Opening up the economy won't save the economy

Opening up the economy won't save the economy - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Opening up the economy won't save the economy (/thread-19503.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Opening up the economy won't save the economy - stupac2 - 04-22-2020

Here's a very thorough look at why simply saying that businesses can reopen won't help much, if at all: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228651/opening-up-save-economy-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-shutdown

And it's worth noting that nothing in there assumes that reopening earlier will lead to more cases. If it does (as is widely suspected) then the outlook would be even worse.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - cardcrimson - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Here's a very thorough look at why simply saying that businesses can reopen won't help much, if at all: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228651/opening-up-save-economy-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-shutdown

And it's worth noting that nothing in there assumes that reopening earlier will lead to more cases. If it does (as is widely suspected) then the outlook would be even worse.

Wow. In other news, water is wet.

Of course businesses that open won't have customers beating the doors down to get in. It will take time, and I'm guessing the governors and the president have figured that out. Start slowly, correct?

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - OutsiderFan - 04-22-2020

It's actually possibly worse if people don't patronize opened businesses when they don't feel safe. At least with government orders to be closed in place, the government must provide relief, or has much more of an obligation to do so than if it has no restrictions in place.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - oregontim - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 02:04 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: ... and I'm guessing the governors and the president have figured that out.

Seriously? In April of 2020?

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - Mick - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 02:04 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Here's a very thorough look at why simply saying that businesses can reopen won't help much, if at all: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228651/opening-up-save-economy-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-shutdown

And it's worth noting that nothing in there assumes that reopening earlier will lead to more cases. If it does (as is widely suspected) then the outlook would be even worse.

Wow. In other news, water is wet.

Of course businesses that open won't have customers beating the doors down to get in. It will take time, and I'm guessing the governors and the president have figured that out. Start slowly, correct?

The customers won't show up because they don't have any money. They don't have any money because 22 million have been laid off. Oh excuse me, as of tomorrow morning, another 4.5 million will be laid off.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - teejers1 - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 02:55 PM)Mick Wrote: [The customers won't show up because they don't have any money. They don't have any money because 22 million have been laid off. Oh excuse me, as of tomorrow morning, another 4.5 million will be laid off.

Mick, that's irrelevant.
No point raising those things because . . . you know . . . people are dying.
We must limit that.
No matter the cost.
End of discussion.
Stop being a broken record (even if your refrain reports increased numbers on jobless front).

When this is all done (if we survive it), the final tallies on this pandemic will be sad and sobering . . . from all angles.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - 2006alum - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 02:55 PM)Mick Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 02:04 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Here's a very thorough look at why simply saying that businesses can reopen won't help much, if at all: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228651/opening-up-save-economy-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-shutdown

And it's worth noting that nothing in there assumes that reopening earlier will lead to more cases. If it does (as is widely suspected) then the outlook would be even worse.

Wow. In other news, water is wet.

Of course businesses that open won't have customers beating the doors down to get in. It will take time, and I'm guessing the governors and the president have figured that out. Start slowly, correct?

The customers won't show up because they don't have any money. They don't have any money because 22 million have been laid off. Oh excuse me, as of tomorrow morning, another 4.5 million will be laid off.

What do you propose instead? I think I've asked you this in probably a half dozen threads, and you never answer. What, specifically, would you do? What businesses should re-open? How should we handle the lack of PPE? Since the burden of reopening falls hardest on low-income service workers, how do we as a society help shoulder the costs in lives and illnesses that they are likely to incur?

And let's start with your firm - what would you tell your bosses to do to "reopen" the economy? What are they unnecessarily holding back from doing to restart their business, in your opinion?

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - OutsiderFan - 04-22-2020

I’m starting to think there are multiple economies. While I hear all the news of mass layoffs and furloughs, I’m not hearing the people I’ve talked with recently expressing much doom and gloom.

Over the last two days I’ve talked with two guys who are very much tied into the Main Street world. They both said things have slowed down, but both said as long as we can get back to some semblance of normalcy by June, it won’t be a disaster.

Obviously there are macro issues way above this level, but I don’t get any sense of freakout that the economic end times are near, from convos I’ve had. Now I personally believe we are in for a world of hurt, because I pay attention to the macro stuff and it is ugly.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - teejers1 - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 05:13 PM)2006alum Wrote: What do you propose instead? I think I've asked you this in probably a half dozen threads, and you never answer. What, specifically, would you do? What businesses should re-open? How should we handle the lack of PPE? Since the burden of reopening falls hardest on low-income service workers, how do we as a society help shoulder the costs in lives and illnesses that they are likely to incur?

I'm not Mick; and my preferred approach would have been to examine businesses on case-by-case basis. Costco was deemed essential, but the opening bell there was a madhouse for at least 2 weeks before they implemented safety measures. As stated numerous times, golf and tennis were much less risky than Costco, but not allowed because "not essential." Is take out food really "essential?" No, but it's been allowed to proceed, and that's okay by me. But that's just an example of why I thought (and think) the whole essential v. non-essential is a chimera.

But putting all that aside, I'd look at construction. A college friend is pretty senior at a big development firm in AZ. He recently said that of their 74 projects, only 4 are on hold (all in CA). The take the temperature of all workers reporting for duty (anyone askew is sent home for several days, not sure of specifics). The on-site workers I think wear masks (especially if they are in more enclosed area). It seems to be working, although this is anecdotal and about 10 days old. And these are big construction projects. Closer to home, there are 2 houses being remodeled on my block. There were 2 workers per site, maybe a third on occasion. Shut down. I see virtually no risk in having those guys work outside on this project and completing the homes.

And more generally, I'd have an agency whereby businesses can submit application saying 'here is my plan for re-opening; here is what we're doing to promote distancing and make it safe for commerce." Those reviews and approvals could have (should have) been going on for weeks, even assuming a starting point of general lockdown. Is it inefficient and slow? Yeah, probably. But that may not be a bad thing in terms of slowly working your way back up.

Or to put it differently, from a safety/spread standpoint, what is the risk differential between folks shopping at Costco versus Dick's Sporting Goods? I would say none. If you limit the number of patrons; workers wear masks; plexiglass at checkout; etc., I'm not sure I see why those can't open up. Restaurants are intuitively more tricky. Maybe start with those having outside seating capacity, decently spaced. IDK, just spit-balling here.

But it starts with hospital capacity and ability to handle the inevitable increase in cases - without that, the status quo must remain in place. But if capacity, ease things up and hope the inevitable increases in cases will not overwhelm (i.e., be an Italy or NYC Redux) for a variety of reasons, including self-shut-ins, more care exercised by those venturing out, and high risk people being even more careful than the less at risk.

I think GA is being a tad greedy, but I haven't been following their numbers or protocols, just a general sense that May should be when experimental and limited openings begin to occur. But even though I think things may well end up not great, I'm not hoping for that, nor am I really going to be angry or upset at them for trying.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - JustAnotherFan - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 08:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I think GA is being a tad greedy, but I haven't been following their numbers or protocols, just a general sense that May should be when experimental and limited openings begin to occur. But even though I think things may well end up not great, I'm not hoping for that, nor am I really going to be angry or upset at them for trying.

I have family in Georgia. They are Republicans. One is a state level organizer and hardcore Trump supporter. Even they think Kemp is bananas. Secretly they wish they would have voted for Abrams because they're afraid Kemp is going to kill them.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - Mick - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 05:13 PM)2006alum Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 02:55 PM)Mick Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 02:04 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Here's a very thorough look at why simply saying that businesses can reopen won't help much, if at all: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228651/opening-up-save-economy-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-shutdown

And it's worth noting that nothing in there assumes that reopening earlier will lead to more cases. If it does (as is widely suspected) then the outlook would be even worse.

Wow. In other news, water is wet.

Of course businesses that open won't have customers beating the doors down to get in. It will take time, and I'm guessing the governors and the president have figured that out. Start slowly, correct?

The customers won't show up because they don't have any money. They don't have any money because 22 million have been laid off. Oh excuse me, as of tomorrow morning, another 4.5 million will be laid off.

What do you propose instead? I think I've asked you this in probably a half dozen threads, and you never answer. What, specifically, would you do? What businesses should re-open? How should we handle the lack of PPE? Since the burden of reopening falls hardest on low-income service workers, how do we as a society help shoulder the costs in lives and illnesses that they are likely to incur?

And let's start with your firm - what would you tell your bosses to do to "reopen" the economy? What are they unnecessarily holding back from doing to restart their business, in your opinion?

OK, let's start with my firm. We have a committee to return to work, I serve on it, along with about 20 of my peers from various staffing functions. Our head of security heads up the committee, as he should. We are planning for anything from a 10% to 40% dip this quarter (annualized), with a "V"-shaped rebound to revenue normalcy in Q3, starting July 1. We're reaching out to clients regularly in anticipation of the explosive economic rebound that everyone on this board swears will happen. I run sales and marketing, so it better happen. If we have the "Nike swoosh" recovery or the "W" shaped recovery, then there will be more layoffs, throughout America. I saw a 60 million unemployed prediction. It isn't far-fetched or worst-case in my opinion.

As for what I propose, I proposed it two weeks ago. Summarized in a sentence, it isn't any different than anyone advocates on this board: I advocate using every measure of caution without going overboard. But we all have different definitions of overboard. We need to go back to work, or there won't be an America to return to. Frankly, it's probably already too late.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=19370

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks. That takes America to over 16% unemployed. That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - BostonCard - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 08:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote: [quote="2006alum" pid='278063' dateline='1587600791']
I'm not Mick; and my preferred approach would have been to examine businesses on case-by-case basis. Costco was deemed essential, but the opening bell there was a madhouse for at least 2 weeks before they implemented safety measures. As stated numerous times, golf and tennis were much less risky than Costco, but not allowed because "not essential." Is take out food really "essential?" No, but it's been allowed to proceed, and that's okay by me. But that's just an example of why I thought (and think) the whole essential v. non-essential is a chimera.

Furthering this, marijuana dispenseries have been deemed essential in several jurisdictions (including, I believe, California). In Paris, tobacco shops have been deemed "essential". It's better to view these things as a continuum of need and a continuum of risk.

BC

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - teejers1 - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 08:58 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 08:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I think GA is being a tad greedy, but I haven't been following their numbers or protocols, just a general sense that May should be when experimental and limited openings begin to occur. But even though I think things may well end up not great, I'm not hoping for that, nor am I really going to be angry or upset at them for trying.

I have family in Georgia. They are Republicans. One is a state level organizer and hardcore Trump supporter. Even they think Kemp is bananas. Secretly they wish they would have voted for Abrams because they're afraid Kemp is going to kill them.

I presume they will self-regulate then, right?
Probably will have a lot of company on that front.

Maybe the GA experiment will fail because no one will venture out. I really don't know . . .

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - akiddoc - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 08:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 05:13 PM)2006alum Wrote: What do you propose instead? I think I've asked you this in probably a half dozen threads, and you never answer. What, specifically, would you do? What businesses should re-open? How should we handle the lack of PPE? Since the burden of reopening falls hardest on low-income service workers, how do we as a society help shoulder the costs in lives and illnesses that they are likely to incur?

I'm not Mick; and my preferred approach would have been to examine businesses on case-by-case basis. Costco was deemed essential, but the opening bell there was a madhouse for at least 2 weeks before they implemented safety measures. As stated numerous times, golf and tennis were much less risky than Costco, but not allowed because "not essential." Is take out food really "essential?" No, but it's been allowed to proceed, and that's okay by me. But that's just an example of why I thought (and think) the whole essential v. non-essential is a chimera.

But putting all that aside, I'd look at construction. A college friend is pretty senior at a big development firm in AZ. He recently said that of their 74 projects, only 4 are on hold (all in CA). The take the temperature of all workers reporting for duty (anyone askew is sent home for several days, not sure of specifics). The on-site workers I think wear masks (especially if they are in more enclosed area). It seems to be working, although this is anecdotal and about 10 days old. And these are big construction projects. Closer to home, there are 2 houses being remodeled on my block. There were 2 workers per site, maybe a third on occasion. Shut down. I see virtually no risk in having those guys work outside on this project and completing the homes.

And more generally, I'd have an agency whereby businesses can submit application saying 'here is my plan for re-opening; here is what we're doing to promote distancing and make it safe for commerce." Those reviews and approvals could have (should have) been going on for weeks, even assuming a starting point of general lockdown. Is it inefficient and slow? Yeah, probably. But that may not be a bad thing in terms of slowly working your way back up.

Or to put it differently, from a safety/spread standpoint, what is the risk differential between folks shopping at Costco versus Dick's Sporting Goods? I would say none. If you limit the number of patrons; workers wear masks; plexiglass at checkout; etc., I'm not sure I see why those can't open up. Restaurants are intuitively more tricky. Maybe start with those having outside seating capacity, decently spaced. IDK, just spit-balling here.

But it starts with hospital capacity and ability to handle the inevitable increase in cases - without that, the status quo must remain in place. But if capacity, ease things up and hope the inevitable increases in cases will not overwhelm (i.e., be an Italy or NYC Redux) for a variety of reasons, including self-shut-ins, more care exercised by those venturing out, and high risk people being even more careful than the less at risk.

I think GA is being a tad greedy, but I haven't been following their numbers or protocols, just a general sense that May should be when experimental and limited openings begin to occur. But even though I think things may well end up not great, I'm not hoping for that, nor am I really going to be angry or upset at them for trying.

There are certainly a few jobs that could be restarted without too much risk. Allowing one contractor at a time onto residential construction projects is one. It isn't zero risk, so we have to understand that there will be some increase in disease and risk to those worker's families at home. Taking temperatures is far from infallible, and small contractors aren't going to be very compliant with such restrictions. There is a home under construction right next-door to me. Custom built by a family that is waiting to move in. There has been a plumber working there by himself the last 3 weeks. No one has been objecting because we know that there really is no risk to anyone else. If there were others with him I'm sure the neighbors would have a different attitude.

Opening golf courses seems reasonable. Likelihood of outdoor transmission is pretty remote in such an environment. Generally, anything that can be done outdoors should be the first to open up.

Opening more indoor businesses is much more risky. It's going to have to be done eventually. The timing will be tricky and inevitably will lead to more sick people. There will never be a zero risk situation. The virus will be with us for years, decades, or perpetually.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - JustAnotherFan - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 09:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:

(04-22-2020, 08:58 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
[quote="teejers1" pid='278127' dateline='1587614156']

I think GA is being a tad greedy, but I haven't been following their numbers or protocols, just a general sense that May should be when experimental and limited openings begin to occur. But even though I think things may well end up not great, I'm not hoping for that, nor am I really going to be angry or upset at them for trying.

I have family in Georgia. They are Republicans. One is a state level organizer and hardcore Trump supporter. Even they think Kemp is bananas. Secretly they wish they would have voted for Abrams because they're afraid Kemp is going to kill them.

I presume they will self-regulate then, right?

Probably will have a lot of company on that front.

Maybe the GA experiment will fail because no one will venture out. I really don't know . . .

[/quote]

Yeah, they are going to shelter in place until a vaccine is developed. They're preppers and have all they need to survive the next 18 months.

[[I Have no idea how to fix this formatting]]

(04-22-2020, 09:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 08:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote: [quote="2006alum" pid='278063' dateline='1587600791']

I'm not Mick; and my preferred approach would have been to examine businesses on case-by-case basis. Costco was deemed essential, but the opening bell there was a madhouse for at least 2 weeks before they implemented safety measures. As stated numerous times, golf and tennis were much less risky than Costco, but not allowed because "not essential." Is take out food really "essential?" No, but it's been allowed to proceed, and that's okay by me. But that's just an example of why I thought (and think) the whole essential v. non-essential is a chimera.

Furthering this, marijuana dispenseries have been deemed essential in several jurisdictions (including, I believe, California). In Paris, tobacco shops have been deemed "essential". It's better to view these things as a continuum of need and a continuum of risk.

BC

If marijuana was ever essential now is that time.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - BostonCard - 04-22-2020

Quote:
(04-22-2020, 09:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Furthering this, marijuana dispenseries have been deemed essential in several jurisdictions (including, I believe, California). In Paris, tobacco shops have been deemed "essential". It's better to view these things as a continuum of need and a continuum of risk.

BC

If marijuana was ever essential now is that time.

I believe that was the logic for keeping it open, plus the idea that if dispensaries were closed, users would still get their product, but would have to do so through means that placed them at higher risk for COVID-19 transmission.

BC

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - Mick - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 09:22 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 09:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:

(04-22-2020, 08:58 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
[quote="teejers1" pid='278127' dateline='1587614156']

I think GA is being a tad greedy, but I haven't been following their numbers or protocols, just a general sense that May should be when experimental and limited openings begin to occur. But even though I think things may well end up not great, I'm not hoping for that, nor am I really going to be angry or upset at them for trying.

I have family in Georgia. They are Republicans. One is a state level organizer and hardcore Trump supporter. Even they think Kemp is bananas. Secretly they wish they would have voted for Abrams because they're afraid Kemp is going to kill them.

I presume they will self-regulate then, right?

Probably will have a lot of company on that front.

Maybe the GA experiment will fail because no one will venture out. I really don't know . . .

Yeah, they are going to shelter in place until a vaccine is developed. They're preppers and have all they need to survive the next 18 months.

[[I Have no idea how to fix this formatting]]

(04-22-2020, 09:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 08:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 05:13 PM)2006alum Wrote: I'm not Mick; and my preferred approach would have been to examine businesses on case-by-case basis. Costco was deemed essential, but the opening bell there was a madhouse for at least 2 weeks before they implemented safety measures. As stated numerous times, golf and tennis were much less risky than Costco, but not allowed because "not essential." Is take out food really "essential?" No, but it's been allowed to proceed, and that's okay by me. But that's just an example of why I thought (and think) the whole essential v. non-essential is a chimera.

Furthering this, marijuana dispenseries have been deemed essential in several jurisdictions (including, I believe, California). In Paris, tobacco shops have been deemed "essential". It's better to view these things as a continuum of need and a continuum of risk.

BC

If marijuana was ever essential now is that time.

A high school friend of mine has been selling cannabis comestibles since the early 1980s. https://bigpetestreats.com/ Check out the video with the Jamaican beat...

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - akiddoc - 04-22-2020

"Yeah, they are going to shelter in place until a vaccine is developed. They're preppers and have all they need to survive the next 18 months."

Producing a vaccine may be difficult.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15742624

There are vaccines for coronaviruses used in the veterinary world. There have been two major issues. Vaccines without major side effects have created only short-lived immunity. Live virus vaccines have been more effective, but sometimes cause major lung inflammation in felines which may lead to death. I have been told, although I have not yet looked into it, that cat airway epithelium is quite similar to the human variety.

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - BostonCard - 04-22-2020

As far as I know, none of the COVID vaccines being looked at are of the live attenuated variety. Short term immunity may be ok as a temporizing measure. We do annual flu vaccines (not because the immunity wanes per se, but because the circulating strains change each year), so you could envision a situation where you get your annual Covid vaccine with your flu vaccine.

BC

RE: Opening up the economy won't save the economy - JustAnotherFan - 04-22-2020

(04-22-2020, 09:03 PM)Mick Wrote: Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks. That takes America to over 16% unemployed. That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

(04-22-2020, 10:07 PM)akiddoc Wrote: "Yeah, they are going to shelter in place until a vaccine is developed. They're preppers and have all they need to survive the next 18 months."

Producing a vaccine may be difficult.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15742624

There are vaccines for coronaviruses used in the veterinary world. There have been two major issues. Vaccines without major side effects have created only short-lived immunity. Live virus vaccines have been more effective, but sometimes cause major lung inflammation in felines which may lead to death. I have been told, although I have not yet looked into it, that cat airway epithelium is quite similar to the human variety.

Right. I keep forgetting second worse case is no vaccine and no treatment and the need to moving toward herd immunity through natural selection. They're ready for that. One of them would have a very high likelihood of dying if they contracted COVID-19 despite being in their mid-30s because of immune issues and no one in the family is messing around.