What if businesses start re-opening and infections/deaths increase?

@livinglava,

This is an excellent question, and one that we are going to have to answer as a society. There is a balance.

I am probably more accepting of risk than most people, the problem is that in this particular case, we all need to more or less agree.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Society makes this type of decision all of the time.

Every time the posted speed limit is raised 5 mph, the number of automobile related deaths increases 8%. We could save thousands of lives by setting the national speed limit to 30mph. But we don't do this.

It isn't rational that sometimes we are willing to trade lives for economic value, and other times not. I don't think we are ever willing to think of it this way.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is an excellent question, and one that we are going to have to answer as a society. There is a balance.

I am probably more accepting of risk than most people, the problem is that in this particular case, we all need to more or less agree.

Ok, your vote is for more risk, infection, and death.

Noted.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Ok, your vote is for more risk, infection, and death.

Sure. If we are assuming everyone stays locked up in their houses... then yes, I am voting for more risk, infection. (I will argue with the idea of 'more death', the death rate is 100% either way... there will be the same amount of death).

There are two extremes here
1. On extreme is that we keep everyone locked up indefinitely (and the experts are saying it could be 2 years). The consequences of this extreme are a failed economy, lost fortunes, closed businesses and economic hardships. People may lose their houses and their businesses.

This would probably minimize the deaths from the virus. It might not minimize the overall number of deaths. We have already seen an uptick in suicides and if people start starving we have a big problem.

2. The other extreme is that we open the economy almost fully (with only minor changes). The consequences of this extreme is that the virus runs rampant and lots of people get sick and some of them die. Hospitals fill and we have a lack of ventilators and supplies leading to difficult decisions about who to save.

I don't like either of these extremes. I believe that the proper course is somewhere in the middle.

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

Where exactly is the middle. Pack everyone over 65 in a nursing home where they can catch it and quickly die? I see no way past this but to listen to medical people and **** business people and especially politicians.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

You don't think that economists have anything to say about this? Or psychologists or mental health professionals?

I am trained as a scientist. I believe in science. I have long argued that scientists should have the last word on scientific questions. The question of how to balance risk with social needs and economic needs and mental health needs is not a scientific question.

Scientists and medical experts should have a prominent place at the table... but they don't have the only voice. They can help understand and quantify the risks, but scientists have no special ability to make the difficult subjective decisions about whose needs are more important during a crisis[/b].

It is easy to take an extreme position. What we need is an open discussion about a balance we need to find that doesn't have a clear right answer.

People are suffering greatly because of the economic shutdown. There is an increase in suicides and depression. Don't minimize the consequences of the path you believe is correct.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Ok, your vote is for more risk, infection, and death.

Sure. If we are assuming everyone stays locked up in their houses... then yes, I am voting for more risk, infection. (I will argue with the idea of 'more death', the death rate is 100% either way... there will be the same amount of death).

Everyone who survives until a vaccine is available has the possibility of never being infected at all; and that is a big deal for people who are more vulnerable to infection due to other health complications.

People who are healthy and likely to survive an infection can more comfortably subject themselves to the possibility of infection than those more likely to end up in the hospital or dead; so when we healthy people go around spreading the disease among us, we are increasing the risk for those people we come in contact with who are more vulnerable to it.

Quote:

There are two extremes here
1. On extreme is that we keep everyone locked up indefinitely (and the experts are saying it could be 2 years). The consequences of this extreme are a failed economy, lost fortunes, closed businesses and economic hardships. People may lose their houses and their businesses.

There is an economy where people buy things from home, get them delivered, shop carefully for things they can't wait for delivery on, etc.

People need not lose their houses and businesses because they should be able to work out accommodations for the things they need and deal with not getting things they don't need. Take rent payments, for example. A landlord could evict a tenant for not paying rent, but who is going to move in if so many people are not making money to pay rent? There has to be some sense about what makes sense in a given economic situation and what doesn't.

Quote:

This would probably minimize the deaths from the virus. It might not minimize the overall number of deaths. We have already seen an uptick in suicides and if people start starving we have a big problem.

No reason to commit suicide except as an irrational reaction to fear, boredom, etc. Everything has slowed down but there is still food to eat, shelter to protect people from the elements, clothes and blankets to keep warm, etc. . . even entertainment and many work possibilities via internet.

Quote:

2. The other extreme is that we open the economy almost fully (with only minor changes). The consequences of this extreme is that the virus runs rampant and lots of people get sick and some of them die. Hospitals fill and we have a lack of ventilators and supplies leading to difficult decisions about who to save.

I don't like either of these extremes. I believe that the proper course is somewhere in the middle.

No, that's not how it works. The solution is for people and businesses to figure out how to accomplish things without increasing risk. You deal with problems one by one, not by going through the motions of life mindlessly.

If you need food, you figure out how to get it. If you're short on rent money, you look for a way to get money and keep track of where you're looking, and then when you ask for a rent-abatement/deferment from your landlord, you explain what kinds of work you're looking for.

Here's the bottom line: you are going to have landlords and other bill/debt collectors who are going to irrationally expect payments without caring about the situation. They are just wanting money and mad about not being able to get it. If they take their frustrations out on you by evicting you or repossessing your property or filling credit reports against you, etc. you have a defense in court, which is that quarantine is for the best.

It would help if governmental authorities authorize the quarantines, because that gives people an official defense against creditors.

What we should all be doing is figuring out ways of accomplishing productive economic activities within this new social-distancing paradigm. The N95 masks thing, for example, is a good idea for situations where people can't avoid exposure otherwise, but it's better to figure out ways to do work that don't require contact between people, or which minimize exposure to potential viral contamination.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I don't like either of these extremes. I believe that the proper course is somewhere in the (middle).

1. Do you have some possible or hypothetical examples that might be considered as in the middle solutions?

2. One example might be to convert buffet style restaurants into cafeteria style restaurants. Buffet restaurants are currently designed for customers to walk along the lines of various foods and serve themselves. Cafeteria style restaurants are designed for customers to walk along the lines of various foods and tell the food server what items to put on their plate. Cafeteria style restaurants doesn't allow customers to serve themselves. Cafeteria style restaurants are blocked off from the customer by glass, so that the customer doesn't have direct access to the food.

3. Another example might be to space tables further apart from each other inside all restaurants.

4. Another example might be to have anyone handling your food to wear a face cover and gloves.

5. Another example might be to create social distancing inside movie theaters. That would mean having two empty seats blocked off between every seat in the theater. This would result in the person to your left and the person to your right will both be three seats away from you, unless one side of you is the aisle. Also, any seat directly in front or directly in back of you cannot be used. The customers wouldn't be determining what seats can or can't be used. All seats in each theater will already block off all the seats that customers can't use.

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

1. Do you consider any of the hypothetical examples I've listed as being in the (middle) solutions?

2. Or do you consider my hypothetical examples as being (extreme) solutions?

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Yes, all of those would be good examples of a middle ground. They are talking about Phase 1-3 now... where they would let people meet in groups of 3.... then groups of 10... then groups of 50.

(Just for the record, I rarely thumb down (and never for disagreement). I don't know who is thumbing Real Music down (it isn't me) for these perfectly reasonable posts. I am thumbing back up.)

0 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

1. Do you have some possible or hypothetical examples that might be considered as in the middle solutions?

Of course not. Max constantly claims to be in the middle, only his is the voice of reason, anyone who disagrees with him is an extremist, especially those on the left.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Quote:
I don't like either of these extremes. I believe that the proper course is somewhere in the (middle).

1. Do you have some possible or hypothetical examples that might be considered as in the middle solutions?

2. One example might be to convert buffet style restaurants into cafeteria style restaurants. Buffet restaurants are currently designed for customers to walk along the lines of various foods and serve themselves. Cafeteria style restaurants are designed for customers to walk along the lines of various foods and tell the food server what items to put on their plate. Cafeteria style restaurants doesn't allow customers to serve themselves. Cafeteria style restaurants are blocked off from the customer by glass, so that the customer doesn't have direct access to the food.

3. Another example might be to space tables further apart from each other inside all restaurants.

4. Another example might be to have anyone handling your food to wear a face cover and gloves.

5. Another example might be to create social distancing inside movie theaters. That would mean having two empty seats blocked off between every seat in the theater. This would result in the person to your left and the person to your right will both be three seats away from you, unless one side of you is the aisle. Also, any seat directly in front or directly in back of you cannot be used. The customers wouldn't be determining what seats can or can't be used. All seats in each theater will already block off all the seats that customers can't use.

These are interesting ideas you're posting, but they really need to be tested.

I wonder what kind of testing companies could emerge to certify systems/methods of social-distancing and employee/customer structuring according to how well they prevent airborne viruses from spreading through the air and through surfaces.

There has to be some kind of easily-traceable/visible substance that can be used by testers that can be viewed using a special light (e.g. a black light). E.g. I think phosphorous, chlorophyll, etc. glow under black light, so if you send a population of testers into a restaurant, movie theater, etc.; they can spray some artificial 'sneezes' and 'coughs' as well as touching all the regular things that people touch. Then, the ones who entered initially negative for exposure can be checked for how much exposure they sustained as a result of using the public venue.

If businesses can test and certify their social-distancing systems in this way, there could be standards and/or levels of exposure posted for the business. Maybe warning signs could be made for businesses that are not safe for health-compromised people who are more vulnerable to viral infections such as COVID19.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Real Music wrote:

1. Do you have some possible or hypothetical examples that might be considered as in the middle solutions?

Of course not. Max constantly claims to be in the middle, only his is the voice of reason, anyone who disagrees with him is an extremist, especially those on the left.

Anything can be framed by choosing two extremes outside of the given choice.

All you have to do is make more extreme versions of whatever you want and compare your preference to the extremes.

E.g. if you want to stalk people and physically attack them sometimes, you say it is a compromise between two extremes: 1) just leaving people alone to live their lives without harassment; and 2) serial murder

. . . and, voila, stalking and physical violence magically seems like a middle-ground between two extremes.

Rationalizing whatever you want is the bedrock of personal irresponsibility.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

The decision must be proffered in a much wider decision pnel than just the heads of a few states or an idiot president whose only center involves his money.
First off, the US seems to have NO ral interest in ramping up a maningful test procedure so that we even know the focus points of the pandemic, or we dont know th true infection rate. What e have now has an error bar bigger than the data we are being fed.

We have a way to retool and produce all sorts of protective equipment o that (like several supermarkets around here, actually hand out filter "throw away" masks an PE gloves.

I will bet a paycheck that we will see a highly dangerous second Infection come to play if we "open up" blindly.

Seems the governors of the East Coast states and the West Coat have joined into regional action plans to open up cautiously ,and based upon facts and medical knowledge of the population.
Risking a further reinfection (like China) will shrink any economic revival into a depression (like China) and kill a lot of people.

I was rading a paper on etiology of several corona viral infections and it stated that, classically the virus , in subsequent generations begins to xpand its inclusivity of those being sriously affected. In other words, the SPanish flu , in its second wave,affected a more expanded age base. As did Hanta and Marburg (although these are not quickly or easily spread like a unique corona virus)

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Ive seen that Chinese buffet restaurants (theres 4 of em in the Lancaster/Chester County areas) are not going to reopen. They were pretty much marginal operations to begin with.
I think any food service that has "Sneeze Guards" as part of their offering designs will be challenged to either come up with a new business plan or disappear.

Movies, sporting, Malls or shopping centers, and churches are all businesses that better be working on a "plan B"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I was rading a paper on etiology of several corona viral infections and it stated that, classically the virus , in subsequent generations begins to xpand its inclusivity of those being sriously affected. In other words, the SPanish flu , in its second wave,affected a more expanded age base. As did Hanta and Marburg (although these are not quickly or easily spread like a unique corona virus)

That's interesting. Did the paper mention causes for the expanded age-base? E.g. did the virus mutate or were conditions somehow more ripe for infection or immune systems more vulnerable due to general health and hygiene conditions changing for some reason, e.g. economic?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

There’s an article on the BBC website comparing New York to California. I’m on an iPad now so can’t post any links, but the difference is huge. Some can be put down to population density but the main reason is that California started an aggressive lock down three weeks earlier.

Over here we’re told Germany with it’s adequate tests and coordinated lockdowns has got on top of the contagion while the UK may end up with the most deaths in Europe.

Our fuckwit bad hair Leader is almost as bad as yours.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think any food service that has "Sneeze Guards" as part of their offering designs will be challenged to either come up with a new business plan or disappear.

Idk, they could come up with some kind of dispenser system, like a soda fountain but it dispenses measured quantities of food, like a gumball machine where you turn the knob once to let in the food, and turn it again to dispense it onto a plate or into a container.

Of course there would need to be some way to not touch the dispenser knob, e.g. by using foot-pedals or infrared sensors or a key that you get when you come in, that is sanitized before you touch it and it can be used to turn the knob of each dispenser, which would have to be clear or have a product picture/window so you could see what is going to come out before you turn the dispenser knob/key.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

right no its moor of a statistical thing. As I read farther , before the Spanih flu" disappeared" , it had widened its target bases to include the young and thn became less lethal ovr a few yars before it was gone. Without knowing Id guess that some fact in natural selection was at work (Isolation was practiced later and most of the first victims were the elderly, then the young who were socially interacting were "superinfected" by cytokine floods(storms)

Not a clue, but Ill bet some degree of mutations had been at work. They are now only excavating graves to cross sample some available virus by PCR. (The technology has become rather more spcific and sensitive in the last 5 or so yrs)

1 Reply

What if businesses start re-opening and infections/deaths increase?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know