN!"

He's been goading several states to disregard guidance and hold large, crowded protests.

Just because there's an emergency doesn't mean that the Constitution has been repealed.

Of course. No one is suggesting it has been (other than Trump, who has called parts of the Constitution 'phony.')

In some places, local officials and their police enforcers are turning into little impersonations of Nazis, literally kicking in doors to ensure people are alone, arresting people who were sitting or exercising by themselves in parks and beaches.

And Trump supporters have become actual Nazis. Who are "very fine people" according to him.

Cops arresting people for trespassing is nothing new. It's pretty much their job.

Tom Brady, the football star, was thrown out of a Tampa park by the police for exercising by himself.

Who cares whether he is a football star or not? He was trespassing and was given the boot, like anyone else would be. Should his football-star status allow him to break the law?

And there's the whole issue of priorities. Should the top priority be to reduce the rate of infection to zero, or should it be to prevent the total destruction of the economy to the point where it can never reopen and the reduction of every American to third-world poverty?

Neither. The top priority should be to reduce the infection rate to give the at-risk population a chance. And - it's working in most places. Infection rates have plateaued are coming down.

And I wish that those that hate him so passionately and so irrationally, could set their hatred aside and be more reasonable and cooperative for the common good in a time of need.

And I wish his sycophants could put aside their worship of him for the duration of the crisis, and work towards the good of the US rather than the good of Trump.

 

[wegs]

I don’t hate Trump, Yazata. I just don’t think he has been handling this crisis with the type of leadership we need. Millions of people unemployed with no checks...oh well. Stimulus portal not working...oh well. Sending mixed messages during his briefings (not leftist hearsay but I’ve observed it) ...oh well. USPS hanging by a thread...oh well. His cronies standing to make millions off of stock buy backs...oh well. Stopping hard working immigrants from contributing to society...oh well.

So, for those who love Trump, how do you reconcile all that? Please don’t keep using the excuse that it’s all “fake news” trumped up (no pun) by the leftist media, because it’s not.

 

[wegs]

Right.

When you are in public, you can stay six feet away from people. When you go to a barber shop you cannot. Most infections occur because people touch their face and then their mouth or eye, thus transferring the virus into their mouths or eyes. Thus the first time a barber has an asymptomatic coronavirus infection - everyone else he sees that after that will be exposed. You could expose 30 people a day.

Nope, false. Here's what the guidance says, at the very top of the page:

"Stay home except for essential needs. "

No exceptions for beauty salons. Of course, hair stylists can flout that guidance and do work "under the table" so to speak - but the guidance is quite clear.


NO ONE is being tested regularly. NO ONE. We don't have enough tests. That's the whole problem.

This wasn't any left wing reporter trying to goad him. This was him tweeting.

“LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!”
"LIBERATE MINNESOTA!"
"LIBERATE MICHIGAN!"

He's been goading several states to disregard guidance and hold large, crowded protests.

Of course. No one is suggesting it has been (other than Trump, who has called parts of the Constitution 'phony.')

And Trump supporters have become actual Nazis. Who are "very fine people" according to him.

Cops arresting people for trespassing is nothing new. It's pretty much their job.

Who cares whether he is a football star or not? He was trespassing and was given the boot, like anyone else would be. Should his football-star status allow him to break the law?

Neither. The top priority should be to reduce the infection rate to give the at-risk population a chance. And - it's working in most places. Infection rates have plateaued are coming down.

And I wish his sycophants could put aside their worship of him for the duration of the crisis, and work towards the good of the US rather than the good of Trump.

Thanks for posting that tweet of Trump’s - I was going to look for it but appreciate this entire post.

Again, I don’t hate Trump, I just think his priority lies in restoring the economy, not in fighting this virus. The thing is, he could do both but once he started those tweets and sending mixed messages, I started feeling like he may recklessly lead us into a repeat of these past 45 days. :/

 

[exchemist]

If the open on Friday, we should see a COVID result after 5 days or so...I do hope it's not a tragedy.

No, it will take 3 weeks before you start to see an increase in hospital admissions: one week incubation and about 2 weeks getting more and more ill, to the point that you dial for the ambulance.

This is part of the problem. Without a system to test immediately anyone who suspects they may have symptoms (and there is no such system in the US, to my knowledge), there is a 3 week lag between an action and the first visible effect, by which time the thing has had 3 weeks to grow, and it then takes another 3 weeks before you see the results of trying to shut it down again.

 

[arfa brane]

No, it will take 3 weeks before you start to see an increase in hospital admissions: one week incubation and about 2 weeks getting more and more ill, to the point that you dial for the ambulance.

I think the incubation period is still very approximately known; I've seen from 1-14 days, with an average of 5 days.
In general, the opinion seems to be there will be a 14-day lag between new infections and an increase in hospitalisations.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don’t hate Trump, Yazata. I just don’t think he has been handling this crisis with the type of leadership we need. Millions of people unemployed with no checks...oh well. Stimulus portal not working...oh well. Sending mixed messages during his briefings (not leftist hearsay but I’ve observed it) ...oh well. USPS hanging by a thread...oh well. His cronies standing to make millions off of stock buy backs...oh well. Stopping hard working immigrants from contributing to society...oh well.

So, for those who love Trump, how do you reconcile all that? Please don’t keep using the excuse that it’s all “fake news” trumped up (no pun) by the leftist media, because it’s not.

Speaking of insider trading....oh...where oh where is Rudy Giuliano these days...?

It is strange that every time I talk to a trump supporter they use the word "Hate". What stands out though, is they use it out of context.
Of course we don't hate him.
The false allegation evokes a highly emotive response and perpetrates a "sympathy fraud".
"Look at me", "I am the most misunderstood and hated person on the planet" and if played well does wonders.
The use of the word hate also brings the ensuing argument down to a purely emotional level when it needs to be more objective.

• Trump is provably incompetent.
• Provably a pathological liar.
• He is directly and indirectly responsible for thousands of COVID Deaths.
• He intimidates and fires all those who refute his fraudulent claims.

He has mislead his supporters from day one..

"But that's because you hate him just like we hated Hillary" will be the absurd response.

So to me this is all about the skilled use of emotive rather than objective language..an abuse of sympathy (empathy) and a demonstration by a skilled con man.

See Neurolinguistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolinguistics

 

[Quantum Quack]

So, for those who love Trump, how do you reconcile all that? Please don’t keep using the excuse that it’s all “fake news” trumped up (no pun) by the leftist media, because it’s not.

Your valid questions highlight the issue:

love Trump, hate Trump - neuro-linguistics at play...
Highly emotive polarization.
Supporters Love Trump so those that don't support him must hate him.

It sort of takes "Love is blind" to a whole new level, doesn't it?

Imagines trump as a 14 year old running into his room yelling "Every one hates me, every one!" and then getting what he was denied by his parents every time... every thing except what he needed and that was to be loved...

 

[Seattle]

They aren't just traveling for the weekend. Wealthy New Yorkers are moving to their second homes, in upstate NY or out of state. And wealthy Californians are moving to their second homes in Tahoe, or out of state in Aspen CO or near Missoula MT. That's generating considerable push-back from more middle-class locals in those areas.

That's why the idea has been floated that low-infection states might need to close their borders to residents of high-infection states, pending testing or quarantine.

I don't think "wealth" has much to do with this problem. There aren't enough wealthy people doing this to make much difference. It's just something for jealous people to get upset about.

Closing state borders is not a good idea. It's just misplaced authoritarianism.

 

[Seattle]

I don’t hate Trump, Yazata. I just don’t think he has been handling this crisis with the type of leadership we need. Millions of people unemployed with no checks...oh well. Stimulus portal not working...oh well. Sending mixed messages during his briefings (not leftist hearsay but I’ve observed it) ...oh well. USPS hanging by a thread...oh well. His cronies standing to make millions off of stock buy backs...oh well. Stopping hard working immigrants from contributing to society...oh well.

So, for those who love Trump, how do you reconcile all that? Please don’t keep using the excuse that it’s all “fake news” trumped up (no pun) by the leftist media, because it’s not.

I agree with all of your points except one. How do you make millions off of stock buybacks?

A company has retained earnings. They either invest that back into the business if there are good investments to be had. If there are not currently good investments to be had, they buy back stock.

Both ways do exactly the same thing for stockholders. Retained earnings belongs to stock holders. Whether their stock value goes up though investing retained earning back into the company and though stock buy backs has exactly the same effect.

I see "stock buy backs" contently being used as a "bad" thing when it is clear that the person using that term doesn't understand that term (no offense to you intended of course).

 

[Quantum Quack]

I agree with all of your points except one. How do you make millions off of stock buybacks?

A company has retained earnings. They either invest that back into the business if there are good investments to be had. If there are not currently good investments to be had, they buy back stock.

Both ways do exactly the same thing for stockholders. Retained earnings belongs to stock holders. Whether their stock value goes up though investing retained earning back into the company and though stock buy backs has exactly the same effect.

I see "stock buy backs" contently being used as a "bad" thing when it is clear that the person using that term doesn't understand that term (no offense to you intended of course).

The key to resolving your confusion is to understand that by buying back stocks the company reduces it's numbers of shares available thus inflating their value.

• A stock buyback is when a publicly traded company repurchases its own stock and either cancels the shares or turns them into treasury shares.
• Because a buyback reduces the number of shares available to trade in the market, the value of each existing share increases.
• A company's management may initiate a buyback if they believe the stock is significantly undervalued and as a way to increase shareholder value.
• While a stock split doesn't immediately increase shareholder value, investors can see it as a bullish sign for the company that could over time mean a rise in the stock price.

src: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/how-to-profit-from-stock-splits-and-buybacks.aspx

 

[billvon]

I agree with all of your points except one. How do you make millions off of stock buybacks?

Say you are a crony of Trump. You have a bazillion shares of EGadgets.com.

You talk to the Board of Directors of EGadgets. "Hey BoD, if I get you a billion in aid, will you do a buyback?" BOD says "sure!" You talk to Jared and he mentions it to his dad.

EGadgets gets a billion. They do a buyback. Your stock value goes up and you make millions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I see "stock buy backs" contently being used as a "bad" thing

and it is when the buy back is funded by aid money that was supposed to be used for something else... like keeping people employed...

 

[Seattle]

The key to resolving your confusion is to understand that by buying back stocks the company reduces it's numbers of shares available thus inflating their value.

• A stock buyback is when a publicly traded company repurchases its own stock and either cancels the shares or turns them into treasury shares.
• Because a buyback reduces the number of shares available to trade in the market, the value of each existing share increases.
• A company's management may initiate a buyback if they believe the stock is significantly undervalued and as a way to increase shareholder value.
• While a stock split doesn't immediately increase shareholder value, investors can see it as a bullish sign for the company that could over time mean a rise in the stock price.

src: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/how-to-profit-from-stock-splits-and-buybacks.aspx

Hey Sunshine, what makes you think I don't understand what a stock buy back is?

I just explained it in the post above.

 

[Seattle]

and it is when the buy back is funded by aid money that was supposed to be used for something else... like keeping people employed...

The aid money (as I recall) has stipulations against that.

Where this "buy backs are bad" thing got started was when someone who doesn't understand this issue heard that a company was laying off employees and buying back stock (unrelated to any government aid). They then decided this was "bad".

It's not. You don't hire more employees if you don't need more employees. You don't suddenly pay existing employees a lot more just because you have money that can't be productively used at the moment (a maturing industry).

Employees needed have been paid and profits go to the stockholders either though increasing the value of the company via new investments, through paying dividends (which are taxable) or though stock buy backs.