The "Re-Opening" the Economy Thread

[No Excuses]

I think the risk of transmission is low in public places if you aren’t in a location that is crowded or you aren’t stationary for too long. There have been some interesting studies from Korea and Hong Kong on transmission clusters in public spaces. Very strongly correlated with crowding and people who sat in one spot for a prolonged time, especially with clusters concentrated where air ducts were blowing air in one direction. These were places like call centers and restaurants.

 

I think if you’re out shopping, as long as the store isn’t packed, they’re limiting # of patrons and mask wearing is mandatory, you aren’t at risk of catching the virus.
 

We need to gradually shift from a “everything is closed” situation to “most places that aren’t crowded and are mandating hygienic practices can open” scenario. Some obvious challenges as not every business can do this; like restaurants and movie theaters. Depending on the design layout of offices, they will also have to adapt. 

Edited April 28, 2020 by No Excuses

[Larry]

Agreed that I suspect some businesses are a lot lower risk than others.  

 

Some places I think are just gonna be too dangerous to tolerate.  Close contact, for extended periods.  I'm not happy about it, but I'm resigned that I'm not going to Disney this year.  The NFL and similar events (movie theaters, concerts, Trump rallys) are gonna be out for a while.  Airlines might as well stay closed.  

 

I wuld assume most other jobs are lower risk.  Although I get the impression that there's some meat packers and Amazon warehouse workers who might disagree.  

[gbear]

Selective quarantine ideas remind me of a common topic I and others with MS have written about, the gap between "wellville" and "sickville."  The reason I find it a bit funny is society talking about putting in place physically what I have always felt figuratively.  I have often said one of the hardest parts of living with chronic conditions is how to explain to those without that condition or any known ailment what it is like to live with it.  That said, I have long known I belong to one of the largest unrecognized minorities, one of the "disabled."  Most people I work with and have worked with for years are shocked when they hear I have MS even though I have always been open about having it and what it does to me.  For years, I and my wife have worked with our kids to be as open as they want to be about their conditions whether it is my oldest talking about her heart during jump rope for your heart or my younger daughter being open about what the world looks like through her eyes (functionally very blind). 

 

Now we talk about quarantine for our family.  I will admit I flinch at a regulated quarantine widening the chasm for our family between wellville and sickville.  I flinch but it is not like our family hasn't already been self imposed quarantine for the past 7 weeks after being warned about what was coming our way by my sister-in-law, a family practice doctor in WA.  I will also admit I would feel a lot more comfortable with a policy that seeks to help those who have to quarantine themselves rather than just mandating they do so.  We are lucky.  I suspect my wife and I have more resources than most sick people or parents of fragile children.  Still, I cringe for some of the families we know going through the hell of suddenly trying to teach their special needs children, many of whom have 1 on 1 helpers in the classroom.  We feel like we are going nuts as their is no break from our kids, but at least there are two of us.  I haven't seen anything about what families who quarantine will actually need.  It's not just money.  Look at online schooling to be flexible to build in adaptive learning opportunities.  The hardest part I am finding in all of this is the acting out of our kids forced into quarantine.  I write a lot of it off to kids grieving for the loss of the existence they had before the virus without an emotional understanding for the necessity of the changes, Social support needs to be more than dollars, though those help. As it is, we struggle to tread water, and count each day without loss of critical skills as a success. Again, my wife and I are lucky to have the support we do. We figure we will deal with where each of us is compared to where we want to be scholastically when all of this is over.  I fear that is a high bar for many families who need help.

    

[Larry]

Gonna kinda spin off of @gbear 's post, about a barrier between "wellville" and "sickville".  

 

I see lots of politicians talking about they're gonna open up their economies, "while still protecting our most vulnerable".  

 

I know it's BS.  It's political code-speak for "open the economy, and classify the most vulnerable as expendable".  But just to illustrate the point:  

 

Let's pretend that I'm a red state governor.  I've decided that I'm gonna open up all the businesses in my state, except for the nursing home.  Gonna keep that quarantined "to protect our most vulnerable".  

 

Really?  How exactly am I gonna "protect our most vulnerable", when there's 100 employees going in and out of that nursing home, every day?  

 

I guess building a virus-proof Trump wall around the nursing home isn't ging to work.  

 

Gonna open up society for everybody, except for the nursing home, and everybody who works there?  Put a wall around the nursing home, and all the nursing home employees?  

 

Gonna put the wall in between the nursing home emplyees, and their families/roommates?  Or we gonna put the families inside the wall, too?  

 

This notion of "open things up, except for the most vulnerable" can't be done, because we don't have two seperate societies.  The "most vulnerable", the people who routinely contact the most vulnerable, and the rest of society, are all mixed in together.  

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Hypothetically, why couldn't governors restrict or limit the movement of the "most vulnerable" people? Ease the current restrictions on whomever isn't deemed as "most vulnerable" but keep it in place for those who are? 

[twa]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Hypothetically, why couldn't governors restrict or limit the movement of the "most vulnerable" people? Ease the current restrictions on whomever isn't deemed as "most vulnerable" but keep it in place for those who are? 

 

hard to do legally, general welfare is easier to justify legally than restricting rights of a class of people to protect them.

Most of our laws seek to enable the at risk and physically impaired/challenged

 

you can make laws to protect them, but limiting their rights is a tougher road

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

hard to do legally, general welfare is easier to justify legally than restricting rights of a class of people to protect them.

Most of our laws seek to enable the at risk and physically impaired/challenged

 

you can make laws to protect them, but limiting their rights is a tougher road

Makes sense and I suppose it's a dangerous precedent to set (today it's limiting "old" people for the virus but maybe tomorrow it's anyone with Russian heritage for national security). 

 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Makes sense and I suppose it's a dangerous precedent to set (today it's limiting "old" people for the virus but maybe tomorrow it's anyone with Russian heritage for national security). 

 

 

 

One of the at-risk groups is diabetics.  

 

Another is obese people.  

 

Another is black people.  

[twa]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

  

 

This notion of "open things up, except for the most vulnerable" can't be done, because we don't have two seperate societies.  The "most vulnerable", the people who routinely contact the most vulnerable, and the rest of society, are all mixed in together.  

 

 

 

 

one thing you could do is seek screened volunteers willing to isolate themselves  from society to care for the at risk, then the only outside contact is deliveries....which can be done safely

 

not much of a life for either though

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

one thing you could do is seek screened volunteers willing to isolate themselves  from society to care for the at risk, then the only outside contact is deliveries....which can be done safely

 

not much of a life for either though

 

"Wanted:  People qualified to work in nursing homes/hospitals/prisons.  Must be willing to be confined inside hospital/nursing home/prison 24x7 for an indefinate time, estimated at one year."   

[TD_washingtonredskins]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

One of the at-risk groups is diabetics.  

 

Another is obese people.  

 

Another is black people.  

 

I hear you. 

[twa]

Just now, Larry said:

 

"Wanted:  People qualified to work in nursing homes/hospitals/prisons.  Must be willing to be confined inside hospital/nursing home/prison 24x7 for an indefinate time, estimated at one year."   

 

you could allow them outdoor recreation and mobile living facilities......maybe free porn if we can get it past the puritans.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by visionary

[spjunkies]

 

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

[Corcaigh]

The thing is ... I think there's a strong argument that a managed, controlled opening where social distancing is practiced responsibly is worth undertaking.

 

But holding a ****ing rally to reopen is exactly the opposite of responsible behavior and proves that there are too many idiots to lift restrictions too early.

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, Corcaigh said:

The thing is ... I think there's a strong argument that a managed, controlled opening where social distancing is practiced responsibly is worth undertaking.

 

Oh, it's guaranteed that we're going to have to do that, somewhere down the road.  

 

I (and most people, I'm sure) think that it's reasonable to demand that certain things be true, first.  

 

I think that "a decrease in total infections, for two weeks straight, despite an increase in the number of tests" might be a good place to put the goalpost.  

[Corcaigh]

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Oh, it's guaranteed that we're going to have to do that, somewhere down the road.  

 

I (and most people, I'm sure) think that it's reasonable to demand that certain things be true, first.  

 

I think that "a decrease in total infections, for two weeks straight, despite an increase in the number of tests" might be a good place to put the goalpost.  

 

Those are perfectly reasonable criteria. Some may argue whether they are necessary. Sweden has taken a more open approach and the jury is out at this point on the impact. But my point is that it would seem to be unconscionable to lift all restrictions if people are going to behave as irresponsibly as demonstrated at the reopen protests.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Corcaigh

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

One of the at-risk groups is diabetics.  

 

Another is obese people.  

 

Another is black people.  

Sweet!!!  I'm none of these.  Let's open this mother ****er back up!

 

@Renegade7

Quote

Get it, I just think your concern isn't applicable here because Trump is afraid to do it because of how it affects the economy and his poll numbers.

Quote

 

 

Isn't his DoJ planning on going after states that extend their shutdown?  I'd throw that under my umbrella of concern.

 

Quote

This is why we vote.

Not for the judges who would be answering these questions.

 

@tshile

 

Quote

I can’t help but wonder if the economic damage caused by allowed people who think this ain’t a big deal to run around everywhere and drag this out and ultimately result in many of them dying, would be worth it in the long run. A culling of the herd. Survival of the fittest - if you’re not smart enough to take expert advice over you own uneducated thoughts, have at it.  There’s a number of improvements we might get by significantly reducing the portion of society that is anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-expertise. 

I down with this.  Like I said, I stay home because I'm not an idiot.  And I sure would like to be rid of a lot of idiots.

 

Quote

anyways, where and how the governments constitutional ability and duty to protect the nation sits when you have something like this seems interesting. Who’s their obligation to? The group that doesn’t want to stay home or the group that recognizes the seriousness of it all and that staying home is how we fight it?

 

why do the people being forced to stay home but want to go out seem to automatically win that with people who bring this up? Why does the other side not matter?

All good questions.  Setting aside the "taking away of rights" and if that should be allowed, who should that power rest with?  Should Trump be able to overrule a mayor and forcing them to open?  What about forcing them to close?  How about letting them stay shutdown but witholding funds from them?  Etc............

[Simmsy]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Sweet!!!  I'm none of these.  Let's open this mother ****er back up!

 

Another few weeks and I'll be an obese diabetic. Don't think I'll get anymore black though.

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Hypothetically, why couldn't governors restrict or limit the movement of the "most vulnerable" people? Ease the current restrictions on whomever isn't deemed as "most vulnerable" but keep it in place for those who are? 

I

It's hard to define "most vulnerable" when healthy 20-30 year olds are dying of strokes and heart attacks. This virus has no definition for most vulnerable.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

15 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I

It's hard to define "most vulnerable" when healthy 20-30 year olds are dying of strokes and heart attacks. This virus has no definition for most vulnerable.

I don't agree...you can still define "most vulnerable" even if there are cases of 20-30 year-olds having strokes and heart attacks. One is quantifiable while the other is anecdotal. There are bigger challenges, as many have covered in here, but I do think we can isolate people who are at much higher risk than others. I'm not high-risk (43-year old/seemingly healthy) but that will never guarantee that I can't die from the virus. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

And that's what I didn't say clearly: we are all vulnerable.