[OutsiderFan]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

[Farm93]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

Sounds, nice but the choice is only available to people with the means and jobs to sit it out.   A lot of workers will be told to go to work, and if they don't they will be deemed to have "voluntarily left" their employment leaving them ineligible for unemployment compensation in a lot of states.

In most places if a state lifts their order and the business owner wants to risk the workers health for the company, then the employees have to take the risks.

I am sure there will be cases where the business executives or franchise owner types will opt to not visit the facility or store, but the workers will still be required to risk their lives and the lives of family members for the financial health of the company and its owners.

Great to know that many Americans are not trusting those a bit too concerned about re-election, but too bad that when a state revises orders that those most vulnerable to getting the virus often lose their choice to opt out of staying at home.

[Farm93]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

Sounds, nice but the choice is only available to people with the means and jobs to sit it out.   A lot of workers will be told to go to work, and if they don't they will be deemed to have "voluntarily left" their employment leaving them ineligible for unemployment compensation in a lot of states.

In most places if a state lifts their order and the business owner wants to risk the workers health for the company, then the employees have to take the risks.

I am sure there will be cases where the business executives or franchise owner types will opt to not visit the facility or store, but the workers will still be required to risk their lives and the lives of family members for the financial health of the company and its owners.

Great to know that many Americans are not trusting those a bit too concerned about re-election, but too bad that when a state revises orders that those most vulnerable to getting the virus often lose their choice to opt out of staying at home.

[burger]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and I think it's wrong, or at least partly wrong.  After things open up, I'm sure there will be some voluntary social distancing, maybe even quite a lot.  But it's wrong to assume that voluntary social distancing will happen in May or June like it hapened in March.  And even more wrong to assume that about July or August or September.

In March this was all new and scary, and people were not yet sick of staying in their houses.  Now, people are already starting to go out more, even in states that haven't opened up.  As this drags on, people are going to be less and less likely to stay home.  People will normalize the risk of getting ill or dying, and grow increasingly bored of sitting at home.  So, I think we'll see less and less social distancing over time.

This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

[burger]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and I think it's wrong, or at least partly wrong.  After things open up, I'm sure there will be some voluntary social distancing, maybe even quite a lot.  But it's wrong to assume that voluntary social distancing will happen in May or June like it hapened in March.  And even more wrong to assume that about July or August or September.

In March this was all new and scary, and people were not yet sick of staying in their houses.  Now, people are already starting to go out more, even in states that haven't opened up.  As this drags on, people are going to be less and less likely to stay home.  People will normalize the risk of getting ill or dying, and grow increasingly bored of sitting at home.  So, I think we'll see less and less social distancing over time.

This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

[Mick]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

Sounds, nice but the choice is only available to people with the means and jobs to sit it out.   A lot of workers will be told to go to work, and if they don't they will be deemed to have "voluntarily left" their employment leaving them ineligible for unemployment compensation in a lot of states.

In most places if a state lifts their order and the business owner wants to risk the workers health for the company, then the employees have to take the risks.

I am sure there will be cases where the business executives or franchise owner types will opt to not visit the facility or store, but the workers will still be required to risk their lives and the lives of family members for the financial health of the company and its owners.

Great to know that many Americans are not trusting those a bit too concerned about re-election, but too bad that when a state revises orders that those most vulnerable to getting the virus often lose their choice to opt out of staying at home.

There are exceptions:

The CARES Act set up a program called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, under which some of the normal unemployment rules are loosened. Benefits are extended to some groups of people who might not qualify for regular unemployment compensation. This is not an exhaustive list, but you can access benefits if you’re unemployed, partially unemployed, unable or unavailable to work for the following reasons:

• you’ve been diagnosed with the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re experiencing coronavirus symptoms and you’re trying to get a diagnosis
  
  
• a member of your household has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the caregiver for a family member or person in your household who has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the primary caregiver for a child who can’t attend school or a household member who can’t go to “another facility” because they’re closed due to the coronavirus (and you can’t work unless they’re taken care of)
  
  
• you can’t reach your workplace because of quarantine
  
  
• you can’t go to work because a doctor told you to self-quarantine (if you have a co-morbidity, I imagine any doctor would excuse this)
  
  
• you had to quit your job as a direct result of the coronavirus
  
  
• your workplace is closed because of the coronavirus
  

So there are some loopholes.

[Mick]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

Sounds, nice but the choice is only available to people with the means and jobs to sit it out.   A lot of workers will be told to go to work, and if they don't they will be deemed to have "voluntarily left" their employment leaving them ineligible for unemployment compensation in a lot of states.

In most places if a state lifts their order and the business owner wants to risk the workers health for the company, then the employees have to take the risks.

I am sure there will be cases where the business executives or franchise owner types will opt to not visit the facility or store, but the workers will still be required to risk their lives and the lives of family members for the financial health of the company and its owners.

Great to know that many Americans are not trusting those a bit too concerned about re-election, but too bad that when a state revises orders that those most vulnerable to getting the virus often lose their choice to opt out of staying at home.

There are exceptions:

The CARES Act set up a program called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, under which some of the normal unemployment rules are loosened. Benefits are extended to some groups of people who might not qualify for regular unemployment compensation. This is not an exhaustive list, but you can access benefits if you’re unemployed, partially unemployed, unable or unavailable to work for the following reasons:

• you’ve been diagnosed with the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re experiencing coronavirus symptoms and you’re trying to get a diagnosis
  
  
• a member of your household has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the caregiver for a family member or person in your household who has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the primary caregiver for a child who can’t attend school or a household member who can’t go to “another facility” because they’re closed due to the coronavirus (and you can’t work unless they’re taken care of)
  
  
• you can’t reach your workplace because of quarantine
  
  
• you can’t go to work because a doctor told you to self-quarantine (if you have a co-morbidity, I imagine any doctor would excuse this)
  
  
• you had to quit your job as a direct result of the coronavirus
  
  
• your workplace is closed because of the coronavirus
  

So there are some loopholes.

[Goose]

This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

Totally agree with you there. An added problem that I think we are going to see soon is that a lot of people bought in to the "hammer and the dance" proposition. They are saying "OK, we flattened the curve. Now, let's see the dance part working". If that isn't forthcoming, I am pretty sure the population at large is just going to start ignoring what they are told as obviously wrong and go back to work. Government at all levels, but particularly local and state have to deliver or things will get out of control real fast IMHO.

[Goose]

This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

Totally agree with you there. An added problem that I think we are going to see soon is that a lot of people bought in to the "hammer and the dance" proposition. They are saying "OK, we flattened the curve. Now, let's see the dance part working". If that isn't forthcoming, I am pretty sure the population at large is just going to start ignoring what they are told as obviously wrong and go back to work. Government at all levels, but particularly local and state have to deliver or things will get out of control real fast IMHO.

[Farm93]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

Sounds, nice but the choice is only available to people with the means and jobs to sit it out.   A lot of workers will be told to go to work, and if they don't they will be deemed to have "voluntarily left" their employment leaving them ineligible for unemployment compensation in a lot of states.

In most places if a state lifts their order and the business owner wants to risk the workers health for the company, then the employees have to take the risks.

I am sure there will be cases where the business executives or franchise owner types will opt to not visit the facility or store, but the workers will still be required to risk their lives and the lives of family members for the financial health of the company and its owners.

Great to know that many Americans are not trusting those a bit too concerned about re-election, but too bad that when a state revises orders that those most vulnerable to getting the virus often lose their choice to opt out of staying at home.

There are exceptions:

The CARES Act set up a program called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, under which some of the normal unemployment rules are loosened. Benefits are extended to some groups of people who might not qualify for regular unemployment compensation. This is not an exhaustive list, but you can access benefits if you’re unemployed, partially unemployed, unable or unavailable to work for the following reasons:

• you’ve been diagnosed with the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re experiencing coronavirus symptoms and you’re trying to get a diagnosis
  
  
• a member of your household has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the caregiver for a family member or person in your household who has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the primary caregiver for a child who can’t attend school or a household member who can’t go to “another facility” because they’re closed due to the coronavirus (and you can’t work unless they’re taken care of)
  
  
• you can’t reach your workplace because of quarantine
  
  
• you can’t go to work because a doctor told you to self-quarantine (if you have a co-morbidity, I imagine any doctor would excuse this)
  
  
• you had to quit your job as a direct result of the coronavirus
  
  
• your workplace is closed because of the coronavirus
  

So there are some loopholes.

Let's remember the people I am talking about are the 50% of Americans without $400 for an emergency.   CARES wouldn't quite apply now in these states.  These citizens are getting an opportunity to go back to work thanks to their state.   By definition the companies in these states have already bridged the impact of COVID19 that CARES was designed to help employers navigate across.

With COVID19 in the rear view mirror (at least according to their Governor)
The working class types can go to work and risk the family for ~$10 per hour.  
Or
They can tell their employer they are scared.   At that point they probably would be fired, since most companies need to reduce their workforce anyway.   This firing wouldn't be related to a slowdown in business because of COVID, this firing would be deemed to be an employee unwilling to do their job.
Or 
They could quit as noted before.

Each state is a bit different and the law might protect some of the workers in this scenario.   However, with less than $400 in their pockets it is rather unlikely they will have the money or time to go talk with lawyers about the termination.

In some states regular unemployment is really not much.   Florida's is $275 per week.  Given the uncertainty in the market and their personal finances they are left going back to work even if they fear the death rate.
   
Hard for most of us on this board to understand that dynamic, but for a lot of US workers once the state opens things back up they will need to risk their lives at work or suffer all of the pitfalls that come when there is no money coming in and no money in savings.

No doubt there are fiscal issues with them sitting at home under a stay-at-home order with thanks to ever increasing amounts of government aid.  
However, let's not pretend that everyone has a realistic option to stay at home after a state declares COVID19 sheltering is no longer mandatory.

[Farm93]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TB_Times/status/1259803874749296640[/tweet]

Sounds, nice but the choice is only available to people with the means and jobs to sit it out.   A lot of workers will be told to go to work, and if they don't they will be deemed to have "voluntarily left" their employment leaving them ineligible for unemployment compensation in a lot of states.

In most places if a state lifts their order and the business owner wants to risk the workers health for the company, then the employees have to take the risks.

I am sure there will be cases where the business executives or franchise owner types will opt to not visit the facility or store, but the workers will still be required to risk their lives and the lives of family members for the financial health of the company and its owners.

Great to know that many Americans are not trusting those a bit too concerned about re-election, but too bad that when a state revises orders that those most vulnerable to getting the virus often lose their choice to opt out of staying at home.

There are exceptions:

The CARES Act set up a program called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, under which some of the normal unemployment rules are loosened. Benefits are extended to some groups of people who might not qualify for regular unemployment compensation. This is not an exhaustive list, but you can access benefits if you’re unemployed, partially unemployed, unable or unavailable to work for the following reasons:

• you’ve been diagnosed with the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re experiencing coronavirus symptoms and you’re trying to get a diagnosis
  
  
• a member of your household has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the caregiver for a family member or person in your household who has the coronavirus
  
  
• you’re the primary caregiver for a child who can’t attend school or a household member who can’t go to “another facility” because they’re closed due to the coronavirus (and you can’t work unless they’re taken care of)
  
  
• you can’t reach your workplace because of quarantine
  
  
• you can’t go to work because a doctor told you to self-quarantine (if you have a co-morbidity, I imagine any doctor would excuse this)
  
  
• you had to quit your job as a direct result of the coronavirus
  
  
• your workplace is closed because of the coronavirus
  

So there are some loopholes.

Let's remember the people I am talking about are the 50% of Americans without $400 for an emergency.   CARES wouldn't quite apply now in these states.  These citizens are getting an opportunity to go back to work thanks to their state.   By definition the companies in these states have already bridged the impact of COVID19 that CARES was designed to help employers navigate across.

With COVID19 in the rear view mirror (at least according to their Governor)
The working class types can go to work and risk the family for ~$10 per hour.  
Or
They can tell their employer they are scared.   At that point they probably would be fired, since most companies need to reduce their workforce anyway.   This firing wouldn't be related to a slowdown in business because of COVID, this firing would be deemed to be an employee unwilling to do their job.
Or 
They could quit as noted before.

Each state is a bit different and the law might protect some of the workers in this scenario.   However, with less than $400 in their pockets it is rather unlikely they will have the money or time to go talk with lawyers about the termination.

In some states regular unemployment is really not much.   Florida's is $275 per week.  Given the uncertainty in the market and their personal finances they are left going back to work even if they fear the death rate.
   
Hard for most of us on this board to understand that dynamic, but for a lot of US workers once the state opens things back up they will need to risk their lives at work or suffer all of the pitfalls that come when there is no money coming in and no money in savings.

No doubt there are fiscal issues with them sitting at home under a stay-at-home order with thanks to ever increasing amounts of government aid.  
However, let's not pretend that everyone has a realistic option to stay at home after a state declares COVID19 sheltering is no longer mandatory.

[Mick]

Let's remember the people I am talking about are the 50% of Americans without $400 for an emergency.   CARES wouldn't quite apply now in these states.  These citizens are getting an opportunity to go back to work thanks to their state.   By definition the companies in these states have already bridged the impact of COVID19 that CARES was designed to help employers navigate across.

With COVID19 in the rear view mirror (at least according to their Governor), the working class types can go to work and risk the family for ~$10 per hour.  Or they can tell their employer they are scared.   At that point they probably would be fired, since most companies need to reduce their workforce anyway.   This firing wouldn't be related to a slowdown in business because of COVID, this firing would be deemed to be an employee unwilling to do their job.  Or as noted before, they could quit.

Each state is a bit different and the law might protect some of the workers in this scenario.   However, with less than $400 in their pockets it is rather unlikely they will have the money or time to go talk with lawyers about the termination.

In some states regular unemployment is really not much.   Florida's is $275 per week.  Given the uncertainty in the market and their personal finances they are left going back to work even if they fear the death rate.
   
Hard for most of us on this board to understand that dynamic, but for a lot of US workers once the state opens things back up they will need to risk their lives at work or suffer all of the pitfalls that come when there is no money coming in and no money in savings.

No doubt there are fiscal issues with them sitting at home under a stay-at-home order with thanks to ever increasing amounts of government aid.  
However, let's not pretend that everyone has a realistic option to stay at home after a state declares COVID19 sheltering is no longer mandatory.

Yes, the 34 million (over the last 7 weeks) unemployed are screwed, particularly come August when the $600/week stipend runs out. 

Here's a link to the max weekly unemployment benefits by state.  A wide range:
https://www.savingtoinvest.com/maximum-w...-by-state/

A disproportionate share of the RIFs were experienced by the poor and less affluent Americans.  I don't think that half of the 34 million falls into the $400-is-a-problem category, I think it's closer to 2/3rds, maybe as high as 80%.

[Mick]

Let's remember the people I am talking about are the 50% of Americans without $400 for an emergency.   CARES wouldn't quite apply now in these states.  These citizens are getting an opportunity to go back to work thanks to their state.   By definition the companies in these states have already bridged the impact of COVID19 that CARES was designed to help employers navigate across.

With COVID19 in the rear view mirror (at least according to their Governor), the working class types can go to work and risk the family for ~$10 per hour.  Or they can tell their employer they are scared.   At that point they probably would be fired, since most companies need to reduce their workforce anyway.   This firing wouldn't be related to a slowdown in business because of COVID, this firing would be deemed to be an employee unwilling to do their job.  Or as noted before, they could quit.

Each state is a bit different and the law might protect some of the workers in this scenario.   However, with less than $400 in their pockets it is rather unlikely they will have the money or time to go talk with lawyers about the termination.

In some states regular unemployment is really not much.   Florida's is $275 per week.  Given the uncertainty in the market and their personal finances they are left going back to work even if they fear the death rate.
   
Hard for most of us on this board to understand that dynamic, but for a lot of US workers once the state opens things back up they will need to risk their lives at work or suffer all of the pitfalls that come when there is no money coming in and no money in savings.

No doubt there are fiscal issues with them sitting at home under a stay-at-home order with thanks to ever increasing amounts of government aid.  
However, let's not pretend that everyone has a realistic option to stay at home after a state declares COVID19 sheltering is no longer mandatory.

Yes, the 34 million (over the last 7 weeks) unemployed are screwed, particularly come August when the $600/week stipend runs out. 

Here's a link to the max weekly unemployment benefits by state.  A wide range:
https://www.savingtoinvest.com/maximum-w...-by-state/

A disproportionate share of the RIFs were experienced by the poor and less affluent Americans.  I don't think that half of the 34 million falls into the $400-is-a-problem category, I think it's closer to 2/3rds, maybe as high as 80%.

[stupac2]

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and I think it's wrong, or at least partly wrong.  After things open up, I'm sure there will be some voluntary social distancing, maybe even quite a lot.  But it's wrong to assume that voluntary social distancing will happen in May or June like it hapened in March.  And even more wrong to assume that about July or August or September.



In March this was all new and scary, and people were not yet sick of staying in their houses.  Now, people are already starting to go out more, even in states that haven't opened up.  As this drags on, people are going to be less and less likely to stay home.  People will normalize the risk of getting ill or dying, and grow increasingly bored of sitting at home.  So, I think we'll see less and less social distancing over time.



This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

In the early going I saw a lot of people compare this to car deaths, and I think that's instructive. Every year we have 10 9/11's on our roads, plus who knows how much injury, and the deaths from pollution and all the other crap associated with cars, and no one cares. Virtually no one thinks it matters at all, let alone would be willing to inconvenience themselves at all to stop what is objectively a ridiculous death toll.

I think the ability of humanity to become accustomed to their circumstances is one of the worst curses imaginable, even if it's understandable from an evolutionary perspective.

[stupac2]

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and I think it's wrong, or at least partly wrong.  After things open up, I'm sure there will be some voluntary social distancing, maybe even quite a lot.  But it's wrong to assume that voluntary social distancing will happen in May or June like it hapened in March.  And even more wrong to assume that about July or August or September.



In March this was all new and scary, and people were not yet sick of staying in their houses.  Now, people are already starting to go out more, even in states that haven't opened up.  As this drags on, people are going to be less and less likely to stay home.  People will normalize the risk of getting ill or dying, and grow increasingly bored of sitting at home.  So, I think we'll see less and less social distancing over time.



This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

In the early going I saw a lot of people compare this to car deaths, and I think that's instructive. Every year we have 10 9/11's on our roads, plus who knows how much injury, and the deaths from pollution and all the other crap associated with cars, and no one cares. Virtually no one thinks it matters at all, let alone would be willing to inconvenience themselves at all to stop what is objectively a ridiculous death toll.

I think the ability of humanity to become accustomed to their circumstances is one of the worst curses imaginable, even if it's understandable from an evolutionary perspective.

[Mick]

In the early going I saw a lot of people compare this to car deaths, and I think that's instructive. Every year we have 10 9/11's on our roads, plus who knows how much injury, and the deaths from pollution and all the other crap associated with cars, and no one cares. Virtually no one thinks it matters at all, let alone would be willing to inconvenience themselves at all to stop what is objectively a ridiculous death toll.

I think the ability of humanity to become accustomed to their circumstances is one of the worst curses imaginable, even if it's understandable from an evolutionary perspective.

Heart disease is #1 at 647k, cancer is #2 at 599k (2017 CDC figures).  Big drop to accidents at 169k.  COVID will be in the top three, hopefully not #1.

[Mick]

In the early going I saw a lot of people compare this to car deaths, and I think that's instructive. Every year we have 10 9/11's on our roads, plus who knows how much injury, and the deaths from pollution and all the other crap associated with cars, and no one cares. Virtually no one thinks it matters at all, let alone would be willing to inconvenience themselves at all to stop what is objectively a ridiculous death toll.

I think the ability of humanity to become accustomed to their circumstances is one of the worst curses imaginable, even if it's understandable from an evolutionary perspective.

Heart disease is #1 at 647k, cancer is #2 at 599k (2017 CDC figures).  Big drop to accidents at 169k.  COVID will be in the top three, hopefully not #1.

[BostonCard]

The question is how much are we willing to invest to prevent those deaths.  Based on the regulatory costs of auto safety, is about $9 million per life saved.  In other words, a safety feature will be mandated on a car, if its total cost is less than $9 million per total life saved.  Ditto environmental regulation, and , at a slightly lower cost, food and drug safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_l...ted_States

The challenge is that we won’t know how many lives will be saved, or what the costs of a no shelter in place order would be.

BC

[BostonCard]

The question is how much are we willing to invest to prevent those deaths.  Based on the regulatory costs of auto safety, is about $9 million per life saved.  In other words, a safety feature will be mandated on a car, if its total cost is less than $9 million per total life saved.  Ditto environmental regulation, and , at a slightly lower cost, food and drug safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_l...ted_States

The challenge is that we won’t know how many lives will be saved, or what the costs of a no shelter in place order would be.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and I think it's wrong, or at least partly wrong.  After things open up, I'm sure there will be some voluntary social distancing, maybe even quite a lot.  But it's wrong to assume that voluntary social distancing will happen in May or June like it hapened in March.  And even more wrong to assume that about July or August or September.

In March this was all new and scary, and people were not yet sick of staying in their houses.  Now, people are already starting to go out more, even in states that haven't opened up.  As this drags on, people are going to be less and less likely to stay home.  People will normalize the risk of getting ill or dying, and grow increasingly bored of sitting at home.  So, I think we'll see less and less social distancing over time.

This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

It's not a question of 'won't stay home'. It's a question of 'can't stay home'.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust each other. i'm a pretty committed Populist, in the older Lincolnian sense, so the sooner or better. To be sure, this will NOT lead to the optimum medical situation. But that's not the only consideration - there are other evils, economic, but possibly more devastating. My sense is that society will come to its own balance, not perfect, but probably optimum in a practical sense.

[Genuine Realist]

This is interesting. It appears - as seems to be the case on this board - that even if governments don't shut things down, we citizens are deciding to follow NPIs on our own. So we could see falling or at least plateaued case and death numbers even after states open things back up.

Florida's behavior, the dead cat bounce that is Georgia's re-opening, combined with the first week of March Open Table data, and the public polling done, is evidence that even if government restrictions are lifted people aren't going out at anything approaching pre-pandemic levels.  It really is like seeing 20% of the economy drying up because people don't want to get sick. Of course, if even 5% of people go out and party like it's 1999, it could be disastrous.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and I think it's wrong, or at least partly wrong.  After things open up, I'm sure there will be some voluntary social distancing, maybe even quite a lot.  But it's wrong to assume that voluntary social distancing will happen in May or June like it hapened in March.  And even more wrong to assume that about July or August or September.

In March this was all new and scary, and people were not yet sick of staying in their houses.  Now, people are already starting to go out more, even in states that haven't opened up.  As this drags on, people are going to be less and less likely to stay home.  People will normalize the risk of getting ill or dying, and grow increasingly bored of sitting at home.  So, I think we'll see less and less social distancing over time.

This is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic about this being under control until we get a vaccine.  People just won't sit home forever.

It's not a question of 'won't stay home'. It's a question of 'can't stay home'.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust each other. i'm a pretty committed Populist, in the older Lincolnian sense, so the sooner or better. To be sure, this will NOT lead to the optimum medical situation. But that's not the only consideration - there are other evils, economic, but possibly more devastating. My sense is that society will come to its own balance, not perfect, but probably optimum in a practical sense.

[burger]

It's not a question of 'won't stay home'. It's a question of 'can't stay home'.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust each other. i'm a pretty committed Populist, in the older Lincolnian sense, so the sooner or better. To be sure, this will NOT lead to the optimum medical situation. But that's not the only consideration - there are other evils, economic, but possibly more devastating. My sense is that society will come to its own balance, not perfect, but probably optimum in a practical sense.

When people make decisions that are optimal individually but have a cost for society, you end up with a tragedy of the commons.  That is the exact opposite of what we should be aiming for.

[burger]

It's not a question of 'won't stay home'. It's a question of 'can't stay home'.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust each other. i'm a pretty committed Populist, in the older Lincolnian sense, so the sooner or better. To be sure, this will NOT lead to the optimum medical situation. But that's not the only consideration - there are other evils, economic, but possibly more devastating. My sense is that society will come to its own balance, not perfect, but probably optimum in a practical sense.

When people make decisions that are optimal individually but have a cost for society, you end up with a tragedy of the commons.  That is the exact opposite of what we should be aiming for.