[Genuine Realist]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

I take Mick's views on the economy very seriously. Where I disagree is the casting of alternatives as binary, either/or. To my way of thinking, the hit was coming one way or another. Whether you lockdown, as has been done, or let the disease run its course, the hit to the economy is going to be colossal. 

The Washington Post is doing some scandal-mongering today, as I understand, suggesting that Trump considered simply letting the virus go, in the manner Boris Johnson promoted. But there's no scandal in thinking of this as an alternative - because, sooner or later, we are going to have to live with a certain level of exposure, infection, and morbidity. Society cannot continue in this state indefinitely. 

I imagine we reopen about May 1st, with an enormous change in the manner of socialization, and many geezers (such as myself) relying on delivery services and avoiding possible infectious areas to the extent possible. There will be business opportunities that arise as well.

[Genuine Realist]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

I take Mick's views on the economy very seriously. Where I disagree is the casting of alternatives as binary, either/or. To my way of thinking, the hit was coming one way or another. Whether you lockdown, as has been done, or let the disease run its course, the hit to the economy is going to be colossal. 

The Washington Post is doing some scandal-mongering today, as I understand, suggesting that Trump considered simply letting the virus go, in the manner Boris Johnson promoted. But there's no scandal in thinking of this as an alternative - because, sooner or later, we are going to have to live with a certain level of exposure, infection, and morbidity. Society cannot continue in this state indefinitely. 

I imagine we reopen about May 1st, with an enormous change in the manner of socialization, and many geezers (such as myself) relying on delivery services and avoiding possible infectious areas to the extent possible. There will be business opportunities that arise as well.