MusicPlayerNetwork.com
The debate about re-starting the economy, the extension of cases by flattening the curve vs. getting it over with faster and just assuming more people will die, etc. has one glaring omission: it assumes there is a good solution. Unfortunately, sometimes in life there is no good solution, only less bad ones. In this case, any solution is basically a choice among various worst-case scenarios.

What complicates matters further is the extraordinary amount of uncertainty. We can't say "Well, we should choose this option - it will produce the following results, which we judge as being not as bad as the other options," simply because we have no concrete idea what the actual results will be from any of the options.

If society is to remain cohesive, significant sacrifices will have to be made at all levels. And I don't mean sacrifices like Apple letting people use Logic Pro X free for 90 days. In a recession (and I've lived through several of them), the economy never actually stops, but it slows way down. There are people still making money and spending money. Will the motives and results of those activities need to shift? I'm NOT framing this as a political issue ("socialism is the answer") or a religious one ("we are our brother's keeper"). I'm framing it as what it means to be a human being. Is it survival of the fittest, or is it a willingness to do whatever is necessary to maintain the fabric of society?

Or...maybe they're not mutually exclusive. Real-world example: My career got started because of a severe (albeit not catastrophic) recession. I had worked with a company that made effects, but that market was dissipating. To pay the bills I wrote "Electronic Projects for Musicians" at a time when people didn't have the money to buy effects, so they were open to making their own. Fast forward 40 years...many people in this industry reference that book as being what helped start their companies. Overall, my lack of personal wealth led eventually to the creation of significant wealth in society at large. Of course, I was just trying to pay my bills, I didn't have lofty ideas that was I was doing would eventually change the industry in some way. But it goes to show that "unintended consequences" can be beneficial, not just problematic.

What can we do now that ensures when this is all over, we're in a better, not worse, place?
A topic I've been trying to stay on top of as the world rapidly goes through changes.

Among the considerations is "collateral damage" if we move to quickly to "business as normal" and the virus spreads rapidly (all assumptions at this point).
The overload on the health care system could mean that folks with other conditions are unable to obtain the care they need in a timely fashion.
The supply chain problems with respirators/ventilators etc., are another factor.

It's very complex, I have no answers. All I can do at this point is exercise caution. I've limited my exposure, plenty to do at home. I am favoring a big chain store (Krogers - Fred Meyer) in no small part because I can walk there and they have disinfectant wipes available at the entrance/exit.

I already had the habit of bringing my own cloth shopping bags. New habit of not touching my face until after using the wipes at exit is in place. There is no way to be certain that one won't walk around a corner and right into a place where somebody recently sneezed into the open air. A mask may reduce that avenue of infection but you would need a professional respirator (rather than a one-size-fits-all mask) to obtain full protection from that avenue of infection. It may be important to immediately wash or "quarantine" your newly purchased items since there is no way to know who has touched it.

Short answer - I have no idea what is going to happen!!!! Be SAFE everybody!!!! Cheers, Kuru
Making predictions is only a means to get the thinking process going, not a way to pre-visit the future in most cases. That said, here's the things I'm thinking will take on immense significance after "the new normal" begins to take shape.

1 - income disparity will become so acute that what we now call "welfare" will become more like a right, not an unreliable and fickle, stigmatizing handout.

2 - the government will realize - no matter the politics - that government has to be yet more involved in healthcare. Again, healthcare will become more of a right than a product for sale.

3 - were young people radical in the 60s? You just wait. A new radicalism among the young is coming that will shock and shake the foundations of power and politics. Climate change will be the center focus, but the general feeling that the power brokers of the older generation have made a hopeless mess of everything will be practically universal among the young. And not just a feeling, but a burning conviction with violence not far behind.

4 - kids are going to have to, and will start on their own, growing up faster. The luxury of extended adolescence into one's 30s is going to disappear.

5 - if the economics gets bad enough, the next big headline will be about a new crime wave of massive proportions.

Good things to come?

I see families all over walking the neighborhood, biking, being together. I see people learning that civilization is fragile, that community is an absolute necessity, that the values of things like ever-increasing wealth, being the strongest and baddest, self-centered independence, and the like, pale besides the values of community, compassion, creativity, and caring.

It's the "live together or die separately" thing, no question.

nat
Originally Posted by Anderton
What can we do now that ensures when this is all over, we're in a better, not worse, place?

Certainly we are in for more uncertainty. No one knows where the economy and society will be at the end of the year. Fundamental assumptions about the good society and the good life may well be interrogated. As Nowarezman alluded, values like "rugged individualism" might take a hit. There may be other changes we cannot contemplate.

I love your story about creating possibilities and then an industry with an article which met a need. It's a salutary example of what an individual can do.

To me, civilization is about relationships and relationships are about trust. We can virtualize processes and markets at faster rates. We can develop new systems of trust using technologies like blockchain to mediate previously unmediatable relationships. That's abstract. Practically we can relate more actively to our loved ones and business partners with that extra measure of compassion this situation requires. That's job one. Job zero, is to stay resilient, trusting that the evolving crisis will reveal to you the qualities within you, which were waiting for just such a time to be expressed.
One possible good is the simultaneous use of technology to reach far, but the improvement of local and national connections. Do we need to fly as much? Why not use video for many things? Simultaneously, what options are available locally now? One thing I see is that local musicians in the North Bay are no longer competing with national or international caliber artists doing shows in San Francisco or Oakland. Right now the best cello player in Sonoma County is the best available cello player in the world where I live. What would a better local community do for music? I suspect a lot. I think we need manufacturing to have a much greater local and national presence. Too much has been spread out too far in global supply chains, taking jobs and taxes with it. If the jobs, taxes and skills returned, much could be done to improve the places we live.

The biggest questions, as already suggested have more to do with how an entire society decides that the economy should run and who it should benefit and how much.
Well Nowarezman skirted politics, but the post stays because there aren't any value judgements or boosterism of "one side or the other" involved. They're simply possible predictions.

I was watching a series of travel videos by a guy on YouTube, who had been to almost every country in the world. He was coming to the conclusion that generally, happiness was NOT proportional to wealth, and that some of the poorest societies were also the happiest. Apparently human interaction, community, cooking, and the arts brought people far more happiness than BMWs, yachts, and mansions.

Personal perspective: There was a run of years where I made a lot of money. I didn't really get to enjoy it, because almost all of it went to taking care of a dying, estranged wife who was sick for over a decade, and paying the mortgage on a house that's now in foreclosure. I'm living in an inexpensive investment condo that my daughter owns. When Gibson fired me along with a zillion other people, my severance was 3 weeks. I drive a 20-year-old used car. My HVAC is over 20 years old, and will need to be replaced soon.

I've never been happier in my entire life.

When my estranged wife died, and I could no longer pay the mortgage on what was supposed to be a dream house and investment for the future, I realized just how little money I actually needed to live. I realized that the universal currency isn't money, it's time - whether you're rich or poor, an hour lasts exactly 60 minutes. It's up to you to decide how to spend those 60 minutes. Some people are much better at spending time than others, and the best time-spenders aren't necessarily the richest folks. That's because a lot of rich people think that money is worth more than time. It isn't.

Because I don't need to earn to earn so much, I don't need to work so much. Which means I have more time to play music, and play in the kitchen with my girlfriend. I take more time to call people. I talk to my daughter just about every day, so I have a front-row seat to a fascinating and intelligent human being. I can sleep in, or stay up late, if I want. Some days I make money, some days I don't.

Do I want a fancy car? No, it costs more, the insurance is more, repairs are more, registration is more. How about a fancy house? The mortgage is more, maintenance is more, property taxes are more, and either you have to spend more time taking care of it (which you can't, because you have to make the money to maintain it) or pay someone else to do it.

Do I need a gym membership? Walking is free, and I get to say hi to the neighbors, or take a walk with a friend. There are plenty of swimmable lakes around here for long swims, and the condo has a pool.

Do I need a giant curved-screen TV? There's not enough worth watching to justify it, and if there's a really spectacular movie, I'll go to the iMax theater and be in a place where other humanoid bipeds are cheering, laughing, having tears well up, and getting emotionally involved.

What about eating out? Frankly, you can make healthier food at home...which you can do if you have time, rather than spending that time making enough money to eat out.

I'm building back my pre-Gibson career, slowly but surely. I expect I won't be broke much longer, and my income will ramp up. BUT I am not going to make ramping up income the goal. That will simply be a by-product of my learning to spend time more wisely, on things I love to do, that don't make as much money but are a helluva lot more fun.

Maybe this will happen to more people when we return to "normal," whatever that is.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Well Nowarezman skirted politics, but the post stays because there aren't any value judgements or boosterism of "one side or the other" involved. They're simply possible predictions.

I was watching a series of travel videos by a guy on YouTube, who had been to almost every country in the world. He was coming to the conclusion that generally, happiness was NOT proportional to wealth, and that some of the poorest societies were also the happiest. Apparently human interaction, community, cooking, and the arts brought people far more happiness than BMWs, yachts, and mansions.

Personal perspective: There was a run of years where I made a lot of money. I didn't really get to enjoy it, because almost all of it went to taking care of a dying, estranged wife who was sick for over a decade, and paying the mortgage on a house that's now in foreclosure. I'm living in an inexpensive investment condo that my daughter owns. When Gibson fired me along with a zillion other people, my severance was 3 weeks. I drive a 20-year-old used car. My HVAC is over 20 years old, and will need to be replaced soon.

I've never been happier in my entire life.

When my estranged wife died, and I could no longer pay the mortgage on what was supposed to be a dream house and investment for the future, I realized just how little money I actually needed to live. I realized that the universal currency isn't money, it's time - whether you're rich or poor, an hour lasts exactly 60 minutes. It's up to you to decide how to spend those 60 minutes. Some people are much better at spending time than others, and the best time-spenders aren't necessarily the richest folks. That's because a lot of rich people think that money is worth more than time. It isn't.

Because I don't need to earn to earn so much, I don't need to work so much. Which means I have more time to play music, and play in the kitchen with my girlfriend. I take more time to call people. I talk to my daughter just about every day, so I have a front-row seat to a fascinating and intelligent human being. I can sleep in, or stay up late, if I want. Some days I make money, some days I don't.

Do I want a fancy car? No, it costs more, the insurance is more, repairs are more, registration is more. How about a fancy house? The mortgage is more, maintenance is more, property taxes are more, and either you have to spend more time taking care of it (which you can't, because you have to make the money to maintain it) or pay someone else to do it.

Do I need a gym membership? Walking is free, and I get to say hi to the neighbors, or take a walk with a friend. There are plenty of swimmable lakes around here for long swims, and the condo has a pool.

Do I need a giant curved-screen TV? There's not enough worth watching to justify it, and if there's a really spectacular movie, I'll go to the iMax theater and be in a place where other humanoid bipeds are cheering, laughing, having tears well up, and getting emotionally involved.

What about eating out? Frankly, you can make healthier food at home...which you can do if you have time, rather than spending that time making enough money to eat out.

I'm building back my pre-Gibson career, slowly but surely. I expect I won't be broke much longer, and my income will ramp up. BUT I am not going to make ramping up income the goal. That will simply be a by-product of my learning to spend time more wisely, on things I love to do, that don't make as much money but are a helluva lot more fun.

Maybe this will happen to more people when we return to "normal," whatever that is.

That is a fuc#ing AWESOME post!!
Where I work is considered a critical supplier of avionics and communications equipment for the government/military so I've been there every day. A couple weeks ago they sent some folks home in a displays manufacturing area and last week they closed down a whole manufacturing building at the main site to have an outside company come in for a thorough cleaning, that was a weird sight.

I actually wonder how many people have already had the illness and just wrote it off as common cold/flu as far back as New Years? My wife and I traveled to the East coast back then and we both contracted a cold/flu like illness that seemed to linger longer than it normally should have.

Reality sometimes bites and the only possible chance of containing this thing was probably a week before anyone knew it existed and even though I hope everyone is taking the proper precautions, I'm sure we all know that the only ones we have actual control over are ourselves. This thing is not from some alien planet though and it's well known that viruses mutate and develop new strains. In that regard it's nothing new and I doubt that anyone has ever been able to hide from a cold virus their entire life.

I take it as a positive sign that bodies aren't being bulldozed into mass graves because we're at least three months into this thing and if the survival rate wasn't extremely high that's what would be happening.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Well Nowarezman skirted politics, but the post stays because there aren't any value judgements or boosterism of "one side or the other" involved. They're simply possible predictions.

Thanks, Craig for the consideration. Sorry to have skirted...maybe you kind of know me a bit after posting back and forth for a long time (my other name on the boards was nat whilk). I am a bit scared of the future, I'll admit. Not for myself particularly - my past already represents the vast majority of my life. But I do air my concerns to see what other people think and feel. It's a tough time to know what to think...

nat
I don't agree with the "herd immunity" of getting back to work. Of course there are good arguments for it, namely it won't last as long, and the recession will not be as severe (this really helps the super-rich and hedge fund managers who own 80% of the stock in the USA).

The down side is that the hospitals and medical profession will swamped be way over capacity. Doctors/nurses/etc. will get the disease and/or quit (both have already happened) because of the lack of protective equipment. When the hospitals are full and the ventilators and other supplies are limited, the doctors will have this terrible choice to make --- I will try to save patient A's life and patient B, C, D, and E, "I sentence you to death".

But "flattening the curve" will minimize those problems and many more lives will be saved, including the medical professionals.

The down side of that is a prolonged recession. The upper 5% will take the biggest hit and the poorest of the poor will suffer more than the rest of us.

I don't care what the death rate is, if it happens to me or my wife it's 100%.

As Craig pointed out, time is the real currency of our lives. I will not take a chance of shortening my life to keep the rich in their gilded mansions.

Fortunately, Leilani and I have done what almost no government has done, we live below our means. The mortgage is paid of, the only debt I have is minimal car payments and we have a buffer savings account. We don't buy things on credit that we can't afford - period. That includes saxophones and guitars smile

I've lost all my work from St Pat's day through mid October, and I don't know if they are going to be cancelled or not. I had half a dozen cancel before St.Pat's as well February, March, and April are our big money months, where we make half our annual income. At least 7 months unemployment.

I'm not eager to get back to work. I'll continue to self-isolate. I happen to really love being alive, and my self-preservation instincts are in the alert mode right now.

A recession may make life hard, but death makes it impossible.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I don't care what the death rate is, if it happens to me or my wife it's 100%.
Yes. The priority should be to minimize the number of people getting it. The second to make sure adequate care is available for those who do,

Quote
As Craig pointed out, time is the real currency of our lives. I will not take a chance of shortening my life to keep the rich in their gilded mansions.
Well, I understand what you're saying, but that's a sweeping generalization and does sound political. The people that I'm seeing get hurt the most are small business owners and hourly wage earners. They are the backbone of this economy, because the USA is a consumer-driven country.

I hesitate to tar any group of people with the same brush. Rich people who do good are like Auto-Tune - when used intelligently, you don't know it's being used. I've seen several rich people up close and personal. If they're well-known, everybody wants something from them. I've known a few who were extremely generous, but they never let it be known because they didn't want to be hit up all the time. I've also known some who managed to avoid the limelight altogether. Some of them inherited money, or came into money as a one-time thing, like from selling a company or licensing. They didn't live a life any different than you or me, and to all outward appearances, were middle class in terms of house, car, etc. (e.g., VW Passat instead of Porsche). They used their wealth to fund start up companies, give to foundations, contribute to charities with which they were aligned, etc. They thought that was a good use of money.

In any group of people you're going to find David Geffens but you'll also find others behind the scenes, who realize that the more money they have, the more they do to create change.
It's all statistics until someone you know or a family member becomes infected.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I was watching a series of travel videos by a guy on YouTube, who had been to almost every country in the world. He was coming to the conclusion that generally, happiness was NOT proportional to wealth, and that some of the poorest societies were also the happiest. Apparently human interaction, community, cooking, and the arts brought people far more happiness than BMWs, yachts, and mansions.
<snip>
Do I want a fancy car? No, it costs more, the insurance is more, repairs are more, registration is more. How about a fancy house? The mortgage is more, maintenance is more, property taxes are more, and either you have to spend more time taking care of it (which you can't, because you have to make the money to maintain it) or pay someone else to do it.

Do I need a gym membership? Walking is free, and I get to say hi to the neighbors, or take a walk with a friend. There are plenty of swimmable lakes around here for long swims, and the condo has a pool.

Do I need a giant curved-screen TV? There's not enough worth watching to justify it, and if there's a really spectacular movie, I'll go to the iMax theater and be in a place where other humanoid bipeds are cheering, laughing, having tears well up, and getting emotionally involved.

What about eating out? Frankly, you can make healthier food at home...which you can do if you have time, rather than spending that time making enough money to eat out.

I'm building back my pre-Gibson career, slowly but surely. I expect I won't be broke much longer, and my income will ramp up. BUT I am not going to make ramping up income the goal. That will simply be a by-product of my learning to spend time more wisely, on things I love to do, that don't make as much money but are a helluva lot more fun.

Maybe this will happen to more people when we return to "normal," whatever that is.

Awesome, insightful post. The whole thing is a great post, although I've shortened it here. As many of you know, I've been sort of living like this my whole life. I've never owned a new car, rarely have owned a new computer (I am still running Pro Tools on a Mac Pro 1,1 because it works great still), never bought a giant house so that it would be easy to make mortgage payments, and buy most of my camera equipment used. Used furniture, used whatever. Doesn't matter. Don't eat out much, and when I do, I make it count by eating something fantastic, not a bunch of garbage.

The whole point is not of frugality, but to this to create additional time and experiences (and for most of us, creating art), creating new opportunities and trips and time with friends and family.
Getting back to the future...

I do think this will impact the way companies structure their businesses with white-collar workers. Think of all the pollution and waste that goes into people commuting in cars every day. Some companies are afraid of telecommuting, because they think employees will goof off. However, most music magazines I deal with now have most, if not all, of the editorial staff working from their homes. Originally this was done as a cost-cutting measure, but it turns out when they're at home, they have their studios nearby. This is great for reviews.

Also, creativity and office hours don't necessarily go together ("turn your creativity switch on at 9 AM, and turn it off at 5 PM"). A lot of my best ideas come when taking walks. The companies to whom I consult benefit a lot from my working at home. Working when the creative juices are flowing gets more done, in less time. Since I bill by the hour, I cost less as a result.

Of course there are some situations where people need to work in a centralized location, but do they really need to be there all the time? The five-day work week is a fairly recent development. Ford introduced it because there was more automation coming into their factories, and the company decided that giving people an extra day off would increase productivity and help the economy, because people would have more free time to spend on going to movies, go shopping for clothes, or whatever. The five-day work week stuck because it didn't impact the company's bottom line at all. Some would argue it improved the bottom line. There's also no reason not to have flex time. Gibson didn't mind that I usually came in around 10 instead of 9, because I stayed until 6 or 7. That last hour or two when people weren't around was tremendously helpful in terms of getting projects done without interruptions. The bottom line was that I was more productive with that schedule, and companies aren't going to complain if you do something that ends up making you more productive.

With increasing automation, expect to see four-day work weeks become the norm. Some companies have experimented with the idea. The most recent study was from a company in New Zealand. Bottom line was productivity didn't increase, but it didn't drop, either. Also, during busy periods, some employees had to do five days to get things done. But overall, the results were that people who were able to manage their lives better were happier and better employees.

Just-in-time inventory control prevents companies from tying up capital in things sitting on a shelf, but as soon as anything happens to the supply lines, JIT is a liability. "Inventory" might not be such a dirty word when this whole thing is over.

The Gig Economy is here, and it's real. However workers are in a precarious position, and generally have few or no benefits. I could easily see something like a re-invention of the union for gig economy people, where everyone contributes to a pool in return for benefits like health insurance, and where there are negotiations for working conditions. Some gig economy employers are good about this, some drive their people mercilessly. There needs to be a balance.

I guess what I'm saying is that a societal event with the magnitude of the corona virus will force people to re-examine their lives. When Aunt Joan dies in a hospital, how many people are going to wish they would have had more time to spend with Aunt Joan? With reduced income, how many people will find that living within their means is far better than living beyond their means? I think that when the dust settles and the last ventilator is turned off, there will be far-reaching changes. We'll see.
There may also be an uptick in people's general concern for their health. There can be a downside medically to being on a respirator, even after recovery. We may a lot of people with a fresh appreciation that their life was saved, but also sobered by a new fragility that they cannot undo. I do hope that you are right Craig, and that we see a lot more people doing the calculation on what is truly important and what that means. I am in white collar America, and I know many who are thrilled with the time back from soul-less commutes, and the joy of having dinner every night with the people they love. I've worked out of my home for 25 years and occasionally an office and productivity is the least of the concerns. Silicon Valley is adjusting well. It is a small sample, and one that is generally well suited to WFH, but most companies still have most employees report to an office everyday. It is really sales that has been long-term WFH, as a matter of course. Companies figured out that it didn't make sense to desk sales forces that call on customers way back in 2000.

But for our young business development people (age 23-27), they really miss the office. They are generally outgoing people, and often live alone, renting a room, or with roommates. They prefer to work in the office by a big margin. Our engineers? They are probably thrilled if they can get the quiet and isolation they need.

That last bit is an most important bit - do you have a space that you can have as focus space, and not have work taking up your kitchen, or bedroom. We've always picked a place to live that had an extra room, converted a garage - something to make sure that exists. But that is not easy for everyone, yet makes working from home far more pleasant.
Yeah, I've worked at home for about 25 years. I built out a little space in the garage to get the business stuff out of the regular living areas. It may only be 20 steps from my small office through the kitchen door and into the living room, but it can feel like "oh, man, great to be in here for a bit". A change of pace and environment can happen even in the confines of a small house.

The big TV location is a crucial thing. If your arrangement is open where the dining, kitchen, and some sort of family/living/den room is all open, the TV dominates 3/4 of the entire living space in terms of noise and limitations to other activities. Can be a real source of major irritation. A pair of headphones might just save a marriage smile

nat
An 'Open for Business' scenario, and steps towards, easing travel restrictions in the 'clean' states...in an effort to kick up economy is likely to backfire – Big Time.

The inevitable is these cleaner states will start to have increasing levels of cases, and then limited medical products and supplies now being needed by a smaller number of states with high numbers of cases, will now be diverted from states where their situation is currently 'on fire'. The National economy may not really restart, and more shovelfuls of $$$ may be needed to tossed to the populace.

Right now there has finally been a scramble to try to get ventilators, etc., into production. Big names like GM are being thrown around, however, these fairly high tech products that they have not made before, have to be designed, engineering, put into some sort of production line, quality tested
.... in 3-5 weeks ??? ...Huh!!!

It's like someone saying...hey, just bought one of those neat new private jets. It's new stuff. They are able to design, and put these together in a couple of months....wanna go for a ride ???

The return to employment of Musicians, artists will be a slow climb. First their employer's...clubs, bars, restaurants,venues will need to open and find people to 'buy their products', to get some cash flow before 'filling the stage'. People in generally would have to financially recover past the basics, to the point where they have expendable cash.

And, ultimately the check comes due. All the federal and state expenses being 'fired' at the economy will need to be 'covered'. It may be that one of the only ways to cover that is to claw back parts of the 2017 tax cut that mostly benefited the large corporations, and the highest income folks. Is higher tax rates really that bad?
I don't know. But looking back to the late 50's and into the 70's, tax rates were as high as 90% at the top, sliding down lower over the years.

In those times (of higher taxes), there was a 'chicken in every pot', the government funded the Eisenhower (Interstate) highway system, cold war defense systems, middle class folks were able to buy homes, save, pay a reasonable amount for college educations, etc.
....and, as for musicians, there were lots of gigs...in the mid '60's I was in a trio..Blue Satin Tuxes...lots of work

Found this link that shows Federal tax rates all the way back to 1862 – Wow !!
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

More on the positive side. For those that might not have seen this; how 'gig' Musicians can apply for unemployment, and also listing a large variety of Grants that are being made

Billboards Resource listing for Musicians and Gig Workers:
https://www.billboard.com/articles/...-resource-guide-music-professionals-help
Originally Posted by Nathanael_I
That last bit is an most important bit - do you have a space that you can have as focus space, and not have work taking up your kitchen, or bedroom. We've always picked a place to live that had an extra room, converted a garage - something to make sure that exists. But that is not easy for everyone, yet makes working from home far more pleasant.

If you're self-employed and file a Schedule C, a dedicated place for business - and only business - is essential to claim a deduction for a home office. Generally it's based on a percentage of square footage for the house, with that percentage of your rent or mortgage being pre-tax deductible.
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
Yeah, I've worked at home for about 25 years. I built out a little space in the garage to get the business stuff out of the regular living areas. It may only be 20 steps from my small office through the kitchen door and into the living room, but it can feel like "oh, man, great to be in here for a bit". A change of pace and environment can happen even in the confines of a small house.

After I retired from a government career (lastly with the FAA), I worked a few years as a very part time contractor to the FAA, on the same projects I was working on when I was with the G'u'mm'nt. Most of what I was doing for them (as a contractor) was reading and writing, and occasionally going to meetings or on field trips with the contractor who was building the stuff for the FAA. I tried sprawling out on the living room couch when doing things like reviewing test procedures and results, but I kept getting distracted. I excavated a little space in the studio control room (there was already a comfortable desk with a computer there) and that's where I "went to work." It really helped my concentration when I went to a little used part of the house to work, and I could walk away when I was done or wanted to take a break.

Today I loaf all the time, so it doesn't matter where I do it.


Quote
The big TV location is a crucial thing. If your arrangement is open where the dining, kitchen, and some sort of family/living/den room is all open, the TV dominates 3/4 of the entire living space in terms of noise and limitations to other activities.

My house is from the 1950s and has real rooms - not all with doors, but with enough walls so you can tell if you're in the living room, dining room, family room, or kitchen. I was looking for a new home in southern California for a while, and was turned off by the newer homes there (I didn't want another 60 year old house) that didn't have enough walls. I don't have a big TV, but the one I have is in the living room, opposite the couch, between the "listening" stereo speakers. Makes sense to me.
Mike, I have one of those sorts of houses too. It's a tiny thing, though, under 1000 sq. feet. But the rooms are discrete rooms.

On the other hand, our back yard is a decent size.
We have a 900 square foot cottage built in 1950. It has 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. One of the bedrooms is my office.

I don't worry about the TV, as we unhooked the cable and took down the antenna mast in 1990. I live in a fringe area so there is zero reception (I never even bought a digital converter). Actually I quit watching when I worked on cruise ships from 86 to 89.

After this is over, I'm going to patronize local businesses as much as I can.

For the small businesses that hire us regularly, I'll gig for free until their business picks back up. They've been good to me through the years, I'll have the time, so it seems the right thing to do. I've had a house gig in a restaurant, one day a week for 12 years running. They are like family to me.

Notes
Originally Posted by Anderton
I think that when the dust settles and the last ventilator is turned off, there will be far-reaching changes. We'll see.

I hope so.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I don't worry about the TV, as we unhooked the cable and took down the antenna mast in 1990.

Aha! So that's why you write intelligently.

Quote
For the small businesses that hire us regularly, I'll gig for free until their business picks back up. They've been good to me through the years, I'll have the time, so it seems the right thing to do. I've had a house gig in a restaurant, one day a week for 12 years running. They are like family to me.

I get where you're coming from. One of the magazines I write for had to cut way back, so I offered to write my column for free.
Originally Posted by Anderton
<...snip...>
I get where you're coming from. One of the magazines I write for had to cut way back, so I offered to write my column for free.

It's wise to help the hand that feeds you when they need the help.

--- on the original "Now What?" question ---

Here is a thought. IF (and that's a big IF) the people who recover from COVID have been shown to have an immunity from re-infection AND not pass the disease on, perhaps they should be the first to go back to work.

Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Here is a thought. IF (and that's a big IF) the people who recover from COVID have been shown to have an immunity from re-infection AND not pass the disease on, perhaps they should be the first to go back to work.
There would be major benefits to having a disease-free workforce. Presumably, some will be able to do what they did before, but it would also free up a lot of gig economy people to be the ones who go buy food and such for those who are still confined. It would really help with the whole social distancing thing.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bu...hange-us-after-the-COVID-19-15174489.php

Quote
The coronavirus pandemic is already considered the story of this generation, and it will have lasting impact. Many of those changes involve connected technology. I’m going to focus on three areas — work, education and entertainment — that I think will be changed significantly by the pandemic.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Here is a thought. IF (and that's a big IF) the people who recover from COVID have been shown to have an immunity from re-infection AND not pass the disease on, perhaps they should be the first to go back to work.

Notes

A lot of people, myself included, have never stopped going to work because it simply has to be done. Short of dying or becoming infected I'll continue to put on my big boy pants and do that.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
A lot of people, myself included, have never stopped going to work because it simply has to be done. Short of dying or becoming infected I'll continue to put on my big boy pants and do that.

The added Italics were mine, because Greg makes a crucial point: if you get infected, you don't want to infect other people. I visited China during the SARS epidemic, and as soon as I stepped off the plane, they checked me for an elevated temperature. I wasn't travelling to an area that was a hot spot, and I was coming from the US, where outbreaks were minimal. Still, they were checking everyone.

But this also brings up an important point about the importance of having tests available. People need to know whether or not they have Covid-19, so they don't expose other people. For example, truckers need to know they're not being exposed to people working at truck stops. If all the truckers stop going to work, "eating" will consist of fishing, hunting, and finding out what vegetation in your area is edible.
True. All the people who are still working and putting themselves at risk are today's heroes and heroines.

Please let me express a big "Thank you" and heartfelt wishes that you do not contact this plague.

They should all get high priority for COVID tests and protective gear. And it's not only truckers, it's farmers, food processing plants, sanitation workers, grocery store personnel, and anyone else in an essential business.

Perhaps being unemployed makes me one of the lucky ones.

Notes
Originally Posted by Anderton
What can we do now that ensures when this is all over, we're in a better, not worse, place?


Teach people that when they see people in Asian countries wearing a mask, it's not to protect THEM but to help prevent the spread to OTHERS.

Why the Surgeon General, CDC and WHO was advising against it until yesterday is...baffling, but as a person that received multiple comments for wearing a mask at the grocery store the last time I was there a few weeks ago, I've got to say...


WEAR A MASK

in public.


The amount of people that clearly don't understand based on what I see on Facebook and Twitter is astounding. It would have made such a big difference if the government had simply said "wear a mask, or fashion one out of a shirt/hankerchief/whatever if you go out around people" back in February.
Originally Posted by Chip McDonald
Why the Surgeon General, CDC and WHO was advising against it until yesterday is...baffling,.

The Surgeon General and CDC listened to the WHO regarding masks. Based on who is in charge at the WHO, that might not have been a good idea.
Hopefully people are seeing this.....
https://www.theblaze.com/news/la-do...8wradZhKAit38uISYHCuxC9H-eJGusVFikfP8hSM
I'm very skeptical of miracle cures. My wife died from cancer and many of the "out of the box" treatments appeared promising at first, but ultimately, some were useless and it was very likely that one of them was what killed her, not the cancer.

From a practical standpoint, people need to realize doctors are not in control of this, lawyers are. If people start dying after being administered a particular drug, there could be lawsuit after lawsuit that would drag out in the courts for years. I think it would be hard to lose such a lawsuit, if inadequate or sloppy testing was proven to have happened.

Doctors are put in a very difficult position, for a variety of reasons. Also doctors are not above wanting publicity.
Update...apparently doctors are prescribing hydroxychloroquine, because it's legal for some illnesses and can be prescribed off-label based on a doctor's judgement. So the current positioning makes sense - the government says more testing is needed, so pharmaceutical companies are off the hook ("sorry you died of heart complications, but the government told you not to, so that's on you"). Meanwhile, spontaneous "under-the-radar tests" can help determine the efficacy, although the jury is out (and will be out for a while).
Don't get me wrong, I love doctors, but they don't all seem to understand the scientific method nor double-blind studies. I've seen too many times where a doctor will say something like, "my patients seem to respond to…" or other such anecdotal "evidence." I'm not saying they're wrong, lots of science came from investigating reports like that, but it's not enough to say that it's a scientifically proven fact.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/hydroxychloroquine-trump/609547/

Quote
Two weeks ago, French doctors published a provocative observation in a microbiology journal. In the absence of a known treatment for COVID-19, the doctors had taken to experimentation with a potent drug known as hydroxychloroquine. For decades, the drug has been used to treat malaria—which is caused by a parasite, not a virus. In six patients with COVID-19, the doctors combined hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (known to many as “Z-Pak,” an antibiotic that kills bacteria, not viruses) and reported that after six days of this regimen, all six people tested negative for the virus.

The report caught the eye of the celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, who has since appeared on Fox News to talk about hydroxychloroquine 21 times. As Oz put it to Sean Hannity, “This French doctor, [Didier] Raoult, a very famous infectious-disease specialist, had done some interesting work at a pilot study showing that he could get rid of the virus in six days in 100 percent of the patients he treated.” Raoult has made news in recent years as a pan-disciplinary provocateur; he has questioned climate change and Darwinian evolution. On January 21, at the height of the coronavirus outbreak in China, Raoult said in a YouTube video, “The fact that people have died of coronavirus in China, you know, I don’t feel very concerned.” Last week, Oz, who has been advising the president on the coronavirus, described Raoult to Hannity as “very impressive.” Oz told Hannity that he had informed the White House as much.

Anthony Fauci is not among the impressed. The day the study came out, Fauci, the leading infectious-disease expert advising the White House’s coronavirus task force, downplayed the findings as “anecdotal.” The report was not a randomized clinical trial—one in which many people are followed to see how their health fares, not simply whether a virus is detectable. And Oz’s “100 percent” interpretation involves conspicuous omissions. According to the study itself, three other patients who received hydroxychloroquine were too sick to be tested for the virus by day six (they were intubated in the ICU). Another had a bad reaction to the drug and stopped taking it. Another was not tested because, by day six, he had died.
The problem is, double-blind studies on humans when lives could be lost are completely unethical. Virtually no doctor will want to say, either the folks in group A or B will be cured and the unlucky group will die.

Neither will they want to say, "we don't have enough ventilators and other supplies, I chose you to be treated and sentence you to death." It's not what they are trained to do.

I hope the governments of the world learn a lesson to put lives in front of personal profit and politics, but history tells me that's not likely.

I figure, the world will recover, some positive changes will be made, and in time, those with the most profits to be made will slowly erode them.

It's not the first plague, nor will it be the last.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
The problem is, double-blind studies on humans when lives could be lost are completely unethical. Virtually no doctor will want to say, either the folks in group A or B will be cured and the unlucky group will die.

Neither will they want to say, "we don't have enough ventilators and other supplies, I chose you to be treated and sentence you to death." It's not what they are trained to do.
My wife works for the top cancer treatment center in the country. They do clinical trials of new cancer drugs all the time. The patients are offered to be part of the appropriate trials, and they know they might get a placebo. It's the only way they can be sure the stuff works vs. the placebo effect.

Besides, there's another flaw in your statement. Giving a patient a drug when you don't know if it will help might be letting them die as well. In fact, some of these drugs might have terrible side effects, including death. IOW, if the disease is deadly and the drug doesn't work, people from both groups could have the same chance of dying, or those taking the drug might have a higher one.

If the patients (or their families) are told of the risks of participating in the study and are allowed to make the decision whether to be a part of it or not, that's completely ethical. It's only unethical when they are not informed, don't have a choice, are experimented on without their consent.

Of course all doctors want to save lives. They don't want to do any harm (the Hippocratic Oath), but unfortunately this damned thing has forced some of them to make incredibly tough decisions.
Thanks for the enlightenment Joe
Some random thoughts on what might be different on other side, provoked a few comments in the financial press.

Capital will be in short supply and taxes higher for many years to get deficits back under control.

So the death of tech start ups that have always lost money and rely on constant capital injections to survive, like Uber. At the end of the day the it is just an app so easily replicated and replaced by smaller ride share co ops or similar with the app developer getting paid per download or as a subscription service.

Read somewhere that after past pandemics the pendalum swings to placing a higher value on labour compared to capital. So wage compression with the top end getting a lower multiple of what the average worker gets. Already happening here with a raft of newly appointed bank CEO's getting less than their predecessors.

Reading recently about Rimac, a Croation start up producing EV tech for exotic hyper cars and now Porsche and Hyundai. The founder said that he gets three times the average pay of his employees while in the US it is 287 times the pay of the average worker in the company they run.

A lot more folk working from home more often. Which requires employers to have greater trust in their workforce. And you don't have trust without respect.

Here banks are being forced to give those affected by the pandemic mortgage payment holidays, lower interest rates, foreclosure is banned and landords cannot evict tenants. Banks have been told to suspend dividend payments. Insurers have voluntarily waived pandemic exclusions. So capital is being forced to bend to social needs. Part of this readjustment may be become the norm on the other side.

Low interest rates for a long time to come.

The extent of this type of change will vary be country and be influenced by the collective mores. Obviously I am influenced by my local environment but to a greater or lesser extent some or all will occur globally.
Concerning the debate about Chloroquine, I just saw an interview yesterday with a doctor who is another infectious disease specialist who says the idea that you cannot use drugs that have not gone though human trials is basically bogus. He rattled off several drugs that never went through these sorts of trials. His opinion is Chloroquine is effective. Many other doctors have said the same thing and he thinks Faucci is being too conservative about this. And, it's only being given to the worst patients, the ones who are on ventilators already and declining. It can't be used on everybody yet anyway because that drug has been used for years for Lupus and other serious illnesses not just malaria. We cannot take that drug away from other patients who've already been using it for these other things. And that's another reason to not worry too much about side effects and such, this is not a new drug it's very well known. Like any other drug, your doctor will decide if it's appropriate for you or not.

Also the reason individual doctors have so much authority about stuff like this is because they're on the front lines. Years ago, I had read a fairly detailed article about a situation I had at the time and that article referenced a study about it that worried me. I called my doctor about it and he took down the exact information and called me back a week later to say he researched that study and didn't like their methodology, he said it was incomplete and a little sloppy. That was my first real life experience you can't believe everything you read concerning medicine. It's like my doctor at the VA two years ago didn't like the results a local clinic had produced that had been contracted by the VA. His comment was similar, their report was incomplete and sloppy in his opinion so he had me come into the VA's West LA facility to have it done again and the results were much better.

The medical field is very complex like so many things in our modern world, you can't just make blanket statements like the drug companies only care about profits or you only believe one doctor because he happens to be up there in news conferences next to the President. Faucci has a great reputation but even at his high level there are many different opinions from other esteemed doctors at his same level. We all just have to read and digest these things for ourselves, listen to our personal doctors, get second opinions and make our own decisions.

Bob
I can't help but notice that the discussion here is more informed and balanced, exhibits more sensitivity, and considers more points of view that anything I'm seeing in the media. No wonder I like to hang out here.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I can't help but notice that the discussion here is more informed and balanced, exhibits more sensitivity, and considers more points of view that anything I'm seeing in the media. No wonder I like to hang out here.

Agreed. I attempted to participate in another forum discussing this topic and it keeps going off the rails while the moderators there take a more or less "hands off" approach. I've left that thread to suffer and die on it's own.

Since we are now discussing the possibilities of the future of the world and our country, I will bring up something that may seem off topic but I feel is relevant.

There is a HUGE change coming in terms of how labor is performed. It's been right in front of us for some time but CV_19 may accelerate the changes for one significant reason. Machinery does not get sick, that is how this stays on topic.

Robots are coming, lots of robots. China is way ahead of us there, despite what would be considered relatively low labor costs the Chinese are replacing workers with robots where and when possible.
It will happen here, just a matter of time. Nvidia has robots in R&D that are learning how to do things by watching humans do them, AI enabled. No lengthy coding needed to mandate procedures. Eventually, robots will "train" other robots in the same fashion.
I worked a temp job as a printer a few years ago and they already had a robotic system in place for producing finished boxes for their products. The cardboard was already die cut, the robot place the cardboard, glued all labels on in one operation and folded the box as need in the next. I ran that robot a couple of times, it could produce lots of boxes, did not get a paycheck or call out sick.

The other big piece of the puzzle? 3d printing. Recent developments have increased production speeds.

Manufacturing may move back to the USA to save on shipping but they will eventually have robots running 3d printers instead of humans.
It will engender HUGE changes in life around the world. How we adjust a "consumer based" economy when consumers have reduced or non-existent income paths is going to be an interesting challenge.

So I am glad that I am old!!! I'd hate to be in the "workforce" 10 years from now. Cheers, Kuru
I can't find the article right now, so I'll do my best off the top of my head to recall and explain to the best of my ability what I read. It started by stating that Ventilators are the wrong treatment for Covid-19 and may be partially to blame for some of the lung damage because they put pressure on the lungs where what is needed is pure oxygen at low pressure, and ultimately the underlying problem isn't even a lung issue. It also explains why Chloroquine may be effective.

The article stated that the virus attacks the Hemoglobin. There is an Iron Ion attached to the Hemoglobin that allows it to pick up an Oxygen molecule when it passes through your lungs. The virus attaches to the Hemoglobin and it loses that Iron Ion so that it can no longer pick up Oxygen and your oxygen saturation drops. This causes all kinds of problems, along with the now free Ions in the blood stream, and effects your vital organs. Your body has to make new hemoglobin and remove the bad stuff.

Malaria is not a virus, but it feeds on hemoglobin. The theory is that in the same way chloroquine protects the hemoglobin from malaria, it also prevents the virus from attaching.

Of course I haven't seen this widely reported over verified by anybody, so take it for what it is worth - one person's educated opinion.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I can't help but notice that the discussion here is more informed and balanced, exhibits more sensitivity, and considers more points of view that anything I'm seeing in the media. No wonder I like to hang out here.
The media has no interest in balance, they always have an agenda. Case in point, one media source recently suggested (and that was their headline) that the drug was promoted by a certain person very high in the government (guess who) because they had a financial interest in the drug. Buried in the story was the fact that the holdings are somewhere between $100 and $1500. That's right...at the very most a measly $1500.

Since the virus has arrived my trust in the media is eroded even further (something I never thought possible) and in addition I no longer use Facebook. I used to use it to promote my bands but since we're not gigging there's no point going on there only to see people post misleading or outright false media stories all day long.
I nuked facebook when I found out that they were using each person's likes/dislikes, robotic reading of each person's posts for key words, tallying up the data from all the games and quizzes each person plays and deciding their political bias. If they were strong liberal or conservative they were left alone but if they seemed to be sitting on the fence they put a barrage of fraudulent "news" in their inbox in order to rig a US Presidential election. I don't call it "Fake News" with the intention is clearly fraud. Fake seems to minimize the seriousness of the crime.

Now I don't care if they were rigging it for the candidate I liked or the candidate I disliked, using fraud to manipulate a US election is against my principles. I decided that if I continued to let them profit off my data it would make me an accessory to the crime. These are not my values and it's against my personal ethics. As a patriot I find it repulsive.

So I researched how to delete my data before nuking my account, and did so.

Now I know I'm missing promotional opportunities for my duo http://www.s-cats.com but I have to live with my conscience.

As far as news is concerned, almost all news is biased. Sadly during the Reagan administration they nuked the Fairness Doctrine that required news programs to air both sides of an argument and to clearly label anything editorial as editorial and not news. This led to the propagandization of the 4th estate.

Knowing news is biased, I use this chart from Politifact, a Pulitizer Prize winning fact checking organization. They show no political bias. Anything to the left of The Atlantic or the right of The Hill in the chart I consider propaganda and not news. For example Fox gets an 8% pure truth rating and 60% from Mostly False to Pants On Fire. MSNBC is slightly better with 9% pure truth and 46% from Mostly False to Pants On Fire.

Even between The Atlantic and The Hill I don't expect 100% truth, but it's the best I can do. I compare different sources and take everything with the proverbial grain of salt.

[Linked Image from nortonmusic.com]

A person who ignores the news is uninformed, and a person who watches and/or reads the news is misinformed. (Paraphrased from a Mark Twain quote.)

To get back on topic, what next?

I do hope live music which was already in trouble before the plague doesn't get any worse. It's how I make my living.

Insights and incites by Notes
I wanted to follow up on my previous post. Some medical professionals are discounting some of what I had said about the hemoglobin. May be fake news - felt it my responsibility to report that. HOWEVER there is still increasing medical professionals questioning the use of ventilators and acknowledging the damage they do. Also, increasing data on Hydrochloroquine coupled with some antibiotics and zinc. I'll leave it at that. Research research research. You can find a variety of opinions that are in opposition but all from reputable medical professionals. Anyone with an agenda can hand select whichever ones they want.
Also be careful of those memes that claim which news sources are trustworthy. I have a FB friend that uses that one all the time but is very obviously on one side of the spectrum politically. It doesn't tell the whole story in account. It doesn't separate hard news shows from editorial shows. It doesn't differentiate fact checking on political pieces from others. Also it is based on the bias of the person who created it. Don't let ANYBODY (including ME) tell you who to trust. Do your due diligence checking multiple sources and make up your own mind using common sense and intellect. I trust you to come to the right conclusion given all the information (even if we disagree - we have different philosophies and that's a GOOD thing).
Norton...that chart is a complete joke. It has NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and WashPo right in the middle.
Originally Posted by J. Dead
Also be careful of those memes that claim which news sources are trustworthy. I have a FB friend that uses that one all the time but is very obviously on one side of the spectrum politically. It doesn't tell the whole story in account. It doesn't separate hard news shows from editorial shows. It doesn't differentiate fact checking on political pieces from others. Also it is based on the bias of the person who created it. Don't let ANYBODY (including ME) tell you who to trust. Do your due diligence checking multiple sources and make up your own mind using common sense and intellect. I trust you to come to the right conclusion given all the information (even if we disagree - we have different philosophies and that's a GOOD thing).

Another great post. If I'm ever in St. Louis again, I'm looking you up...

Especially if you're gigging smile

I don't trust any media, and not necessarily because they have obvious agendas. People hunger for binary results - this one "good," this one "bad." Matters are far more nuanced than that, and the law of unintended consequences reigns supreme. Newscasts seldom plumb those kinds of depths.

The choice is rarely between which option is the best of all possible worlds. It's like television, where the shows that survive are LOP - "least objectionable programming" (they really call it that, I didn't make it up). There are often no good answers, only less objectionable ones. The only way we can be sure we arrive at the right answers is to be able to predict the future...and that ain't happening.

As a consultant, companies often want answers. Instead, I usually have to present them with choices: If A, then X. If B, then Y. If C, then Z. That's often not what they want to hear, but the reality is they'll have to choose among X, Y, and Z, because those are the options.

One thing I learned about cancer with my dead wife is that some alternative therapies DO work - for some people, but not for others .There's no "one size fits all" that I've been able to identify. It wouldn't surprise me if corona virus is the same way. With cancer, it becomes a race - can you find the answer faster than the cancer can kill you? We might be in the same situation with the virus.

Or maybe not.

Or maybe so.

And we may be in the same situation about how soon we can put this behind us...
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Norton...that chart is a complete joke. It has NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and WashPo right in the middle.


Part of my point, they are politically biased, but pretty accurate on non-political. Then look at somebody like NPR who does a LOT of non-political stories so they score high. If you look at non-political hard news on CNN and NPR they are very accurate. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Same with Fox. People like Hannity and Tucker Carlson are for sure biased and would make the channel seem hard right, but the hard news segments are pretty fair, just like the hard news segments on other outlets. People have lost their ability to differentiate hard news from editorial or news analysis.
Originally Posted by J. Dead
People have lost their ability to differentiate hard news from editorial or news analysis.

Please stop posting faster than I can give you props smile
I will mention that I also recently left Fakebook.
There are reasons it is convenient and reasons why it is the worst possible human sewer.
I'd unfollowed just about everybody who posted. You do have to google how to delete Fakebook, they would prefer you simply deactivate it.
Don't like 'em and that's that.

To get any sort of larger picture, we must also consider news sources from other countries, as many as possible. The perspective can be useful.
It should never be forgotten that news in the United States is entirely financed by advertising and the companies who advertise do have agendas.

Choose your poison but don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Not trying to blow smoke up your ass, but the compliments have me a little giddy given that I have your books and have used your circuits many times over the years, often with my own modifications given that I'm an electrical engineer. But they don't focus a lot on application specific analog electronics that apply to music. I took an advanced analog electronics class that, even though it was only offered every other semester, only had 5 of us in the class. I'm glad we covered OTA's at least, but the guy spent half the damn semester on Tunnel Diodes. In my whole life since I've never come across a tunnel diode.
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
The other big piece of the puzzle? 3d printing. Recent developments have increased production speeds.
3D printers have been repurposed here to make headbands for PPE. Their ability for rapid switch in products manufactured is aleady making a difference.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Norton...that chart is a complete joke. It has NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and WashPo right in the middle.

I wouldn't go that far but I agree that comparing the 4 above media outlets to NPR, Reuters, and Associated Press is innacurate at best
I never said the middle spots were accurate. But the ones to the left and right of them are much worse, and not even believable.

The chart was made with extensive fact checking of the pundits on those outlets. The ones in the middle told the least amount of lies.

Basically, be skeptical of all, but if you are outside the middle groups, just don't believe it at all.

Notes
That Politifact would put out a chart like that reflects poorly on Politifact, IMO. Serving up pre-digested bias and and trying to tell people what to believe when theoretically at least, they should be capable of observing for themselves and making up their own minds. Which media outlets are most often successfully sued for false stories, slander etc.? Which ones most often have to retract their stories, and how transparent are they at doing that? Which ones, over a period of time, are consistently wrong in their predictions? Which ones consistently separate, "quarantine", if you will, their editorializing and commentary from their hard news reporting? It's all so muddled nowadays.
Originally Posted by Markay
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
The other big piece of the puzzle? 3d printing. Recent developments have increased production speeds.
3D printers have been repurposed here to make headbands for PPE. Their ability for rapid switch in products manufactured is aleady making a difference.


Yes, very versatile. Tooling to commit to manufacturing is not required. Print a couple of the proposed item, test those and fix or proceed.
In 2014 I worked for a company that makes interiors for aircraft. I ran a Stratasys 3d printer, it was used to make prototypes for parts. The company was paying about $2k per prototype and waiting 6 weeks to get a couple for testing. They bought the printer and started making them in house. It was slow, often we would set it up, hit the go button at the end of the day and go home since a part could take several hours to print. Still, a 3 day turnaround instead of 6 weeks. Eventually they got FAA approval to use some of the parts we printed. I was gone shortly thereafter but I'd guess it's more than paid for itself a while back.
Originally Posted by J. Dead
People have lost their ability to differentiate hard news from editorial or news analysis.

Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Sadly during the Reagan administration they nuked the Fairness Doctrine that required news programs to air both sides of an argument and to clearly label anything editorial as editorial and not news. This led to the propagandization of the 4th estate.

It's hard to tell when some of these outlets are deliberately hiding the difference from us. frown
I keep asking myself why (I would say most) media are soooo vested in a particular mindset, candidate, etc. What's in it for them?

I think I have the answer...they're not appealing to someone's quest for knowledge, but to someone who wants to belong to a tribe. People want to be on the winning side, so once they decide which side they're on, they'll do anything to justify being on that side - it's wrapped up in their own identity.

With sports teams, when the team is winning people say "we're winning." When the team is losing, people say "they're losing." Ultimately, it has to do with people's insecurities and fear of being "wrong."

But again, it's not that easy to distill situations to "this is definitely good" and "this is definitely bad." There are just too many shades of gray for most people to accommodate. It's like if everyone had different criteria for deciding the winning team. Person A says their baseball team won because it has the most hits. Person B said their team won because they had the least number of strikeouts. Person C said their team won because it had the fewest errors.

To relate this to the OP, the unfortunate aspect of this societal fracturing is that it makes it hard to learn from one's mistakes. It's getting to the point where it seems to me that people are interested in finding fault for fault's sake to reinforce their "team," not in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. An easy example is models. Models are "if-then" constructs, not predictions from psychics. When the "if" changes, the "when" changes. When a model doesn't give accurate results, the correct conclusion is NOT "the people doing the models are idiots." The correct conclusion is models aren't designed to predict the future, but construct "what if" scenarios. Currently, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. Maybe they will when this is all over.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I nuked facebook when I found out that they were using each person's likes/dislikes, robotic reading of each person's posts for key words, tallying up the data from all the games and quizzes each person plays and deciding their political bias.

[Linked Image from nortonmusic.com]

I guess I've done alright then. I look through the lens of what seems accurate, scientific, logical, truthful, all that, often going straight to the source. In the case of the coronavirus, reading the scientific articles and models rather than having journalists interpret them for me. And...well, according to your chart, I must have done well. I have a digital subscription to Washington Post, and on Facebook, I have BBC and Reuters regularly showing up in my Facebook feed, largely because I value those publications, but also because that's what their algorithms seem to suggest for me. Also the Guardian sometimes. They seem reasonably accurate and employ investigative journalism, which I value, so I've read these for a while.

I think most people want to be in their comfort zone. They want affirmation, not information.

That does not interest me.
Bill Gates chimes in on the importance of testing and a direction to focus. His thoughts seem relavant to our discussion.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bill-gates-coronavirus-testing-200344998.html
Now if only he could find a way to make Windows less susceptible to viruses. laugh
Originally Posted by J. Dead
Now if only he could find a way to make Windows less susceptible to viruses. laugh

As always, viruses mutate!

I've had great good fortune with Macs so far - knock on wood.
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
Originally Posted by J. Dead
Now if only he could find a way to make Windows less susceptible to viruses. laugh

As always, viruses mutate!

I've had great good fortune with Macs so far - knock on wood.

Be careful not to get too complacent. Macs remain more secure than Windows for now, but the number of attacks on Macs continues to increase. And if you have an iPhone, it's probably best to disable Find My iPhone.
Originally Posted by Anderton
And if you have an iPhone, it's probably best to disable Find My iPhone.

My iPhome and iPad are company issues and "find my phone" app is REQUIRED. They use mobile device manager to manage our devices and we can't connect to the company network without certain apps and security settings in place.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
Originally Posted by J. Dead
Now if only he could find a way to make Windows less susceptible to viruses. laugh

As always, viruses mutate!

I've had great good fortune with Macs so far - knock on wood.

Be careful not to get too complacent. Macs remain more secure than Windows for now, but the number of attacks on Macs continues to increase. And if you have an iPhone, it's probably best to disable Find My iPhone.


I have Avast Security, free and not the very best but it has caught a few attempts. Isolates the intrusion in a "jail" folder so you can toss it. I've considered upgrading, I agree that there are certainly viruses for Macs.

My phone is a $30 Android phone with Tracfone on it. I pay less than $100 annually, just a basic communcation tool to me. I turned off everything I could, have never had the internet working, connected to WI-FI, bought anything with a card, etc.
They can hack it, they'll get my contact list and 3 or 4 photos. Some boring, mundane text conversations. If I lose it replacement is easy and cheap.

Then I just remove my minutes and data from the phone via the website and use it when I get another $30 phone.
Your advice makes sense, even if my reality might not. Cheers, Kuru
Originally Posted by Anderton
if you have an iPhone, it's probably best to disable Find My iPhone.
Why do you say that, Craig?
How Privacy-Friendly Contact Tracing Can Help Stop the Spread of Covid-19.

This would be awesome.

Quote
Nicky Case, working with security & privacy researcher Carmela Troncoso and epidemiologist Marcel Salathé, came up with this fantastic explanation of how we can use apps to automatically do contact tracing for Covid-19 infections while protecting people’s privacy. The second panel succinctly explains why contact tracing (in conjunction with quick, ubiquitous testing) can have such a huge benefit in a case like this:

A problem with COVID-19: You’re contagious ~2 days before you know you’re infected. But it takes ~3 days to become contagious, so if we quarantine folks exposed to you the day you know you were infected… We stop the spread, by staying one step ahead!
A little too "big brother" for my liking. Also, how do they know if you're already immune or not? If somebody rides the bus and ends up positive, are you going to quarantine everybody that was on that bus for 2 weeks whether they got it or not? Personally, I think one of the most positive things coming is the test to identify if you have the antibodies or not, for 3 reasons:
1) You can get the "all clear" to go about your business
2) You can donate plasma to help others recover
3) If you don't, you can take greater precautions to avoid it
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
Originally Posted by Anderton
if you have an iPhone, it's probably best to disable Find My iPhone.
Why do you say that, Craig?

It's mostly about avoiding randomware, not viruses, as mentioned in this article as well as this older article. However, Find My iPhone lets you lock or erase your phone, so the security from that probably outweighs the vulnerability to ransomware.

However there are several ways to make your phone more secure, even if Find My iPhone is enabled, Both articles mention tips along those lines. But there have also been a lot of updates to iOS since 2017, when the most recent of those articles was written. If an Apple fans know whether these issues were addressed in subsequent updates, it would be good to know. I checked Apple's web site, but couldn't find any reference to fixes involving iCloud/iPhone security.

At one point, the iPhone had way more vulnerabilities than Android. But Apple pretty much fixed them all with iOS 7, while Androids continue to be exploited. iPhone is definitely more secure than Android, but of course, nothing's perfeckt.
Thanks, Craig! I don't know if that's still an issue. I'll report back if I find anything.

As far as my post about the contact tracing, Apple and Google are doing it. To your point, Dan, this isn't making anyone quarantine. It simply tells you that you've been in contact with someone who was diagnosed. If you're immune and don't care, don't opt-in. Also, this doesn't eliminate the antibody testing we need, the need for a vaccine, nor more testing to find who has it. It's another tool, and the concept seems to have worked well in other countries (yes, they apparently forced their citizens to do this, which isn't the case here).
To get back to Craig's original point of this thread. You nailed it Craig when you talked about your clients wanting solid answers and but you can give them are choices based on certain parameters. My background way back in a previous life was an intel analyst. In intel when dealing with a determined and intelligent adversary you never have certainty either. You compile things from multiple sources, some with a high degree of reliability and some not. I used to have access to something called the Intelligence Reference Library with publication that looked exactly like Time, Newsweek except they had names like DIA Journal or whatever and had Top Secret stamped across the top. Everything was edcucated guesswork and I never knew the whole story because of compartmentalization. It's similar to what's going on now. Here's what I see right now.

There are some new stories that are very interesting that show that this thing may not be as bad as first thought. By not as bad I do not mean good, it's nothing to worry about or anything like that. It's still serious and we all still have be careful. One of those stories is about poop testing and another is about wastewater testing. In both cases the virus can be easily identified and measured. The indications are there was and still are many, many more cases then we ever knew about by a factor as high as 200-300%. This radically lowers the overall fatality rate. Now, just last night I read a story out of Chicago about the antibody test done in the poorer urban areas, mostly African American and Latino two groups who seem to be getting hit harder by this. The antibody test is showing a 30-50% positive result, meaning just like the other two tests this virus has already been there long before we even knew it was there. To me as a person who used to have to come up with probabilities of this or that result this looks very promising. I know when I brought up this point a month ago about the fatality rate being much lower than the current numbers show some said well, there's a good chance that early deaths were not identified correctly as being from COVID 19. I disagree because ER's and hospitals don't usually miss stuff like that. It's well known now that the symptoms are not the same as the flu, initially similar but there are definite differences. Those deaths would have been identified as being from a new virus and possibly COVID 19 once it was known about. Further reading on that subject says that a flu test would have routinely been done. That means the concept that if the death rate is a known number but keep increasing the number of cases the overall death rate goes down is correct. Now I'm seeing some medical opinions saying that the overall rate will wind up being the same as the flu, about .1%.

Next is testing. The great thing about this country is yes, we may have gotten off to a slower start than hindsight says we should have but once we get rolling things happen very fast. Abbot Labs already had 18,000 of those 15 minute kits distributed and all they needed was a fairly simple modification to test for COVID 19. Now they will have another 50,000 out pretty soon. The antibody test is the same, availability is rapidly increasing. Faucci said we have done testing on about 1 in 300 already, he would like it to get to 1 in 100. It looks like we should achieve that fairly soon.

IF all of these indications showing the overall number of cases is way larger than we thought, the antibody testing is showing the same thing and by extension there is considerable "herd immunity" we probably can start opening the country up fairly soon like mid May. No, not next week but new info is coming in literally by the hour so if the trends stay positive we can do that. Unfortunately, just from a psychological point of view if nothing else, the thing we're most interested in as musicians, gigging, will lag considerably behind.

Just my somewhat hopeful opinion.

Bob
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

dB
Beautiful, Sir Dave.
It sounds like something my Lummi brother would say, he is an Elder and wise in the ways of the air, earth, water and sky. It is a blessing to know him.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Personal perspective: There was a run of years where I made a lot of money. I didn't really get to enjoy it, because almost all of it went to taking care of a dying, estranged wife who was sick for over a decade, and paying the mortgage on a house that's now in foreclosure. I'm living in an inexpensive investment condo that my daughter owns. When Gibson fired me along with a zillion other people, my severance was 3 weeks. I drive a 20-year-old used car. My HVAC is over 20 years old, and will need to be replaced soon.

I've never been happier in my entire life.

When my estranged wife died, and I could no longer pay the mortgage on what was supposed to be a dream house and investment for the future, I realized just how little money I actually needed to live. I realized that the universal currency isn't money, it's time - whether you're rich or poor, an hour lasts exactly 60 minutes. It's up to you to decide how to spend those 60 minutes. Some people are much better at spending time than others, and the best time-spenders aren't necessarily the richest folks. That's because a lot of rich people think that money is worth more than time. It isn't..

I never realized that you went through such a rough time. I made crazy money the last 4 years at Chrysler, before I retired 10 years ago ,and many deaths in the family since then, but I hardly had time to travel when I was working. Money will have little to do with our futures, because it will be harder to travel, shop etc. I'm afraid that this level of control won't go away very soon ....if ever.

Dan
Originally Posted by techristian
Originally Posted by Anderton
Personal perspective: There was a run of years where I made a lot of money. I didn't really get to enjoy it, because almost all of it went to taking care of a dying, estranged wife who was sick for over a decade, and paying the mortgage on a house that's now in foreclosure. I'm living in an inexpensive investment condo that my daughter owns. When Gibson fired me along with a zillion other people, my severance was 3 weeks. I drive a 20-year-old used car. My HVAC is over 20 years old, and will need to be replaced soon.

I've never been happier in my entire life.

When my estranged wife died, and I could no longer pay the mortgage on what was supposed to be a dream house and investment for the future, I realized just how little money I actually needed to live. I realized that the universal currency isn't money, it's time - whether you're rich or poor, an hour lasts exactly 60 minutes. It's up to you to decide how to spend those 60 minutes. Some people are much better at spending time than others, and the best time-spenders aren't necessarily the richest folks. That's because a lot of rich people think that money is worth more than time. It isn't..

I never realized that you went through such a rough time. I made crazy money the last 4 years at Chrysler, before I retired 10 years ago ,and many deaths in the family since then, but I hardly had time to travel when I was working. Money will have little to do with our futures, because it will be harder to travel, shop etc. I'm afraid that this level of control won't go away very soon ....if ever.

Dan

Dang, I had no idea either. All I can say is you continue to be an inspiration to me, Mr. Anderton.
Nor I.

I'm glad you're happy now.

Life is short, and happiness is the most precious asset.

Notes
Ever since I've known Craig, one of the things I've admired about him is his perspective on what's important and his general philosophy toward life, creativity, work, and various other things.
Just got back from a special event that could only happen under our present circumstances.

As most of us probably have, I've been blessed to have a "family" of special people in my life.
One of those people - Leroy aka The Turtle Man - turned 90 today. He has been coming to our shows with his wife Anne for a few years.
If we play Bad Bad Leroy Brown he will get up and dance.

Today a significant group of my family met in a nearby parking lot and then had a drive-by birthday celebration in Leroy's front yard. We all rolled down our right side auto windows, wished Leroy Happy Birthday and had a brief conversation with him, then moved on for the next vehicle to take their turn.

Leroy was just glowing with happiness to have all his family come by and visit!!!

It makes it easier to continue on my path, mask and gloves are a minor annoyance that could save my life or the lives of others. It's worth it for my family! Cheers, Kuru
Leilani and I donned our mask and gloves, toted small bottles of rubbing alcohol, and went grocery shopping yesterday. Hopefully buying at least 2 weeks worth of perishables.

The experience wasn't bad. The 2 stores we visited weren't too crowded, people mostly respected each other's space, and everybody seemed friendly.

Today it looks like rain. It's been dry for a couple of months, the rainy season might be coming a month early, but then it never did strictly adhere to the schedule.

Notes
I went to the post office yesterday. Almost everyone was wearing masks but were lined up very close to each other. Thankfully, mine was a drop-off, so I was not there more than about 20 seconds. I still swabbed off everything and applied hand sanitizer a couple of times anyway.

Grocery stores around here have been doing pretty well with the "social distancing" protocols and all else.

Stay safe, everyone.
Originally Posted by KenElevenShadows
I went to the post office yesterday. Almost everyone was wearing masks but were lined up very close to each other. Thankfully, mine was a drop-off, so I was not there more than about 20 seconds. I still swabbed off everything and applied hand sanitizer a couple of times anyway.

Grocery stores around here have been doing pretty well with the "social distancing" protocols and all else.

Stay safe, everyone.

I was in our post office yesterday too. I taped a label on a package and dropped it off. They have markers on the floor and a notice of maximum capacity allowed inside the post office at the front entrance.
Everybody was observing social distancing and there were flexible clear plastic barriers inbetween the workers and the customers. Most were masked and gloved.

I didn't stay long either but it wasn't too frightening. Now is no time to let down my guard!
Local grocery store is real strict about you HAVE to wear a mask, only one shopper per family, stickers in the floor telling you where to stand for proper distancing, etc.....then half their employees are wearing their masks down not even covering their noses, or just down around their neck, or pulling the, down to talk. I feel like ok if you're going to make me do all this, don't make it all for nothing by being stupid. I think for the most part measures taken should represent the local conditions and situation, so I think in some cases some of the more extreme measures are overkill, while not enough is done in other places. But if you're going to put rules in place, at least follow them. Otherwise what's the point?
Since trials were previously discussed in this thread, I'll bring this up here.

clonk

Quote
Fuentes enrolled in the Houston arm of a global trial of remdesivir, an antiviral drug that may be the best therapeutic hope in the fight against COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus currently spreading in Houston and around the world. While research involving hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug touted by President Donald Trump, and transfusions of blood plasma taken from people who’ve recovered from COVID-19 have attracted more attention, remdesivir is the would-be therapy farthest along in the testing process.

Early research results have been promising. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine 10 days ago, nearly 70 percent of 53 patients given remdesivir through what’s known as “compassionate use” required reduced oxygen support and 17 of the 30 on ventilators were able to come off them. Then, last Friday, the online health news organization STAT reported that a University of Chicago video shows a doctor saying the institution’s hospital has discharged most of the 125 participants in an ongoing remdesivir clinical trial, almost all of whom had severe disease.

But researchers were quick to note those research efforts didn’t include a group of patients who received a placebo instead of the drug, important for comparison purposes. Such studies, the gold standard of drug testing, are necessary to provide evidence of a therapy’s effectiveness and win Food and Drug Administration approval.

That’s the advantage of the trial in which Fuentes is participating, the most rigorous of a number being conducted. Patients sick enough to require hospitalization are randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir or a placebo, both delivered by infusion for up to 10 days, at 40 academic hospitals around the nation and globe. Baylor College of Medicine is leading the effort in Houston, the National Institutes of Health the overall project.

Early results from the trial are expected by the end of the month. Investigators will compare outcomes in both those who received remdesivir and those who received a placebo to determine whether the drug actually produced more of a clinical benefit. Outcomes are scored on a eight-point scale ranging from fully recovered to death.

The study is double blinded — meaning neither the participant nor the experiments know who’s receiving the actual treatment
Maybe some good news for a change. Stanford university just completed a study and the virus may not be as bad as originally thought:

"Based on their results, the Stanford researchers estimated the mortality rate in Santa Clara County to be between 0.12% and 0.2%. By comparison, the average death rate of the seasonal flu is 0.1%."

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/coronavirus-antibodies-study-santa-clara-county
That could be good news, but unless we have more testing we will never know.

Of course the other problem is that the total death figures are suppressed by the fact that no one wastes a precious test kid on a someone already dead, and our social distancing and stay-at-home orders have suppressed the spread of a disease that is much more contagious than the flu.

I know there are huge numbers of scientists who specialize in disease prevention and control, and that the longer we can stall off our eventual exposure to the disease, the better chances we have.

I've read some doubts about a vaccine being helpful as some people have caught it twice, but we still don't know enough about that to understand why.

I'm definitely hopeful for the future, but getting there will not be easy.

Insights and incites by Notes
I don't know why those in control don't simply say "I don't know." Because they don't.

A lot of what's happening is guesswork. This is all too new, and too different, to be able to project about the future based on experiences of the past, under different circumstances.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I don't know why those in control don't simply say "I don't know." Because they don't.

A lot of what's happening is guesswork. This is all too new, and too different, to be able to project about the future based on experiences of the past, under different circumstances.

Well, this begs political comment, no? :- D

I could go on, but I won't. Cheers, Kuru
Tonight I read that autopsies indicate the first Covid_19 deaths in the USA were in Santa Clara County CA, well before the death in Kirkland WA.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/autopsies-reveal-first-confirmed-u-042339932.html

That's something we didin't know.

I don't have cites for the other topics below. I check Yahoo news and Yahoo finance throughout the day and they circulate articles constantly.

Recently I've read that the "miracle malaria drug" is not effective and may cause more deaths. The sampling was pretty small as I recall.
So, maybe we still don't know on that one. If it was more than marginallly effective I'm sure the data would have been different - just an opinion.

Another area of testing is for antibodies in those who've survived Covid_19. Not everybody has the antibodies, in fact a fairly small percentage do have them. They don't know if that provides immunity and if so, for how long.
I don't know either.

That's 3 recent things that they are starting to learn more about, there will be more. And then, the virus will mutate...
I posted a lot of similar things above on the 11th concerning the actual number of infections, possible number of people with antibodies etc.

Nothing has really changed other than these more recent studies validate what some of those earlier studies said and I wrote about. The actual infection rate at least here in CA is closer to 30% overall and the antibody tests seem to confirm that but some antibody tests are really sketchy right now because not all are equal. Some of those seem to have a very high false positive rate while others are good so who knows? Still, bottom line and it's just my hopeful opinion, the true hospitalization and fatality rates really are much, much lower than all the news reports keep saying. Using basic math to extrapolate using several studies including this new Stanford one, that means that any one individual has a very low risk of getting hospitalized and a very, very low risk of dying and that applies to all ages. Stanford says the actual number of people who have had this is 50 to 85 times greater than the current numbers show which lowers the mortality. Older with underlying conditions still have a higher risk but that's a higher risk based on a much lower overall number for everybody.

This opinion will be easily tested very soon. A lot of commentators are saying the same thing, they think it's too soon for some states to begin opening up but they hope it's not a problem. I feel exactly the same. Yes, it could be too soon but I really hope and think it's ok. One big deal is Boeing started their aircraft production back up starting Monday in Seattle. 27,000 workers but I don't know how many are actually going in. They said they have strict protocols in place to protect everybody. Here's an article about it:

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/20/839138167/how-boeing-employees-feel-as-some-return-to-work

In a few more weeks we'll get a better picture. And, in spite of my opinion I'm still paranoid as hell until I have more really solid facts. I went shopping on the 18th and no I didn't just walk in with a mask but then carelessly let it drop because I didn't like it or not use sanitizer on the cart or any of that stuff. I had gloves to pick stuff up with. Oh no I was as careful as anyone here. I just really feel it's not that necessary and it's wasting everybody's time but I'm not ready to walk the walk yet. I'm in the talking part only for now, haha.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
I posted a lot of similar things above on the 11th concerning the actual number of infections, possible number of people with antibodies etc.
Bob

There is no question that the shortage of available tests for Covid_19 has caused us to miss the total number of cases, I see articles discussing that topic often.
Ther is another side to that story.

We don't know how many die and are not tested. Optimism regarding the relatively low number of verified deaths considered in terms of the potentially high number of infected survivors looks better than pessimism regarding the potential number of deaths that have occured without testing in terms of the confirmed cases of infected survivors.

Neither method is based on facts, both are speculation.
One post back - last post on the 3rd page - I mention 2 confirmed deaths that are now the earliest known Covid_19 deaths in the US. They were found during autopsies. How many have been buried or cremated who died without testing? We don't know and we never will know.

I don't put any stock whatsoever in cherry-picked numbers.

If you were a health care worker in say NYC and you had 200 tests avaialble, 10 untested deaths and 350 incoming patients who needed to be tested, what would you do with those tests? They won't help the dead.
You'll use them to try diagnose and try to save lives. You won't call the news reporters and tell them about it, you are way too busy already.

Until we are able to test EVERYBODY who needs a test - and we are a long ways off from being able to do that - we don't know what the percentage of survivors to deceased actually is and even if and when we do get to that point we will never know how many have died of Covid_19 nor will is it likely we will know how many have had it and lived for a long time to come.

In the end, it is speculation and nothing more.
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
Originally Posted by Anderton
I don't know why those in control don't simply say "I don't know." Because they don't.

A lot of what's happening is guesswork. This is all too new, and too different, to be able to project about the future based on experiences of the past, under different circumstances.

Well, this begs political comment, no? :- D
I guess so, but I didn't intend it that way. I wish I heard more officials talking like, well, Bob:

Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
In a few more weeks we'll get a better picture. And, in spite of my opinion I'm still paranoid as hell until I have more really solid facts...I was as careful as anyone here. I just really feel it's not that necessary and it's wasting everybody's time but I'm not ready to walk the walk yet. I'm in the talking part only for now, haha.
That's the reality. We don't have solid facts. We don't know what's going to happen when things re-open. We do know it's taking a chance, but we don't know the magnitude of that chance.

Today I had to venture into the outside world to pick up mail from my PO box. Afterward I drove into downtown Nashville for the first time since all this happened, just to see what was/was not open, and how people were reacting. It was a shock. Lower Broadway, which is usually packed with tourists, lines snaking around the block for restaurants, and bands in a bunch of clubs supplying the soundtrack for the city's tourist ghetto, was essentially empty. All the lights inside the stores and restaurants were off. There were maybe a half-dozen visible people per block, maybe less.

Although I did think now would be a great time to get a film crew out there, and film post-apocalypse stock footage. You wouldn't need permits from the city to clear the streets...they're already clear.

Places are opening up here in Tennessee. Where that will lead, I don't know. I'm staying home for now. That's what I normally do anyway, there's a studio here smile
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

You can make the statistics say pretty much anything you want.

Until they test all the dead people we will not have any idea how many die from this disease. And with the shortage of test kits, we aren't going to waste them on dead people

Until they test the entire population we will not have any idea how many are infected. And with the shortage of test kits we cannot test everybody.

Therefore you can quote any statistic you like, one will show a lower death/hospitalization rate, another will show a higher death/hospitalization rate and neither one will be accurate.

You may as well consult an Ouija Board or pick random numbers.

Am I ready to go back to work? That really doesn't matter as the Governor has banned bands. Am I eager to go back to work? I miss gigging a great deal, it's my second favorite thing to do, but I'm not eager to go out of self-isolation. The death rate could be 0.0001% but if it gets me or my wife it's as good as 100%.

I can see why people are eager to get back to work. Many of us really need the money. But personally I think that until we know more about how to treat and prevent this virus, I think I'll stay home. There is too much unknown to assess the odds, so I think I'll err on the side of caution.

I read a lot of people saying we should go back to work and do that herd immunity thing, but I see none of them going back to work out in the public sector where they are facing scores of people every day.

And when I hear people who are so rich they are insulated from the general public saying we should restart the economy so that their unfathomable wealth doesn't lose it's value, they are telling us that their money, their profits, their billions are more important than our lives. Do you think Trump, Bezos, or any of those hedge fund managers are even going to the local supermarket?

But when I leave my home every other week for perishable groceries, I am thankful for the people who are literally risking making the ultimate sacrifice so that I can have dinner.


Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Until they test all the dead people we will not have any idea how many die from this disease. And with the shortage of test kits, we aren't going to waste them on dead people

Testing positive doesn't mean that was the cause of death. Many people test positive with no symptoms and can die from any number of things. If somebody gets shot in the head and the coroner performs a test and they test positive, did they die from coronavirus? They can determine cause of death without a test via autopsy. They know what the lungs look like in a person who died from coronavirus.
A different study in Boston showed that 147 of 408 people at a homeless shelter had the virus and 83% had no symptoms. No one died. Another random study in Iceland showed 1221 of 9199 persons (13.3%) who were recruited for targeted testing had positive results for infection. Iceland has a total of 10 deaths due to the virus (not sure if any were in the study group).

Eventually people will have to accept the science.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
A different study in Boston showed that 147 of 408 people at a homeless shelter had the virus and 83% had no symptoms. No one died. Another random study in Iceland showed 1221 of 9199 persons (13.3%) who were recruited for targeted testing had positive results for infection. Iceland has a total of 10 deaths due to the virus (not sure if any were in the study group).

Eventually people will have to accept the science.

Once we have some science to accept. It's nice that people in a Boston homeless shelter an Iceland didn't die, but that's scant consolation to New Yorkers.

As I said...people just don't know.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Am I eager to go back to work? I miss gigging a great deal, it's my second favorite thing to do
Well, that's good to hear...then at least you can still play Scrabble. smile
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
A different study in Boston showed that 147 of 408 people at a homeless shelter had the virus and 83% had no symptoms. No one died. Another random study in Iceland showed 1221 of 9199 persons (13.3%) who were recruited for targeted testing had positive results for infection. Iceland has a total of 10 deaths due to the virus (not sure if any were in the study group).

Eventually people will have to accept the science.

Once we have some science to accept. It's nice that people in a Boston homeless shelter an Iceland didn't die, but that's scant consolation to New Yorkers.

As I said...people just don't know.
Studies are scientific. That's why science and the medical industry conduct them.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
A different study in Boston showed that 147 of 408 people at a homeless shelter had the virus and 83% had no symptoms. No one died. Another random study in Iceland showed 1221 of 9199 persons (13.3%) who were recruited for targeted testing had positive results for infection. Iceland has a total of 10 deaths due to the virus (not sure if any were in the study group).

Eventually people will have to accept the science.

Once we have some science to accept. It's nice that people in a Boston homeless shelter an Iceland didn't die, but that's scant consolation to New Yorkers.

As I said...people just don't know.
Studies are scientific. That's why science and the medical industry conduct them.

Yes and eventually you get enough samples from enough different environments that you can post a theory, which is subject to change as more data becomes available. That's how science works.
I don't think we are there yet, testing globally is far behind potential. The variables are extremely complex and thus difficult to parse.

So it is still speculation
Here we have more data.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/25-000-missing-deaths-tracking-122220495.html
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
The important part of the article is this : "The totals include deaths from COVID-19 as well as those from other causes..."
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
The important part of the article is this : "The totals include deaths from COVID-19 as well as those from other causes..."

Of course, not disputing that. I made no claims, "here we have more data" is pretty open-ended.

On the other hand, it was an interesting way to look for discrepencies, no?

As it stands and on it's own, it proves nothing.
The same is true for any data points concerning unknowns. It is unknown how many people in the US and the World have had Covid_19. It is unknown how many people in the US and the World have died from Covid_19.
Those numbers will never be known.

Statements purporting to provide facts regarding the proportion of recovery to death are therefore in the same category as the article I linked - more data to be compiled into a theory that we may eventually accept or that may change in some substantial way as more data is collected. Again, that's how science works. Cheers, Kuru
Of course more data is needed. But 3 separate medical studies in 2 different countries tested in excess of 10,000 people and showed extremely low fatality rates. It's insulting to trained medical professionals to dismiss it as Ouija board guesses or random numbers.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Of course more data is needed. But 3 separate medical studies in 2 different countries tested in excess of 10,000 people and showed extremely low fatality rates. It's insulting to trained medical professionals to dismiss it as Ouija board guesses or random numbers.


I am not dismissing it at all, it is useful data. Currently this website: https://covidusa.net : shows 842, 376 cases - 46,769 deaths and 84,050 recoveries in the USA.

Useful data using around less than 2% of the total US covid cases is certainly good to have as right now any information is useful.

I don't think that trained medical professionals consider it sufficient to come to concrete conclusions, at the same time it is progress and all progress is good.
I'm sorry if you've misunderstood me or my intentions. I am not dimissing anything, I want this to go well for all of us across the planet and sooner would be better than later.
But it is dangerous to jump to conclusions too early, that's not good either and can endanger lives. Cheers, Kuru
As an example, a couple of esteemed medical organizations have now given up on the "miracle maleria drug" cure and have expressed regret that it probably cost some lives to find out that it does not work.

Sorry I don't have links for those articles but it is recent news, just a day or two old.

We all wanted it to work, anything that works is good. That's got to be difficult on the families who lost a loved one.
I didn't mean to imply people are using an Ouija board, what I am saying is that using small sample groups especially with the shortage of supplies. The thing I'm saying is that right now it's impossible to know. We can and should collect as much data as possible but keep in mind the margin of error is huge.

We can pick this study that shows this and that study that shows that and the results could be very conflicting. There is no way for me and I'd guess most of us to know which is closer to the truth.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
We can pick this study that shows this and that study that shows that and the results could be very conflicting. There is no way for me and I'd guess most of us to know which is closer to the truth.

There's not even a definitive answer on whether those who had the corona virus are immune. A drug company in Israel that's working on a vaccine says it may not be possible due to the way the virus mutates. Or maybe it will be a hot, humid Summer, and the virus won't cope with the heat. Or maybe it will roar back in the Fall.

It's human nature to want an explanation for anything unexplainable. But in this case, no one really has a clue. The best we can hope for is that some people can come up with reasonably informed speculation that can at least not point us in the wrong direction.
So far, the models that John Hopkins University have been using - ones I've seen since late January or early February - have been eerily accurate for the U.S. frown
But like weather forecasting models, don't they get revised a lot? I don't have a problem with that, it's the nature of data...more data means more accurate models. IIRC the models in the earlier part of the year were predicting more in the range of 100K - 240K dead assuming decent mitigation procedures, far more if not. Then as social distancing started to take hold in a way that was better than expected, it was revised down to 60,000 but now it's been bumped up to 66,000 due to taking nursing home deaths into account.

All I know for sure is that this is something like I've never experienced. People can say "the regular flu kills 30,000 a year" or whatever, but this has all happened in a few months. The fall of the economy, the overloading of the health system, the massive numbers of deaths is occurring in a really compressed time period.

So I guess my original question remains: it isn't going away, so now what? I have no idea.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Then as social distancing started to take hold in a way that was better than expected, it was revised down to 60,000 but now it's been bumped up to 66,000 due to taking nursing home deaths into account.

Look for more revisions, we are tragically close to 50,000 deaths this evening.
There is pressure to re-open our country for business, I understand why.

If it is too early - and my best guess is that it is far too early - then we might have a new surge of infection.
I hope not but I don't find current events comforting.
Lets change the subject a little bit and let me rephrase Craig's original question:

"OK, so we're heading for another Great Depression, now what?"

Here's one definition of that:

Depressions are characterized by their length, by abnormally large increases in unemployment, falls in the availability of credit (often due to some form of banking or financial crisis), shrinking output as buyers dry up and suppliers cut back on production and investment, more bankruptcies including sovereign debt defaults, significantly reduced amounts of trade and commerce (especially international trade), as well as highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations (often due to currency devaluations). Price deflation, financial crises, stock market crash, and bank failures are also common elements of a depression that do not normally occur during a recession.

None of us here lived through the Great Depression. My grandfather did. He was born in 1898, was a WW1 Marine and lived through the Depression. He told me how bad things were and tons of books have been written about it. It would be so much worse than anything any of us have ever seen. I mean losing your house, your savings, no more Social Security or welfare checks and we wind up standing in lines at a soup kitchen so we literally won't starve to death. We're resilient, the economy has a lot of built in protections but it's like a big rubber band. It can go on, and on, and on and we think it's fine but one morning we wake up turn on the news and bam, right between the eyes. It's over.

My take on this. Two choices. First, Great Depression Part II. Second, follow the plan knowing it could be too soon, accept the odds and go back to work in time to save us all from the first choice. Yes, there is a third choice. Keep living off the government until such time as the odds of dying are low enough for us to go back to work. Define "low enough". How many fatalities is an acceptable number? How long can the government handouts last? How long before the business closings, bankruptcies, foreclosures and financial institution failures makes it too late to avoid the first choice? I don't know but it could be sooner rather than later.

We're standing on the precipice and a second Great Depression is a very real possibility here. 26 million unemployed and heading for 30? Those are historic Great Depression numbers and numbers like that cannot be allowed to stand for long or we're all hosed. Want proof? During the Great Depression the unemployment rate hit 24%. As of yesterday Forbes has it at 20%. Another week or two of big claims and we'll be right there.

We all know about the lessor of two evils. Another Great Depression or work with COVID 19? This is why I take the hopeful side of all of these stats. It's because I feel there's no choice, we're restarting the economy regardless. It's like Dr. Strangelove. Stop worrying and learn to love the Bomb.

Bob
I think given the opportunity, the market will find ways to adjust.

I am a fan of some of the various restaurant and bar rescue type shows on cable channels and was very interested to see some interviews on news outlets with John Taffer of Bar Rescue, and Robert Irvine of Restaurant: Impossible. Both made some very good points, suggestions, and predictions about changes that must occur in restaurants and bars along with what impact it will have on their business models.

Among other things, one has to do with distancing. One point made was even when all this is over, restaurants will likely have to remove tables/seating to keep distance between tables, which would result in far less seating capacity. One result could be the end of "lunch hour". In order for a restaurant to stay in business with limited capacity might mean turning the whole crowd 3 times instead of 1. That coupled with just the time and logistics of getting lunch in might mean a staggered lunch schedule that spans a few hours where everybody doesn't go to lunch from 12-1 but instead splits between 3 shifts, or something along those lines. That was mainly Taffer talking about that but Robert Irvine touched on similar points in a separate interview.

Irvine went more into some of the changes that the restaurants will have to make to give warm feelings, safety, and security visiting their establishment. He went into detail around additional measures they would have to actively take in terms of cleanliness, disinfecting, etc as well as officially documenting their procedures and expectations for the customers. It will be about the customer feeling secure that he restaurant has proper measures in place and are in fact executing those measures.
Good points - "business as usual" will have to become business done differently. It will be interesting to see what restaurants do as they run on very thin margins already.

I want to make a point about taking people's temperatures. IMNSHO, that's next to useless. While it might catch someone who is sick, we now know that this virus is being spread largely by asymptomatic carriers. To say, "you can come in because your temp is okay" gives a false sense of security because that person might be an asymptomatic spreader. I guess it might help catch people who are starting to show symptoms, but I don't know if it's worth it.

This article talks about some of the things I've mentioned before. Those who recover from the virus will still need help from both the mental and physical damage.

The Challenges of Post-COVID-19 Care

Quote
Patients who survive intubation often find themselves profoundly debilitated, experiencing weakness, memory loss, anxiety, depression, and hallucinations.

Among the patients I care for at the hospital is a young woman recovering from covid-19. To keep her blood oxygenated, she needs a device called a non-rebreather mask. The mask is connected by a tube to a one-litre translucent bag, which is in turn connected to an oxygen cannister in the wall; when she exhales, one-way valves shunt expired carbon dioxide into the room and prevent her from rebreathing it. It’s considered an advanced oxygen-delivery device, because it supplies more oxygen than a simple nasal cannula; it is also cumbersome and uncomfortable to wear. But the mask, my patient says, isn’t her biggest problem; neither is her cough or shortness of breath. Her biggest problem is her nightmares. She can’t sleep. When she closes her eyes, she’s scared she won’t wake up. If she does fall asleep, she jolts awake, frenzied and sweating, consumed by a sense of doom. She sees spider-like viruses crawling over her. She sees her friends and family dying. She sees herself intubated in an I.C.U. for the rest of time.

Patients who survive intubation often find themselves profoundly debilitated. They experience weakness, memory loss, anxiety, depression, and hallucinations, and have difficulty sleeping, walking, and talking. A quarter of them can’t push themselves to a seated position; one-third have symptoms of P.T.S.D. A 2013 study of discharged I.C.U. patients, many of whom had been intubated, found that, three months after leaving the I.C.U., forty per cent of them had cognitive test scores one and a half standard deviations below the mean—roughly equivalent to the effect of a moderate traumatic brain injury. A quarter showed cognitive declines comparable to early Alzheimer’s disease. The longer patients were in the I.C.U., the worse the consequences became.

The joy we all feel when patients at our hospital survive acute covid-19 is followed, quickly, by the acknowledgment that it could be a long time before they fully recover, if they ever do. Many will suffer through months of rehabilitation in unfamiliar facilities, cared for by masked strangers, unable to receive friends or loved ones. Families who just weeks ago had been happy, healthy, and intact now face the prospect of prolonged separation. Many spouses and children will become caregivers, which comes with its own emotional and physical challenges. Roughly two-thirds of family caregivers show depressive symptoms after a loved one’s stay in the I.C.U. Many continue to struggle years later.
I am very concerned about lives of the elderly, "the disposable generation" of which I am a member.

I'm also concerned about the economy, a depression, as well as rampant inflation with the new money being printed.

Since Nixon and his GOP congress took us off the gold standard inflation has already gone crazy. Gas used to cost 33 cents per gallon, a new top end Cadillac cost $6,000, new suburban homes started at $10,000 -- $20k for a high end waterfront home with ocean access in Florida, chicken sold for 19 cents per pound, a bottle of Coke or Pepsi 6 cents, coffee in a restaurant for a nickel, and at a diner you could get a T-Bone steak dinner with potatoes and a veggie for 99 cents -- add another nickel for a soft drink or coffee. Interest on credit cards topped at 6%.

Of course that means our post gold standard savings that grew at market rates or compound interest is actually worth less in buying power than it did when I put it in the bank or the mutual fund. That's the price of fiat money with no backing and it is exactly what the bankers wanted.

Now we are printing more money without backing while we are giving the richest of the rich more tax breaks. And big biz has seen their relief checks Trump and other Hotels, Airlines, and others have received billions. I have yet to see a penny from either unemployment or the supposed stimulus check. That fiat money is apparently going to the big businesses, not the people who need it most. Has anyone here received their stimulus and/or unemployment money yet?

And unlike the Great Depression we have FDIC so your money in the bank is "relatively safe". The gov't will use taxpayer funds to bail out the banks again (when FDIC was supposed to bail out the depositors, not the banks).

So what is the answer?

Instead of welfare checks should we do what FDR did and put people to work in infrastructure improvement? I like that idea in theory, but how do we do that and keep social distancing?

I certainly don't have the answer, but I'm content to wait longer hoping the scientific/medical community can come up with either a preventative or treatment option that greatly reduces the death and debilitation effects of this plague. How long? I'm not sure, but I don't think we are ready to go back to the new 'normal' yet.

When it gets to the new normal, how will it affect my main income source, gigging? Bands were banned in Florida because we draw crowds. Without a vaccine or cure keeping 6' apart is a problem.

I guess I'm not contributing anything concrete to the problem, just raising the same questions.

I hope someone wiser than myself comes up with an answer I can get behind.

Insights and incites by Notes
It's not easy that's for sure but I am still hopeful. To answer one of your points Notes. Yes, millions of people including many of my clients have received their stimulus money. If you've read my tax thread I explained how that works and why some haven't gotten it yet. It's not some nefarious plot, it's just the IRS managing the rules concerning how it goes out. I also explained if it applies to you what you need to do to get your money. As for big business and not the intended small businesses getting money, that has been a huge problem. Jim Cramer on his Mad Money show on CNBC explained what happened. This legislation was rushed and some things were missed. Government is not in the business of directly loaning money, it was given to the banks to loan out with the assumption they would give priority to small business. But, big business has "concierge" personal relationships with their bankers that the little guys don't. Those bankers simply gave priority to them and not to all the little guys loan applications. Disgraceful, really bad stuff and the Administration is working on forcing those companies, especially the publicly traded ones, to give the money back. Some have already done that. This latest round of money just signed into law is supposed to have corrected that.

Another positive article this morning, this time about the Wisconsin election. Remember all the angst about that? We can't have a regular election at this time, we'll all die sort of thing? The Supreme Court issued a controversial and rushed 5-4 ruling rejecting the arguments to delay it or make it vote by mail. Well, it's now been two weeks which is the time period we all know is needed for new cases to show up. No spike in cases. Frankly I was worried about that and I think this is great news.

The reasons why are probably related to all the different things we've brought up in this thread. Whatever it is Wisconsin had their election and lived to tell about it.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
We all know about the lessor of two evils. Another Great Depression or work with COVID 19? This is why I take the hopeful side of all of these stats. It's because I feel there's no choice, we're restarting the economy regardless. It's like Dr. Strangelove. Stop worrying and learn to love the Bomb.

Bob

If we truly knew our situation it might make sense to "take the hopeful side of these "stats" (quote marks on "stats" are mine).
But at this point we do not know enough by any means and the opportunity to learn more about the recent past is extremely labor intensive. The Governor of California ordered autopsies done on recent deaths in Santa Clara county after 2 autopsies showed that the first currently known deaths occured in CA, not WA as was believed up to this point. It could be valuable information but it will require digging graves back up. Those who were cremated? Those stats are lost forever, we will never know.

A very recent article speaks of people who didn't even know they were infected (because the wealthiest country in the world can't seem to figure out how to provide testing for it's citizens) and died of strokes.
This is a new finding, another way that Covid_19 kills humans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/

At this point Saturday morning we have 900,000+ cases and 52,000+ deaths. Actual numbers are unknown due to a lack of testing. It is likely they are much higher.

As to the accuracy of our current stats, it is like saying a bowl of macoroni and cheese has 20 noodles in it when there are probably 50 or 60.
Gambling with other people's health and lives with facts that are woefully incomplete is something I can not and will not do. We will never know the full extent, I would settle for having a better idea of where we are now but that does not seem to be forthcoming any time soon. Yes, everybody is going to die sooner or later, if I recall correctly that was part of the defense of one of the defendents at Nuremburg.

Cheers, Kuru
Buckminster Fuller once said that if every person in the world devoted two weeks to maintaining infrastructure - not just roads, but other necessities like farming and the electrical grid - they could all be entitled to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for free because there would be enough resources to go around. The difference between that and a communist model was that the only mandatory aspect would be those two weeks of service. The other 50 weeks, if you wanted to start a business and buy a yacht, go for it. But if you're a musician and you just want to sit at home and record, then you could do that too. Jobs would still exist; you'd still need doctors doing more than two weeks of work a year. But there would still be jobs, and there would still be an economy. Money would still change hands. The only difference is there would be enough to go around, albeit on a "minimum viable product" level.

That may sound naïve and utopian, but taking a broader view, there is enough wealth, and there are enough resources on this planet, to provide the essentials needed for existence to everyone. Where any system falls apart is when people take without giving. For example, you could dissolve Bank of America and provide enough to take care of a limited number of people for a limited amount of time. But when that runs out, then you have to find another bank to dissolve.

Fuller's point was that if people acted like they were part of a society, felt an obligation to society, and understood the benefits of thinking of wealth as something created by the individuals who make up a society, there would be enough to go around. If someone needed clothes, they wouldn't get Dior...but they wouldn't freeze to death, either.

Of course you would need to match expertise with gigs. For example, I'm good with technology and computers. Maybe I'd work on testing medical devices for two weeks to make sure batteries could still hold a charge, calibrations were within specs, etc. A medical system would be like insurance - if everyone contributed to the medical system in some way, that would free up enough resources to give care to those who needed it. For example, how much do hospitals have to spend on uniforms? If people made the uniforms as part of their two weeks of service, that would free up resources.

Maybe a truck driver would be asked to bring food from farms to distribution centers. Maybe a shut-in would make clothing for two weeks out of the year. Certainly, there would be a LOT of unanswered logistical questions...but imagine what the world would be like if we could find answers. Then again, I'm not convinced we've found answers for the current unanswered logistical questions.
https://wxow.com/2020/04/25/wisconsin-reports-largest-1-day-increase-of-covid-19-cases/

Quote
Wisconsin reports largest 1-day increase of COVID-19 cases

MADISON, Wis (AP/WXOW) - Wisconsin health officials report that 331 tests for the coronavirus have come back positive in the last 24 hours, the largest single-day rise since the outbreak started.

An additional four people have died.

The update raises the total number of positive cases to 5,687 and the statewide deaths to 266.

State Department of Health Services data shows that 24 percent of infected people have been hospitalized.

The actual number of infections is thought to be far higher because many people have not been tested, and studies suggest people can be infected with the virus without feeling sick.

No indication either way of election impact on Wisconsin's case count.

Generally, most states still appear to be on the upswing, looking the interactive graph ("How quickly is your state's case count growing?"). NY is the only one that looks like its flattening

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s
Originally Posted by Anderton
But like weather forecasting models, don't they get revised a lot? I don't have a problem with that, it's the nature of data...more data means more accurate models. IIRC the models in the earlier part of the year were predicting more in the range of 100K - 240K dead assuming decent mitigation procedures, far more if not. Then as social distancing started to take hold in a way that was better than expected, it was revised down to 60,000 but now it's been bumped up to 66,000 due to taking nursing home deaths into account.

All I know for sure is that this is something like I've never experienced. People can say "the regular flu kills 30,000 a year" or whatever, but this has all happened in a few months. The fall of the economy, the overloading of the health system, the massive numbers of deaths is occurring in a really compressed time period.

So I guess my original question remains: it isn't going away, so now what? I have no idea.

They are based on models, so yes, they get revised as additional data occurs. The model that initially forecast the higher numbers was not John Hopkins, but Imperial College London, who themselves pulled the numbers back after just a few days. But given that we have over 50,000 deaths and counting (and the U.S. has about 4.25% of the world's population and 25% of the coronavirus deaths), let's just hope that the lower numbers are accurate. It's difficult to predict people's behavior, and if people are going to open back up prematurely, it could knock the numbers out of whack.

But what's frightening is how accurate the initial John Hopkins figures were from January/February. You know, back when no one was listening to health professionals. frown

As for your last question, I don't have a definitive answer, but hey, I'll give it a try.

To me, the best idea is to be pragmatically science-based, listen to health professionals and historians of previous pandemics, stomp on it hard with "shelter in place" and be aware that second and third waves of it can come. Given that many previous pandemics that have had a more brutal second wave, we need to create the infrastructure in place to deal with that. If we don't do that and open up things prematurely in the hopes that we do less harm to the economy, we seriously risk having far more deaths and a worse economy ultimately. I also feel that the best guideline is one of saving lives. This is the most humane, compassionate guideline in my opinion, which should always be what we consider foremost, and one that seems to be also supported by science and history and health professionals.

And it probably goes without saying that you place maximum resources toward creating a vaccine, working collaboratively with other scientists from around the world.
Also from NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...rus-cases-tied-to-controversial-election

Not trying to be political but the headline is negative, the main thrust of the article is negative until you get to the very end:

State public health officials said they hadn't yet seen a spike in election-related cases.

"We have not yet seen indications of an impact from the election," said Andrea Palm, the state Department of Health Services secretary-designee.

My overall point here is not to quibble about the headline although it's pretty typical. The point is say it is 7. Say it's 10 or 15 or even 20. 200,000 people voted. Not to sound crass but as a society I think those are acceptable numbers.

To get back to what I said earlier I just got home from shopping. I developed a hot water faucet leak in the bathtub in my master bath adjacent to my bedroom about a week ago The weather here in SoCal just turned very toasty and last night I had to get up out of bed, go outside and turn the water off because the leak was making that part of the house like a sauna. I mean seriously warn and very high humidity because the leak was fairly severe, like DC in August with no AC. No turn off valve in or by the tub. Anyway to my point I went to the Depot to get some parts and as long as I was there did some more grocery shopping next door. In spite of my optimism I still did the whole thing, mask, gloves, sanitizer. It's almost second nature and really isn't a big deal. With no haircut and a mask I look like I'm about to rob the place but hey, so does everybody else. No TP or paper towels. I really don't get that at this point. In the beginning I understood it completely but now? Whatever.

I get it, nothing really definitive but the signs keep pointing to we're going to be ok. The next big shoe to drop after Wisconsin is Boeing. Give them another week and I'll go out on that shaky limb and say they will be ok too. Boeing is tougher because in spite of all their precautions I've already read that many times some workers are right next to each other in a cramped space in a wing or fuselage running cables, doing testing, etc. It gets close in those areas and it's very uncomfortable to keep the mask up so many are pulling it down and it's causing some friction between people. Other workers are at a more isolated terminal monitoring whatever. It will be a good test.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Also from NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...rus-cases-tied-to-controversial-election

Not trying to be political but the headline is negative, the main thrust of the article is negative until you get to the very end:

State public health officials said they hadn't yet seen a spike in election-related cases.

"We have not yet seen indications of an impact from the election," said Andrea Palm, the state Department of Health Services secretary-designee.

My overall point here is not to quibble about the headline although it's pretty typical. The point is say it is 7. Say it's 10 or 15 or even 20. 200,000 people voted. Not to sound crass but as a society I think those are acceptable numbers.

Both "sides" in the article could be correct. They may very well be 7 related corona virus infections; whether that counts as a "spike" is debatable.

But the issue isn't whether any number is acceptable, but why there were so many problems involved in voting by mail in Wisconsin. The same problems didn't happen with other states, which would imply there's no inherent problem with voting by mail, only with Wisconsin's implementation. Thousands of absentee ballots were thrown out because they arrived to voters after the voting deadline, so those votes weren't counted. There were also three tubs of undelivered absentee ballots from voters.

To get into it any further would require speculating as to whether this was due to voter suppression based on political considerations, or simple incompetence within various components of the voting system. Either one is unacceptable, so Wisconsin's plans not to make any changes in order to fix the problems that surfaced is also not acceptable. If a system has problems, you fix it, unless you don't want to for some reason.

There has been election chicanery from both parties for as long as I can remember. Why people insist on putting a partisan cast on it is beyond me. It's a bi-partisan problem, and both Republicans and Democrats should be hopping mad when votes from their party of choice or the other party don't count, aren't counted, or attempts are made to keep their votes from counting. If what happened in Wisconsin was indeed voter suppression to hinder Democratic candidates, Republicans should be just as angry, and demand the system be fixed. Otherwise, there's no guarantee for Republicans that Democrats won't do the same thing when they control the levers of power.

As Bob Marley sang, "Remember that, when the rain fall, it don't fall on one man's housetop." Whether we like it or not, we're all in this together.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Both "sides" in the article could be correct. They may very well be 7 related corona virus infections; whether that counts as a "spike" is debatable.

But the issue isn't whether any number is acceptable, but why there were so many problems involved in voting by mail in Wisconsin. The same problems didn't happen with other states, which would imply there's no inherent problem with voting by mail, only with Wisconsin's implementation. Thousands of absentee ballots were thrown out because they arrived to voters after the voting deadline, so those votes weren't counted. There were also three tubs of undelivered absentee ballots from voters.

To get into it any further would require speculating as to whether this was due to voter suppression based on political considerations, or simple incompetence within various components of the voting system. Either one is unacceptable, so Wisconsin's plans not to make any changes in order to fix the problems that surfaced is also not acceptable. If a system has problems, you fix it, unless you don't want to for some reason.

There has been election chicanery from both parties for as long as I can remember. Why people insist on putting a partisan cast on it is beyond me. It's a bi-partisan problem, and both Republicans and Democrats should be hopping mad when votes from their party of choice or the other party don't count, aren't counted, or attempts are made to keep their votes from counting. If what happened in Wisconsin was indeed voter suppression to hinder Democratic candidates, Republicans should be just as angry, and demand the system be fixed. Otherwise, there's no guarantee for Republicans that Democrats won't do the same thing when they control the levers of power.

As Bob Marley sang, "Remember that, when the rain fall, it don't fall on one man's housetop." Whether we like it or not, we're all in this together.

A well considered response, thank you. I found myself unable to answer within the limits of acceptable discourse.
I fully agree with those limits, if you don't have them it cannot improve conversation and often ruins it.

I will say that we've had a very successful vote by mail procedure in place here in WA for quite a few years. Recently it evolved and postage is prepaid now. There have been incremental improvements over time.
There is considerable oversight by multiple parties at each step - providing accountability and integrity to the process.
I had my signature questioned at one point. I was able to confirm identity and validate my vote, it would have been a major effort for anybody but my actual self to do that. So I've seen the oversight and integrity in action. It would be pretty tough to get any significant number of fraudulent votes vetted.

Some costs are increased - printing and postage primarily. Some costs are reduced, we have drop boxes for votes in populated areas but no polling places, no logistics involving such, no volunteers to vet, no paid state employees to coordinate and implement etc.

It works well and has proven integrity. And, some folks are opposed to it. Too bad, so sad, call Dad!!! Cheers, Kuru
Au contraire,Craig

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ssing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.

Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature. Think of your signature card at the bank, or having two witnesses to verify your signature on your will or any number of official documents. Or in my position as a tax pro I can say there is a long history of the IRS going to court over what counts as a legal signature or them "receiving" either a tax return or other correspondence with a hard deadline date on it. After watching the "hanging chads" debacle during the Florida recounts in 2000 can you imagine what would have happened if that election was all vote by mail? As long as an election isn't all that close, fine no problem but if it's razor thin it would be an unholy mess. Millions of people having to show up to prove that was in fact their signature on the ballot? Make no mistake, if the issue is a signature thousands of lawsuits have been about the question is this a legal signature or not on that 10 million dollar check or grandpa's will or a contract or whatever.

Read this article about voter verification and think about a recount like what happened in 2000. Also what about the idea of Voter ID? Lots of folks hate that idea for many reasons yet that is exactly what mail in ballots will boil down to in a close, contested recount.

And then one final point. Do we really want to turn our elections over to the POST OFFICE?? That model of bureaucratic efficiency?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/verification-of-absentee-ballots.aspx

EDIT

I see we were writing at the same time Kuru. I agree 100% with everything you said about mail in voting. It's simple and easy and if they have to verify the occasional signature, fine no problem. The problems come with recounts. This is the process with recounts in most states. First they have a machine recount which is fairly quick. If the machine recount is too close it has to be a manual recount. Then, if that is too close then lawyers insist on verifying EVERY. SINGLE. BALLOT. because the numbers keep getting closer. Florida in 2000 came down to a few hundred votes out of millions. In your case you had to verify your ballot so multiply that by every voter in Washington State. Yes, this is a worst case scenario that will probably never happen. But it did happen. And, what is your opinion about Voter ID especially in minority communities all over the country?

And then what happens to the concept of voter anonymity? Nobody is supposed to know how you voted unless you are willing to give up that right. During the Florida recounts nobody knew who the voters were, ballots only have their preferences on them, no names so the arguments were about hanging chads and partial or very light marks. Now with mail in ballots everybody knows how everybody else voted and they have to prove who they are with cameras and lawyers hanging all over their ballots? It's easy to say state law has taken care of those issues. Maybe, maybe not until the lawyers take over.

Most of us here are intelligent, technical types. I actually love the concept of electronic voting using a smartphone app until I realize we all know tons of folks who hate and don't trust the internet, don't have a smart phone or a computer and hackers are everywhere. Hmmm, maybe not such a great idea.

Bob
To get back to COVID 19 issues, this is a very interesting article about Army researchers creating their own N95 equivalent masks out of readily available materials found at a Jo-Ann Store.

https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...asks-can-be-n95s/164865/?oref=d-mostread

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
To get back to COVID 19 issues, this is a very interesting article about Army researchers creating their own N95 equivalent masks out of readily available materials found at a Jo-Ann Store.

https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...asks-can-be-n95s/164865/?oref=d-mostread

Bob

Using something that repels water is key. I look forward to the full results of their study.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Au contraire,Craig

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ssing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.

Unfortunately, the linked article includes no links to information from the Federal Election Assistance commission that would support the claim. The only link was to an organization that "compiled" data from the EAC. That organization claimed sources from the EAC, but when I went to the Public Interest Legal Foundation site, the piece referenced in Real Clear Politics also had no supporting links to the EAC data on which they supposedly based their conclusions. The only link they had was to the EAC's definition of what's considered an "unknown ballot," which it seems as a matter of course the EAC would need to define.

Instantly, my BS detector went off. So, after finding I couldn't get answers from the organization interpreting what another organization interpreted from sources that aren't defined, I figured I might as well go to the source, and spent some quality time on the EAC web site.

It's fascinating, actually. It's FILLED with white papers and concerns about all aspects of voting. For example, yes, ballots may not be delivered - if someone moves, if there's a data entry error, forest fires, any one of a number of reasons. For example, Oregon has 2-3% undelivered ballots. Shocking, right? But in the year when around 1.8 million ballots were cast (IIRC, although the stats are fairly consistent from year to year), approximately 30K people moved into Oregon, and 20K people left. Interestingly, that's 2.6% of the voters. And that's not taking into account people who moved within Oregon, and changed addresses. Frankly, it's the responsibility of voters to register to vote and notify of a change of address, not the responsibility of the state to track them down. If I move and don't notify the post office, then not getting mail forwarded doesn't mean the post office is incompetent, or there's an inherent flaw in using the mail.

I understand that publications and organizations have partisan reasons for cherry-picking stats to buttress the candidate or philosophy they want to support, but we're better than that. I don't speak for anyone else on these forums, but I want to find out the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

I also looked up the credentials of the person who wrote the story. He has a definite political bias. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. But, it means he sees the world through a particular filter, and communicates through that filter, If you want stats and facts, go to the source - the EAC, the Oregon Secretary of State, etc. who issued the actual stats he interpreted, based on the interpretation of another organization, who may or may not want to put a spin on them, and whose research certainly appeared superficial at best. The EAC itself will tell you, in no uncertain terms, there are problems. But they do so in an apolitical, Excel-spreadsheet kind of way, propose potential solutions, and describe the steps they are taking to try and remedy those problems.

Quote
Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature.

Consider the following...

There's no need to have a single system for voting - using only mail-in ballots, only electronic, only voting machines, only whatever. All that's needed is for each system to work properly. All systems are hackable, going back to the days of paper ballots. Our job isn't to throw up our hands and say nothing works, our job is to figure out how to make it work.

Voting is voluntary, and people register to vote. When doing so, they should be able to specify which format they prefer for voting. It would be no different from some people saying they want their bank statements on paper, while others want them online. But voters also have to do their part, and keep the registrar of voters informed of when they change addresses, move, change names due to marriage, etc.

Software companies have figured out how to dissociate people from data. Having worked with Cakewalk, I do know that their analytic data on usage truly did not identify users, so it is possible. Yet each user had a unique ID.

Regarding Florida, I lived there during the 2000 election. I have no doubt it was incompetent at best, dishonest at worst. I knew people personally who went to vote and were told they couldn't because of their "felony conviction." Yet they had none. It was like when I go to a hotel and they say "Sorry, there's no reservation for you, Mr. Greg Henderson." And, the Florida recount depended on judgement calls as to voter intention. I have reasons to doubt the assessments were correct when Pat Buchanan won the predominantly Jewish section of Palm Beach by a handy margin.

You can point to any way of voting and find problems. By and large, I tend to think the majority of the issues stem more from incompetence and stupidity than malevolence. Incompetence/stupidity are clearly renewable resources, and there's plenty of both.

Now, let me point out that what I've said may appear political. It is not. I am not advocating right, left, up, or down. What I AM advocating is that it's necessary to think for yourself, whether it's an article about voting, a gear review, or your auto mechanic saying your drive train needs to be replaced. Do your own research, because with rare exceptions, the articles you see in ALL parts of the political and even social spectrum are written by people who often don't do enough research to write intelligently on a subject, or decide to cherry-pick whatever supports a foregone conclusion, or take stats or quotes out of context. If people on the left think only people on the right do that, or people on the right think only people on the left do that...they need to get out more smile

The human need to bond with a tribe is strong. That can be a good thing. Right now, I think it is being taken to extremes, and not doing anyone any favors. Overall, people seem more interested in trying to justify what they think than verifying the truth of what they think, and are too trusting of what they're being told by other members of the tribe.
Even though this is WAY OT from the O*T, I think a lot about how people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. IOW, they hear about problems with the system (voter fraud in this case) and they act like it's completely corrupt and are unwilling to do things like add mail-in voting or whatever. I don't deny that entirely new systems are sometimes needed, but often it just needs an adjustment. As Craig said in his excellent post, "Our job isn't to throw up our hands and say nothing works, our job is to figure out how to make it work."


*Original
First, excellent post just above, thank you Craig!

Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Au contraire,Craig

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ssing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.

Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature.
Bob

HUGE is HUGELY overstating a made-up "problem" as near as I can tell.
Perhaps you missed my post above where I speak of the system in WA, all voting is done by mail.
My signature was checked BEFORE my vote was validated. They saw a discrepency, contacted me and we straightened things out. THEN my vote was validated.
That IS how things are done here in WA. We've had no verifiable voter fraud, nor have we had a single candidate challenge any vote-by-mail election results.

Is it impossible to commit voter fraud? It never has been and never will be impossible. If one studies American history it becomes clear that it is much easier to prevent access to polling places as a means of preventing groups of people from voting than it is to change the outcome of an election that is done using the mail.

I searched the topic of voter fraud and will not link or quote any of several articles as they ALL exhibited significant political bias of one sort or another. As always, there is a human tendency to seek "facts" that verify and support beliefs rather than developing beliefs that are supported by facts. Cheers, Kuru
I understand what you're saying but facts presented with a political bias are still facts. Also, WA is a state that heavily leans towards one party, little chance of a highly contested recount so of course no problems with verifying ballots until if or when a contested recount comes up. There are a lot of what sounds like fact to me in that RCP article but it would take a week to track it all down especially things like illegal ballot harvesting and were 28 million ballots really lost or is that just spin? Craig did a great job of trying to track some of those points down and I commend him for the effort. To me it was a waste of time to even mention the author was biased though. Of course he's biased so is every person writing about virtually any hot button issue. They're all biased to one side or the other, just look at surveys of journalists asking who they voted for or what party they belong to.

It's our job to filter biases out but that doesn't mean everything they wrote is wrong. And, don't keep reading things that are biased to one side only. Even if it's from "official sources" in a state government. Lots of them are political appointees so even if it's on a spreadsheet that looks all scientific, who put that together? Were they under orders form the Governor or someone to put it out one way or the other? Were there dissenting opinions about it? That's why I specifically read stuff that is considered highly biased on both sides. To me that NPR article is biased yet the facts are still correct. It's a matter of what they chose to use for the headline. If they wanted to spin it as a somewhat good news story the headline would say "No spike in COVID 19 cases after the Wisconsin election" which was the conclusion at the end and supported by a quote from an official. Instead the headline was "Milwaukee claims 7 cases" which puts a somewhat negative spin on it. Not terrible and not even all that political, it's just typical news going for the bad to generate more attention or to promote a narrative that it was a bad idea to hold an in person election. And, here's a update on the election:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ronavirus-cases-possibly-exposed-through

A somewhat negative headline that is not factually wrong but later in the article it says this:

Since officials only have data on positive cases, without a comparison group of people who were not tested or tested negative, Goodsitt said “there is no way to know with certainty if any exposures at the polls that are reported are in fact attributable to COVID-19 illness.”

Overall this is a good article and it tells the story but again what headline should they have used? Who knows, it all depends on a readers individual biases towards this. To me, 40 cases out of 200,000 voters is a drop in the bucket considering we now know a good portion of those won't even have symptoms, some slight symptoms and a good chance that no one requires hospitalization. They're doing contact tracing and they will find some more cases but it doesn't look to me like 40 is going to balloon to a thousand or something. In other words it's an acceptable risk and in the big picture no big deal.

Bob
Looking at The Hill website I found what to me is the best article I've read to date that basically supports everything I've been saying or writing or even thinking for over a month now. It's written by an MD and based on research from Stanford and other sources. People can still disagree but right now this is pretty much 100% of my feelings about it. Point #4 is especially important. I thought of that weeks ago and rarely hear a whisper about it but to me it's a big offset to the highly reported virus deaths. And, at age 74 I totally accept the fact that we (meaning the overall group of seniors) should not be holding back everyone else from getting their lives back together and getting this country going again. We had our day, I have no problem with having to take extra precautions for the next few years even and if it gets me, then it gets me. Anybody who reaches their mid 70's knows their time is limited anyway and I've never worried about it or what happens after for that matter. I'll find out soon enough.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...op-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
I understand what you're saying but facts presented with a political bias are still facts.

Yes, but bias can use facts to deliberately deceive. For example, if I say "Voter fraud is clearly rampant. X number of ballots were not even delivered" or "Due to changes of address, X number of ballots were not delivered," in both cases X is the same number. But the conclusions presented from that fact are VERY different. Now, to justify either opinion, the onus is on proving voter fraud, or proving that the undelivered ballots were due to changes of address. When I investigated further, given the number of changes of address, and the number of undelivered ballots, it seemed most logical to me that there was a correlation. I would modify that opinion in a second if a postal worker said he or she looked up houses on the voter rolls to try to determine which homes were occupied by Democrats and which were occupied by Republicans, and threw away the ballots going to the homes of the party he or she didn't like. Then I would change my opinion to thinking there was fraud involved.

Quote
Craig did a great job of trying to track some of those points down and I commend him for the effort. To me it was a waste of time to even mention the author was biased though. Of course he's biased so is every person writing about virtually any hot button issue. They're all biased to one side or the other, just look at surveys of journalists asking who they voted for or what party they belong to.

You missed the point of what I wrote, which is both left and right people are biased, you can't trust anyone, and to think for yourself. After I tracked down the facts, I became convinced that only a very, very small percentage of issues with mail balloting likely involved fraud. Yet that is the way some people want to cast it, to serve a particular agenda. I don't think the facts bear that out. Attributing the lost ballots to fraud is an opinion. My thinking not much is fraud is also an opinion, but I can provide links to back that up smile

Quote
It's our job to filter biases out but that doesn't mean everything they wrote is wrong.

Again, I specifically said:

I also looked up the credentials of the person who wrote the story. He has a definite political bias. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. But, it means he sees the world through a particular filter, and communicates through that filter.

Or in simpler terms...always consider the source. It's important to question whether your believing facts, or a belief system's interpretation of facts.

Quote
And, don't keep reading things that are biased to one side only.

Obviously, I don't. I read the opinions you cited from the right, and even sought out additional opinions from the more extreme right, and center (e.g., the Hill) you didn't reference. I didn't read any opinions from the left. I simply went to sites that contain actual statistics and drew my own conclusions, which is what I was recommending that everyone do.

Quote
Even if it's from "official sources" in a state government. Lots of them are political appointees so even if it's on a spreadsheet that looks all scientific, who put that together? Were they under orders form the Governor or someone to put it out one way or the other?

All we have to work with is the stats presented by people whose job it is to collect stats. Many of them serve under administrations of different parties. If the Governor said "hey, I know you found there were 200,000 missing ballots, but could you say 400,000 instead?," I can only hope at least one employee would have the integrity to blow the whistle.

But asking those questions invalidates your opinion, because if the articles you cited drew their conclusions from stats that you don't trust, you inherently cannot trust the conclusions reached in those articles. So, it makes no sense to link to them, if you believe the stats upon which they based their conclusions can't be trusted.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Looking at The Hill website I found what to me is the best article I've read to date that basically supports everything I've been saying or writing or even thinking for over a month now.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...op-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

I find The Hill quite credible. First, they're good about correcting factual errors; when they report a lie as fact, they correct it. Second, right-wing people think it's biased toward the left, and left-wing people think it's biased toward the right. To me, that's the sign of a lack of bias colliding with peoples' filters and belief systems.

That said, hindsight is gorgeous. "Draconian" measures were undertaken when no one had a clue about what the virus would do. It had never existed before, and there was no precedent. Not erring on the side of caution would have been disastrous had the worst-case scenarios played out.

Also, in my opinion, ever since Hurricane Katrina disasters have been co-opted for political purposes. By now, it's a familiar playbook: "You should have anticipated what was coming." Well, yes, but I don't see anyone hardening the grid against X-Class solar storms. When one hits, we have no electricity for six months, all the reactors melt down, and millions of people die, whoever will be president at the time will be told "Hey, there was a guy on an internet forum for effing musicians who knew this would happen! Why didn't you?"

Over the last four months, we've learned a lot more about how the virus works. It's not true that young people are immune; they're just much less susceptible. It's not true that all old people die; they're just a lot more susceptible. And so on. There are course corrections being made every day, based on improved understanding of the virus.

What needs to happen now is a rational assessment of risk, but it HAS to be coupled with a sincere attempt to minimize those risks. Take the meat-packing plants, which have now become corona virus hotspots. True, closing them down will impact the food chain. But you can't open them up without testing the employees to see who is positive. Now it becomes a practical matter, which is finding enough tests to do this kind of thing...and we're kind of back to square one, because again, we don't know what we're dealing with, and we won't unless we have reliable tests. And we don't even know for sure if having the virus makes you immune. So if a zillion more people become affected, based just on the numbers, it won't only be old people in nursing homes who die.

I'm also not so sure that the thing won't have a few more surprises in store for us that we can't anticipate...we can only do the best we can, but "the best" requires keeping politics out of it, listening to a broad array of scientific opinions, and being flexible enough to pivot when things change instead of hardening positions based on obsolete data.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Voting by mail has been a HUGE issue all over the country.
Forget the missing ballots, suppression and all that. Just throw those ideas out. To me the biggest problem is legal. If an election is close enough to trigger a recount and it's all mail in ballots, what then? The only way to validate a mail in ballot is to verity the signature.
Bob

Originally Posted by KuruPrionz
As always, there is a human tendency to seek "facts" that verify and support beliefs rather than developing beliefs that are supported by facts. Cheers, Kuru

Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
There are a lot of what sounds like fact to me in that RCP article but it would take a week to track it all down especially things like illegal ballot harvesting and were 28 million ballots really lost or is that just spin?

They're doing contact tracing and they will find some more cases but it doesn't look to me like 40 is going to balloon to a thousand or something. In other words it's an acceptable risk and in the big picture no big deal.

Bob

Yeah, no reason to fact check.
Me either, facts are just pesky annoyances.

I wish you and yours the best - be well, be safe!
I shall now remove myself from this conversation. Cheers, Kuru
Still, the question remains...now what? As usual, it's much easier to get into a difficult situation than get out of it.

For example, how is the concert industry going to come back? Will anyone go on a music cruise again? Will live sound engineers have to start delivering food for GrubHub? All I can think is that anyone who thinks they have the answer, doesn't have the answer smile
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Also, WA is a state that heavily leans towards one party, little chance of a highly contested recount so of course no problems with verifying ballots until if or when a contested recount comes up.
Bob, Washington state is just one example. Utah leans towards the other party and "vote at home" seems to be working quite well there. Arizona and Montana are going that way as well, as is California. I doubt that all these places that are going this route are ignoring the issues of potential recounts. Even if they are, all it will take is one for them to have problems and they'll all start fixing the issues.

Also note that you don't have to mail in your ballot, you can drop it off at a secure site.

Originally Posted by Anderton
Still, the question remains...now what? As usual, it's much easier to get into a difficult situation than get out of it.

For example, how is the concert industry going to come back? Will anyone go on a music cruise again? Will live sound engineers have to start delivering food for GrubHub? All I can think is that anyone who thinks they have the answer, doesn't have the answer smile
If the Oxford vaccine actually shows up this fall (NY Times link), we could get back to "normal" pretty soon. That being said, I personally hope that some lessons about lifestyle are truly learned from this. We've learned more people can work from home, and that we can reduce traffic, air pollution, water pollution, consume smarter, and more. To me, going back to the way things were would be a waste of this opportunity. JMO.

More specifically, here are two more links from NY Times about how live culture may be changing.

Quote
Witness the future of live culture
The arts world is finding inventive ways to welcome patrons again. Gallery openings have resumed in Seoul, South Korea, with attendants recording the name, address and phone number of visitors to trace potential exposure to the coronavirus.

In the U.S., the Barrington Stage Company in Massachusetts said it plans to hold live theatrical performances this summer — mostly one-person shows, with no intermission. It will remove 70 percent of the seats inside the theater, so each audience member will have plenty of space.

The one thing I keep thinking about with distancing in theaters is how do you accommodate groups? If they take out (or make unavailable) seats in any kind of theater so that each seat has six feet around it, that means I don't get to sit with my wife. Or in a movie theater, parents need to sit with their kids. The best idea I can come up with is an algorithm for theaters where you buy your seats in advance. Once someone selects seats, the computer can mark out the right number of seats around that person or group as unavailable, making a six foot distance. That can continue until the theater is "full." Other theaters could do this by hand.
Piano Weekly AKA Greg Spero has been doing a daily early morning stream since the virus stay at home and starting to do more interviews and not just playing piano. Todays was interesting he had a handful of publicists talking about how some of their clients are dealing and the monetization model. Also a new website trying to help musicians promote and stream and make a couple bucks doing it.

So if interested here's the link:

Almost did it again. This is my favorite musicians forum and I seriously respect and admire everybody here especially you Craig. I do have a weakness for certain other discussions and I'm stopping right here. Kuru, you're a good guy lets talk about music. I really am all about the music when I'm not working on taxes so with that said, back to "What's next..."

While I'm hopeful as I said earlier that this pandemic will work itself out sooner rather than later unfortunately I don't think that applies to us as gigging musicians. All I can say is the same thing that has been repeated for weeks now, until there are good treatments that make us feel safe enough to share a tight stage much less a mic with other people it's simply not happening any time soon. And that's just from my personal POV. I know there are plenty of members on this forum who have their own health issues or have close family members who do and they're not taking any chances. I can see some bands getting some gigs maybe by July but some individual players may pass on the gig so there will be subs and they may lose their seat permanently. That could be me because I'm the oldest person and I may pass on some gigs too. It's one thing to say I feel safe enough to go shopping as long as I take the common sense precautions but it's another to be setting up gear and performing right on top of three other guys crammed in a corner. As for commercial establishments I see big problems there too. Restricted seating? Dancing? Stop live music altogether? I have two different annual house parties and one is a very crowded living room and the other on a crowded pool deck. I doubt those are happening but have not heard from them yet and then maybe it's me who says no, it just depends. It's gonna be a hard year for sure.

I know one thing, I'm not playing with a mask so I've got to feel safe enough to play without one and that's assuming whoever is hiring me or us doesn't require it. If they want the band to wear masks, forget it.

Bob
There will likely be ways to have concerts under less-than-optimal circumstances, but I think DJs are really going to be in trouble. So much of that experience is based entirely on the DJ being able to interact with the crowd and form a feedback loop where the reaction determines the music, which creates a reaction, which determines more about the music's direction, etc. DJ sets aren't going to happen if people need to stand six feet apart, or sit in chairs.

The timing couldn't be worse. So many DJ sets are positive and all about having fun, and we sure could use some of that right now. I'm not sure it would translate into a streaming experience to the home..
This discussion has me motivated to learn more about statistics (my stats class in college being a long time ago). I hate to be manipulated by cherry picked stats and I hate to see others manipulated by them, but the cherry pickers take advantage of the fact that most will, if it satisfies their bias, not question what they read- after all, it's on the internet. The only blowback seems to come when what people are being fed doesn't jibe with what they are experiencing. Having said that, I am familiar with the RCP site and do not feel the article in question is a good representation of RCP, which skews right overall but makes a point of including opposing arguments.

Hope it is not taboo to ask this, but it has been alluded to: Do the elderly and the vulnerable, who's protection is largely a justification for the lockdown, have a say in all this? How much economic hardship- which as pointed out by the Hill article, itself costs lives- would they themselves wish to impose on the entire populace, for the sake of their (the elderly's) protection? I'm guessing that collectively, they would not want it to be so. Maybe a poll of MPN members, many of whom are seniors (although better educated ones) would reflect that.

I know that the problem with that is the ones who suffer from dementia and the loss of their reasoning facilities. The latter symptom, IMO, is just as likely caused by extreme political partisanship.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
I know that the problem with that is the ones who suffer from dementia and the loss of their reasoning facilities. The latter symptom, IMO, is just as likely caused by extreme political partisanship.

You mean like S....ARGGGH! No, no, no...

Bob

Your point about how many seniors want to seriously hold up the country on their behalf is a good one.
I'm concerned about our fall and winter season. The majority of our yearly income comes between Halloween and Easter. 6 months = >80% of our yearly gross.

In the 12 years of playing at a small, outdoor restaurant on a weekday during lunchtime, they have been known to take in well over $3,000 in 3 hours. Tha'ts why we are the only band still here from the ones we started with 12 years ago.

[Linked Image from nortonmusic.com]

If these people have to sit 6 feet apart, there is no way the house will be able to afford us.

This little restaurant is the original guard house for the US Navy SEALS which were formed here in Ft. Pierce FL during WWII. It's historic, therefore not modernized but still looking like the historic era.

As we do this on a weekday, we get a retired audience. Sometimes the crowds are so big, it spills out into the parking lot. Our 'regulars' know to bring lawn chairs if they want to be assured of getting a seat.

We also play a RV park where 600 RVs of French Canadians winter and another 300 US and English Canadians make camp for the winter. We play outdoors on a porch that at times is so crowded that people are shoulder to shoulder. Others come in their golf carts and crowd the parking lot. We do this twice a month.There is no way these folks are going to be able to be 6' apart.

The rest of our gigs are yacht clubs, country clubs, and retirement communities. It's a big audience here in South Florida and I moved to this genre when I turned 40.

What does that mean to me?

I need to adapt to survive.

Since 1992 I've had a small, part-time income writing style e-disks and fake e-disks for an auto-accompaniment app called Band-in-a-Box http://www.nortonmusic.com -- I've done this in my spare time, mostly working on new products in the slow months of August and September. It looks like my part-time, spare time gig is going to become a full-time gig. Not as satisfying as gigging, but survival goes to the adaptable.

In isolation, Leilani and I have been putting 16 hours per day into making new products. Hopefully we'll have a release in a month or two.

Since I do my own websites, it also means HTML code, shopping cart code, demo files, and so forth.

I'm also thinking about a couple of other things, perhaps a UTube channel.

But gigging is my bliss. I don't know how the gig scene is going to re-emerge, but when and if it does, I'll do my best to adapt to that as well.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
How much economic hardship - which as pointed out by the Hill article, itself costs lives - would they themselves wish to impose on the entire populace, for the sake of their (the elderly's) protection? I'm guessing that collectively, they would not want it to be so.

Two big problems with this.

Younger people might not want to lose their parents, and they should have a say in this too. Furthermore, a lot of the economy is being driven by people over 60. Look at average ages of CEOs, presidents, political figures, entertainment industry moguls, you name it. The country is not being run by kids; they contribute a not insignificant, but nonetheless finite, amount to the economy and our shared knowledgebase.

But the MUCH more important aspect is that the choice that's presented - preserve the economy and die, or be selfish and ruin things for everybody - reflexively assumes there aren't much better choices. There are. As more gets known about the virus, it will become ever-easier to protect the most vulnerable, while allowing the economy to continue at a normal pace for those who are not in danger, or statistically speaking, in much less danger.

We already do that with diseases that have a precedent. We know what to do with them. The current problem is that the world was caught off-guard by something that had never existed before, and no one knows what to do yet. However, we are learning.

It's kind of like asking me if I'd rather eat dirt or rocks for dinner, because we're standing outside in a place that has dirt and rocks. I'd point out that by simply walking a mile, we can go to a supermarket, and choose something way more appealing. Those who think that the only options are for older people to die, or they'll ruin it for everyone else, shows, in my opinion, either a failure of imagination, a prioritization of expediency over human life (which someone who's pro-life cannot adopt without being untrue to their beliefs), or an assumption that humans aren't smart enough to figure out a better solution. However, to forestall a continuation of this discussion where people disagree with me and feel the need to comment, it's entirely possible that I'm at best misguided, and as worst stupid, to think that humans have imagination, pro-lifers are intellectually consistent, and science/research will come up with answers (possibly sooner rather than later).

Yes, some people will suffer financially. I've lost gigs because of this, and had to pivot. But that happens in recessions, wars, and depressions anyway. It's not like it's never happened before, and if there's the will, there are enough resources right now to minimize that suffering.

Humans...can't live 'em, can't live without 'em.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
What does that mean to me?

I need to adapt to survive.

Or as David Byrne said, "same as it ever was." smile

Case in point: check out the MPN Shop! If companies aren't advertising, well, then we have to figure out some other way to pay for the site's servers and maintenance. If this doesn't work, we'll figure out something else. We want to keep the site going.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
How much economic hardship - which as pointed out by the Hill article, itself costs lives - would they themselves wish to impose on the entire populace, for the sake of their (the elderly's) protection? I'm guessing that collectively, they would not want it to be so.

Two big problems with this.

Younger people might not want to lose their parents, and they should have a say in this too. Furthermore, a lot of the economy is being driven by people over 60. Look at average ages of CEOs, presidents, political figures, entertainment industry moguls, you name it. The country is not being run by kids; they contribute a not insignificant, but nonetheless finite, amount to the economy and our shared knowledgebase.

But the MUCH more important aspect is that the choice that's presented - preserve the economy and die, or be selfish and ruin things for everybody - reflexively assumes there aren't much better choices. There are. As more gets known about the virus, it will become ever-easier to protect the most vulnerable, while allowing the economy to continue at a normal pace for those who are not in danger, or statistically speaking, in much less danger.

We already do that with diseases that have a precedent. We know what to do with them. The current problem is that the world was caught off-guard by something that had never existed before, and no one knows what to do yet. However, we are learning.

It's kind of like asking me if I'd rather eat dirt or rocks for dinner, because we're standing outside in a place that has dirt and rocks. I'd point out that by simply walking a mile, we can go to a supermarket, and choose something way more appealing. Those who think that the only options are for older people to die, or they'll ruin it for everyone else, shows, in my opinion, either a failure of imagination, a prioritization of expediency over human life (which someone who's pro-life cannot adopt without being untrue to their beliefs), or an assumption that humans aren't smart enough to figure out a better solution. However, to forestall a continuation of this discussion where people disagree with me and feel the need to comment, it's entirely possible that I'm at best misguided, and as worst stupid, to think that humans have imagination, pro-lifers are intellectually consistent, and science/research will come up with answers (possibly sooner rather than later).

Yes, some people will suffer financially. I've lost gigs because of this, and had to pivot. But that happens in recessions, wars, and depressions anyway. It's not like it's never happened before, and if there's the will, there are enough resources right now to minimize that suffering.

Humans...can't live 'em, can't live without 'em.

1) I am one of those with an elderly parent that I do not want to lose, so understand that concern. If I didn't value her, I would not have taken her into my home 8 years ago. And I know most people feel the same way, even if they do not have the option of caring for their parent at home (she actually does need to be in a group home, but I'm glad I have not yet put her in one, for obvious reasons).

2) Framing the damage to the economy as "some people will suffer financially", IMO, drastically understates it. Perhaps I have been oversold on the damage a prolonged shutdown would do. But it's not a case of people with unimaginable wealth using their influence to force a reopening just so they can make their already unimaginable wealth even more unimaginable. It's a case of everyday people needing to feed their families and pay bills, who are skeptical that the government can or will keep them afloat forever. Those people should have the freedom to make their own choices, IMO. My own personal choice, with no children, is to not be around groups where I could be exposed and risk giving it to my parent.

3) There is a vast amount not yet known about the disease, but some things ARE becoming clearer. The much lower estimated mortality rate is one. Should we not alter our response at all, with that knowledge? Or is it not enough to go on? Also, it has been known for some time one sure way to protect the vulnerable- by isolating them from anyone who could possibly expose them to it. Should that be prescribed for everybody?

4) I fully understand that with each passing month, additional aspects of how to prevent contagion will become known, that will alter how we deal with the disease. So more time would be indeed be preferred. My business degree from a cow college doesn't make me an economic expert, so I don't know how much time we have before the economy is destroyed. I'm not sure the experts do either, but they do know more than I do.

5) You seem to jump to the conclusion that I, or the writer of the Hill article, stand in judgment of the original shutdown, when virtually nothing was was known about the virus. I don't and I didn't get that out of the article, either. I think it was entirely reasonable to take those actions, at the time. After all, WHO was citing a 2+% mortality rate and models were forecasting millions of deaths in the US.

6) Human nature is such as that people can only tolerate the isolation for so long, absent martial law.

7) One thing I have noticed is that the goalposts seem to be constantly moving. The original reason for the shutdown was "flattening the curve" to avoid overrun of our medical facilities, and avoid the tragic situation such as happened with Italy, where Doctors had to do triage and turn elderly victims away. As far as I know, that has been accomplished (I could be wrong). So now, people are citing other rationales (which have escaped me for now, sorry).

8) RE the US has the resources to support people's standard of living during many more months of resources, that's true- but how will that be accomplished, short of forcible confiscation? (maybe we will know, after November). I feel that the mega-rich should voluntarily give their wealth to the cause. If I were one of the mega-rich, that's what I would do. But if they were like me, they wouldn't be mega-rich.

You know way more about science and technology than I do so it is heartening to see your optimism. Maybe there is more of that than I realized out there. Thanks for the response.
So today my wife booked a new gig for June 5th, an outdoor show at a popular place outside of our town a short ways. We still have a booking for May 22nd that is not officially canceled and we decided that if the gig is a go we'll do it for free as a show of support for a business that's suffered badly like so many.

Restrictions in our state begin loosening up May 1st in 77 of our 99 counties. In the rest (ours included) restrictions have been extended until May 15th. Our state stopped short of a "shelter in place" order and I've continued working all along as an "essential" employee at an "essential" job as part of Mission Systems at a company with huge government/military contracts. My wife has continued her medical practice from home and hasn't been to her office at the university for weeks.
I wonder why it's so difficult for people outside these forums to engage in constructive discussions smile Maybe we can infect them!

I'll keep it short.

2) It may be a drastic understatement, and yes, it's the poor-to-middle-class that gets hits the hardest (they do in any recession). But I see a lot of companies desperate to hire people right now. The problem is that not everyone is comfortable dealing with the public. In that case, it's the virus that's making people suffer, not whether the economy is open or closed. Even if it were all open tomorrow, I don't know anyone who's going to a packed theater any time soon.

3+4) What you're saying is the point I was trying to make: "As more gets known about the virus, it will become ever-easier to protect the most vulnerable, while allowing the economy to continue at a normal pace for those who are not in danger, or statistically speaking, in much less danger." We don't have all the answers yet, but if we can hold on a little longer, I think we will. Economies can collapse, but no one knows how long it takes, how deep it will be, etc. Your statement "I don't know how much time we have before the economy is destroyed" is farmore credible than what I hear from the "experts" smile

5) No, I think pretty much everyone (aside from those who dismissed that there was going to be any problem) agrees it was right to err on the side of caution initially. After all, we were dealing with something unknown and potentially very dangerous.

6) It's different in different places. Here in Tennessee, you're not forced not to go into the world, so people choose whether to be isolated. It's different when people choose not to go into the world, and most here are, because they don't want to take a chance, compared to being forced to do something. There are a lot of people outside, walking dogs, going to parks, etc. but they do practice social distancing - they're not hanging out in groups, churches do online services, etc. It's an acceptable compromise for most people.

7) The problem with "flattening the curve" is people thought that meant the virus would go away. You are correct that it was to avoid an overrun of medical facilities, people are just going to get sick on a more relaxed schedule. The problem right now is the USA is a big country, without a uniform strategy for solving the problem. So even though things are getting better on the east coast, they're getting worse in the midwest. It's very much like a forest fire. The main areas burn out, but then a spark gets carried by the wind, and flames start happening somewhere else. It could take a long time before the corona virus burns out. Or maybe not. No one knows. At the moment, based on what we know, the "re-opening" thing is a gamble. Like any gamble, you don't know the outcome.

But it's also important to remember that even if people don't die, you don't want them to get sick. Even the regular flu causes a big hit in productivity, and people who survive can still get very sick from COVID-19 (e.g., permanent lung damage). Even pneumonia can cause lung damage that can't be repaired.

8) I truly think by and large, people are generally good. The MIDI Manufacturers Association is about to start the "May Is MIDI Month" celebration, which has traditionally been used for fundraising to keep the free MIDI Association running, create educational materials, and assist schools. However, this year all the proceeds are going to COVID-19 relief through the Grammy Foundation's MusiCares charity. Other organizations are thinking similarly. The founder of Twitter is giving away a lot of money, Gates is contributing to creating a vaccine, etc. Churches around here are offering food. You're taking care of your mom. Some people think we're all in this together, and acting accordingly. I think there are enough of us...we'll see.
The "new normal" will not be masks and distancing, it will be acceptance of 1.5% of the population getting seriously sick. We don't wear masks because of the 1918 Spanish flu, we moved on. People die of all kinds of things and we move on. I predict by the end of NEXT summer we'll be completely back to normal. Completely.
How about extensive testing and tracking?

Would the cost of millions of testing kits be worse than the cost of a recession/depression? I don't know how much a test kit would cost if mass produced.

Would it be less than the cost of treating a second wave of cases to our health care systems and insurance companies?

Since we know there are asymptomatic people out there, sending everyone out to work without knowing if they are positive or not seems to be a recipe for disaster. Remember the lesson of Typhoid Mary and learn from that.

So how much would it cost to repeatedly test everyone and if necessary quarantine those testing positive?

To tell the truth, I don't know if this is practical or not, but sounds more constructive than giving millions of dollars to business like the LA Lakers, Ruth Chris Steakhouses, Trump hotels, Big Oil, and so forth.

I read that New Zealand, with an admittedly much smaller population (and also with fewer resources) has effectively stopped the virus with extensive testing and tracking. The Prime Minister said that by keeping their methods up, any new cases that might pop up will be handled quickly and the victim and close contacts will be isolated, tested, and/or treated.

I would like to see the US, one of the richest countries in the world at least make a study of this a priority and if practical, implement that instead of give-aways to big business.

I know putting people to work creating test kits sounds like an FDR/Democratic type work project, but the results of those projects brought us out of the great depression.

I'd love to go back to work if it didn't mean playing Russian Roulette.

Insights and incites by Notes
I guess the bottom line for me is, how does my neighbor down the street being able to go back to work, put my elderly parent at additional risk? I admit that's a very self-centered focus.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
I guess the bottom line for me is, how does my neighbor down the street being able to go back to work, put my elderly parent at additional risk? I admit that's a very self-centered focus.
Or is it self centered by the elderly and vulnerable people to demand that no one can go back to work because they're worried? All vulnerable people have plenty of options to stay safe. They can have a family member bring them groceries or they can have them delivered. They can wear masks, wash their hands every 5 minutes, and practice proper distancing.

My parents are around 80 and staying in for the next while regardless of when restrictions are lifted. They would never consider demanding that their young grandkids or anyone's grandkids suffer because they are at risk.
...giving millions of dollars to business like the LA Lakers, Ruth Chris Steakhouses, Trump hotels, Big Oil, and so forth.

Notes, I understand you have zero respect for the ultra rich and big corporations and that's fine but you need to pay attention to the news more. Initially that sucked and I agreed with you but then the stimulus money that went to those entities has been given back or at least most of it. As for Big Oil, they haven't gotten anything, that's still being debated. And, Trump's businesses never got anything and there's no debate about that, it's in the law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/25/coronavirus-stimulus-bill-trump-businesses-wont-get-money.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/los-an...urned-their-coronavirus-loan-11588010014

This is yet another example of how fast things are moving. We all see or read something that tweaks our sensibilities, we form a quick opinion like we normally do and in a day or two what we thought we knew has been turned upside down.

Bob
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
2) Framing the damage to the economy as "some people will suffer financially", IMO, drastically understates it. Perhaps I have been oversold on the damage a prolonged shutdown would do. But it's not a case of people with unimaginable wealth using their influence to force a reopening just so they can make their already unimaginable wealth even more unimaginable. It's a case of everyday people needing to feed their families and pay bills, who are skeptical that the government can or will keep them afloat forever. Those people should have the freedom to make their own choices, IMO. My own personal choice, with no children, is to not be around groups where I could be exposed and risk giving it to my parent.

This is exactly right, imho. Please reread my post about the risks of a second Great Depression earlier in this thread. Economists right now are talking about a serious threat to the supply chain. Like most things this is complicated but what that means is the mega businesses depend on merely big businesses as suppliers. Those merely big suppliers depend on medium sized suppliers and those medium sized suppliers depend on small business suppliers. An expert on this gave an example yesterday. GM makes cars. They have suppliers like Delco or Firestone Tires. Also a huge mega business. Go on down the chain to a small business only worth say, 40 million. That's tiny compared to the big boys. That supplier just went under and declared bankruptcy. They make a critical electronic gizmo that's part of the ignition system in a vehicle. The ENTIRE production line is stopped because they can't get that part. Sure, another company can take over but unless they have thousands of that EXACT part ready to go, it can take months for a new company to get up and running. Exactly what the situation has been with producing new ventilators.

Multiply this one little example by every big business in the country and the world. The supply chain is the key to everything. One little cog way down the line goes out of business and the whole industry is stopped in it's tracks and millions of people are laid off until it's fixed. The second example he gave was food production. Same thing. Some smaller companies way down the supply chain goes BK and suddenly we have food shortages all over the place. And this is what causes a Great Depression. And, there's no quick fix, once it starts it has to run it's course. We don't know what trigger would cause this cascading leading to a broken supply chain across every sector of the economy and we don't want to find out.

The only way to prevent this is to get the economy going again and the virus be damned just like Dan said earlier. We just have to accept that risk as a part of life. And Craig made some good points too. Lots of people don't want to go back to work even though they're hurting financially and that will be a problem. Some of that is happening with Boeing right now. And it's also true that many older and even elderly people are the ones in the highest positions and are running things including politicians and CEO's. My thinking there is they have the resources to protect themselves, they can do remote meetings, wear masks and things like that and keep going. If a CEO is elderly with a lot of underlying health issues, he may well decide to resign his position and call it a day and let a healthier and younger person take over. We all have choices and the world will carry on.

Bob
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
I guess the bottom line for me is, how does my neighbor down the street being able to go back to work, put my elderly parent at additional risk?

It doesn't put your elderly parents at risk, it puts your neighbor and your neighbor's neighbors at risk. Now that things are re-opening, it's up to businesses to decide whether they want to put their employees potentially at risk, and if a business is open, It's up to your neighbor to decide whether to go back to work. Those decisions are not for your parents to make.

Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Or is it self-centered by the elderly and vulnerable people to demand that no one can go back to work because they're worried?

They aren't demanding anything, guidelines have been issued by state, local, and federal governments. Those guidelines were best estimates of the severity of the illness and erred on the side of caution. Remember, the magnitude of this thing has only been taken seriously by everyone for less than 90 days. That really isn't much time to know everything we need to know. Look how long it took to get sufficient data to find out exactly who is the most vulnerable.

I'm over 70, and I'm not "demanding" anything of anybody. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to go back to work is free to do so...and I'm free to have groceries delivered. When I do go out into the world, I'm extremely careful anyway. I could just as easily get killed by a drunk driver.

But framing the discussion in such simplistic terms ("things are closed down because old people are worried"), aside from being inaccurate, misses a much, much bigger picture. Currently, meat packing plants are hot spots for the virus, with hundreds of people getting sick at each plant, all over the country. They aren't elderly or vulnerable or demanding anything. Sure, most of them won't die...but they're too sick to work, and they're making others at the plants sick, which is disrupting the food chain that feeds people of all ages.

And, just because someone is young, healthy, and doesn't die, getting sicker than pneumonia, or having permanent lung damage, is a very big deal. The virus isn't digital, where either you die, or you're basically okay - younger people who are borderline healthy (obese, diabetic, weakened from certain environmental exposures like asbestos or excessive air pollution, smokers, etc.) could die if there isn't hospital space to give them care, or if the health providers are sick and/or dying. But even if you just say screw it, anyone over 70 can just die, you still have to care for those people under 70 who get sick from the virus. And, the 30-year-old who gets into a motorcycle accident may find there's no available bed...

Again, to quote Bob Marley - "When the rain falls, it don't fall on one man's house" smile

So then you might think "well, not that many young people require hospitalization, so they're not going to overwhelm the system. What's the big deal?"

Here's what no one seems to be talking about, so maybe I have it wrong. But...the bottom line is that there have been about 1 million infections in the US, according to what the CDC knows. That's probably inaccurate, so let's triple that and assume that there have been 3 million infections. That means 99% of the US has not been infected, has not been killed, has not gotten sick, has not stressed out hospitals, etc. - but also, that 99% is eligible to get the virus, and there is zero doubt that it is highly contagious. Imagine the disruptions that would happen if even only another 10% got infected. Given that a 1% infection rate has left us with (so far) 61,000 people dead, multiply that by 10 for a 10% infection rate, and you have 610,000 people dead. A spike where that 10% happened in a couple months, which is a possibility if steps aren't taken to "flatten the curve" (and then we're back to square one), would be really problematic.

There have not been enough infections to create herd immunity, we're months away from that. We're also months away from a vaccine. What do we do until then is the question, because I agree with J Dead that next summer, things will be back to normal (minus any remaining economic scars).

Every opinion I've read from medical professionals of any political persuasion is the same: The safest way to re-open the economy is through extensive testing to find out exactly what we're dealing with, but for whatever reason, there aren't sufficient capabilities to do testing in the numbers required to re-open the economy safely. That has nothing to do with "old people." So, as I said before, it's a gamble...and by definition, a gamble has an uncertain outcome.
If the above was too long to read, the bottom line is: There are no good solutions, only less bad ones...and whichever one ends up being chosen will be a gamble, with unintended consequences. Have a nice day smile
Exactly correct IF there really have been only 3 million infections. The point of that Politico article is it "could be" much more than that and there is some evidence supporting that idea. That study I referred to earlier and didn't post because it's such heavy reading but I'll be happy to post it if you want, indicates it was closer to 28 million infections already by mid March in the US. There are other admittedly small studies pointing to similar numbers. As you correctly point out, all these are preliminary, various institutions are all desperately trying along with the rest of us, to get some kind of indication as to how severe this is. While preliminary, most of them seems to indicate anywhere from 10% to even 30% have already been infected. I've seen the recent tests that you refer to showing 2 or 4%. But little samples from all over show 30% or higher. A random group of 200 people walking down a sidewalk in Boston, a homeless shelter with 45% and no symptoms in SF and several others like that. IF, and that's a big if for sure, that's true then there is significant immunity out there and the risk is actually much lower than it looks.

I keep referring to the California Mystery. I track LA County numbers and the county has about 10 million residents. LA doesn't have the density of Manhattan but it's still considered a high density area. One drive down the 405 freeway during normal times will tell you that. Right now it's 22,485 cases, 1,056 deaths and that represents a large spike that just happened. What's a big cause of that spike? Prisons and nursing homes. A spike like that has little to do with average people getting back to work. These are still significant numbers for sure but not even close to any kind of projection you can name showing what the numbers would be by May 1. It's just not happening here to that extent. According to travel stats LAX had the single largest number of Chinese visitors in the country from December to when the travel ban went into effect March 14, we should have had a ton of cases, almost as bad as NY. Is it warm weather, is it there were unknown cases going back to October, is it herd immunity, what the heck is it? I keep coming back to the apparent fact that over half of infections have no symptoms and another 10-15% have mild enough symptoms people just thought it was another cold or flu. With no direct evidence I'm putting my money on immunity, it just makes logical sense. Of course, in making that statement I feel like the bomb disposal guy deciding at the last second which wire to cut... As you just now said, "there are no good solutions only less bad ones". Right. At some point we just have to roll the dice with the threat of another Depression looming and go for it.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
According to travel stats LAX had the single largest number of Chinese visitors in the country from December to when the travel ban went into effect March 14, we should have had a ton of cases, almost as bad as NY. Is it warm weather, is it there were unknown cases going back to October, is it herd immunity, what the heck is it? I keep coming back to the apparent fact that over half of infections have no symptoms and another 10-15% have mild enough symptoms people just thought it was another cold or flu.

It does seem that it was in the U. S. earlier than initially thought. (NAMM seems about is big, I wonder how many of us had it?)

A Covid-infected attendee emerges from CES, a massive tech conference in January

The thing is, even if the number of infected people is higher, meaning the death rate is lower, the numbers of hospitalized and dying are still incredibly high. Even if the percent who die from being infected is less than the percentage of who gets the flu and dies, the numerator in that fraction is still a high absolute number. It's a number that is close to unmanageable as we've seen in Italy and the northeast U.S.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
As you just now said, "there are no good solutions only less bad ones". Right. At some point we just have to roll the dice with the threat of another Depression looming and go for it.

Based on what's happened so far, whatever happens will be much worse than the people who didn't think it would be a problem thought, and much better than people who thought it would be a huge problem thought smile

The early, tough policies remind me of Y2K. Remember how that was going to be the end of the world? Well, people took it seriously, fixed stuff, and it ended up being a fairly minor deal. So now, you can look back, say it wasn't a big deal, and it was all about a bunch of chicken littles. But we'll never know what would have happened if a ton of people hadn't worked hard on a fix.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
That study I referred to earlier...indicates it was closer to 28 million infections already by mid March in the US.

Unfortunately, assuming that's correct (who knows?), that still means 93% of the US hasn't been infected. Even assuming 61,000 deaths are based on 28 million infections, then extrapolating that into 50% of the US being infected (the number that keeps getting floated for "herd immunity") still means 363,000 deaths.

It really is a mess. Either a lot of people are going to die (which has consequences way beyond emptying out old age homes), we have serious economic problems, or all the "experts" are wrong, and everything will be far better than expected because the economy will come roaring back, and not that many people will die. Then again, "experts" said you couldn't go wrong buying silver, because "they'll always need silver to develop photographs." smile It really is a crap shoot at this point. Your previous comment about "roll the dice" sums up the situation succinctly.

Hopefully we're all friends with the croupier.

In any event, I miss going to the IMAX theater here in Nashville. It has an awesome sound system. I think they have to pump in oxygen for when it takes your breath away smile
I have nothing against the ultra-rich because they are rich. I do have something against the government for letting them pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than me, for them getting the lions share of government benefits.

Yes, I know the Lakers and others were embarrassed into giving their money back, but there are others we don't know about, you can bet on that.

I see the government as being extremely corrupt right now, as the oligarchy, not the people we elect to office are actually running the show.

As a patriot, this saddens me.

Notes
With this kind of news coming out regularly, can't really blame people who are wonder if the POTUS and his friends are planning to make money off of this - talking about federal seizures of testing kits and other medical supplies

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals-washington-seize-coronavirus-supplies

https://www.salon.com/2020/04/21/st...-seizures-as-house-probes-jared-kushner/

One of the latest stories reports National Guard being called in to protect Maryland's stuff:
https://www.newsweek.com/national-g...xU298awT9dHhG69M50QprWWSml59IFPCbKEdqCLU
Well things are getting a little political here...let's stick to the virus, where it's going, and what it means for us. For example, live sound engineers are totally screwed right now, so when/if things "open up" is a big deal. I had tickets to a concert in Vegas for May for a performer whose gig in Nashville in January was cancelled, and now the May concert has been cancelled too. Although even if it was on, I doubt I'd be doing to Vegas right now.

I did an interview yesterday where someone asked me what I thought would be the result of this for live sound engineers. I replied, only half-joking, a lot of them will be delivering food for GrubHub, Uber Eats, GoPuff, etc. When they find out they make more money doing that, they'll be faced with a tough career choice smile
No easy choices that's for sure. I just got a call from one of my clients. Her husband died two days ago from a sudden massive heart attack, he was on the computer upstairs in their house and she went up to see him and there he was, dead. This is relevant because he had an appointment with his cardiologist 4 weeks ago that was cancelled because the doctors office stopped seeing patients. Did that contribute to his death? She thinks so but really, who knows? When you have a serious chronic condition like this everybody knows you need regular followups. For all I know his doctor could have examined him and said , I'm seeing something hew here and you need to be scheduled for a heart valve replacement right now or maybe he needed to change his meds or whatever But because of the shutdown that diagnosis was missed. This is a possible example of #4 in that Politico article.

Another stat that goes to the risk of another Depression. Unemployment claims this week were another 3.6 million bringing the total to over 30 million. I posted the historical stat from the Great Depression saying unemployment peaked at 24%. We are definitely over 20% now. I'm not saying that's some kind of absolute trigger, our modern economy is filled with all kinds of checks and balances compared to then but however you look at it this is not good guys.

Bob
The Big Unknown about a depression is how long it would take for a consumer-driven economy to bounce back, and that depends on whether the virus is with us for the long haul or not. And that's the huge dilemma we face - does everything get shut down now in the hopes that it puts an end to the virus sooner, but wreak financial devastation, or let things open up with the risk that it will extend the hold the virus has on the economy, and thus lengthen any recovery because it will lengthen the time that people feel safe about going out and consuming.

The irony of the latter is that opening up states prematurely to help the economy could actually make the long-term economic situation worse, because businesses that might have been able to survive on minimal business for a few months might not be able to survive on minimal business for a longer period of time, as the virus slowly works its way throughout the entire country instead of concentrating mostly on big urban areas.

If I could predict the future, I'd be happy to tell you what's going to happen. Then again, if I could predict the future, I would have bought Apple stock when it was $35 a share...
Originally Posted by Anderton
If I could predict the future, I'd be happy to tell you what's going to happen. Then again, if I could predict the future, I would have bought Apple stock when it was $35 a share...

I had a roommate in university who was passionately imploring me to invest in this online bookstore called Amazon. I said I couldn't afford the stock which of course is a drop in a drop in a drop in the bucket compared to today's prices. I was still in debt for those college loans and figuring out to pay for my last quarter at the uni. This roommate was ridiculously smarter than me.
There are so many wild cards about the economic future. For all the businesses that will be or are even now trying to open up, how will the public respond?

For example, one of our favorite restaurants opted to not do the take-out thing over the last couple of months, but now with restaurants being allowed to open (with a lot of rules and requirements) in Texas, they are about to re-open. But service has to be buffet style, not "one waiter per table" along the old lines. Surely that will effect what's going to be offered on the menu. And seating has to be kept at 25% of capacity for most restaurants. A quiet, mostly empty restaurant is kind of a depressing experience, at least to me. I don't like them packed and having to scream to be heard, but some sort of festive atmosphere is part of the reason I like restaurants.

Will we go out now? Probably not this week or next and after that, TBD. We know from experience that the people most likely to head into all the newly re-opened restaurants and retail will be the same people who have little respect for social distancing already - we see them all the time. Mostly 20-35 year old guys (the invincibles) and a sprinkling of others from different age groups, etc.

Commercial real estate is definitely going to head for the drain and stay there for a good while. Residential real estate is an interesting thing - people are at home a lot more and probably wouldn't mind an extra 1,000 square feet about right now. More toys at home, more activities at home - there's probably actually some opportunity there, business-wise.

The biggest thing is getting all the folks who've lost their jobs re-hired and off the dole. I can't see that being "history" for a good decade or more. Maybe a new era of Public Works jobs will commence - maybe some sort of Civil Service for 17 - 21 year olds. Something - 'cause the economy is not going to just rise up by itself off the mat and start punching it's weight by magic.

nat
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
But service has to be buffet style, not "one waiter per table" along the old lines. Surely that will effect what's going to be offered on the menu.

nat

That's weird. Buffets seem way more unsanitary than a waiter to me. But yes, restaurants are in for a tough time this year.
The restaurants in my area have gone to curbside pickup and delivery. I try to support the ones in my neighborhood when I can and seems like a lot of my neighbors feel the same.
Interesting article on how Wuhan is like today. Of course this is not a predictor of how life will be in our respective countries/states/provinces/whatever

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...J8iC_N0BiwOBw7w0rSnH8RRWZivvvTF19qPRo3xs
I saw a post on FB (so this is VERY anecdotal) of someone here saying yesterday they were out, traffic was bad and several restaurants they saw looked packed, way above 25% according to the poster.

This is a real bummer for my wife and me. We want to support local restaurants and have been during the shut down, and one of the restaurants mentioned is one of my favorites. When we ordered from there during the shut down, they didn't have curbside service so my wife went inside and it was empty at the time. Now, we're concerned that if we order from a place and don't notice if they have curbside, will one of us have to go in to get our order? People are still supposed to be social distancing but if it's crowded and they're not and there's no way to get the order without managing through the crowd, what do we do? :smdh:
I suspect I'll be home longer than most, as live bands are still banned.

That might be a good thing. After all the early openings will be COVID beta-testers.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I suspect I'll be home longer than most, as live bands are still banned.

That might be a good thing. After all the early openings will be COVID beta-testers.

Insights and incites by Notes

That's how I feel too. Let them be beta testers and we'll find out if that was a mistake fairly quick. Doctors say most people who present symptoms will start showing in 3-5 days but some can take 2 weeks so they use 14 days as the benchmark. What's another two weeks at this point? I've been waiting to hear results from Boeing's 27,000 workers. They began returning to work April 21 and it's already May 2 and I just did a search and found nothing. If 10 new cases just popped up there would be news about it. That tells me everybody's fine so far in those factories but there still could be a spike in another week. I feel all this speculation will be coming to an end soon one way or the other, Orange County beaches in California look like Spring Break in Florida right now in spite of parking restrictions so there will be lots of opportunity for the virus to start roaring back to another spike soon. If it doesn't then there must be some herd immunity going on and/or hot weather really does suppress it or something else we don't know.

Bob
What Antibody Studies Can Tell You — and More Importantly, What They Can’t

This is a really good deep dive into what they're finding and what the different numbers mean, such as the different types of death rates.
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
What Antibody Studies Can Tell You — and More Importantly, What They Can’t

This is a really good deep dive into what they're finding and what the different numbers mean, such as the different types of death rates.

Agreed, it's refreshing to read a non-hysterical article.
We had dinner and a couple drinks at a bar and grill tonight, had to ride over to a town in the next county to do it but it was a great day to get out on the bike and ride anyway.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I suspect I'll be home longer than most, as live bands are still banned.

I can just see the headlines now:

"BANDS BANNED!"
Okay, so here's another thought.

Lockdowns were not about stopping people from getting the virus, they were about stopping people from getting it all at once. Okay. But look at the infections; they're not flattening off that much. In some states, they're rising. Meanwhile, the virus has killed 69,000+ of the most vulnerable people in the US alone. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they're not going to be filling hospital beds any time soon.

It really looks like the virus is yes, really bad; yes, really contagious; and no, there's no miracle cure. But it seems that the lockdowns didn't make as much difference as was hoped. Apparently, we can't tell the virus what to do.

And then it occurred to me - what if the virus is like copy protection? I know of several companies that dropped copy protection and it didn't make any difference to their sales. People who were going to buy software were honest, and were going to buy software. People who stole it weren't going to buy it anyway, they would move on to the next thing if they couldn't steal it.

Maybe it won't make much difference overall whether people pour out in to the streets or stay at home. Probably what will happen is the vulnerable people will have learned that they better shelter at home and get their groceries delivered, while others look at the stats and think the odds are really remote they're going to die, so screw it, let's party.

So maybe the problem is that we're looking for an answer. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe the virus is much more powerful than humans, and we hate to admit it...so we try to pretend we have some degree of control over it.

But really...do we? As I've said many times during all this - I don't know.
I thought that there has been a pretty clear correlation between strict isolation measures and the flattening of the curve. At least in a lot of media articles, that is the contention.

The whole goal of flattening the curve I thought was mainly geared to giving the healthcare community a chance to (more) properly care for the serious cases. And to slow the thing down until a vaccine could be developed.

Is that not what is happening in the U.S.?

I don't see the idea of letting things take a natural course as something I can get behind. We need to be fighters, not fatalists, right?

The virus does seem to be a slippery little bastard - but then we're getting micro-level constant reporting on the process of dealing with a public health crisis that is way beyond any prior event in 99% of our lifetimes. It might be that such constant reporting and scrutiny breeds a tendency towards fatalism - much like watching some stock go up and down on hourly candlesticks can easily give you the feeling that sheer unpredictability is at work.

My son-in-law is the CEO of a mid-sized group of GPs. He's aged in the last three months, believe me. But he does say a lot of positive things, too, about the healthcare system adjusting to the situation showing real signs of improvement and far less panic, fewer feelings of freefall into an unknown bleak future. Just yesterday he said there's never been such a concerted effort in the scientific community to globally redirect such massive amounts of effort towards a single public health threat. He's hopeful that it will pay off -

And so are we all! Go, fight, win!

nat
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
I thought that there has been a pretty clear correlation between strict isolation measures and the flattening of the curve. At least in a lot of media articles, that is the contention.
I wish. But when you look at the Covid-19 tracker that takes in data from the CDC, WHO, and others, you can see that the spread of infections is ever-so-slightly flatter in New York, but not in California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other places that emphasized strict isolation measures.

Quote
The whole goal of flattening the curve I thought was mainly geared to giving the healthcare community a chance to (more) properly care for the serious cases. And to slow the thing down until a vaccine could be developed.
The consolation is that it might have been much worse, with infections continuing to grow exponentially instead of linearly. But there have been a ton of curve balls, like age having such a factor on fatality, and people who have it but don't know it spreading it.

Quote
I don't see the idea of letting things take a natural course as something I can get behind. We need to be fighters, not fatalists, right?
Oh, I don't think letting things take a natural course would make sense. We now know who are most vulnerable, and they still need to do distancing. We also know there are some situations where putting yourself in those situations is asking for trouble...I don't think you're going to see people going on cruises for quite some time.

Uber and Lyft are going to have to adjust. People will be less inclined to jump on planes to go to meetings. I guess what I'm wondering is whether changing the focus of the effort to contain the virus, based on what we've learned in the past three months, will produce roughly equal results to the tougher measures taken initially. For example, it does seem to be accepted that wearing a mask won't help the wearer from being infected but it can help the wearer from infecting others. So if everyone really does wear a mask, then they don't have to be as concerned about going out and screwing up other people...maybe.

Again, I just don't know.

Quote
My son-in-law is the CEO of a mid-sized group of GPs. He's aged in the last three months, believe me. But he does say a lot of positive things, too, about the healthcare system adjusting to the situation showing real signs of improvement and far less panic, fewer feelings of freefall into an unknown bleak future. Just yesterday he said there's never been such a concerted effort in the scientific community to globally redirect such massive amounts of effort towards a single public health threat. He's hopeful that it will pay off -

And so are we all! Go, fight, win!

thu Now we just need to define exactly what "winning" entails. In my kind of worldview, it would be a compromise where considerable steps are taken to allow for a normal life for those capable of leading a normal life, but also, considerable steps are taken to safeguard the general population. As to what that would look like, or how you would accomplish it...I don't know!
I think it's a mistake to paint the entire US with a wide brush. NY has half of the country's deaths. We have states almost the size of all of Europe with no deaths. What's happening in NY and NJ is not happening in ND, SD, MT, WY, etc.
I'm going to refer back to The Hill article I posted earlier. It's already two pages back in this thread so I'm posting the link again because I think it's that important. I was surprised when I first posted this there really wasn't a big deal made out of it either for or against. I think it's worth a serious discussion.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...op-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

The entire article is very important imho but here is the quote that to me, is the most important:

In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. My emphasis.

What exactly is he saying here? He's saying let the younger people, meaning under 50, go out as much as they want, in fact encourage that to happen. Let them all get infected, the faster the better, that's how you create herd immunity without a vaccine. The most vulnerable among us will continue to be protected and if a young person has a grandparent or someone else in the house who's in the high risk group they'll figure it out. Most younger people are not that stupid. Some are of course, they're the ones who make the news but most are not. They're smart and respectful.

And Craig, to change the subject I just bought the license transfer for Studio One 4 and Notion that was for sale in the KC Classifieds forum. What's the first thing I saw after I installed everything? Your article about VCA's. Very nice.

Bob
Originally Posted by Anderton
I don't think you're going to see people going on cruises for quite some time.

Carnival to resume cruises in August

Based on what I've heard happening here in Houston and Texas with the "reopening" last weekend (restaurants and stores were packed, few were wearing masks, social distancing -- what's that? Galveston's beaches were full, traffic down there was bumper to bumper), I bet lots of people will be jumping on cruise ships. frown
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
What exactly is he saying here? He's saying let the younger people, meaning under 50, go out as much as they want, in fact encourage that to happen. Let them all get infected, the faster the better, that's how you create herd immunity without a vaccine. The most vulnerable among us will continue to be protected and if a young person has a grandparent or someone else in the house who's in the high risk group they'll figure it out. Most younger people are not that stupid. Some are of course, they're the ones who make the news but most are not. They're smart and respectful.
I'm sorry Bob, but based on what I've seen and read, this is a really bad idea, especially here in the U. S. Just because someone is under 50 doesn't mean they're low risk. For one, I've seen stories talking about how one person "who had no health problems" was on a ventilator and dying or died, his wife was upset, etc. And I looked at the pictures and he was HUGE. You know the type. Just because he was in his 30s and his body wasn't complaining too hard yet, he probably doesn't go to the doctor annually so no one was telling him he needed to lose weight, etc., he thought he was okay. Then there are other cases where even I am surprised they died, like this marathoner who died from it. (Okay, he was 51, but still.) Maybe he did have underlying conditions that he didn't know about, but it's way too risky because people don't know if they're healthy, they just think they are.

But I think the argument against herd immunity is best stated here. I think even if you limit it to those under 50 or those of low risk (as if people knew that for themselves, as I stated above), there's way too much risk even in that population.

Heck, I wish you and the author of that piece were right. If we could say, "you kids go infect yourselves, we'll stay home" and that would fix this, I'd be all for it. But if we did that, I think a lot of "the kids" would be in really bad shape.
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
Heck, I wish you and the author of that piece were right. If we could say, "you kids go infect yourselves, we'll stay home" and that would fix this, I'd be all for it. But if we did that, I think a lot of "the kids" would be in really bad shape.

This exactly, PLUS the pretty important fact that NO-ONE knows yet how much immunity is conferred and how long that immunity lasts. If it's established that it's like chicken pox and generally you get it once and then have lifelong immunity (yes i know some people get a repeat as shingles), then the herd immunity approach may eventually work. If it's more like the common cold or a flu where there's immunity by strain and even then it can be temporary, then that approach is near useless...
I respectfully disagree. I do think distancing has flattened the curve somewhat. Not as much as it may have been intended or hoped for, but I believe if we didn't follow theses precautions the initial peak would be exponentially greater. Of course these opinions are simply speculation as no one knows absolutely, positively, for sure.

Here in Florida, there have been limited re-openings, but the response has been underwhelming to say the least. Despite the protesters storming government buildings with freedom cries, most people are not eager to get back in public. Restaurants are limited to 25% seating here, and they are lucky to get 10%.

Malls are opening but with very few shoppers. Perhaps a month or two off has convinced people that recreational shopping isn't necessary?

The beaches are moderately populated, but there is a general feeling of safety outdoors with a strong breeze that has traveled across a non-COVID sea to get to you.

Carnival is planning to cruise in August with daily rates of less than $29 per day to get people on. That won't even pay for your food, but they hope to make it back in the casino. Will people go? I suppose some will, but with the press about ships at sea not being allowed to dock anywhere, I really doubt that they will have full ships.

Will you feel save in an airplane?

How about a hotel room? Did the previous guest leave the virus everywhere? Did the housekeeping staff sterilize the room? Bleached or rubbed down with alcohol? A deep cleaning won't do.

A lot of people working at home are not eager to go back to the office. And as the managers see the work still coming in, the companies may be thinking the cost of an office with the taxes, utility bills and so on might not be worth it.

The US Corporationalist economy has thrived on consumers buying things they don't need. The thrill of shopping wears off soon with a product they don't need so the consumer needs to go shopping for more. Will this ever return? If so, how long will it take?

I have a relative who is a world famous doctor. He lectures other doctors all over the world and has written over 100 peer-reviewed papers in respected medical journals.

He says the way this disease tears through and damages the human body it is nothing like the flu, but hundreds of times worse. He is one of those now suspecting that COVID-19 might predominantly attack the blood system, especially the hemoglobin oxygen carrying function. When this happens, many bodies go into extreme inflammatory immune system responses, and the inflammation is what kills. It's different in different people and manifests itself in lungs, blood clots, kidney damage, brain damage and/or assorted other failures depending on the person infected.

Although he said some people are asymptomatic, others have mild symptoms, all end up damaged in some way. Perhaps permanently, it's too soon to know. He added that you definitely don't want to get a severe case.

My guess, and it is a guess, is that unless a vaccine is developed, and it's possible that won't happen, life will never return to normal. Even if it does, it will take a long time before it settles to a new, smaller normal.

But perpetual growth of anything is impossible in a closed system -- and that includes the stock market, corporate profits, and population growth. It will be interesting to see what happens next and who the winners, losers, and successful adapters will be.

Insights and incites by Notes
What's next?

Next we all will be standing in line for our Bill Gates vaccines and getting our "vaccinated" trackers under our skin.

I know that it is an extreme view and I hope that it doesn't happen, but here we are, with mad governors in Michigan, New York and California, not allowing people to go to their cottages, prohibiting the sale of seeds, and not even allowing outdoor walks in some municipalities. In Canada ,Trudeau is walking lock step with the UN and W.H.O.


https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=550574275833496

Dan
It's not only by doctor relative who is following the blood connection:



Fifteen children, many of whom had the coronavirus, have recently been hospitalized in New York City with a mysterious syndrome that doctors do not yet fully understand but that has also been reported in several European countries, health officials announced on Monday night.

Many of the children, ages 2 to 15, have shown symptoms associated with toxic shock or Kawasaki disease, a rare illness in children that involves inflammation of the blood vessels, including coronary arteries, the city’s health department said.

None of the New York City patients with the syndrome have died, according to a bulletin from the health department, which describes the illness as a “multisystem inflammatory syndrome potentially associated with Covid-19.”
I know, another conspiracy theory, but as far as the blood absorbing oxygen, some have pointed to 5G radiation as a possible problem for certain individuals....not Coronavirus.

Dan
I'd stand in line for a vaccine! Annually, if I had to.

My money is on the science of medicine, that a vaccine will be developed and the only problem will be getting it deployed.

And this virus will join the lists of the other diseases that we rarely think about, like polio, hepatitus A&B, many strains of flue, chicken pox, rubella, measles, mumps, etc, etc.

The media has spread many unsettling stories about "superbugs" that will eventually devastate the human race. And that there will be "nothing we can do about it". Well, there was a time we could do nothing about tetanus - and all the other maladies for which there are vaccines. It seems much more likely that, as medical science continues to advance, that our ability to deal with diseases will increase, not meet some brick wall of doom that some writer of apocalyptic future scenarios likes to scare us with.

The very fear of such doomsday scenarios makes them less likely to happen as humans respond and get to work.

Why should this virus be the one we can't stop? Sure, we haven't stopped it yet, but the massive effort is underway, and I bet we will stop it.

nat
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
Why should this virus be the one we can't stop? Sure, we haven't stopped it yet, but the massive effort is underway, and I bet we will stop it.

nat

No-one will be happier than me if they successfully develop an effective vaccine. It just begs the question why the common cold (another corona virus) has resisted attempts for a vaccine. You're right though - I doubt there's been more focus or money thrown at the issue so you never know.
Research is selective and targeted. I think there would be an incredible outcry if billions of dollars were allocated to eradicate the common cold. There are so many other more menacing targets for research to aim at. In fact, it makes you wonder, with all the efforts and funds re-tooling to deal with the current virus, what will happen to progress on all the other slower-moving yet deadly threats out there all the time.

Maybe it's my 60s-bred positive outlook that somehow has survived all the decades since - but we've beat so many diseases and gotten better in battle over time. Of course there are a ton of diseases we haven't been able to find solutions for. But it seems more often than not that the scientific outlook is generally, "it's a matter of time and resources", not a matter of fate and inevitability.

nat
Originally Posted by J. Dead
I think it's a mistake to paint the entire US with a wide brush. NY has half of the country's deaths. We have states almost the size of all of Europe with no deaths. What's happening in NY and NJ is not happening in ND, SD, MT, WY, etc.

Actually that was kind of my point. Cases are going down in, for example, NY, but they're rising where previously they hadn't been, and starting to hit rural areas. So regardless of what's happening locally, when taken on average, this thing is not going away. Recent reports seem to indicate that it has also evolved into a more contagious strain, which I guess puts the vaccine research back to square one.

It really seems like there are no good answers.
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
Why should this virus be the one we can't stop? Sure, we haven't stopped it yet, but the massive effort is underway, and I bet we will stop it.

One way or another, it won't go on forever. Best case is we discover some magic silver bullet, like no one who plays with modular synthesizers has ever become infected smile , and it ends tomorrow. Worst case is it kills everyone on earth so there are no more hosts left. I'm sure the truth will lie somewhere in between.

Just remember the first effective polio vaccine was demoed in 1950. Salk's vaccine came into use in 1955, and the oral vaccine didn't happen until 1961.

So it will stop at some point. The question is how much damage it will have done between now and then.
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
<...snip...>
Why should this virus be the one we can't stop? Sure, we haven't stopped it yet, but the massive effort is underway, and I bet we will stop it.

nat

It wouldn't be the first one we can't stop. People frantically invested their efforts to find a vaccine for AIDS, and to date, it hasn't happened.

There is no vaccine for the common cold (another coronavirus)

We can't stop malaria yet, and that kills more people than anything else on earth, including other humans.

Does that mean we can't stop this? Not necessarily. Time will tell.

I hope either a vaccine or a cure comes, and if it arrives, I hope for sooner rather than later. Until then especially since I'm unemployed and yet to receive one penny of government aid (thanks to the tea bag Florida ex-governor) I'm going to err on the side of caution and limit my excursions from the relative safety of my home.

BTW. I don't go with the 5G theory, since there is no 5G in most places that are having people die. I'd rather go with science than conspiracy theories. Any source to the left of The Atlantic or the right of The Hill I consider nothing more than propaganda and lies.

Insights and incites by Notes
I think that we all are going to get it ,sooner or later. I personally think that sooner is better, because the strains that follow may be stronger , or there may be a stronger strain.

There have been unusual numbers in places like Sweden and Texas where there was little to no lock down. The numbers were much lower than expected.

Only looking back, a year from now, will we be able to see if the lock downs helped. I think it will all average out.

I have a theory of my own, if anyone wants to humor me........The reason that some younger "front line" workers are dying from this is because they are being hit with MANY STRAINS at once. I have heard that there are 30 strains right now.

I should probably give some POSITIVE ADVICE NOW.........................MAKE MUSIC......KEEP BUSY........PRAY !



Dan
Originally Posted by techristian
There have been unusual numbers in places like Sweden and Texas where there was little to no lock down. The numbers were much lower than expected.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The cities in Texas, where it started to hit harder and first, did lock down.

Don’t Be Fooled by America’s Flattening Curve

Quote
The same is true in Texas: Cases spiked early on because of a surge in Houston, and after the city's peak, the state seemed to be improving. But removing Houston from the statewide figures shows the number of new cases was rising all along.
I still feel there is something good going on right now and the most logical reason is immunity. I've said for weeks now Boeing will be a good test and so was the Wisconsin election. I just did a search on both of those and no news about new infections. It's been a month since the election and Boeing went back to work April 21 so that's over two weeks now. 27,000 Boeing workers and 200,000 voters in Wisconsin. No new cases reported in either situation since the initial ones in Wisconsin several weeks ago. I've been both hopeful and worried about both of those. There could have easily been a spike of several hundred cases in Wisconsin with 200,000 people standing in line and crowded inside polling places and maybe dozens at Boeing with thousands inside a huge aircraft assembly building in Seattle and S. Carolina and either one would have thrown a big wrench into the reopening the country idea. It looks like hopeful won so far.

I feel some immunity is the first reason but also good health procedures on the part of the authorities and Boeing and good follow through on the part of the public. Going forward carefully of course, there will be slippage, there will be new cases and some deaths but it will be manageable. Even without a vaccine working age people will see how it's going and gradually relax about it. Again, not us old farts and people with serious underlying conditions. We will have to wait for really good therapies if not an outright cure.

Bob
I hope you're right, Bob. Heck, I hope those leaders who are opening their states and the people who are out there doing stuff like it's no big deal are right. Whether it's more immunity or resistance, less spread, whatever, it would be a nice thing. But I won't hold my breath. I'm going to wait. I think in a couple of weeks we'll know if Texas opened too soon…
Boeing's workforce COVID-19 numbers will probably be lower than those the meatpacking plants that the POTUS wants reeopened, because they're going to cut their workforce. At least they appear to be putting more effort into protecting the workers that will remain than Smithfield.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/02/boeing-goes-from-bad-to-worse-as-coronavirus-crush.aspx
Originally Posted by techristian
There have been unusual numbers in places like Sweden and Texas where there was little to no lock down. The numbers were much lower than expected.

That's not really true, even taking into account the variables behind how statistics are derived. Check out this lengthy, but informative, article. IMHO stats are cherry-picked to make it look like Sweden is doing better, and therefore not locking down doesn't make a difference...but digging deeper shows why those stats were cherry-picked.

Bottom line for the link: "The claim has an element of truth in that Sweden has roughly the same number of confirmed cases per million people as Denmark and Norway [which locked down, although note that Sweden did prohibit gatherings of more than 50 people]. But it’s misleading to say that Sweden is doing no worse. The total number of confirmed cases is increasing at a faster rate in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark — even though Sweden is doing less testing per 1,000 people than Norway and Denmark. Moreover, Sweden has higher death rates."

COVID-19 deaths per million people (Sweden’s is higher than Denmark’s and Norway’s)

Sweden: 149.61
United States: 117.55
Denmark: 59.74
Norway: 27.3

Sweden’s ratio of confirmed deaths to confirmed cases is more than twice as high as Denmark’s and more than five times higher than Norway’s.

Sweden: 10.93%
United States: 5.29%
Denmark: 4.78%
Norway: 2.12%
Oh boy, Swedish official is "surprised". Yeah, better not use Sweden as your model for hope.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...says-high-death-toll-was-surprise-2020-5
Sigh, Craig the great wet blanket....Just kidding, it's great to have a detailed counterpoint to some of these news stories.

Here's one that I hate bringing up because it's definitely not PC. You see stories and pics like this all the time, this one happens to be about a family who lost 4 people to the virus. Tragic for sure however...look at the picture. When we talk about death rates, there is hardly a mention about obesity and doesn't that have something to do with it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-family-coronavirus.html

I did not spend hours trying to find a pic of heavy people who died of this, actually this is the first one I saw about a month ago and decided to bring it up now. The Times tip toes around this. "She was a heavy set woman in good health". Sorry, someone that overweight is never in good health and yes I know, I know this is called fat shaming, everybody is beautiful in their own way and all that and we don't dare talk about it. I do not consider a 240 pound 25 year old "Plus Size Supermodel" in a bikini to be a hot babe and it's not a healthy way to live. Several years ago I commented how awesome Joey D was in a thread and I ended with what I thought was a simple innocuous comment, "I wish he would lose some weight". Several people piled on me about that. Now that we're in the middle of this pandemic obesity is a very big deal and needs to be taken into account when we as individuals worry about overall hospitalization and mortality rates. Yes, I know. There are exceptions but overall I'm not wrong.

Bob
Bob, I agree with you about that. I mean, to each their own, and by No Means do I want to shame anyone or make them feel bad for anything. That being said, the science is telling us this disease is ravaging the obese. I've mentioned elsewhere (this thread?) about the sad story of a couple that was in love, he was "strong," had a good job because someone saw this big guy and needed someone that could move stuff or whatever, and "he didn't have any underlying health issues." And I look at the pics and he was HUGE. I bet he thought he was fine, didn't go to regular exams, etc. I think he was in his 30s so the problems hadn't hit him yet, at least that he noticed.

That's one of the reasons I don't think herd immunity will work. America has too many people that are obese, including under 30 that will get slammed by this when the virus hits those places where they are. The "joke" has been America gets wider in the middle.
Immunity will still work Joe. It's not an automatic death sentence even if the person weighs 350 pounds, the odds are worse that's all. I don't know, pick a number 5-10% maybe? The rest will still survive and should have immunity like anyone else.

Again, tip toeing around, this is a big issue in the black and brown communities and that never gets talked about either. I've always had black friends and played with black musicians my whole life. They taught me back in the late 60's about soul food in the Baltimore and DC areas. I mean I seriously love that crap, it's awesome. Pork BBQ, grits, sweet potato pie believe me I can write out the menu for a great place called Mammies Cajun Kitchen in West LA, their Shrimp Etouffee was killer. I've been to NOLO a few times and to coin a phrase I'm in hog heaven, the food there is soooo good. And so many are soooo fat. And believe me so would I be if I didn't start gaining weight in my 50's and started cutting back before it became a real issue. I was one of those guys in the 70's who could eat everything on the menu except for "Thank you call again" and not gain an ounce. And now living in So Cal there's all the Mexican places, nothing like a big ole Breakfast Burrito to get you going. Ha, I definitely cannot do that, it's a protein shake and some fruit now. I'll allow myself one of those every few weeks, maybe. Chorizo, eggs, lots of cheese, smothered in sour cream, salsa, ahhhh CRAP. I'm totally sympathetic to all those folks, I seriously am but this is not good for them and they have to learn about food substitutions.

Bob
Obesity definitely plays an issue in ability for an individual to respond to pretty much any health challenge. On immunity, it bears repeating that NO-ONE knows what sort of immunity is conferred as yet, let alone how long it will last....
Yes, one of my neighbors brought up a disproportionate number of Hispanics (is that what you call brown people?) contracting COVID-19 in our area. They don't look any more fat than the white people in our area, so let's forget about that. What's different between them and whites is that more white folks have telework-friendly jobs while more Hispanics work essential jobs, laborer jobs... jobs that expose them being often well within 6 feet of other humans. There's no telling how many of them are provided with masks, disinfectant, etc. or if their jobs even allow them to take breaks to wash their hands before they have to touch their faces.

Herd immunity at this point is a pipe dream until we either get proof that COVID-19 survivors have 0% chance of getting sick from it again (no proof of that) or we get a vaccine.
I just heard back from my friend in Knoxville, Tennessee. He says some of the restaurants there have reopened with seating, but with social distancing rules. Others are take out only.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Here's one that I hate bringing up because it's definitely not PC. You see stories and pics like this all the time, this one happens to be about a family who lost 4 people to the virus. Tragic for sure however...look at the picture. When we talk about death rates, there is hardly a mention about obesity and doesn't that have something to do with it?
I don't think it has anything to do with PC. The bottom line is unhealthy people are more at risk for any kind of illness. "Unhealthy" can apply to someone of any color/nationality/religion. Now, some people can make healthy choices, like deciding not to smoke. But some health issues are food-based or environment-based. Healthy food costs a lot, carbs are cheap. As to environment, there's not much you can do about that if you can't afford to move. I certainly wouldn't move to Flint, Michigan right now.

Everything is so nuanced. The attitude of some people is "hey, most deaths are in nursing homes, they're on the way out anyway, so I'm sorry, but the cost of keeping them alive is too high." The hypocrisy of those who proclaim themselves pro-life, or heap praise on "the greatest generation" when it's convenient, is palpable (after all, those people in nursing homes are part of the society that built the interstate highway system, made the US the greatest military power on earth, explored space, helped defeat Hitler, and brought amazing technological changes from which we all benefit).

A close friend of mine received an email from someone whose mother had died in a nursing home from COVID-19. He was devastated. She had plenty of years left, but she was not all that mobile and needed care. Is she disposable? Is she essential? Do the feelings of the people left behind who are not in nursing homes matter? What is a human life worth? What sacrifices should people make to society, and what sacrifices should society make to people?

I don't have definitive answers to those questions. No one does. All we have is varying opinions, in many cases, based on agenda-driven misinformation from all sides.

What if things opened up and I felt safe. I go to a movie theater, and some Twilight Zone-type character comes up to me and says "Enjoy the show! By the way, he's a picture of Maxine Smith. Looks like a really kind old lady, right? She's a sweetheart, raised a great family. Unfortunately she has only about 10 years left, max. We'll trade her life for you being able to check out the new James Bond flick in IMAX. Cool by you?"

And there's also another discussion I'm not seeing happening anywhere that I think is very important: assisted suicide. If I was in a hospital, fading, stuck on a tube, knowing the odds of getting out alive would be remote and the odds of getting out unscathed 100% against me, I'd want the option to just check out for my sake, the sake of the caregivers, and because...well, enough is enough. Maybe not everyone wants to be saved. Maybe they do.

I don't know.
It's probably impossible to measure compliance with social distancing and other social health behaviors, but I can't help but wonder if part of the USA's problem here is a general disinclination to "behave" that is a very American personality trait.

I mean how much rock and hip hop and related types of music are dedicated to waving the banner of personal freedom - a sort of damn the torpedoes let's drink and carry on do what we want to do and you can't tell me what to do, ever, sort of attitude.

In our extended family, there is the gamut of attitudes. The oldest generation - 80s on - are putting up with a lot of loneliness and isolation. They do get visits, but they get to be with another person only on a couple of days a week at the most. All the protocols are followed by all family members with regard to the oldest of us. But every now and then one of the eldest ones just gets impatient and drives alone (which they usually shouldn't do anyway) to the store or whatever. It causes a big family fuss.

In my generation - boomers, basically - we're all pretty compliant but there's more "misbehavior" than among the oldest contingent. The more macho among us get a little delight in worrying the wives and others (usually female) with a bit of risky behavior. Impatience again gets to be a big factor. The women generally have more sense than the boys of all ages.

The generation under us, basically our kids and their seemingly endless cousins - this is where the differences are really big. My daughter (very early 30s) is married to a healthcare professional, so you know how seriously they take this. My son is on that same page - he's a science major in college. But many of the guy cousins in their late 20s, 30s, especially the (divorced) single guys, they are pretty contemptuous of the safe behaviors. Oh, they'll behave if one of us older ones meet them, but their social lives are still carried on with heavy disregard for social distancing, etc. And they are always ready with some story or other that illustrates how "ridiculous" the "panic" is, etc. One of them got the virus, had mild symptoms, and that just fueled the fire of non-compliance.

All this just to say - Americans have a tendency to be a horsey lot, a taste for being ungovernable if the mood takes them. Maybe it's universal, I wouldn't know, but I do know a lot of overly non-compliant and proud of it Americans.

nat
Gov, I think you're being too literal. Just because there is no absolute PROOF there is no immunity there are plenty of indications that there is. You see the occasional mention of someone who was a confirmed case who seems to have gotten reinfected but we're talking about a few not dozens every day. And please don't be one of those that makes me have to qualify every thing I write. Of course fat is fat regardless of color of skin however I did look it up. Minorities are a bit more obese than whites, it's not by a huge amount but there is a difference..

Your comment about where minorities work actually bolsters my argument. What you wrote is very true about laborer type jobs where they work right next each other and do not have the best protection. They also tend to have large families crowded into a small living spaces. I've been surprised I haven't read news articles screaming about how this virus is hitting hispanics so much harder than whites. If anything that tells me there is a lot of immunity which would be great. Otherwise given their working and living conditions why do you think there isn't an obvious epidemic in those communities? Just like my comments about Boeing and the Wisconsin election if there was a big jump in those areas especially here in SoCal where whites are in the minority it would be all over the news like now, today. There's nothing.

Bob
RE: Re-infections

I'm a little skeptical about re-infections, I think what we're seeing reflect more on the accuracy of the testing. The protocol in many places is that you need to be tested several times to be officially cleared of the virus.

My cousin was hospitalized for 2 weeks in ICU (around the beginning of March). She was released after the symptoms went away and she tested negative for the virus. BUT - the protocol is that even after being released she needed to test negative on 3 consecutive tests to be officially cleared. The first week out of the hospital, she tested NEGATIVE on 2 tests and POSITIVE on the last. So she had to stay in quarantine 1 more week to finally get cleared with 3 negative tests in a row.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Your comment about where minorities work actually bolsters my argument. What you wrote is very true about laborer type jobs where they work right next each other and do not have the best protection. They also tend to have large families crowded into a small living spaces. I've been surprised I haven't read news articles screaming about how this virus is hitting hispanics so much harder than whites. If anything that tells me there is a lot of immunity which would be great. Otherwise given their working and living conditions why do you think there isn't an obvious epidemic in those communities?
There are HUGE epidemics in those communities. Why do you think there is a threat of a meat shortage? They've had to close those plants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/us/coronavirus-south-dakota-meat-plant-refugees.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/business/coronavirus-meat-slaughterhouses.html

And more generally, there ARE big disparities between white and non-white cases.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/op...lose-deadly-COVID-19-racial-15214398.php

Quote
Every state that has collected racial data shows higher COVID-19 infection and death rates among black residents. In a breakdown of cases from 14 states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one-third of patients were black even though black residents made up only about 18 percent of the states’ populations.

In St. Louis, all but three of the 19 people who died of COVID-19 as of last week were black. In Louisiana, African Americans make up 70 percent of deaths but are only 33 percent of the population.

In Houston and Harris County, nearly 40 percent of the people who died from COVID-19 were African American. Only 20 percent of Harris County is black.
Sure we are all going to get it one way or another. Hopefully I'll get mine in the form of a vaccine.

Sooner or later?

If I have the choice, I'll choose later when either a vaccine is available, new methods of treatment bring about a better cure rate, or the peak has slowed enough so that the hospitals are not overloaded and a doctor doesn't have to say, "I have one ventilator, and that 24 year old has more potential years ahead than you, so I'm sorry to have to give you a death sentence,"

BTW, New Zealand acted immediately instead of minimizing the problem for 6 weeks while those 'in the know' sold their stocks. They quarantined, tracked, closed borders, and today they have zero new cases. Sure it tanked their economy which is largely dependent on tourism, but it saved lives. The NZ government decided that the lives of their citizens was more important than corporate profits.

IMO, anyone who is arguing to re-open the US immediately, should get out there instead of tweeting from their safe couches like a few people I am aware of (none on this board).

Just as a side thought, I wonder if a contributing factor for the high levels of darker skinned people getting the disease is because their skin reduces Vitamin D creation from sunlight. As we know, colds (another form of corona virus) and flu are typically more severe and contagious in the winter time where the people living in the temperate zones get less sunlight on their skin.

Of course Vitamin D is oil soluble and supplements shouldn't be downed in great quantities without blood testing, and for some people, getting out in the sun is dangerous, so there is a balance to be had if, (and that is definitely an IF) vitamin D does have preventative qualities.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Sure we are all going to get it one way or another. Hopefully I'll get mine in the form of a vaccine.

Not that it's anything to hold our collective breath for, but there is another possibility.

https://kottke.org/20/05/sars-cov-2-an-emerging-portrait

Quote
And this is a somewhat hopeful speculation on one of the many possible ways the Covid-19 pandemic could go:

“By far the most likely scenario is that the virus will continue to spread and infect most of the world population in a relatively short period of time,” says Stöhr, meaning one to two years. “Afterwards, the virus will continue to spread in the human population, likely forever.” Like the four generally mild human coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 would then circulate constantly and cause mainly mild upper respiratory tract infections, says Stöhr. For that reason, he adds, vaccines won’t be necessary.

"Some previous studies support this argument. One showed that when people were inoculated with the common-cold coronavirus 229E, their antibody levels peaked two weeks later and were only slightly raised after a year. That did not prevent infections a year later, but subsequent infections led to few, if any, symptoms and a shorter period of viral shedding.

"The OC43 coronavirus offers a model for where this pandemic might go. That virus also gives humans common colds, but genetic research from the University of Leuven in Belgium suggests that OC43 might have been a killer in the past."

But then, from a few paragraphs down:

People like to think that “the other coronaviruses were terrible and became mild”, says Perlman. “That’s an optimistic way to think about what’s going on now, but we don’t have evidence.”
A positive first step regarding immunity - there won't be any certainty for a long while though before we know the level of protection:

A new study finds that nearly every...ventually makes antibodies to the virus.
Just a note about the term herd immunity.

I've run into a lot of users of the term that apparently think it implies just letting the disease run it's course until "everyone" has had it and therefore everyone (still living) is immune. The virus can't find hosts and peters out entirely.

From reading around (no claims to authority here, just a curious person who reads a lot and tries to read important stuff very closely)

1 - herd immunity is defined disease by disease. Something like the mumps, which is a lot more communicable than COVID-19, takes an infection rate of approx. 92% to totally stop the disease in its tracks. The infection rate for COVID19 to reach herd immunity levels is around 70% of the population. (assuming that infected people achieve immunity, which issue I'm not dealing with here.) Almost every mother's son and daughter has had a mumps shot - that's why it's now a rare occurence.

2 - Immunization via vaccines, for purposes of reaching herd immunity, is no different than catching the disease and being really sick from it. So instead of immunization being somehow in contrast to "achieving herd immunity", it's by far, far, far, the best way to achieve herd immunity.

3 - many diseases have vaccines, but still spread due to economic and behavioral factors. And vaccines are not always 100% effective, either. Herd immunity, if achieved in the absense of vaccines, is by definition a horrific catastrophe that any civilized person should recognize as not an option if we can help it in any way conceivable. The death rate is way too high, and the dislocation of society may kill more than the disease.

4 - there's also the possibility of cures being developed. As with malaria, for which for so long there was no vaccine, there are still cures that can be very effective for the majority of cases. (BTW - there is a vaccine for malaria. It's newish, it hasn't been deployed everywhere, but it does exist.) The U.S.A has eradicated malaria within its borders in the total absense of a vaccine. So binary thinking here - i.e. either a) let "everyone" get it to achieve herd immunity, vs. b) a vaccine is the only way to save us and it will save us all - is well, ignorant (sorry.)

The story will evolve and evolve and evolve - at each point, the media and the public will do their reductionist thing to set up false binaries and all-or-nothing scenarios, with a host of fatalists moaning from the sidelines, "we terrible humans deserve this, thank you nature for trying to eradicate all of us bad, bad people".

I'm still on a GO FIGHT WIN binge. And if we lose the battle, there's no way to go down but fighting. But I don't think we'll lose.

nat
Yep, Joe gets it. I don't go around looking for news articles about racial disparities. I wish race wasn't brought up at all, but so be it. I live in a racially diverse neighborhood with lots of working class people, not in a exclusive gated community, so I hear about this stuff all the time without having to look for it.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Yep, Joe gets it. I don't go around looking for news articles about racial disparities. I wish race wasn't brought up at all, but so be it.

I think we need to differentiate between social mores and science. If a particular group is getting hit particularly hard, it's probably a good idea to find out why. I'm not sure it has that much to do with race, per se. For example there is now research that implies that perhaps children also get very sick from Covid-19, but the symptoms and the way the virus attacks the body are different. Knowing that it can have different symptoms at different ages may cause a re-examination of the premise that Covid-19 is only a "boomer remover."

FWIW I also live in a racially mixed neighborhood with no gated communities, but so far the "hot spot" maps show basically zero coronavirus cases in my part of the county. So anecdotally, I could draw the conclusion that means black people aren't inherently more likely to get hit by the virus, so there must be some other factor at play.

The more we know about this thing, the better.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Yep, Joe gets it. I don't go around looking for news articles about racial disparities. I wish race wasn't brought up at all, but so be it.

I think we need to differentiate between social mores and science. If a particular group is getting hit particularly hard, it's probably a good idea to find out why. I'm not sure it has that much to do with race, per se. For example there is now research that implies that perhaps children also get very sick from Covid-19, but the symptoms and the way the virus attacks the body are different. Knowing that it can have different symptoms at different ages may cause a re-examination of the premise that Covid-19 is only a "boomer remover."

FWIW I also live in a racially mixed neighborhood with no gated communities, but so far the "hot spot" maps show basically zero coronavirus cases in my part of the county. So anecdotally, I could draw the conclusion that means black people aren't inherently more likely to get hit by the virus, so there must be some other factor at play.

The more we know about this thing, the better.

I have no problem with any of this, sir. Facts are better than just saying "it's mostly fat people getting sick, and they belong to races X and Y". Perhaps the person who said that meant no harm but it's tricky to bring up race without appropriate attention to how what you say is going to look to others.

Regarding herd immunity, I have nothing against hoping and wishing for it to happen. I wish it would happen too! I dream of the day I can go see a live show again, hang out in close quarters with friends at a bar, meet people for dinner at a restaurant!

But as others have said, either we need a vaccine or reassurance that people who got sick from it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt, never get sick from it again. Sorry if somebody thinks that is harsh but I don't know how to sugarcoat it.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Regarding herd immunity, I have nothing against hoping and wishing for it to happen. I wish it would happen too! I dream of the day I can go see a live show again, hang out in close quarters with friends at a bar, meet people for dinner at a restaurant!

But as others have said, either we need a vaccine or reassurance that people who got sick from it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt, never get sick from it again. Sorry if somebody thinks that is harsh but I don't know how to sugarcoat it.

The situation is not a simple one of two exclusive situations - vaccine versus guaranteed immunity via everyone getting infected.

Variations that will likely complicate this simple binary -

1. a cure, partial or 100% effective, might be developed.
2. a combination of vaccine(s) and natural infections that reaches herd immunity (70% per one scientific source I read.)
3. some level of permanent behavioral changes that slow down the spread of this particular disease (and all the other cough/sneeze/touch communicable diseases as a bonus!) while a combination of other factors (cures, vaccines, weather, immunity in general on the increase) tamp down the spread and the morbidity of the thing.

In other words - it's not a simple this or that situation. And new factors will be coming into play - look for instead a sort of drawn-out war that will have flare-ups and lulls, new fronts and battles won, lost, and drawn, eventually the whole thing petering out through a variety of factors.

nat
yeahthat 2thu
This paper from a highly respected ...d the three most likely future scenarios
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Regarding herd immunity, I have nothing against hoping and wishing for it to happen. I wish it would happen too! I dream of the day I can go see a live show again, hang out in close quarters with friends at a bar, meet people for dinner at a restaurant!

But as others have said, either we need a vaccine or reassurance that people who got sick from it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt, never get sick from it again. Sorry if somebody thinks that is harsh but I don't know how to sugarcoat it.

The situation is not a simple one of two exclusive situations - vaccine versus guaranteed immunity via everyone getting infected.

Variations that will likely complicate this simple binary -

1. a cure, partial or 100% effective, might be developed.
2. a combination of vaccine(s) and natural infections that reaches herd immunity (70% per one scientific source I read.)
3. some level of permanent behavioral changes that slow down the spread of this particular disease (and all the other cough/sneeze/touch communicable diseases as a bonus!) while a combination of other factors (cures, vaccines, weather, immunity in general on the increase) tamp down the spread and the morbidity of the thing.

In other words - it's not a simple this or that situation. And new factors will be coming into play - look for instead a sort of drawn-out war that will have flare-ups and lulls, new fronts and battles won, lost, and drawn, eventually the whole thing petering out through a variety of factors.

nat

Thank you for this thoughtful post.

I do wish the best for everyone.
She's back with another YT about the viral video going around. I like the first 14 minute just on fact checking common sense. After the 14 minute point she talks about the video.

Originally Posted by Anderton
Everything is so nuanced. The attitude of some people is "hey, most deaths are in nursing homes, they're on the way out anyway, so I'm sorry, but the cost of keeping them alive is too high." The hypocrisy of those who proclaim themselves pro-life, or heap praise on "the greatest generation" when it's convenient, is palpable (after all, those people in nursing homes are part of the society that built the interstate highway system, made the US the greatest military power on earth, explored space, helped defeat Hitler, and brought amazing technological changes from which we all benefit).


Sorry, but I don't find this characterization of people that have good faith arguments in questioning the shut-down mania (with it's ever-changing rationales), itself to be very nuanced. But maybe you can appreciate the headline of an article in the Atlantic RE the re-opening of Georgia, calling it "An Experiment In Human Sacrifice". The hopes, in some non-MPN quarters, for a spike in deaths in that state- in order to be able to tell the yahoos there "I told you so"- is almost palpable.

I know what to do to keep my family member safe, the same as my neighbor knows for his family, and it's not contingent on the whole world being shut down around us. Both of us can make better decisions on on behalf of our families, than the government can make for us. Is it the government's duty to eliminate opportunities for individuals to make poor decisions? If so, where have they been all my life? And why did they let me post again on this thread, and allow you to waste 30 seconds of your life reading it? (Because face it: jawboning on a hobbyist musicians forum accomplishes nothing.)

Granted, better decisions don't come from being cocksure, and ignoring new evidence as it filters in. But neither do they come from throwing common sense out the window. Like a certain governor and his expert staff did (lauded though they are for being models of coronavirus leadership). They ordered nursing homes in their state be forced to accept coronavirus patients. As a result, now, 1 in 4 deaths in their state are (previous) nursing home residents. This order was not altered, and the nursing home coronavirus patients were not moved, even when additional facilities became available for housing them. Now they are washing their hands of the matter and claiming that the homes had a choice (but the homes' administrators tell a different story). The same state received a breakdown of it's new coronavirus patients today. 66% of which had stayed at home. Most were not working, and were minorities. That's unequivocally bad news. It remains to be seen whether it will alter their approach.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Originally Posted by Anderton
Everything is so nuanced. The attitude of some people is "hey, most deaths are in nursing homes, they're on the way out anyway, so I'm sorry, but the cost of keeping them alive is too high." The hypocrisy of those who proclaim themselves pro-life, or heap praise on "the greatest generation" when it's convenient, is palpable (after all, those people in nursing homes are part of the society that built the interstate highway system, made the US the greatest military power on earth, explored space, helped defeat Hitler, and brought amazing technological changes from which we all benefit).


Sorry, but I don't find this characterization of people that have good faith arguments in questioning the shut-down mania (with it's ever-changing rationales), itself to be very nuanced.

Please note, I specifically said the attitude of some people. Look at opinion pieces on the web, including from high-profile news sources, and you will have no problem finding some people who have expressed that kind of attitude. As to hypocrisy, check out previous editorials from these same people. Nor is this attitude restricted to older politicians by any means, check out the hashtag #boomerremover.

What I said is obviously not intended as a broad stroke that characterizes all people who have the same opinion as having the same motivation behind that opinion. Look at one of my previous posts, where I questioned whether ultimately, there would be any difference between locking down or not locking down. However, that opinion was not fueled by considering any group of people disposable, but from the inexorable results of math, and who will be most likely to be a victim of the virus.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Sigh, Craig the great wet blanket....

The Wet Blanket is back...you mentioned how some of the high-profile companies returned the money they received from the government. Kudos to them, but apparently, there's more to the story. Unfortunately, this just appeared in Reuters, which does actual research so I see no need to question their stats. As much as I want to believe companies have a sense of civic responsibility, it looks like once again, I'm being naive.

When American companies recently applied for U.S. government loans meant to help small businesses survive the coronavirus crisis, they had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic needs like salaries and rent. The money, up to $10 million, was meant to tide them over for eight weeks.

Some recipients, though, had considerable cash on hand. Forty-one publicly traded companies that got the emergency aid already had enough to cover basic expenses for two months or more when they applied for the funds, a Reuters analysis found -- even if their revenue dropped to zero. Thirty had three months or more of cash. Six had enough to last at least until December, according to the review, which was based on average monthly operating expenses from 2019.

All told, these relatively flush 41 companies were able to secure $104 million in government aid, at a time when legions of smaller companies with little in their coffers were being turned down. Seventeen of the 41 recipients had market capitalizations of at least $100 million.

“It's disheartening to see relief spending go to companies that don't appear to desperately need a lifeline,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a Washington-based non-profit that monitors government spending. “This shows just how urgently we need more oversight of this program and the rest of the federal government's relief spending.”

Reuters examined the latest available financial information for 276 publicly traded companies that applied for the forgivable loans in the first round of the U.S. government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) in April. The list includes companies tracked by data provider FactSquared through the end of April.
From the LA Times. There's something here for everybody.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...ican-americans-and-latinos-in-california

I'm still using LA County as a baseline because I lived there for almost 40 years and it's 10 million population and very diverse. As of today 29,427 confirmed cases and 1,418 deaths. That's a tiny number at this stage of the outbreak with a virus as virulent and infectious as all the studies say. Obviously, either it isn't that bad or there's something else going on. Everybody knows now the actual number of cases is way higher than the confirmed ones so it's the deaths that really matter. Of course there are some unreported deaths but not 500% more. Statewide it's 2,464 as of today. Out of 40 million? It raises the question, out of that large of a population there should be 10,000 deaths by now so as far as I'm concerned the California Mystery is still alive and well. Remember, California had the most Chinese visitors in the entire country with the majority of those in LA, and New York right behind us. Something is keeping those numbers down if not immunity.

Bob
Sometimes it is a valid function of the government to enact certain rules to protect the majority of citizens.

During the WWII Blitzkrieg they told people to turn their lights off at night. Can you imagine what would have happened if a group of citizens in different neighborhoods said, "Hell no! The government can't tell me what to do. I'm burning my lights at night." Then the neighborhoods where the dissenters burned their lights would be bomb targets and their neighbors would have lost their lives from their actions.

As we've seen, when a COVID victim mixed with crowds of the general public, innocent neighbors have lost their lives. Same result, different cause.

I see the armed protestors storming government buildings with weapons exposed as a mob of miscreants. It's one thing to form a peaceful protest, but when you expose weapons of instant death in your protest, you have gone from peaceful protest to an life threatening mob. A mob of miscreants.

In summary

First, understand that it is sometimes a function of government to protect the lives of a large percentage of citizens with rules that would otherwise be unthinkable.

Second, if you are going to protest, do it peacefully without weapons capable of inflicting immediate death on others.

Actually, I think the US and many other governments didn't do enough and didn't act fast enough. If every government acted like New Zealand and Taiwan, the problem would be for all practical purposes over now.

On another note; Welcome to corporationalism.

I finally got my one-time stimulus check today. On the other hand, it's the 52nd day after applying for unemployment and I still am "under review". But that's a "tea bag" Florida government priority - only help the richest of the rich. The alpha dogs get fatter while the pack starves. They way I feel right now is this +50 year independent will never vote GOP again. If they can't take care of us, I won't take care of them.

Insights, incites and a minor rant by Notes
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
From the LA Times. There's something here for everybody.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...ican-americans-and-latinos-in-california

I'm still using LA County as a baseline because I lived there for almost 40 years and it's 10 million population and very diverse. As of today 29,427 confirmed cases and 1,418 deaths. That's a tiny number at this stage of the outbreak with a virus as virulent and infectious as all the studies say. Obviously, either it isn't that bad or there's something else going on. Everybody knows now the actual number of cases is way higher than the confirmed ones so it's the deaths that really matter. Of course there are some unreported deaths but not 500% more. Statewide it's 2,464 as of today. Out of 40 million? It raises the question, out of that large of a population there should be 10,000 deaths by now so as far as I'm concerned the California Mystery is still alive and well. Remember, California had the most Chinese visitors in the entire country with the majority of those in LA, and New York right behind us. Something is keeping those numbers down if not immunity.

Bob

A huge chunk of New York's population is concentrated in NYC, while CA's population is more spread out. Humans packed together into confined spaces is what viruses love and there's a lot more of that in NYC than in LA.
Radiolab has an episode featuring an ER doctor in NYC who was a former Radiolab intern. Fascinating perspective from a doctor on the front lines.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/dispatch-5-dont-stop-believin
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
A huge chunk of New York's population is concentrated in NYC, while CA's population is more spread out. Humans packed together into confined spaces is what viruses love and there's a lot more of that in NYC than in LA.

That's also probably why it's taking so much longer to get into less-populated areas...but once it finds a meat packing plant or assembly line, look out.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
A huge chunk of New York's population is concentrated in NYC, while CA's population is more spread out. Humans packed together into confined spaces is what viruses love and there's a lot more of that in NYC than in LA.

That's also probably why it's taking so much longer to get into less-populated areas...but once it finds a meat packing plant or assembly line, look out.

I forgot to also note that in LA - and Southern California in general - people tend to favor car transportation over public transit, so they're not as exposed to to other humans when they commute. NYC has its legendary subway system which packs a lot of people into a confined space during commute hours, although they did finally cut service down from 24hrs a day to allow more time for nightly cleaning/disinfecting. Even just commuting on foot in NYC exposed you to a lot of other people.

Quite different commute experience than commuting in wheeled quarantine chambers (cars).
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Sigh, Craig the great wet blanket....


When American companies recently applied for U.S. government loans meant to help small businesses survive the coronavirus crisis, they had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic needs like salaries and rent. The money, up to $10 million, was meant to tide them over for eight weeks.


I read over the PPP application and also attended attorney/accountant level webinars on the PPP process when it first was rolled out. I take issue with the quoted article's statement that the applicants "had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic need like salaries and rent." Below my comments I've pasted the entire "Certifications" section of the SBA application form.

My point to make here is that the qualification terminology is extremely vague and says nothing at all about actually needing the cash.

It does require the applicant to certify that "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." And it requires that the funds be used to pay payroll and a few other basic listed business expenses.

Well, everyone is feeling pretty uncertain, right? It's not stated as "current actual conditions" but simply "current economic uncertainty". So there's no certification of actual, existing need of the cash. Just "uncertainty" about the future.

I was feeling pretty uncertain at the time, myself, 'tho year-to-date I was doing about the same as usual. I didn't apply for the loan, 'tho I could have, and could have probably received the money and probably could get it forgiven, too. Why? Just didn't feel right and fair to the other businesses, like restaurants and other services that truly were already in a realtime crisis. I may regret this decision economically, but not ethically.

So what basically happened is that the big companies, with professional accountants and attorneys to stay right on top of all this, applied first with properly filled-out paperwork, zap quick. Hence the great bulk of the first round of PPP funds going to the big boys.

To get the forgiveness, there are rules being rolled out in big chunks, still more to come. But it's pretty clear companies will basically turn in their payroll tax returns and some other documentation to prove up that they indeed spent such and so dollars on payroll and the other covered expenses. There's no mention at all of proving up "need". No disclosures of financial results, no P&Ls, no cash flow statements, etc.

My opinion is that there will be a ton of litigation on the interpretation of "current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations." It's incredibly vague and in the eyes of most businesses, profitable or not, looked like money lying on the ground. Which, it was.

Bedtime reading:

purpose of determining my eligibility for programs authorized by the Small Business Act, as amended.
CERTIFICATIONS

The authorized representative of the Applicant must certify in good faith to all of the below by initialing next to each one:

_____ The Applicant was in operation on February 15, 2020 and had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent
contractors, as reported on Form(s) 1099-MISC.

_____ Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.

_____ The funds will be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and utility payments,
as specified under the Paycheck Protection Program Rule; I understand that if the funds are knowingly used for unauthorized purposes,
the federal government may hold me legally liable, such as for charges of fraud.

_____ The Applicant will provide to the Lender documentation verifying the number of full-time equivalent employees on the Applicant’s
payroll as well as the dollar amounts of payroll costs, covered mortgage interest payments, covered rent payments, and covered utilities
for the eight-week period following this loan.

_____ I understand that loan forgiveness will be provided for the sum of documented payroll costs, covered mortgage interest payments,
covered rent payments, and covered utilities, and not more than 25% of the forgiven amount may be for non-payroll costs.

_____ During the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020, the Applicant has not and will not receive another
loan under the Paycheck Protection Program.

_____ I further certify that the information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and
forms is true and accurate in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan
from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a
fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if
submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not
more than $1,000,000.

_____ I acknowledge that the lender will confirm the eligible loan amount using required documents submitted. I understand,
acknowledge and agree that the Lender can share any tax information that I have provided with SBA's authorized representatives,
including authorized representatives of the SBA Office of Inspector General, for the purpose of compliance with SBA Loan
Program Requirements and all SBA reviews.
_________________________________________________________ ________________________
Signature of Authorized Representative of Applicant Date
Print Name Title
Paycheck Protection Program
Borrower Application Form
3
SBA Form 2483 (04/20)
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
I read over the PPP application and also attended attorney/accountant level webinars on the PPP process when it first was rolled out. I take issue with the quoted article's statement that the applicants "had to certify they needed the cash to cover basic need like salaries and rent." Below my comments I've pasted the entire "Certifications" section of the SBA application form.

That is wonderful, thanks. Always best to get it from the source!!!

Quote
My point to make here is that the qualification terminology is extremely vague and says nothing at all about actually needing the cash.

It does require the applicant to certify that "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." And it requires that the funds be used to pay payroll and a few other basic listed business expenses.

I agree that this could be more specific, but legally speaking, "necessary to support the ongoing operations of the applicant" is not the same as "would be nice to supplement the cash on hand that could support the ongoing operations of the applicant for several months." Necessary means required, essential, needed. If a company has enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses for a substantial period of time, they don't need or require my tax dollars, when the mom and pop shop down the street doesn't have enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses beyond Tuesday.

[Full disclosure: I've lost thousands of dollars because of what's happening (on top of my wife dying last February, which cost additional thousands of dollars). But I haven't applied for, or received, anything other than a $255 social security death "benefit," which I would have received regardless of the current economic conditions. I have enough food to eat, and my computer still function, so I can still work...but many small businesses don't even have that. I feel my money should be going to them, not corporations with a $100 million market cap. That's not a political statement, that's about how to keep the economy alive - which is in everyone's interest.]
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
It does require the applicant to certify that "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." And it requires that the funds be used to pay payroll and a few other basic listed business expenses.

I agree that this could be more specific, but legally speaking, "necessary to support the ongoing operations of the applicant" is not the same as "would be nice to supplement the cash on hand that could support the ongoing operations of the applicant for several months." Necessary means required, essential, needed. If a company has enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses for a substantial period of time, they don't need or require my tax dollars, when the mom and pop shop down the street doesn't have enough to cover payroll and other basic listed expenses beyond Tuesday.

I'm sure some people going after companies who had no real need for the cash at the time would take that position regarding the wording.

Yes, "necessary" is the strongest word in the phrase. But note, "necessary" for what? To keep operations ongoing? That's not what it says. To be able to make payroll? To keep the doors open? No, it's "to SUPPORT the ongoing operations". Not "enable". Not "insure". Merely "support". What an incredibly vague term! And what if "ongoing operations" have been insanely profitable, resulting in mega-bonuses for mega-millionaires? Remodeling the board room and expanding the executive kitchen and work-out room? These types of items are routinely deductible under the Tax Code, meeting the ages-old standard of "ordinary and necessary", even if they don't seem so "necessary" to common sense - they pass muster as "necessary" in the legal language of the Tax Code.

I don't think it would take a very savvy attorney to be able to include just about anything deductible under the Tax Code under "necessary to support ongoing operations." Again I'll stress that there's no definition of any kind of line between a "need" and a simple "cost". No measurement of liquidity, no mention of threats to the survival of the business, no comparison of prior year revenues with "coronavirus" revenues. You just have to keep paying payroll, rent, mortgage interest, etc., as usual and you're good to go.

But interpretations will vary, to be sure. The ambiguity of the thing is miles wide. Lawsuits, perhaps audits, and a lot of scathing press to come.

nat
Absolutely there will be. What gets me with the tone of some of the posts in this thread is the idea that big business is bad, the little guy is good. A question:

How many here who gig regularly do it for poor people? Obviously very few. Notes is very proud of the fact he's been independent musician for years working for yacht clubs, country clubs, retirement communities in S. Florida. Most of them are rich gigs, not poor gigs in a dive bar out on the highway somewhere. I do the same thing but on the West Coast around LA. The LA Country Club, Palos Verdes Country Club. San Clemente Yacht Club, the Catalina Yacht club. Check this out:

https://catalinaislandyachtclub.com/

The dark windows right over the water is where the band plays, they will open the windows and tell us to play loud so people can hear us out on their boats. I've done 4th of July and several Christmas parties there for the last 10 years. Does this look like poor people? Membership costs about as much as the median income in LA. Who are the individual members? Wealthy business owners, professionals, athletes or retired executives of Fortune 500 corporations. Those are the people who hire us and everybody else in this country and some of you are unfairly trashing them. Too much painting with broad strokes here and it's very hypocritical. You take their money but you hate them. Great.

When a company gets the stimulus money the fact they may have enough cash on hand to last to the end of the year means nothing by itself. Maybe they're in the middle of acquiring new factory space for 20 mil and some of that that capital is allocated to cover that cost over the next year and a half the same way you would pay a contractor to remodel your house. Do you pay him all up front? Of course not. Without having their books in front of you to see what their future liabilities are nobody here has any clue at all what the situation is. The money is for payroll to stop people from being laid off. If it's used for that purpose fine, the loan is forgiven and that's what the money is for. If it's not then it's a loan that has to be paid back.

We have been talking about how nobody knows what the future holds. We've gone back and forth with possible scenarios and most say it's stupid to go too soon but then there is the threat of a major recession or even depression. What do you think these owners and CEO's think? Exactly the same thing, they have no clue either so it's only prudent to take what the government is offering. Of course the law is not that simple or clean. It was rushed through Congress in a week. Just like Obamacare and TARP was in 2008. Try to write over 2,000 pages of detailed legislation in a week, there will be holes in it the size of the Queen Mary. Sure some bigger companies got it over smaller ones and I'm sure some of those should have not gotten it at all and some voluntarily paid it back as I said earlier. I've already read that Treasury is gearing up to go after those they think got the money improperly. That should make for some fun reading because I've read some interviews with a few CEO's of the big banks who said if they hadn't given that money to the big companies first they could have been sued or run afoul of bank regulators based on whats in the legislation.

Like I've written many times already, we have to get the country back to work asap or this crap is just going to pile up deeper and deeper until we're in another depression. That means living with the risks of the virus vaccine or no vaccine, simple as that. How many times has it been pointed out right here it can take a minimum of 18 months for that and it could be 4 years. We're going to keep doing what we're doing for 4 years? No way.

Bob
I don't think anyone has a problem with big business per se. I don't. The reality is that there is a finite amount of stimulus money to go around, so decisions have to made about prioritizing it. It seems intuitively that if a company is well funded, has a huge market cap, and has banked hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, they can survive. I totally understand those profits are essential to fund expansion, do R&D, open new facilities, etc. I just don't think that now is the time to do that, any more than I thought the bank bailouts in 2008 were intended for banks to buy up smaller, local banks instead of helping those who were underwater on mortgages.

It works both ways. We need large companies to make products, but they need people to be able to consume their products. Local businesses are efficient in terms of contributing to a local economy, and creating a base of consumers who can keep big companies alive.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Like I've written many times already, we have to get the country back to work asap or this crap is just going to pile up deeper and deeper until we're in another depression. That means living with the risks of the virus vaccine or no vaccine, simple as that. How many times has it been pointed out right here it can take a minimum of 18 months for that and it could be 4 years. We're going to keep doing what we're doing for 4 years? No way.

I kind of think we're screwed either way. If the virus roars back after all restrictions are lifted, a world where thousands of people die every day means many people are not going to go to concerts, go on cruises, fly places, etc., which will put the brakes on the economy even if everything is "opened up." Note that many hospitals are going bankrupt, which if that reaches its logical conclusion, means even more dead people piling up in morgues.

The other reality is that most people have given up on the hope there will ever be enough testing to open up under favorable conditions. AFAIC at the moment there are only two options - have a screwed up economy because things are locked down, or have a screwed up economy because an open economy doesn't magically restore things to the way they were before the virus hit. An open economy will open up to a very different world. Both of the options are bad. The debate is about which one is least bad, and the only way to know for sure is to be able to predict the future.

Ultimately technology/science/medicine will come up with an answer, but we don't know how much wreckage will have occurred before that happens.
I don't have a problem with big biz, but I have a problem with them getting preferential treatment and a lower tax percentage than I pay. I pay 15% self-employment right off the bat PLUS my income tax. Do you think Trump pays over 15% of his income? Bezos? Gates? Buffet? Any hedge fund manager?

When the rich pay the same tax rate as me, I'll have no problem with them. I don't have a problem with them being rich, I have a problem with them giving tacit bribes to the politicians so they don't have to pay taxes at the same rate as the proletariat does.

My sisters are CPAs and they won't give me names, but they have clients with yachts and airplanes paying less money than me per year - legally.

And no, I didn't get the stimulus check i reported last post, it was a scam in a gov't looking envelope.

So while the Lakers, Ruth Chris, Trump Hotels, and other big corporations got money (some were embarrassed into giving it back) on day 53 of forced unemployment I have yet to receive either the promised Stimulus check or any Unemployment money. Zero, nada, zilch -- not one red cent.

Florida tea bag Republican former Rick Scott's system is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, deny people unemployment. We made International news, the conservative BBC and the liberal Guardian as having the worst unemployment in the industrialized world. Actual numbers of less than 20% get approved.

Of course that means I won't get the federal unemployment money either.

And yes I play for poor people. Along with the yacht clubs, country clubs, retirement communities I also play mobile home parks where barely 'making it' retirees live (and I give them a cut rate), One guy who is supposed to be retired but works for the mobile home park and books us tells me his former boss ran away with the employees' pension fund and all he has left is social security, a sick wife, and a "Medicare advantage" plan that minimizes what she can get. Looking around the park, the other people are not in any better shape. Tired mobile homes, old cars, no bling. I play a dozen or more of these and give them all a break because it's a 'do unto others' thing. The Casino I gig at pays 4 times as much as I charge these people.

We also volunteer to play for free at the wheelchair division of the VA hospital every year even though we give up a nights pay we could make somewhere else and drive over 50 miles each way to do it. It just seems like the right thing to do for those who gave up part of themselves for our country.

We do Moose, Elks, and other "animal clubs" where the people go for cheap food and drinks because they are suffering from runaway inflation (thanks to Nixon and his GOP cronies taking us off the gold standard) and a fixed income.

So please don't tell me we don't play for poor people.

And as long as I'm getting zero help from the government, there is nothing you can do to justify in my eyes the richest of the rich getting benefits.

For the rest of the folks on this thread, please forgive the semi-politics, but I felt I needed to respond to a falsehood.

Notes
The non-essential business closure is still set to expire sometime this month in my state, not 18 months from now. So I guess as far as man on the street is concerned we will "reopen" this month.

Anyway, a coalition of music venues formed to fight for their share of federal funding.
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/ne...dP-9G-z_-8KyPH9-O2erjAgNXkR-OzrjD_JFnFuw
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Like I've written many times already, we have to get the country back to work asap or this crap is just going to pile up deeper and deeper until we're in another depression. That means living with the risks of the virus vaccine or no vaccine, simple as that.

No, it doesn't. It means that we should immediately adopt a government response like Germany's, which is like the response that got it out of the last recession faster than any other country (although it's probably too late for us to do what we should have been doing all along, so the point is likely moot). Current unemployment is Germany is 3.2%, and it's projected to rise to 3.9% by the end of the year. Those are not typos. Compare that to the current US unemployment rate.

Although the situation isn't as rosy as depicted in this LA Times article, the reality is that the Germans are simply better at not having a dysfunctional government, compared to the US, UK, and others.

There are two main reasons why this worked in Germany (and could have worked in the United States, had people on both sides of the aisle not been so focused on their political agendas). The first is a more streamlined, efficient, and less expensive way of compensating people who are unemployed so that a) they don't starve, and b) are available to go back to their same jobs as the economy improves. This keeps them from crossing over into poverty, encourages people not to switch jobs, ensures a ready labor force "on standby" that doesn't need to be retrained, and minimizes unemployment.

Second, Germany is a Federalist system where, like the US, the central government is accountable to 16 government bodies that are very much like our states. Initially, they were as disorganized as we were. But instead of plunging further into the chaos, blame, and disunity that happened here, they all started working toward being on the same page. Although Angela Merkel has made her share of missteps in the past, she rose to the occasion and represented a rational, unifying voice (she also has a scientific background, which turned out to be very useful in this situation so she could assess tradeoffs intelligently). Fortunately, Germany got it together, albeit just in time (and with mistakes along the way). So in a way, they had the best of both worlds - state's rights that avoided an overly-powerful government response, but like a good government response, acted with one voice based on what was in the best interest for the country's citizens.

There are still holes in the system. Germany's medical system is solid and so far has weathered the storm, but it is being stretched to the limits. Germans don't always follow social distancing and such. Testing is not where it should be, and there's no way they can insulate themselves totally if the rest of the world falls apart. Also, their economic solution is not one that can go on for year after year, which it was imperative that they minimize the effects of the virus as early in the process as possible.

But the bottom line is simple: Germany figured it out. We didn't, and now we're paying the price.
Originally Posted by Anderton
the reality is that the Germans are simply better

danke schoen smile

Originally Posted by Anderton
But the bottom line is simple: Germany figured it out. We didn't, and now we're paying the price.

Germany went from ruins after WW II to become the economic powerhouse of Europe in only 50 years. Germans are very good at figuring things out
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
And no, I didn't get the stimulus check i reported last post, it was a scam in a gov't looking envelope.

So while the Lakers, Ruth Chris, Trump Hotels, and other big corporations got money (some were embarrassed into giving it back) on day 53 of forced unemployment I have yet to receive either the promised Stimulus check or any Unemployment money. Zero, nada, zilch -- not one red cent.

Florida tea bag Republican former Rick Scott's system is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, deny people unemployment. We made International news, the conservative BBC and the liberal Guardian as having the worst unemployment in the industrialized world. Actual numbers of less than 20% get approved.

Of course that means I won't get the federal unemployment money either.
I don't know how I did it, but we got the stimulus amount AND I have received my first unemployment deposit, which included both the Texas amount and the $600/wk Federal amount from the CARES Act. I was afraid with the gov here also "opening" the state that they might have denied it, but so far they didn't. I don't know if that will change as he opens more places up.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Like I've written many times already, we have to get the country back to work asap or this crap is just going to pile up deeper and deeper until we're in another depression. That means living with the risks of the virus vaccine or no vaccine, simple as that.

[snip]

But the bottom line is simple: Germany figured it out. We didn't, and now we're paying the price.
I haven't read that article yet but I will.

My issue with the "we have to get America back to work" rhetoric is this. Spending was in decline before states started shutting down. People were already reacting to the threat of the virus and not going out. And now, with states reopening, people still aren't going back out. Spending is still down. You can open everything back up, but without people being confident that there isn't a risk by going out, they won't go. Even states that didn't have stay home orders saw significant drops in spending.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/upshot/pandemic-economy-government-orders.html
Originally Posted by davedoerfler
Germany went from ruins after WW II to become the economic powerhouse of Europe in only 50 years. Germans are very good at figuring things out

But to be fair, the Marshall plan factored into that - the US spent 5% of its gross domestic product of that time on rebuilding Europe, which much of that going to Germany because it was seen as the country that would be of the most strategic importance in the years ahead. This was an excellent example of strategic largesse.

Also to be fair, Europe's superior safety net is financed by higher taxes. You don't get something for nothing. European societies have by and large chosen health care, education, and social safety nets as more important than lower tax rates.
One restaurant's idea for social distancing. I'm trying to imagine an outdoor concert venue like Merriwether Pavilion being set up like this:

[Linked Image from cdn.cnn.com]

[Linked Image from cdn.cnn.com]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/world/dutch-restaurant-reopen-greenhouse-trnd/index.html
^^
I can't wait to try one of those on a hot day laugh
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
^^
I can't wait to try one of those on a hot day laugh

I hope somebody posts summertime photos of that restaurant.

Historically, the Netherlands doesn't get that hot but i'm guessing they'll put up cafe-style umbrellas or something.
Here's what's going to happen: some areas will go back to "Norma", the new normal being accepting the fact that there is a new virus and a new source of death, and musicians witll thrive.

Other places, people will continue to live in fear and the brown shirts will shame, chastise, and attack those who don't fall in line, and the music will die. (Cue American Pie).
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
<...snip...>I don't know how I did it, but we got the stimulus amount AND I have received my first unemployment deposit, which included both the Texas amount and the $600/wk Federal amount from the CARES Act. I was afraid with the gov here also "opening" the state that they might have denied it, but so far they didn't. I don't know if that will change as he opens more places up.

Good for you.

Florida made news in UK newspapers as having the most difficult to get unemployment in the country. They said that fewer than 20% who apply actually receive it, that keeps the numbers low as those who don't get it are not counted as unemployed. But FL also gives giant tax breaks and corporate welfare to big biz.

But Florida does have a nice climate.

So as I'm isolating with my sweetheart I am thankful we paid off the mortgage, lived below our means enough to have a buffer savings account, and other than minimal car payments we have zero debt. the sun is out, I live on a half acre near between an ocean lagoon and a protected wetlands area, there's food in the fridge, my best buddy/wife with me, so life is good. We both miss gigging but are thankful we aren't being exposed to the plague except for our every other week grocery store visits.

The place we've played once a week for 12 years now is advertising our return in October on their website. Since it's outdoors in a marina we usually take off from Mid-May to Mid-October as that's our rainy season. We lost March, April and half of May, but if they can hang in there, we'll be gigging in October. An RV park that usually hires us a couple of times a month all year long is not talking about reopening the restaurant -- there is no way they can make a profit at 1/4 capacity, but as soon as this emergency is over - whenever that is - they told us they want us back.

I'm sure when the future means we will have to adapt to the new normal. So we trust that we will be able to do so, we've ridden a lot of changes in the biz so far. We want to be an early adapter, as those are the ones with the best chance of survival.

Insights and incites by Notes
?
Originally Posted by J. Dead
Here's what's going to happen: some areas will go back to "Norma", the new normal being accepting the fact that there is a new virus and a new source of death, and musicians witll thrive.

Other places, people will continue to live in fear and the brown shirts will shame, chastise, and attack those who don't fall in line, and the music will die. (Cue American Pie).

Musicians may not be thriving now, but music is. Sales of music-making gear for people to make music at home are soaring. If anything, there's more active participation in making music than ever before. A mystery virus sure hasn't done any favors for sound engineers, touring acts, or concert promoters, but it's the biggest boost the music industry has had in years - if not decades.

As to people continuing to live in fear, that all hinges on what happens next, not so much what's happened in the past. There are new aspects of the virus being discovered every day. I had a long talk with someone in the medical profession who's part of the front lines in Massachusetts. It's starting to seem that genetics may play a role in propensity for getting destroyed by the disease instead of just having "a cold." Also, it attacks the heart, not just the lungs, and can do so without attacking the lungs or showing other symptoms. It's turning out some people who died surprisingly from heart attacks (i.e., they didn't have a history of heart issues) almost certainly died from the damage Covid-19 did to their hearts. 75 kids have now had symptoms caused by Covid-19 infections, along with several deaths and increasing numbers, so we can't even count on the "well at least it only kills old people" thing. How far will issues with kids spread? We don't know. We don't know how many heart attacks relate to Covid-19. We don't know why some people are not affected by it at all. We don't know nothin.'

Also, at some hospitals, lack of ventilators isn't a problem. Great, right? Yes, except now a shortage of dialysis machines is, because it turns out that Covid-19 can cause major liver damage - again, something that wasn't recognized initially. And people aren't just afraid they might get it, because it's so contagious, they're afraid that going out into the world might unknowingly cause other people to get it.

These kinds of "guess what? it's worse than you thought" revelations are what keep doctors awake at night. I think people could accept "a new virus and a new source of death" more readily if it was more quantifiable and better understood. People need to know what they're dealing with. But at the moment, we're apparently still in "WTF is this thing?" mode.
Originally Posted by Anderton
As to people continuing to live in fear, that all hinges on what happens next, not so much what's happened in the past. There are new aspects of the virus being discovered every day. I had a long talk with someone in the medical profession who's part of the front lines in Massachusetts. It's starting to seem that genetics may play a role in propensity for getting destroyed by the disease instead of just having "a cold." Also, it attacks the heart, not just the lungs, and can do so without attacking the lungs or showing other symptoms. It's turning out some people who died surprisingly from heart attacks (i.e., they didn't have a history of heart issues) almost certainly died from the damage Covid-19 did to their hearts. 75 kids have now had symptoms caused by Covid-19 infections, along with several deaths and increasing numbers, so we can't even count on the "well at least it only kills old people" thing. How far will issues with kids spread? We don't know. We don't know how many heart attacks relate to Covid-19. We don't know why some people are not affected by it at all. We don't know nothin.'

Also, at some hospitals, lack of ventilators isn't a problem. Great, right? Yes, except now a shortage of dialysis machines is, because it turns out that Covid-19 can cause major liver damage - again, something that wasn't recognized initially. And people aren't just afraid they might get it, because it's so contagious, they're afraid that going out into the world might unknowingly cause other people to get it.

These kinds of "guess what? it's worse than you thought" revelations are what keep doctors awake at night. I think people could accept "a new virus and a new source of death" more readily if it was more quantifiable and better understood. People need to know what they're dealing with. But at the moment, we're apparently still in "WTF is this thing?" mode.

In the podcast I posted, the ER doctor and his colleagues bring up a theory that COVID-19 might be attacking the circulatory system rather than the lungs.

Post from a community ER physician expressing his frustration - in a non political way - about myth of COVID-19 being "just another flu", with somewhat graphic descriptions of what he's seen in his line of work:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infect...NKhJatjB35n5eQTnP7qkLQiWaaZj2tN1DN8yAb9Y

Originally Posted by Anderton
And people aren't just afraid they might get it, because it's so contagious, they're afraid that going out into the world might unknowingly cause other people to get it.

Yup! While I take precautions for myself, the reason I try to adhere to the 6-foot rule and all that is to protect other people from me. Some people in my area don't seem to get it, but most do.
Another sobering thought: being a victim of your own success. Because Germany kept things under control and didn't have the same kind of problems other European countries endured, now various agitators are wanting to have everything opened up, and doctors are afraid that a second, more intense wave will happen as a result. They seem to feel the virus is being managed, not controlled...big difference. Once the rabid dog is let out of the cage, it will bite people again.

What happens after the limited openings will tell us a lot. It looks like there are two hypotheticals: infections/deaths will come raging back with a vengeance, or they'll just keep meandering along for a while they way they are now because opening up won't make a significant difference one way or another. And there's always the heat+humidity/miracle vaccine option...outside chance to be sure, but possible.

We'll see what happens.
And the US Government is completely dysfunctional. I've been out of work since 3/17, and never received a stimulus check. I've applied for unemployment twice, the unemployment gig workers are supposed to get, and because I don't have pay stubs from an employer, I've been denied twice. I tried to reapply, the system says click the "update" button and there is none in Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Edge. Now it says I'm not even registered.

That means I don't get the CARES act money. Hmm the Lakers did, Trump Hotels did, Ruth Chris' did and plenty of others. Yes I know some were embarrassed to give it back, but what about the ones that haven't been exposed?

I call my state representative and they assure me they are doing all they can, and when questioned, admit the last GOP administration created an unemployment system designed to fail. They figured starving constituents were preferable to high unemployment figures.

Meanwhile I read in mid-stream papers that huge corporations are getting CARES bailout money.

I've been on the phone and Internet for 4 hours now.

The system is designed to help the rich while starving the rest. I've hit a brick wall, and the people we elected to help us are only helping the richest of the rich.

What do I do next? As the political party in charge that first denied the pandemic for 6 weeks while they sold their stocks and denies help to the little guys in need, I hereby vow to never-ever vote republican again. Definitely the greater of the two evils in my mind.

The ones who issued the "I can't work" order are ignoring all my pleas for help.

Sorry to be political, but that is the first 'what's next' for me.

In addition, I'll do my best to adapt to the changes.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
What do I do next? As the political party in charge that first denied the pandemic for 6 weeks while they sold their stocks and denies help to the little guys in need, I hereby vow to never-ever vote republican again. Definitely the greater of the two evils in my mind.
You do know that the Democrats control the house and are "in charge"?
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
What do I do next? As the political party in charge that first denied the pandemic for 6 weeks while they sold their stocks and denies help to the little guys in need, I hereby vow to never-ever vote republican again. Definitely the greater of the two evils in my mind.
You do know that the Democrats control the house and are "in charge"?

Even from afar I understand that there's the Senate and the President's power of veto.....
Originally Posted by Dave Holloway
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
What do I do next? As the political party in charge that first denied the pandemic for 6 weeks while they sold their stocks and denies help to the little guys in need, I hereby vow to never-ever vote republican again. Definitely the greater of the two evils in my mind.
You do know that the Democrats control the house and are "in charge"?

Even from afar I understand that there's the Senate and the President's power of veto.....
Then you would also understand that whatever the Senate passed had to be first passed in the house. It's fine to blame people, but blame the right ones.

Anyway...I was already more political than I wanted to be. My apologies. I'll stick to music topics going forward rawk
Too political. If this was soccer, there would be a yellow card. (For those not familiar with soccer, a yellow card is a warning about unsportsmanlike conduct. A player who receives a yellow card may continue to play in the match, but receiving two yellow cards is equivalent to receiving a red card. If a player receives a red card, he is immediately dismissed from the field of play and can not play any more in the match.) Notes, I understand your frustration, but I don't know anyone who isn't frustrated on some level.

My position is that both parties are corrupt, and beholden to those with power and money. Their differentiation is being beholden to different groups of people. So, there's no point in discussing Democrats and Republicans. The only things we can do to bring about change are:

* Become active politically, especially in local politics.
* Register opinions with elected representatives.
* Research what's happening, rather than depend on current news sources, so that we understand the various nuances of situations and form our own opinions based on data, not the opinions of others.

* Optional: Try to make sure our actions contribute to creating a kinder world, which bypasses politics altogether.

This thread has been useful because there has been a great deal of factual data and links to useful material. Also, it's important to think about the ramifications of how we, as musicians, can accommodate the current climate.

But for the reasons given above, I am not interested in talk about Democrats and Republicans. There's enough blame to go around for 4,000 threads. I am more interested in solutions and data. It might be a good idea to re-read the first post to understand the rationale behind starting this thread.
I made a comment in a discussion today about 'a second wave' and the person I was speaking with made the good point that for us in Australia there can't be a second wave as we haven't had a first wave (more a trickle). I'm not saying that to boast, but more to flag that 'what happens after' is going to be very piecemeal as every country will have ver different COVID statuses for the next year or two, on top of all the usual differences between countries. So even with the very best international cooperation, gaining consensus in a range of areas will be very very difficult...
Hokkaido, Japan - 2nd wave
They had it down to 0-1 infection per day, and then opened up too quickly. Looks like it was mostly local tourists looking to get out of town.

https://time.com/5826918/hokkaido-coronavirus-lockdown/
Seoul, Korea - 2nd wave
Doesn't look good for dance and music clubs. They're laying the blame on one guy who visited a bunch of dance clubs; wouldn't want to be that guy.

https://www.dw.com/en/spike-in-south-korean-infections-linked-to-one-mans-night-out/a-53384855
Ideas for managing in a post-lockdown world. The blog post is by a Dartmouth professor/biologist specializing in immunology.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/th...-zzu0HP19lJaQ9WNrLb-k6hF0Px2xknLPw3BbP8Q

Quick Summary:
Quote
90% of all virus transmission are indoors. Many come from close contact from family members.

The main sources for infection are home, workplace, public transport, social gatherings, and restaurants. In contrast, outbreaks spread from shopping appear to be responsible for a small percentage of traced infections.

From the countries performing proper contact tracing properly, only a single outbreak has been reported from an outdoor environment (less than 0.3% of traced infections).

Kinda figured that many infections happened in an enclosed space with shared ventilation, I just didn't know the infections rates were so skewed towards the indoors. So it looks like I'm going to be doing a lot of outdoor activities for the foreseeable future.

It's sorta good news, at least it looks like outdoor events have a lot more protection than indoor events. But it does suck for the event venues.
After all the talk and drama about "reopen now"/"don't reopen now" I've been pondering what "reopening" actually means. I asked this question on our neighborhood discussion forum and nobody answered - I guess people got so lost in the drama that nobody actually thought much about the reopening itself.

I can't think of anything about what "reopening" is other than letting non-essential workers go back to their workplaces, and schools, churches and restaurants letting people back in.

Rock concert venues would be tricky because people love to crowd together for rock shows. Music venues that cater to an - sorry, no other way to put it - older clientele tend to have dinner tables - you have to sit at a table to attend a show. Those have a bit more viability as they can space the tables further apart for the 6-foot rule, assuming the tables aren't bolted down.
With the exception of bars and casinos, our state will be reopened albeit with a few hard to enforce restrictions on capacity and so forth this Friday. 77 of our 99 counties were allowed to reopen May 1st. There was never a "shelter in place" order here.

As of today there are 22 C-19 inpatient cases at the U of I Hospitals and Clinics, down from a peak in the mid 30's with 161 total to date.
@Groove On - those are fascinating links, particularly what happened in Hokkaido. I think the debate has now turned to whether a significant increase in illness and death is acceptable to prevent an economic meltdown. There's no easy answer. You can make an argument that people get sick and die all the time, so the price that's being paid isn't that out of line, given the consequences. Or you can make the argument this is a warning sign that we need to seriously consider the economic model we have, and whether it's resilient enough to survive serious, unanticipated shocks to the system.

For example...people are out of work and have a hard time even affording food, but restaurants - which exist to make food! - are closed. Instead of having the government pay the people to buy food, why not pay the restaurants to make food for those people? Then the people without jobs get to eat, and the restaurant gets to stay in business. The logistics of connecting people with food might be complex, but I'm seeing churches around here offering free food to people. So the restaurants could just get the food to the churches - delivered by Uber and Lyft drivers, who would be paid to make the deliveries, so they get to stay at least partially in business too.

I believe we don't have a failure of the system as much as we have a failure of imagination on how to reconcile physical and economic health. But what do I know...I'm just a musician.
Originally Posted by Anderton
restaurants - which exist to make food! - are closed.

In your area? I'm surprised. My friend in Knoxville TN says the restaurants in his town are open - some pickup-only, some w/ social distancing rules.

A good number in my area remain open, but have switched to pickup-only
Many are doing take out, but business is down, and many aren't open at all. Also remember that Nashville is in worse shape in terms of infections than other places in Tennessee. But my point was more about a possibly better way to keep restaurants in business, by making them a bigger component of the food supply chain.
D.C.’s stay-at-home order has been extended until June 8, Mayor Muriel Bowser announced Wednesday. Of course, this can be extended, but still at least another 4 weeks.
My apologies for my last post. My frustration with my government got the better of me.

Florida is slowly opening, but I feel it will be a long time before bands will be back. Right now restaurants are to operate at 25% capacity. For the places we regularly play at, there is no way they will be able to generate enough profit to pay a band with that few tables.

To achieve 25% density, one local restaurant is putting reserved signs on tables for people like Bruce Springsteen, Adele, Mickey Mouse, and other famous people. Cute.

The restaurant we've been playing at for 12 years and two owners is advertising us to return in October. So there is a light at the end of the tunnel (hopefully it's not the headlight of an oncoming train <ha-ha>)

I think until (and if) a vaccine is available, the first to reopen will be playing a game of "russian roulette". I hope I'm wrong.

Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I think until (and if) a vaccine is available, the first to reopen will be playing a game of "russian roulette". I hope I'm wrong.

I think everyone hopes that Trump is right, Fauci is an alarmist, an even nastier second wave won't materialize, the virus won't spread further in middle America, and that it will turn out governments were overly cautious. But if those hopes are unfounded, we need a better backup plan than saying "ooops."

For the first time, every country in Africa now has cases of corona virus. In Brazil, COVID-19 was called a "rich person's disease" because it only happened to people who flew around to ski resorts and concerts and such, so poor people didn't have to worry. They have a lot to worry about now. I believe we're on the cusp of the virus ravaging poorer countries, and the "first world" is not insulated because it has accumulated wealth. The virus doesn't care what's in your bank account, because it's so highly contagious.

Oh well. At least I have a front row seat to the zombie apocalypse!
Originally Posted by Anderton
Although the situation isn't as rosy as depicted in this LA Times article, the reality is that the Germans are simply better at not having a dysfunctional government, compared to the US, UK, and others.

There are two main reasons why this worked in Germany (and could have worked in the United States, had people on both sides of the aisle not been so focused on their political agendas). The first is a more streamlined, efficient, and less expensive way of compensating people who are unemployed so that a) they don't starve, and b) are available to go back to their same jobs as the economy improves. This keeps them from crossing over into poverty, encourages people not to switch jobs, ensures a ready labor force "on standby" that doesn't need to be retrained, and minimizes unemployment.

Second, Germany is a Federalist system where, like the US, the central government is accountable to 16 government bodies that are very much like our states. Initially, they were as disorganized as we were. But instead of plunging further into the chaos, blame, and disunity that happened here, they all started working toward being on the same page. Although Angela Merkel has made her share of missteps in the past, she rose to the occasion and represented a rational, unifying voice (she also has a scientific background, which turned out to be very useful in this situation so she could assess tradeoffs intelligently). Fortunately, Germany got it together, albeit just in time (and with mistakes along the way). So in a way, they had the best of both worlds - state's rights that avoided an overly-powerful government response, but like a good government response, acted with one voice based on what was in the best interest for the country's citizens.

...
But the bottom line is simple: Germany figured it out. We didn't, and now we're paying the price.
I agree with you about Germany's response they got a lot of things right. But we lose perspective if we compare Germany to the USA. The equivalent of the USA is the EU, and both have had their fair share of fractured responses from member states. Comparing the USA to the EU and Germany to New York, California or Florida puts things into perspective.

I know it's probably a lost cause, but I feel like our national conversation always gets muddled and confused when we don't make this distinction.
I came across this documentary on the 1918 Pandemic, put together 10 or so years ago by the Dept of Health.

It reviews the effects of the pandemic, a lot of archival photos, black/white films, and an interesting segment on how a Scandinavian graduate student suggested that if the preserved remains of an infected individual from that time could be found, from there they might be able to help define the origin, and makeup of the 1918 influenza virus.

Over a period from the 50's thru the 90's a variety of pathologists, medical researchers with the help of the the remains of an individual buried in the arctic permafrost, finally established that genomic sequence - I found the film quite interesting....

We Heard the Bells – The Influenza of 1918 (1hour)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbEefT_M6xY

If you're on a airline, it's in the process of having catastrophic engine failure, even thought you might have a 'shiny new pilot', it would make sense for one of the crew-members to stick their head out in the cabin...." is 'Sully' on board?"

In this documentary, you see researchers working, or interviewed on the origin of these kind of viruses. You don't see many of the 'current players'...with one exception, there is at least one interview with a younger Dr. Fauci. Although it is recognized (as well as he) that his expertise does not relate to an economy, when it comes to wisdom, and an understanding of the power and potential devastation of this kind of coronavirus...

...you decide....
Originally Posted by Groove On
I agree with you about Germany's response they got a lot of things right. But we lose perspective if we compare Germany to the USA. The equivalent of the USA is the EU, and both have had their fair share of fractured responses from member states. Comparing the USA to the EU and Germany to New York, California or Florida puts things into perspective.

I know it's probably a lost cause, but I feel like our national conversation always gets muddled and confused when we don't make this distinction.

I get where you're going with this, but remember that the EU's genesis was as an artificial political and economic construct. The USA has grown organically for 250 years into what it is now. I can guarantee you that people from New York, Florida, and California feel more of a common bond - even if at times tenuous - compared to people from Greece, France, and Germany.

Where I feel the analogy is 100% accurate is that although Germany is smaller than the USA, it has a Federalist government where the "states" have a significant autonomy. Their challenge was that of the USA on a smaller scale: how to preserve the autonomy of the states, yet speak with one voice. Germany did not do well on this at first. It took a significant effort, and a unified leadership, to make that happen. It has not happened yet in the USA. Compared to Germany, each state is acting like a separate country.
The thing I get from people in other places I post is they can't see that what we called normal pre-virus isn't going to come back, there is going to a new "normal" in the post virus world. How differ depends on how long it takes to come up with a vaccine or a cure and the changes the economic have which I think will be bigger than the effect of the virus. Even if a miracle cure came next week this has gone on long enough to of changed moving forward how people work, shop, socialize, and what they value in life.

I think the workplace is going to change a lot after this. Companies will see a lot of people are more productive working from home that the social atmosphere of the office chews up quite a bit of time. Companies will start micromanaging in the office place more. Even creative type work they will try to manage people more. I think the new normal is going to be accepting living under a microscope. I saw where one country has already started use software with their monitor ing to tell who going out when and if they have a mask on. This virus is going to have a big effect on life moving forward.
Originally Posted by Docbop
I think the workplace is going to change a lot after this. Companies will see a lot of people are more productive working from home that the social atmosphere of the office chews up quite a bit of time.

I agree, I've been saying this since the lockdowns started. Today I read that Twitter will make working from home permanent for various employees. Note that long before the virus, many magazines had editors working out of their homes to cut expenses.

Quote
This virus is going to have a big effect on life moving forward.

When I was growing up, you could go to an airport's gate to meet people, take more than 3.5 ounces of toothpaste in your carry-on, didn't have to take off your shoes, didn't get patted down*, have to go through a metal detector, etc. Every time there's a crisis of some type, measures are put into place that remain. They may, or may not, help us weather the crisis the next time it occurs.


* To be fair, though, props to the sweet TSA agent who gave me a shoulder rub while patting me down, after I (jokingly) said "do you do shoulder rubs?" She could tell I had a tough day...and she made it better smile
Originally Posted by Anderton
* To be fair, though, props to the sweet TSA agent who gave me a shoulder rub while patting me down, after I (jokingly) said "do you do shoulder rubs?" She could tell I had a tough day...and she made it better smile
I'm sure that had something to do with your charm, Craig. Those of us who have met you in person would get this. smile

There are some threads on KC about the future for us musicians, and while I'm generally an optimistic person, I tend to agree with them. Unless there's a vaccine or other solution to this thing, playing music together, publicly, seems a long way off. People in those threads are talking about next winter's holiday gigs being unlikely. Yet, I've been seeing posts and listings for gigs here in Houston for June. I got a message last night from a friend in another band. They have a gig booked for August 8, and wanted to know if the band I have been playing with would be interested in sharing the bill. I told him that "my" band has been getting together but I haven't been playing with them yet so he should contact the other guy he knows in the band. Frankly, I'm scratching my head at all these guys, most older than me, who are talking about doing this. "My" band has been getting together for a few weeks, they keep sending me messages about the weekly get togethers, but I keep saying no thanks. They rehearse in the bass player's living room, and the rehearsals go from 2 to 7 or 8 (they call them jams and there's some social time. They do a lot, but I wish they were shorter anyway). Based on the Erin Bromage article, spending long periods of time indoors with people in a place with poor air circulation is the worst situation. As I said to my wife, "poor circulation? His house smells like dog!!" roll On top of that, they play loud so if the singer is the one infected, I'm sure he'd be spreading like crazy.

I don't know when I'll feel safe going back to that. It's too bad, too. They are great guys, the music was right in my wheelhouse, and I enjoyed paying with them. I wish I could.
Some good news for me. The outdoor restaurant that we've been gigging once a week at for 12 years and two owners is advertising we will return in late October. It's on a quay over a lagoon and when we play the deck is full so they put tables out in the parking lot. The lot is gravel with a sand beach facing the lagoon. I suspect for social distancing, there will be more tables with umbrellas in the parking lot 6 feet apart.

On the other side of the lagoon is a state park, the restaurant is on an island and other than the marina connected to the restaurant, it's the only thing on the island. So other than the road, it's like we are in a tropical paradise. Location, location, location.

There will be a new normal, but unless there is a vaccine it will not be like the old normal and it won't feel normal for a while. Carrying a phone in your pocket or having a computer at home was once weird, strange and abnormal.

Playing to backing tracks was once abnormal. When I started this in the 1980s, other musicians were saying "You're going to put musicians out of work with that computer" and I responded "I'm putting two musicians TO work with that computer." Now singles to trios playing with backing tracks are normal.

Like backing tracks, when the new normal arrives, we all need to adapt before it feels normal. The early adapters will have the best chances at being successful adapters.

Until then, Leilani and I are happy in isolation together, we're learning new songs, trying to anticipate what will make our future audiences happy. We've been doing this a long time and we trust our instincts to be right at least 4 out of 5 times.

Let's keep our eyes and ears open for the next phase of live entertainment and get a jump out of the starting gate.

Insights and incites by Notes
And so the latest Wisconsin experiment begins

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...e9BQD9pJpDH4Y07XsoojFj-KBXEnz_6wFlJeGBWQ
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver

I understand no one likes to be told what to do, but I think observing precautions to avoid spreading an extremely contagious disease doesn't fall under the category of defending liberty. It infringes on other peoples' liberty.

It's like a guy I knew who drove a motorcycle and refused to wear a helmet. He said it was totally his decision about whether he wanted to wear a helmet or not, and didn't affect anyone else. I said okay, that was fine with me - as long as he signed a document saying that my health insurance rates wouldn't go up because of him being hospitalized for his stupidity.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Playing to backing tracks was once abnormal. When I started this in the 1980s, other musicians were saying "You're going to put musicians out of work with that computer" and I responded "I'm putting two musicians TO work with that computer."

People gave me the same argument about synthesizers - "they'll put musicians out of work." My stock reply was "Who do think plays them - accountants?"
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver

Oh, sh*t!! I've been saying we should "think" of reopening sooner rather than later because of the threat of a serious recession or depression but holy crap, not like this. Keep it tightly controlled and all that stuff. The Wisconsin election has been one of my examples, not much in the way of new cases precisely because it was pretty well controlled but to throw all the bars open at once? What was the court thinking?

Well, ok then my thoughts are with these partiers and I sincerely hope it works out but wow....what a test. Talk about having a bad feeling about something.

I guess now we're really gonna find out eh?

On a similar but it think better note, Musk won his battle with Alameda County and is reopening his Tesla factory so that is another test and it's certainly a better controlled one than throwing open all the friggin bars.

Bob
I agree...baby steps. Check at each step whether things are working out okay or not. Throwing everything open at once has more to do with anarchy than "liberty."

True, societies can exist to repress, but they can also exist to promote the common good.

The paradox is that people who want to open everything up now think they're going to speed up the economic recovery. But people who know a lot more about pandemics than I do say that premature opening, with a concomittent increase in death and illnesses, will set the economy further back than if the lockdown had been maintained longer.

As I've said so many times...there are no good solutions. I used to say we had to choose the less bad solution, but I may have to change that to the less horrific solution.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver

Oh, sh*t!! I've been saying we should "think" of reopening sooner rather than later because of the threat of a serious recession or depression but holy crap, not like this. Keep it tightly controlled and all that stuff. The Wisconsin election has been one of my examples, not much in the way of new cases precisely because it was pretty well controlled but to throw all the bars open at once? What was the court thinking?

Well, ok then my thoughts are with these partiers and I sincerely hope it works out but wow....what a test. Talk about having a bad feeling about something.

I thought of one of my favorite bartenders. He was at the Pfister hotel in Milwaukee when I spent a weekend in 2014 to attend an Octatrack workshop, which was led by a gentleman who regularly hosted production workshops (Maschine, Ableton Live, etc.) for the inner city youth. One of the rare bartenders who are just like in the old movies - made killer cocktails, a knack for getting bar patrons to talk to each others, great personality, etc.

I see though that Milwaukee quickly jumped on enacting its own restrictions in line with the state order.
Originally Posted by Anderton
[quote=GovernorSilver]

It's like a guy I knew who drove a motorcycle and refused to wear a helmet. He said it was totally his decision about whether he wanted to wear a helmet or not, and didn't affect anyone else. I said okay, that was fine with me - as long as he signed a document saying that my health insurance rates wouldn't go up because of him being hospitalized for his stupidity.

That guy has been me for 45 years East, West, North and South, perhaps you can explain how a helmet is going to help if a car rams me at 80mph? I suppose it makes people who don't ride feel better?
And BTW, I'm planning my ride to Wisconsin right now!
I think there is a line between what people do that is potentially harmful to themselves, and what is likely to be harmful to non-consenting others.

For example smoking. Smoking cigarettes in your own home or outdoors harms no one but yourself and others who consent to be with you. Smoking in an airplane is likely to harm the health of others on that plane (or restaurant or office, etc.).

Drinking alcohol is potentially harmful to the drinker, but as soon as the drunk person gets behind the wheel, it's likely to be harmful to others.

If it's likely to be harmful to non-consenting others, I agree with restrictions. Liberty should give you the right to do whatever you want, but your liberty stops where the next person's liberty begins.

Possibly spreading a deadly disease is likely to be harmful to others, which is why I agree with baby steps. I know social distancing isn't any fun, I miss gigging, I miss going out to dinner, and I miss going to the grocery store without masks, gloves and rubbing alcohol. But I don't miss being healthy, able to breathe deeply so I can sing and play the sax or wind synth whenever I want.

I read an article in I think "The Guardian" about an opera singer living in Paris. She ended up with scarred lungs that might take two years to heal - if they ever heal at all. She survived but can't sing due to shortness of breath and weakness.

My next gig is late October, and I'm picking up contracts for next winter season. I'm OK with that. I'll see how Wisconsin, Georgia, Texas and other states do and decide what my next steps will be.

So to the brave COVID beta-testers - good luck - I hope I am erring well on the side of caution and you will be OK.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
Originally Posted by Anderton
It's like a guy I knew who drove a motorcycle and refused to wear a helmet. He said it was totally his decision about whether he wanted to wear a helmet or not, and didn't affect anyone else. I said okay, that was fine with me - as long as he signed a document saying that my health insurance rates wouldn't go up because of him being hospitalized for his stupidity.

That guy has been me for 45 years East, West, North and South, perhaps you can explain how a helmet is going to help if a car rams me at 80mph? I suppose it makes people who don't ride feel better?
And BTW, I'm planning my ride to Wisconsin right now!

I'll let people who know more about it than I do give the stats and details.. Here is a more comprehensive report. But what you're proposing is a worse case scenario. If I'm in a car and get rammed at 80 MPH, I probably won't make it either. From everything I've seen, and the nurses I know who've had to handle the result of motorcycle accidents, helmets aren't guaranteed to keep you from dying. But, they often lessen the extent of injuries, and can in fact prevent fatalities.

But that has nothing to do with my point...as I said, your not wearing a helmet is fine with me. My point is that accidents make insurance rates go up for everybody. There are plenty of stats that show helmets do reduce, or at least lessen, rider injuries and fatalities...as GEICO (a company that sells motorcycle insurance) says "a helmetless rider involved in an accident is three times as likely to suffer a brain injury as a motorcyclist wearing a helmet."

People who decide to ride without a helmet don't exist in a vacuum, because the consequences of getting injuries or deaths that could have been avoided, affect people other than themselves. People who drive drunk, text while driving, do makeup, whatever is proven to lead to more injuries or deaths, are all raising the cost of vehicle and health insurance. (Riding without a helmet is only one example. It's front of mind only because I've known people who've been killed in motorcycle accidents, and nurses who've tried to put motorcyclists back together again.)

Hence my comment that if people who ride motorcycles without helmets are willing to take responsibility for paying their medical expenses, they can do whatever they want, because their freedom is not going to restrict my freedom. I shouldn't be forced to pay so that others can avoid the discomfort of wearing a hot, bulky helmet. (On the other hand, having been rear-ended twice by people who were texting while driving, I would just prefer that they be drawn and quartered, preferably in a public place.)

But frankly, I'm surprised you trust other drivers enough not to wear a helmet. You seem like a pretty level-headed guy, but drivers don't pay anywhere near enough attention to motorcyclists and unfortunately, that includes you. Although it's true that the majority of motorcycle accidents occur by a collision with a stationary object, that doesn't let motorists who crash into motorcyclists off the hook.

Take care of yourself, and watch for idiots. No matter how careful you are, other people might not rise to the same standard.
Even if helmets didn't save lives (which they most obviously do based on decades of data as per Craig's link and many others), think of it as a courtesy thing. Even with the extreme collisions, the helmet may make the difference between some poor emergency worker getting to pick up a somewhat whole head versus the trauma of the alternative. As a former ED nurse I've had reports from paramedics to confirm this indeed helps them.
As a guy who's been riding for most of my life in lots of places with lots of people I could write a book on the crap I've seen out there. I've had the helmet discussion/argument ad nauseam with folks that likely have a lot more real world experience in the matter than most here. I don't see this as the right place for it and I'll just leave it at that.
A buddy of mine from high school died riding his motorcycle a few years ago. AFAIK, he wasn't wearing a helmet (he was always "too cool" for that kind of thing) and it was a single vehicle accident. I think he somehow lost control and went off the road. frown

Back on the topic, I thought this episode of the Al Franken podcast with epidemiologist Larry Brilliant had some great info about Where We Go from Here. (Note that there's some political talk, Al leans a *little* to the left and so does his guest, so be forewarned. If you don't like it or them, don't listen.) There's some great info about what the U.S. did wrong, what we should have done, and what we should be doing now, including a bipartisan proposal they are trying to get through congress funding contact tracing and isolation for those who may have been in contact with the virus. It sounds like a great plan to me. The sooner we start doing what they propose, the sooner we can start really opening things up and having people be somewhat confident they can go back out again.
Back in the days when I was riding, I wore a helmet (legally required) with a clear faceplate (not required). This was because I wore contact lens, and even with sunglasses on the lens might just get blown out. My vision was 20/400 without the lens, not a good situation. And yes, I DO know what it feels like to lose the lens while driving. I was driving my second Corvette one night with top down and the lens did get blown out. Fortunately, I had kept my old glasses in the glove compartment, otherwise I would have needed to have someone pick me up and drive me home (about 50 miles, I was near Atlantic Beach at the time).
I do feel like, for the cyclist with normal vision, that it is actually safer in SLOW traffic (like 20 mph downtown) to not have on the helmet, because it restricts the field of vision; and there are advantages to having better peripheral vision because of someone coming out from an alley or side street or other opening.

Biggest thing I learned about auto drivers in the 25,000 miles I spent riding a bike was that there were a bunch of them that were TOTALLY situation unaware, and would claim that they couldn't see the cyclist. Kind of ridiculous, at that time, one would be put under the jail for killing a young child on a bike, but couldn't see a 200 pound adult on a motorcycle. The defensive driving learned on my bike has been good for me even now that I don't have one (I do still have a convertible, my 1996 BMW 328 that I've had since 2000, have both tops for it).

The old "redneck rule" "The vehicle with the biggest tires has the right of way" is still observed by way too many people. Punishment for texting while driving is nowhere near what it should be (like 5 years in jail the first time if no one is killed, otherwise life in my opinion). I spent a month in Germany, where there is no such thing as a "no fault" accident, vehicles didn't have cup holders reachable by the driver, and drivers were expected to keep their attention on driving. Couldn't pay me enough now to drive in the states where one can expect a fair percentage of drivers to be stoned.

Tie this in to the virus: The past few weeks driving in NC has probably been considerably safer than normal, because of the lesser number of vehicles on the highways.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
As a guy who's been riding for most of my life in lots of places with lots of people I could write a book on the crap I've seen out there. I've had the helmet discussion/argument ad nauseam with folks that likely have a lot more real world experience in the matter than most here. I don't see this as the right place for it and I'll just leave it at that.
As I said, I think you're a pretty level-headed guy, and that last post proves it. I will admit my real-world experience is limited to people dying, so you can probably understand why that colors my thinking. I saw my first motorcycle accident when I was 8, and it's something that even 63 years later, I can't unsee.

I apologize for offending you, that was not the intention. It sounds like you have the kind of experience that gives you the confidence that you won't get into an accident. Just keep your eye out for idiots to keep your safety record intact, and we're good.

However, I still feel that people who text while driving should be drawn and quartered smile
Back to Covid-19...it seems there's some tentative good news. In several of the hardest-hit areas, new cases are leveling off or declining. Unfortunately cases are still increasing in smaller population centers. However, since they are smaller, the odds are any spreading will have less dramatic results.

So now the big question is whether that trend can continue in the face of many states/localities lifting constraints on mobility. It's a gamble, and like all gambles, the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.

Still, fewer new cases overall is something to be happy about. For the first time, the curve of new infections in the US is starting to flatten just a tiny bit.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Just keep your eye out for idiots to keep your safety record intact, and we're good.

However, I still feel that people who text while driving should be drawn and quartered smile

I'll do my best for sure! There are a lot of bikers out there who've grown old with plenty of years and miles over me, life is always a crap shoot.

As far as the covid-19 thing I'm keeping an eye out for any further headlines about Wisconsin. If I don't see any, it'll be the "news" I'd expected. It's actually not far from here but I'm not able to get there because we've got grand-kids for the weekend due to parents that are in need of a break!
We could stop the pandemic by July 4 if the government took these steps

Quote
There is already a bipartisan plan to achieve this; we helped write it. The plan relies on frequent testing followed by tracing the contacts of people who test positive (and their contacts) until no new positive cases are found. It also encourages voluntary isolation, at home or in hotel rooms, to prevent further disease spread. Isolated patients would receive a federal stipend, like jurors, to discourage them from returning to workplaces too soon.

But our plan also recognizes that rural towns in Montana should not necessarily have to shut down the way New York City has. To pull off this balancing act, the country should be divided into red, yellow and green zones. The goal is to be a green zone, where fewer than one resident per 36,000 is infected. Here, large gatherings are allowed, and masks aren’t required for those who don’t interact with the elderly or other vulnerable populations. Green zones require a minimum of one test per day for every 10,000 people and a five-person contact tracing team for every 100,000 people. (These are the levels currently maintained in South Korea, which has suppressed covid-19.) Two weeks ago, a modest 1,900 tests a day could have kept 19 million Americans safely in green zones. Today, there are no green zones in the United States.
Imagine that! By July!!!

Here is a similar plan that is also by a bipartisan group of experts. I haven't seen if there's any overlap in those behind each, but the plans seem similar in the concepts of testing, contact tracing, and encouraged quarantine. One of the benefits of this one is that by quarantining people in hotels who can't isolate at home for any reason, you help the hotel business a bit as well. (This is the plan discussed by Larry Brilliant in the podcast I liked to above.)

To Open the US Economy, We Need a Contact Tracing Workforce of 180,000

There's also a link there to an NPR article about it.

I truly think that if these plans are supported, we can climb out of this mess. It will literally take an act of Congress, however. I'm planning on pushing my reps.
Why do I keep getting kicked out of the forum every few days? Does this happen to everybody? And yes I always check the box "keep me logged in".

Anyway here's another opinion from an expert about herd immunity from the UK:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20..._source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

This opinion has been proposed quite a lot but it hasn't made the mainstream media. All we hear is constant bad news, we're opening too soon, people will die, we still need to stay locked down, etc. I've been writing about this off and on for about 6 weeks now and still think it's a likely possibility. No proof of course but it seems logical to me.

Another article in the Telegraph is about the infamous modeling issue:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol..._source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

This is about the same guy who had to resign because he violated his own recommendations about staying at home to visit his hot married girlfriend.

Then there is still the issue about how to count Covid deaths. Colorado just revised their count downward from 1,150 to 878, almost 25% because of things like one stupid guy who died of alcohol poisoning who also tested positive. Covid had nothing to do with his death. Another thing I've written about a few times.

https://www.cpr.org/2020/05/15/colo...virus-deaths-are-reported-to-the-public/

Then there is the way total cases are simply added up with no detail as to what goes into that count. In California 470 active cases are prisoners and 84 are staff. That's 554 cases. Ok, sad for them but what does that have to do with us? The prisoners are already isolated and the staff are easily traced.

My opinion about doctors is they're are truly wonderful and very committed people and I admire them very much. They are totally focused on their patients, want the very best for them and will do anything they can to protect them. This is obviously a great thing but this also makes them extremely cautious so of course they say we have to lock down and protect everybody as much as humanely possible. That is clearly their job but it's a myopic view when compared to the overall big picture. Doctors are not concerned with that, they're concerned about their patients not the cold and difficult calculation of comparing a total lock down to the risk of a second depression or the effects of continued high unemployment on the overall mental health and risks of drug abuse, family abuse and all the other bad things than can happen as a result of everything being shut down.

This includes something else that isn't talked about a lot and that's the lack of routine but important medical care for people. Routine followups for all kinds of chronic diseases, preventative testing, regular dental checkups that I need for example. I've been on a periodontal regimen for 15 years in order to save my teeth. I need to have regular periodontal cleaning every 3 months and I'm past due now. I can't be the only one on this forum with those issues and gum disease can put bacteria in the blood that can cause heart issues. I also had my annual physical at the VA changed to a telephone consult. Fine, but what about all the blood and other lab work I usually have done? It's always been ok but why is that part of my annual in the first place? To catch something new that never showed up before. Me and everybody here could be sitting on a potential serious problem nobody knows about. I've read articles talking about how the numbers of new cancer cases has plummeted. Is that because we've done such a great job of preventing cancer? Of course not, it's all the regular cancer screening that is not being done right now and that costs lives and/or serious medical issues too. Is living through chemo or multiple surgeries any different than living through possible long term issues or lung scarring from Covid? I would guess it's worse. I could go on and on. This virus as bad as it is simply must be folded into our everyday lives and we'll learn to live with the new precautions and accept the risks like everything else we could die from.

I've said from the beginning, lets wait until May. Well, it's May.

Bob
I think a problem for the public is the vast array of totally conflicting messaging coming from all corners. Deaths are underreported...deaths are overreported...herd immunity will work...herd immunity only works if 50%-60% of the people are infected, but we can't know without testing whether people are infected...anyone who wants a test can get a test...there are nowhere near enough tests...only old people die...kids are getting Covid-19-related complications.

And politicians give their own conflicting messages, usually for partisan reasons. The CDC can't agree on stuff. The White House itself constantly shifts assessments, from it's not going to be a big deal, to lots of people are going to die, that we have to isolate, that we can't afford to isolate, etc. etc. China did a great job. China was sick and twisted. It came from bats, it came from a lab, it escaped from a lab on purpose, it was designed specifically as a bio-weapon. And of course, the new age people say it's the earth's revenge against how badly we've been treating it.

The only theory for which I can't find any support is of course the correct one - that extra-terrestrials, working in conjunction with China, deposited swarms of the virus in ukuleles, and the virus crawls out of the ukuleles at night to infect people. C'mon, you saw all those ukuleles in January 2020 at NAMM, just before the virus hit big-time. And where were most of those ukuleles made?

CHINA!!!

And where is the world's largest ukulele factory?

WUHAN!!!

I rest my case.
But seriously...what's happening now is we're all participating in a giant beta test. I'll let you know in six months how it turns out.
John Hopkins University of Medicine statement on herd immunity:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-ou...ainst-covid-19-a-dangerous-misconception

I don't want to make fun of other people's hopes for herd immunity vs. COVID-19, and I don't support public shaming of people not wearing maeks. OTOH, I can't support the idea of controlled voluntary infection.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
John Hopkins University of Medicine statement on herd immunity:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-ou...ainst-covid-19-a-dangerous-misconception

I don't want to make fun of other people's hopes for herd immunity vs. COVID-19, and I don't support public shaming of people not wearing maeks. OTOH, I can't support the idea of controlled voluntary infection.

That is a truly chilling article...particularly because it certainly seems like it's by someone who knows how math works.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
John Hopkins University of Medicine statement on herd immunity

thanks for sharing that article, Paolo.
Actually, it's not that chilling because it supports part of what I just wrote. Also, there's no date but this appears to be the same article that was posted 5 or 6 weeks ago and in the progression of this virus, that's a lifetime. There is some evidence now about herd immunity. He wrote this:

initial studies suggest that perhaps 15-21%6,7 of people have been exposed so far. In getting to that level of exposure, more than 17,500 of the 8.4 million people in New York City (about 1 in every 500 New Yorkers) have died, with the overall death rate in the city suggesting deaths may be undercounted and mortality may be even higher.

This is already ancient history and the death rate is an example of what I wrote about there being no effort in articles like this to look into these numbers and break it down showing how those numbers could affect a normal, average person. The majority of the deaths have been in nursing homes. A huge tragedy and an equally huge failure on the part of the NY authorities. There was plenty of space available on the hospital ship, Franklin Graham's church group in Central Park and the Javits center to handle the nursing home patients discharged from hospitals but no, they were sent back to their so called homes to infect the remainder of the residents. So, not to be callus about it but what does all these nursing home deaths have to do with the rest of us? It's the same thing as my example about prisons. See this from today's NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/17/opinion/nursing-home-coronavirus.html

Apparently in Connecticut in mid April it was 90% nursing home deaths out of the total? C'mon. It's stuff like this that is making people march on statehouses and City Hall's all over the country. I've said this many times, yes this virus is serious, yes, I'm still being very careful since I'm in the high risk group because I'm 74. I'm speaking from the POV of the national big picture.

I read the links in the Johns Hopkins article and I actually think this Federalist one makes some sense. It exactly the same thing the doctor wrote in The Hill article I posted. Here's the Federalist:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/2...-could-turn-the-tide-of-the-wuhan-virus/

I agree with you Craig, lots of contradictory yet informed articles going around yet the underlying fact remains. We need to get going, we will learn to live with this thing and yes, we're now beta testers. I'll make with trembling hands this prediction:

It will work out ok.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
I agree with you Craig, lots of contradictory yet informed articles going around yet the underlying fact remains. We need to get going...

I think what we need first is a cohesive national policy to find out exactly where it is we're going! There is still no overall plan yet, other than "you figure it out." That's not necessarily flawed, but it means the people figuring it out really have to know their stuff.

Quote
I'll make with trembling hands this prediction: It will work out ok.

Of course it will work out okay at some point. I'd just rather have it work out in an intelligent, science-based (yes, I know science isn't always right, but it's the best we've got), and non-partisan way. There's no need to settle for "okay" where with a little intelligence, we could have things work out "well."
Originally Posted by Anderton
Of course it will work out okay at some point. I'd just rather have it work out in an intelligent, science-based (yes, I know science isn't always right, but it's the best we've got), and non-partisan way. There's no need to settle for "okay" where with a little intelligence, we could have things work out "well."

Yup. "Herd immunity" tends to be rolled into exhortations to have coronavirus parties - get people to deliberately infect themselves..

I respect those who want to believe in herd immunity, that it will become real. Nothing wrong with hoping for it to happen.

OTOH using the phrase "herd immunity" as a rallying cry to get people to engage in voluntary infection is something I will not support.
I guess one could consider this good news overall -vaccine progress looks great, but... but... but feel free to delete this Mr. Anderton if it crosses the line.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/moncef-slaoui-moderna-stocks-coronavirus-vaccine/index.html
I've read in trustworthy publications that a lot of people, even those with no or mild symptoms end up with permanent lung, heart, kidney, brain or other organ damage.

No think you.

I think I'll wait for the vaccine or an effective treatment.

Insights and incites by Notes.
https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...rzXzCDITvW4l7q8mJ4g1ou29IaMnP5jSo2bBDLow

Article doesn't say how strictly patrons to the reopened businesses, churches, etc. adhered to the 6-foot rule, how many wore masks, etc.

At least the governor immediately pushed to increase testing.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
I guess one could consider this good news overall -vaccine progress looks great, but... but... but feel free to delete this Mr. Anderton if it crosses the line.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/moncef-slaoui-moderna-stocks-coronavirus-vaccine/index.html

Personally, I'm impressed that Slaoui is doing the right thing. Instead of selling stock based on insider knowledge, he's increasing donations to cancer research based on his change in careers. Granted, he initially said he didn't feel there was a conflict of interest, but then reversed course a few days later. If the story is as it seems - and CNN is not one to mindlessly boost Trump appointees - it appears Slaoui has decided that maintaining his reputation is worth more than money. I also think it's only fair he donate the delta from what he had before the appointment to the spike that happened after he was appointed, not give up everything that happened beforehand.

I should probably dig deeper, but at least superficially, it seems like this has been handled well.
Travis McCready Performs America's First Concert in Months

Quote
The concert offered a preview of what music fans may expect from an industry struggling to find a path forward in the age of social distancing. Forget arenas roiling with sweating, screaming fans. Here, concertgoers were required to buy seats in clusters, or what promoters call “fan pods” — presumably a group of friends comfortable being in proximity — with scores of empty seats roped off on all sides to ensure space between strangers. Of the 1,100 seats available, just 20 percent were available for sale.
Our May 22nd gig is officially canceled, no surprise there but now the one my wife booked post apocalypse for June may also be in jeopardy according to something I saw on FB today. We'll see how that shakes out and we've got one for July at a different place that was also booked post apocalypse.

Even though things have begun opening up the "atmosphere" seems a bit weird, I suspect that's a common theme. We had dinner last night at a favorite Mexican place near our house rather than having to leave our county for a sit-down meal. Capacity is limited to 50% and the employees were wearing masks. Suddenly last week, after all this time, the company where I work decided we all needed to wear masks so I'm forced to play the pandemic game until about 3:00pm daily and then I return to my normal selfish self.
We're still off until Mid-October. June and July got cancelled, bands are still banned and August and September are traditionally the slowest months of the year for us. So it looks like serenading the neighborhood for a while.

It looks really, really weird to see so many empty months on our calendar. Other than we pre-planned a vacation, we haven't had a blank month since 1985. Now we have 7.

But I guess it's better than playing Russian Roulette with a virus that can leave one with lung, brain, heart, and/or kidney disease.

The weather is beautiful, a nice sea breeze is blowing through the house, the birds are singing, my wife/best-friend is here and we're both healthy.

Life is the perfect way to spend the time of day.

Insights and incites by Notes.
There have been some well attended outdoor concerts around here recently. I think Memorial day weekend at Lake of the Ozarks will be pretty huge. I'm seeing a lot of bands post gigs that are just getting booked there for the weekend. That weekend at the lake is always big anyway, but I think people with cabin fever itching to see some live music will make it epic.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
Even though things have begun opening up the "atmosphere" seems a bit weird, I suspect that's a common theme. We had dinner last night at a favorite Mexican place near our house rather than having to leave our county for a sit-down meal. Capacity is limited to 50% and the employees were wearing masks. Suddenly last week, after all this time, the company where I work decided we all needed to wear masks so I'm forced to play the pandemic game until about 3:00pm daily and then I return to my normal selfish self.

My daughter did a senior project unrelated to Covid-19 but involved masks for other medical reasons. She says (not surprising) we're not being told the whole story. First, they don't protect you, they're more about keeping what you exhale away from others and even then, they're fairly crude and quality/effectiveness varies dramatically from one mask to another. But she also pointed out that the same well-meaning people who were trying to put an end to plastic straws are trying to be politically correct by wearing a mask, even when doing something when there's no chance they'll run into other people, like going out to the mailbox by themselves. Masks have a finite life, so the overuse of masks is generating large amounts of non-biodegradable waste.

The law of unintended consequences is everywhere smile
Originally Posted by J. Dan
There have been some well attended outdoor concerts around here recently. I think Memorial day weekend at Lake of the Ozarks will be pretty huge. I'm seeing a lot of bands post gigs that are just getting booked there for the weekend. That weekend at the lake is always big anyway, but I think people with cabin fever itching to see some live music will make it epic.

Fingers crossed, Dan. Being in a well-ventilated space should help, although now they're saying that the virus can be transported well beyond 6 feet when there's wind. My guess is it will probably be okay. And although the idea that the virus will just magically disappear when Summer hits is pretty silly, there is solid evidence that although the virus doesn't necessarily die in the presence of heat and humidity, its strength is greatly reduced.

If that's the case, then I suspect Nashville will be sitting pretty in July and August - it's hard enough during those months for humans to survive smile
I guess we'll know in a couple weeks. The confusing thing about this is we were initially supposed to be doing all this to flatten the curve so the hospitals didn't get overwhelmed. Meanwhile the hospitals around here are empty with thousands of workers furloughed or laid off. One of the bigger hospitals has a total of 2 covid patients right now. So it's not about flattening the curve now, now we're supposed to stay home until there's a vaccine (IF there's a vaccine). They keep moving the goal post.
Yeah, and not only that empty hospitals mean no money coming in. Many are very close to bankruptcy and shutting down and I mean now like maybe the end of the month or June including Mass General in Boston according to an interview with their CEO I saw the other day on CNBC.

It's that serious and there's an unintended consequence for you.

Not to mention he talked about no cancer screenings, cardiac screenings, elective surgeries and many other fairly routine but vital procedures that keep us all from catching all the other nasties out there that are being overshadowed by COVID. Want to be safe from COVID but then have to get chemo, have surgery and maybe die from some cancer or brain tumor or clogged artery or blood clots and who knows what else that could have been caught 8 weeks ago?

I know there's risk but it's time for all this to end, whatever the results we'll just have to deal with it. We're getting very close to the point where keeping everything shut down, 20% unemployment, another Depression really is worse than the disease.

Craig, you wrote a few days ago you want to see a plan from the government. This is it, this is the plan. Go back to work, there will be some spikes and some death but we'll deal with it. We are out of time, guys.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
We are out of time, guys.

Bob

I foresee some serious events occurring soon, potentially even violent. We all know the governor of Wisconsin recently had his uhm .....a$$....handed to him over his stay at home order. Now the owner of Poopy's, a popular spot for bikers near the Mississippi River in Savanna Illinois, has made it abundantly clear he intends to open this weekend in blatant defiance of Governor Pritzker's strict stay at home orders. Overall people around these parts are fairly pragmatic and when they've reached their limits, look out! This is fascinating stuff really. So I had to do some googling and found this, "Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is withdrawing his request for an emergency rule​, which would criminalize business owners that defy his 'stay-at-home' order."
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Craig, you wrote a few days ago you want to see a plan from the government. This is it, this is the plan. Go back to work, there will be some spikes and some death but we'll deal with it. We are out of time, guys.

That doesn't seem like a plan, it seems more like a hope based on a "one size fits all" approach for a country with wildly varying characteristics. Look at the stats. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania are way down. England is way down. California can't get off a plateau. North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas are moving up. There are spikes galore in some states, and no significant spikes in others.

Remember Y2K? It was hyped as doomsday. Airplanes were going to fall out of the sky, the banking system was going to collapse, nuclear reactors couldn't time cooling, everyone in the US would be eligible for social security unless they were born in 1899, etc. That didn't happen. But, perhaps the reason why it didn't happen is because people took it seriously, and spent countless hours fixing their computer systems prior to Jan 1, 2000. So when doomsday didn't occur, some said "see, it wasn't anything." But NO ONE knows what would have happened if people hadn't taken it seriously, and fixed their computing systems.

There's nothing wrong with being optimistic and thinking that with improvements in active cases and (perhaps) fatalities, we're good to go. But really, are we? Without testing and monitoring, we don't know what's happening. At least part of a plan would be to put an early warning system in place, in case there are places where the virus is flaring up and threatens to spread. That doesn't mean you have to lock down the entire country. It means you better pay attention to make sure we don't make the same mistake twice.

Putting the virus in the past is valid only if we're simultaneously preparing for the future. I'm not seeing that. The phrase isn't "hope for the best," it's "hope for the best, but plan for the worst."

Let's face it, business is not going to invest, the economy won't come back, and companies won't hire while the situation remains uncertain. A plan for the future, and contingency plans, would help reduce uncertainty. THAT is what will make the economy come back...not opening up retail stores.
Originally Posted by Anderton
That doesn't seem like a plan, it seems more like a hope based on a "one size fits all" approach for a country with wildly varying characteristics.

IF states follow the guidelines, it is NOT one size fits all. There are 3 defined phases that involve levels of new cases declining and other factors. I think there are so many with cabin fever that the floodgates are opening, but there IS a phased plan with criteria for each phase depending on local conditions.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
Originally Posted by Anderton
That doesn't seem like a plan, it seems more like a hope based on a "one size fits all" approach for a country with wildly varying characteristics.

IF states follow the guidelines, it is NOT one size fits all. There are 3 defined phases that involve levels of new cases declining and other factors. I think there are so many with cabin fever that the floodgates are opening, but there IS a phased plan with criteria for each phase depending on local conditions.

You're right, there is a plan for "opening up the economy." BUT there's no long-term plan to make sure that it sticks, that the states follow it, that there's enough testing to know if the phased approaches are working, whether travel bans are going to be implemented with (for example) Brazil given what's going on there, what the contingency is for a second wave, and so on.

If we are indeed getting a truce with the virus, that's great. But caution would dictate that we prepare for various eventualities, should the truce not hold until there's a vaccine or other way to mitigate the effects. It was being sucker-punched by the virus that is causing the problems. Imagine how much different things would be if months or years before the first cases hit, there was a full understanding of what a pandemic would mean, and how we would need to prepare for it. We've been given a second chance, unless you believe that once we open up, the virus will more or less not be an issue. It would be great if that's true, but I really don't know if we can count on that. I do believe the economy can survive the current shock, but I'm not sure it could survive a second one.

Again, I don't think re-opening the economy on a major enough level to avoid a depression has that much to do with re-opening retail stores. It has everything to do with companies, the stock market, and consumers having confidence in the future, not just next week. Just look at how the stock market gyrates based on what news gives confidence about the future, and what doesn't.

But hey, what do I know? I'm a musician.
Originally Posted by Anderton
[quote=JazzmammalRemember Y2K? It was hyped as doomsday. Airplanes were going to fall out of the sky, the banking system was going to collapse, nuclear reactors couldn't time cooling, everyone in the US would be eligible for social security unless they were born in 1899, etc. That didn't happen. But, perhaps the reason why it didn't happen is because people took it seriously, and spent countless hours fixing their computer systems prior to Jan 1, 2000. So when doomsday didn't occur, some said "see, it wasn't anything." But NO ONE knows what would have happened if people hadn't taken it seriously, and fixed their computing systems.[/i]
If I recall correctly, lots of people and businesses did nothing or next to nothing and suffered no consequences at all. Obviously, many government and financial institutions had to take measures but countless others didn't need to (and didn't) do a thing.
JP Morgan did a study that shows that states that reopened (including mine) are not seeing spikes or an increase in cases. This includes Georgia and Florida, that had many pundits predicting dire things. But this is only after 2+ weeks and more time is needed to make that assessment.

Also, the spike in TX started before the reopening and is a result mainly of rapidly increased testing. This is apparent when you compare the graph for new cases to the graph for testing. This was explained by Sean Trende in Real Clear Politics, his analysis holds up much better than the CNN article.

Another article by Eli Lake in Bloomfield titled "The Results Of Europe's Lockdown Experiment Are In" is interesting, It maintains that COVID deaths or containment does not depend on the severity of lockdowns, but more of how and when they were applied. It specifically mentions Germany and jibes with Craig's observations RE that country.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by Anderton
[quote=JazzmammalRemember Y2K? It was hyped as doomsday. Airplanes were going to fall out of the sky, the banking system was going to collapse, nuclear reactors couldn't time cooling, everyone in the US would be eligible for social security unless they were born in 1899, etc. That didn't happen. But, perhaps the reason why it didn't happen is because people took it seriously, and spent countless hours fixing their computer systems prior to Jan 1, 2000. So when doomsday didn't occur, some said "see, it wasn't anything." But NO ONE knows what would have happened if people hadn't taken it seriously, and fixed their computing systems.[/i]
If I recall correctly, lots of people and businesses did nothing or next to nothing and suffered no consequences at all. Obviously, many government and financial institutions had to take measures but countless others didn't need to (and didn't) do a thing.

Most businesses didn't have to do anything, because they weren't financial, banking, insurance, or government institutions running mainframes. But that's why there was such concern.The (relatively) limited number of places that needed to do the actual fixes interacted with a far wider group of businesses who, although not having problems themselves, were dependent on the ones that needed to do the fixes. (Also, don't forget that embedded systems were part of the problem.)

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

An estimated $300 billion was spent (almost half in the United States) to upgrade computers and application programs to be Y2K-compliant. As the first day of January 2000 dawned and it became apparent that computerized systems were intact, reports of relief filled the news media. These were followed by accusations that the likely incidence of failure had been greatly exaggerated from the beginning. Those who had worked in Y2K-compliance efforts insisted that the threat had been real. They maintained that the continued viability of computerized systems was proof that the collective effort had succeeded. In following years, some analysts pointed out that programming upgrades that had been part of the Y2K-compliance campaign had improved computer systems and that the benefits of these improvements would continue to be seen for some time to come.

There's a more in-depth opinion piece called Five Lessons From Y2K That Resonate Today at Bloomberg.com. The author has a "been there, done that" perspective: "I ran a software company that provided critical systems to about 6,500 banks, including most of the 100 largest in the U.S. We were one of 72 U.S. bank services companies FEMA identified as critical to the financial system. Failure of our software was not an option. Ours was new enough that we didn’t have the Y2K issue ourselves, but we interacted with and relied on other systems that made us vulnerable." His basic take is that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
JP Morgan did a study that shows that states that reopened (including mine) are not seeing spikes or an increase in cases. This includes Georgia and Florida, that had many pundits predicting dire things. But this is only after 2+ weeks and more time is needed to make that assessment.

Overall, new cases are going down, and that's good news. In the immortal words of Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up" but I suspect where we will see spikes is in individual localities within states, so then the question becomes whether that spreads throughout a state or remains localized. I'm certainly hoping for the latter.
In Florida they are fudging the figures to make the governor look good. Fewer cases and deaths are being reported than actual, and they are not aggressively testing to keep the numbers down. An employee who refused to lie and fudge the on-line figures got fired. So we can't go by Florida's official pants-on-fire-count. The governor is not serving the people but his own numbers which is all too common in this day and age.

Plus we are hardly open. Restaurants limited to 25% capacity until this week when it went to 50% capacity. In reality, they aren't even doing 5% capacity. The local newspapers feature stories of restaurants disappointed with the turnout every day.

Bars are still closed, theaters are still closed, live music and DJs are still banned, most retail stores are still closed, hotels are still closed, no music stores are open, theme parks are still closed, cruise ships are not operating, museums are closed, charter fishing boots are moored, barber shops are closed, beauty parlors are closed, yoga classes are still on leave, cab drivers are sitting, buses are riding almost empty, local parks opened and then closed again, and so on. We're not scheduled to return to our 12 year running weekly restaurant gig until October, and only if things are good by then.

A local church tried re-opening a couple of weeks ago, and in I think it was yesterday's paper or the day before that, they went back to on-line services because 16 people got COVID probably at the services as they were elderly and still self-isolating other than church.

Plus nobody is going out. I went grocery shopping yesterday and I don't think there were more than 20 people in a Publix store that usually is jammed with probably close to 150 - zero lines at the cashiers. The traffic is still way, way down on all roads.

A small minority of people are shouting to get back to normal while the vast majority of us aren't eager to play Russian Roulette with something that kill us or leave us with severe, permanent organ damage. A healthy local guy in his 40s got it, survived, but lost his kidneys and needs to be on dialysis for the rest of his life. Tragic.

For all practical purposes Florida is barely open, but it's virtually still in the safer at home mode. The governor says we are open, but the door is barely ajar.

Leilani and I go out every two weeks for perishable groceries, and that's it. Other than that we are home. My 900 sq ft house on a half acre and a 1/10th mile dead end street for walking exercise is our entire world right now except for a grocery run every couple of weeks.

I live on a dead end street, and we all know each other. One person is working, the rest of us are staying home all day and night. I share this world with 12 other households.

Hopefully the cases won't be as bad as the doomsday people predict, but they won't be as light as the optimists predict either. As usual, the truth can be found between the two extremes.

Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
In Florida they are fudging the figures to make the governor look good. Fewer cases and deaths are being reported than actual, and they are not aggressively testing to keep the numbers down. An employee who refused to lie and fudge the on-line figures got fired. So we can't go by Florida's official pants-on-fire-count. The governor is not serving the people but his own numbers which is all too common in this day and age.
And some states fudged the numbers and attributed fatalities to people that died from something else. The only thing you can be sure of is that the media lies, often and blatantly to fit their agenda. The worst performing governor in the US is being praised by the media while far more successful governors are being trashed even though their states have had far fewer fatalities per capita.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
The only thing you can be sure of is that the media lies, often and blatantly to fit their agenda.

And that goes for all media, on all sides of the political spectrum. I can't get over the people who slavishly believe everything they hear on Fox or MSNBC. They're just lazy. "Daddy, do my thinking for me."

Although to be fair, sometimes the media is simply horrifyingly incompetent instead of deliberately dishonest. But, what did you expect, when people won't pay actual money to support the companies that gather the news? That closed down foreign offices? That hired buff guys and cute babes to look good on TV instead of investigative reporters who may not look that great (and if they go too far, might just happen to have some, you know, unfortunate problems with the brake lines on their cars)?

Quote
The worst performing governor in the US is being praised by the media while far more successful governors are being trashed even though their states have had far fewer fatalities per capita.

I really don't agree there is any "the media" speaking with a unified voice on anything. The right wing news outlets say that the left wing controls the media. The left wing outlets say the right wing controls the media. There's a perfect example of why you can't believe either one, and have to really dig to find out what's going on. For example, if you're referring to Cuomo as the "worst performing," he is not being uniformly praised by the media by any means. He's being praised by some, and hammered by others. And it's changing over time, because New York was an "early adopter" and a lot has changed in several months in terms of people knowing what the hell is going on.

And we'll only know which governors were successful, and which weren't, six months from now. It only became clear that Germany had it together, and Sweden's optimism was unfounded, long after the initial responses that Germany was in trouble and Sweden had figured it out. But realistically, anything could happen and if the virus comes roaring back in the fall, maybe Germany will be ravaged and Sweden will be fine. Or vice-versa. No one knows.

This thing has not played out yet, and drawing conclusions is fraught. After all, cases in New York are way down, even though it has the most densely packed population density of any major US metropolitan area, and like LA, is the principal gateway to the world. But does that means it's all over, you can turn off the caution signs? I wouldn't bet on it. I wouldn't bet on anything right now. I'm really beginning to think that at this point, the only experts I can trust are the ones who are honest enough to say "I don't know."
What's even sadder is I remember a time when disasters and problems brought people together to find common solutions. Now it's "what's in it for me, screw everyone else."
No,that's not true Craig. And what's happening right now is a plan because after what happened in the last two days it's definitely time to open things up and I clearly showed why in the KC forum in the Performing during COVID 19 Pandemic thread so I won't repeat it all here. At this point with the economy it's completely irrelevant what we think about the virus or news coverage. Which ever way it goes, we'll simply have to deal with it. No more messing around with delay this part or that part, it's too late for that now.

Bob
I don't believe anything to the left of The Atlantic or the right of The Hill.

FOX and MSNBC tell more lies than truth. IMO Everything they say is more likely a lie so I don't believe any of it.

The 'middle-of-the road' outlets are better, but I still take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.

I've posted this before, the group in the middle are less untrustworthy. It's from Politifact.com which appears to be neither left nor right biased.

[Linked Image from nortonmusic.com]

I also read International papers, sometimes the foreign press has a better handle on what is happening here and it also lets me see how the rest of the world views the USA.

I for one don't want to die for the DOW so I'm staying home.

When gigs return, I'll reevaluate the situation, right now i don't have to.

Insights and incites by Notes
Different strokes for different folks, Notes. My observations through the last several years tell me that that chart is less than worthless.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Different strokes for different folks, Notes. My observations through the last several years tell me that that chart is less than worthless.
Agreed. Any chart that puts CNN, NYT, and WashPo in the middle is beyond ridiculous and I can believe anyone would take it seriously.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
No,that's not true Craig. And what's happening right now is a plan because after what happened in the last two days it's definitely time to open things up and I clearly showed why in the KC forum in the Performing during COVID 19 Pandemic thread so I won't repeat it all here.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the post (could you include links to posts going forward?), but I'm not quite sure what's special about "the last two days"? It seems more problematic, not less so, when you look at the USA as a whole.

5/19 - 19,662 new cases
5/20 - 22,368 new cases
5/21 - 25,017 new cases

But we don't know if that's a blip, a trend, or an anomaly. During those days fatal cases have gone down, but that's what would be expected, due to the latency. We'll know for sure in a couple weeks.

Please don't get the idea that I want to keep the economy locked down. First, I don't think a complete lockdown is necessary or desirable. There are ways to protect the most vulnerable while letting others go about their business. There ways to minimize risks without putting a chokehold on peoples' lives.

Unfortunately a plan is not a plan if there's no mechanism to make sure it's followed, or rogue elements trying to undermine it. For example, I don't see how opening up churches for services at this moment makes sense, or how that fits into any "plan." There are plenty of stories like this one from May 19:

Houston church closes doors again after five leaders test positive

[May 19, 5 a.m.] Holy Ghost Catholic Church in Houston closed its doors after five leaders tested positive for the new coronavirus over the weekend, the Houston Chronicle reports. Holy Ghost resumed limited Masses three weeks ago, according to the Chronicle, and the church said in a statement that two of the five leaders who tested positive are priests who were active in those services.


One way to frame the question is to decide what number of dead people is acceptable. For example, I think pretty much everyone would agree that 10,000 dead people is an acceptable price to pay for opening up everything. I also think pretty much everyone would agree than 20,000,000 people is not an acceptable price. Neither extreme will happen. So what is the acceptable price? I don't know. I think for some, the answer is "whatever it is will be acceptable because we have no choice." A year from now, that may look like the right decision, or it may look like a giant mistake. We don't know.

Then there's this:

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

That's what's happening in Arkansas, a state that never really locked down. Based on the graph, it looks initially like not locking down wasn't a problem at all. But it seems that way for many of the less-travelled parts of the country - everything seems fine, until it isn't. The "X factor" is that the virus is so highly contagious. As long as it's lurking in the background, we're okay. But when it reaches escape velocity, you see things like that graph....which you're also seeing for Alabama, BTW. The average number of new cases just keeps increasing.

Some might say the Arkansas graph reflects more people being tested, but are they? I checked the stats from the Arkansas Department of Health. Cumulative number of tests is pretty much linear since the whole thing began. Testing for individual days is all over the map, but the average is quite consistent for the past month

So should Arkansas lock down to help mitigate further infections? Should it just say "so what" if that curve keeps going the way it's going? From everything I can find, the plan Arkansas is following is counseling residents to practice social distancing, wear face masks, wash your hands frequently, don't go out except for medical care, and get tested if you think you have symptoms. Is that the plan they're following? I don't know, but it doesn't really seem any different from what most states have been advocating for the past few months.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I really don't agree there is any "the media" speaking with a unified voice on anything.

Are you sure about that?





Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Different strokes for different folks, Notes. My observations through the last several years tell me that that chart is less than worthless.
Agreed. Any chart that puts CNN, NYT, and WashPo in the middle is beyond ridiculous and I can believe anyone would take it seriously.

I agree the chart has some flaws, but it's right - no pun intended - about Fox News and Info Wars, as well as Natural News and (duh!) Occupy D on the other side. At least they didn't bother showing Breitbart.

On past election nights, I flipped between Fox and CNN to try to get "balanced" coverage, since I knew the two would balance each other out.
How many times are we going to post the same chart? As I mentioned last time it was posted, it doesn't differentiate between the news shows and the news analysis or commentator shows. Fox has pretty obvious delineation between to two. Hannity is obviously right wing commentator, where as Brett Baer is hard news. CNN seems to blur those lines a bit more, but I think with any of these sources you get a different skew in comparing only their hard news coverage as opposed to their editorial shows.

If anybody is interested in coverage that is truly unbiased, I've been watching Newsy. They seem pretty neutral and keep their opinions out of it.
I like Al Jazeera for international coverage and when I'm just tired of the right-left duality of American news coverage.
I don't watch TV. Makes my life easier. I get my news from the news wires such as Associated Press. No opinions.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Different strokes for different folks, Notes. My observations through the last several years tell me that that chart is less than worthless.
Agreed. Any chart that puts CNN, NYT, and WashPo in the middle is beyond ridiculous and I can believe anyone would take it seriously.
So what do you suggest?

Enlighten me as to what you think is more truthful in reporting. FOX? MSNBC? Actually CNN had the fewest lies of all. But then they don't go in depth either.

Politifact, the people who supplied the chart won a Pultizer for being non-biased.

If you can't come up with a better solution of who to trust, I'll continue with my middle-of-the-road chart.
Ok, this looks wacky but I gotta give this bar points for creativity. Like it or not, there are a lot of would-be patrons out there that will refuse to support a sit-in bar or restaurant if they don't feel safe.

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...NntykMioKRMeqCjSl3TdtozikN2yPer3EYbz7qdk
I don't think we should keep the country locked down either but I think we are going about reopening the wrong way - the worst way.

New Zealand did it better and they have almost eradicated the disease -- 28 active cases and no new ones. They did testing and tracking from day one. Our government said for 6 weeks that there is nothing to worry about as the disease spread in exponential numbers.

It seems the people in power don't want to test everybody because it might hurt their chances at re-election.

I think they should get behind making test kits, test everybody and let those who are well go to work and quarantine and treat those who are not. It seems a lot better than saying, OK how many people are willing to die for the DOW? Better than asking "How many deaths are acceptable?" We've mobilized more expensive things in the past in a hurry.

Nations have gone to war with other nations over far fewer deaths than we have already seen. We've already seen over 30 times of the number who died in the 911 attacks in the USA.

We've had almost 1,700,000 confirmed cases in the USA and who knows how many more unconfirmed? We don't know.

We've had almost 97,000 confirmed deaths in the USA and who knows how many more unconfirmed? We aren't testing the dead.

How many deaths for the DOW are acceptable if one of them is your wife or husband?

How many deaths for the DOW are acceptable if it's your child?

How many deaths for the DOW are acceptable if it's your brother or sister?

How many deaths for the DOW are acceptable if it's your parents?

How can we be talking about lives as if they are nothing but statistics? Come on folks, these are people, mothers, fathers, children, brothers, sisters, cousins, girlfriends, boyfriends, and parents we're talking about, not numbers.

And since many of the survivors are left with permanent damage to the brain, heart, lungs, and or kidneys. How many people with permanent damage to one of these organs are acceptable if one of them is your wife, husband, child, brother or sister?

How many deaths for the DOW are acceptable if you are one of the victims?

How many deaths for the DOW are acceptable and you survive but need to be on dialysis for the rest of your life? Or you have so much lung damage it's an effort to speak? Or you have a damaged heart? Or you have brain damage? Or you lose a limb?

IMHO anyone who is saying "the economy is more important than lives" should be out there working. If your job isn't available, go help out at a hospital in cleaning up or disposing of the bodies. It's OK if you catch COVID because you said lives are less important than the economy therefore your life is less important than the economy.

You don't see the rich and the hedge fund managers out there working with the public. They are not saying the economy is more important than their lives, and they stand to benefit the most when the economy recovers.

IMO Opening the country with a lame plan or no plan is possibly worse than keeping it locked up.

But what about using an intelligent way to fight this disease AND open the economy back up? Is that too much to ask?

Shouldn't we be mobilizing factories to build test kits, test the population, quarantine and test all people coming from another country, and let the healthy get back to normal? To me that sounds much more logical than saying a few hundred thousand deaths are acceptable numbers to keep the economy going.

If it's me, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, my siblings and even my ex-wife, one is too many. Especially when presidents and governors are not testing their constituents because high numbers will hurt their chances of re-election. Actually I think an intelligent approach to the problem would enhance their chances of re-election.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by J. Dan
If anybody is interested in coverage that is truly unbiased, I've been watching Newsy. They seem pretty neutral and keep their opinions out of it.

Sorry, but there will be no unbiased journalism until Craig Anderton launches his own news network. But I will check Newsy out, thank you.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Originally Posted by J. Dan
If anybody is interested in coverage that is truly unbiased, I've been watching Newsy. They seem pretty neutral and keep their opinions out of it.

Sorry, but there will be no unbiased journalism until Craig Anderton launches his own news network. But I will check Newsy out, thank you.

Be prepared - the news is a lot more boring when it isn't being sensationalized.
Just on the news thing, I've been to the US twice, in 2001 and this January. Even in 2001 it was striking how little non-US news was reported, but at least the US news had some substantive pieces. This January I was gobsmacked. I purposely sought out local news, network news and then all the main cable news channels: Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc etc. It was just a wasteland. To be fair, Trump's impeachment trial was on so you'd expect a domination on coverage on that, but in 2 weeks I don't think I saw a single news story that sat between "Person rescues dog out of tree" and "Here's the latest Trump impeachment update". Actually, I did see a couple of pieces on the Australian bushfires across two weeks but that was it.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Originally Posted by J. Dan
If anybody is interested in coverage that is truly unbiased, I've been watching Newsy. They seem pretty neutral and keep their opinions out of it.

Sorry, but there will be no unbiased journalism until Craig Anderton launches his own news network. But I will check Newsy out, thank you.

I will check Newsy out as well. As to my network, I assume you're being sarcastic...but seriously, if I had my own news network, I would...

* Research as much from the source as possible instead of spokespeople from the source who are being paid to spin things
* Not give opinions about facts, because I would assume if people were presented with the facts, they could make up their own minds
* Put a sign on the wall that says: "Saying 'I don't know' is better than making stuff up"
* Correct any misstatements of fact as soon and as prominently as possible
* Recognize that not only are there multiple sides to any story, there are nuances within those sides
* There aren't always good solutions, just least bad ones...and sometimes, least truly horrific ones

And of course, the most important one: Make sure I was independently wealthy so the network could continue on forever with hardly any viewers, because it wasn't sensational enough, didn't confirm the viewer's prejudices, didn't have sufficiently cool animated graphics, and didn't have busty babes and buff boys to provide eye candy. Besides, all the left-wingers would say it was a tool of the right wing, and all the right-wingers would say it was a tool of the left wing, because it dared to question what both sides held to be gospel.

Yeah, it wouldn't last more than a month. smile
Originally Posted by J. Dan
Originally Posted by Anderton
I really don't agree there is any "the media" speaking with a unified voice on anything.

Are you sure about that?

What I meant was that you have people on Fox news saying the left wing dominates the media when Fox has the number 1 ratings, and people on MSNBC complaining about the right wing dominating the media when you have a more fragmented, but nonetheless powerful, group of liberal media..

What they should both say is "people who agree with me don't dominate the media."

But, you are 100% right in the sense that the "agenda followers" are all reading from the same press releases, reporting what they hear from the same spokespeople, and trying to get by in a world of news where there are very few actual journalists in the classical sense of the word.

I have found a few right-wing and left-wing talk show personalities who actually do spend time trying to dig up the facts of a situation. They still filter those facts through their own lenses, but I totally see why they both believe they're right.

In my ideal world, they'd TALK to each other, and hammer out a compromise position that was true to the facts, but accommodated their opinions. Like Republicans and Democrats used to do in the 50s, come to think of it...
The fact that this whole situation has been polarized and that news outlets have picked their side and reinforced the beliefs of their viewers, on either side, is exactly what is wrong with our media, but more importantly, US as CONSUMERS of media. In an open economy if we valued honest journalism, that is what would thrive. It's become obvious that most people don't seek honest journalism, they seek a source that validates their opinions, and that's why the bias and extreme polarization remains profitable.
We just got home from going out to dinner with some old friends of my wife who recently moved back here from the San Diego area. Things were really relaxed, the place wasn't overly busy but the "rules" appear to have mostly gone out the window already, next week the bars are "allowed" to reopen and then I'm sure all bets are off.

Anyone who's seen my posts here knows that I came to terms with this thing almost immediately. Although I don't want to get sick anymore than anyone else the idea that I could avoid or hide from a virus was always ludicrous to me. I've gone to work the whole time, done drive thru and/or take out almost daily and as soon as places were open I had my ass in a seat even when I had to drive to a different county. Perhaps it's just luck that I haven't been sick since the first week of January, doesn't really matter at this point.

Something worth pointing out is that here in the upper mid-west Winter typically sucks, it's bound to be cold, occasionally bitterly so and there''ll be a number of snow storms with a lot of cold wind and just plain miserable conditions. So with that in mind I probably don't need to elaborate on what folks are going to say to you when Spring arrives, the weather begins to improve, and you tell them they need to stay sheltered in their homes.
I don't want to make sweeping generalizations and the media, as mentioned isn't trustworthy. But it seems to me watching the news compared to what i experience here at home, that there are some disconnects. This whole time people around here have been wearing masks and social distancing and following all the rules to a T. Now they're bitching about wanting stuff to open up while still being safe. The folks on the news and the coasts are demonizing people for wanting to open up while I see all these pictures and videos of people in NY and NJ beaches and CA blatantly disregarding the safety measures. If that is your view as a New Yorker of what Missourians are fighting for, then I can understand why you would think we're being stupid, but from my point of view, we're following the guidelines more than the people in the NE and West Coast I'm seeing on TV and have FAR fewer cases and deaths. Maybe it's a difference in culture. Maybe folks just assume the worst of society is what will happen, but I think things are completely different geographically. The USA is HUGE. Some european countries fit inside US states, and US culture differs as much as European countries. You almost can't look at the USA as one entity. Even state by state isn't always representative. Look at Cook county (chicago) compared to the rest of IL. You almost have to go county by county.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Different strokes for different folks, Notes. My observations through the last several years tell me that that chart is less than worthless.
Agreed. Any chart that puts CNN, NYT, and WashPo in the middle is beyond ridiculous and I can believe anyone would take it seriously.
So what do you suggest?

Enlighten me as to what you think is more truthful in reporting. FOX? MSNBC? Actually CNN had the fewest lies of all. But then they don't go in depth either.

Politifact, the people who supplied the chart won a Pultizer for being non-biased.

If you can't come up with a better solution of who to trust, I'll continue with my middle-of-the-road chart.

CNN is the absolute worst. They were successfully sued for slandering a poor kid who happened to be wearing a red hat. They were among the main cheerleaders for pushing the story that the POTUS was a Russian agent, a story that turned out to be based on Russian disinformation paid for by the opposing political party. When that story collapsed CNN pivoted smoothly to impeachment, with the network head's explicit directions to focus on that like a laser. When that didn't work out, they set their sights on undermining Trump's response to the pandemic, preaching the shutdown gospel, and ginning up fear of the virus. The sole reason for CNN's existence is not journalism (they know better than to even make a pretense of being unbiased and neutral), but to damage one party and advocate for another so it can get back in power. And of course, to damage one person in particular.

RE Pulitzers, they were passed out like candy to NYT writers who reported on the POTUS as Russian agent story, using leaks from political operatives. When that was proven not to be true, it was strange how that they got to keep their Pulitzers. They know they will not be held accountable.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Originally Posted by J. Dan
If anybody is interested in coverage that is truly unbiased, I've been watching Newsy. They seem pretty neutral and keep their opinions out of it.

Sorry, but there will be no unbiased journalism until Craig Anderton launches his own news network. But I will check Newsy out, thank you.

I will check Newsy out as well. As to my network, I assume you're being sarcastic...but seriously, if I had my own news network, I would...:)

No sarcasm at all, and your response proves why.
I'm trying to offer things in good faith. Some people insist on being partisan assholes. I'm resisting. What was the line in Pulp Fiction when Samuel L Jackson was trying to be the shepherd? I'm TRYING to be the MF-ing Shepard here.
pinkfloydcramer - you still didn't tell me what news service you trust so your comments are useless to me. It's easy to pick out a few isolated incidents to bash someone.

If you can't come up with a better source for less biased news, I'll continue to use the chart as a basic reference.

The NYT is slightly left but reputable, ABC is slightly right but reputable, AP and Reuters seem to be center biased, The Atlantic is liberal but still reputable and The Hill is conservative but still reputable. I read a mix of these plus BBC, Al Jazeera and a couple of others. Plus I read my local newspaper which is a light USA Today affiliate but I get local news.

BTW, I researched Newsy which is mostly factual with a slightly left leaning bias. That's the same ratings as NYTimes.

Fact checking pundits' statements on Fox 60% range from mostly false to pants-on-fire lies. MSNBC is almost as bad with 46% in the same range.

Surely you don't trust one of these, do you?

Actually the way I see it is this: During the Reagan Era the GOP nuked the "Fairness Doctrine" which enabled political 'news' stations.

Before that the philosophy was that the airwaves (and by extension the Internet) belongs to all the citizens, not just one faction or political party - in the name of democracy. News stories were required to post editorial content as "Opinion" or "Editorial" and they were also required so show both sides of the story. Older guys will remember "point-counterpoint".

News itself was supposed to be factual and unbiased. Of course that's not possible, but compared to today, it was thousands of times more fair.

I for one think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated for everything over the public airwaves and the taxpayer built Internet. Let the right and left wing extremists go back to organizations like the John Birch Society and hold their meetings and distribute their print propaganda.

So what does that mean to this thread? Now what? We are deprived of knowing what is actually happening, we are fed blatant lies and the left and right leaning people are slinging arrows at each other, each believing the set of lies they are fed. And remember, the proverb of the house divided.

I'm a 50+ year independent moderate. I lean slightly left on social issues and slightly left on fiscal issues. I'm also a patriot and I see dark times for the country as the media keeps us fighting among ourselves while the modern day robber-barons reap the rewards. The sad thing is that I don't know how to fix it. As long as the red state and blue state people believe the lies they are being fed, we will remain divided, and the house will continue falling.

That's my opinion anyway.

I am going to let a little virus make me err on the side of conservative.

I read an account in the early days of germ theory, a doctor was promoting the theory that mosquitoes spread malaria. He had captured some mosquitoes that bit patients with malaria in a jar. An army officer said to him, "I'm not afraid of a tiny mosquito, go ahead, let him bite me." So he got one bite and in a very short time he was dead from malaria.

So for your brave folks who want to be beta testers. Please go ahead. I'll use your experiences to chart my future actions.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by J. Dan
I'm trying to offer things in good faith. Some people insist on being partisan assholes. I'm resisting. What was the line in Pulp Fiction when Samuel L Jackson was trying to be the shepherd? I'm TRYING to be the MF-ing Shepard here.

You're doing fine. I have my finger hovering over the delete button...but not for your posts, that's for sure. Keep doing what you're doing.

Partisanship is counter-productive, because it forces choices in a particular direction that may or may not be based on merit. At the end of the day, although there are Democrats and Republicans who walk around with blinders on and are incapable of expanding their range of thought, the reality is that (an unfortunately) limited number of people from both parties come up with good ideas.

It's our job to look at everything objectively, free of the partisan blinders, and push people from both parties in what we hope is the right direction...bearing in mind that the supreme law of the land is the law of unintended consequences.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
The fact that this whole situation has been polarized and that news outlets have picked their side and reinforced the beliefs of their viewers, on either side, is exactly what is wrong with our media, but more importantly, US as CONSUMERS of media. In an open economy if we valued honest journalism, that is what would thrive. It's become obvious that most people don't seek honest journalism, they seek a source that validates their opinions, and that's why the bias and extreme polarization remains profitable.

I agree with that 100%. It's a shame people are so invested in their own bias.

I hold opinions, for sure. But, those opinions are based solely on the data I have at the time. If that data changes, my opinions usually change as well.
@ Notes, as far as alphabet, "legacy" media I prefer CBS, Reuters, AP, followed by ABC, NBC. When it comes to those I don't argue with your chart. But I base that solely on what I read online. I don't have cable, and with a hearing disability I don't watch Fox or any TV other than the occasional movie or documentary on Amazon Prime. Until recent years, Washington Post struggled to be fair and provide opposing viewpoints. The Hill still follows that mold. RE CNN, an isolated example is one thing, an observable long-term pattern is another.

For political sites I like the Federalist, Instapundit (PJ Media) and others, they have been right on the money on multiple issues the last few years, much better track record than NYT, WAPO, CNN and others that every day told us breathlessly that "the walls are closing in". In an article in USA Today, Glen Williams of Instapundit called it correctly at the start of the pandemic, saying that if you're going to shut things down do it early and hard instead of waiting til it won't do much good. That jibes with a much later Bloomfield article I referred to earlier, that stated that a better COVID outcome was not correlated with severity of the shutdown measures in Europe, but rather with the timeliness and precision with which they were applied.

Can't help but wonder..what is keeping you and your wife from putting on a driveway or front yard show for the neighbors? I know you miss playing and it would be (sorry for the religious connotation) a blessing for all concerned. Evidence is continually mounting that the virus doesn't spread outdoors but indoors. If you were worried about COVID outlaws violating your space you could station socially distanced snipers on your roof to pick them off. I can't see how it would be any less safe than a walk down your street. Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Anderton
[quote=J. Dan
You're doing fine. I have my finger hovering over the delete button...but not for your posts, that's for sure. Keep doing what you're doing. .

Feel free to delete my comments, in fact I wish you would. The subject (my media outlet vs others') doesn't benefit from being rehashed, anyway. This thread is at its best when posters relate their experiences and how they are coping.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
[CNN] were among the main cheerleaders for pushing the story that the POTUS was a Russian agent, a story that turned out to be based on Russian disinformation paid for by the opposing political party.

To be fair, though, it was only the extreme people in that genre who used the "Russian agent" angle. And I don't think even they believed that, but it was a cynical attempt to manipulate the opinion of those who don't think for themselves - basically, the left-wing equivalent of someone like Sean Hannity, who does the same thing on the right. Those people are not seekers of truth, they're all about sensationalism for the purpose of ratings, while trying to reduce everything to "you're for us, or you're against us."

My favorite example of Idiocy In Media involves Russian interference in the American election process. There is ZERO doubt that happened in 2016. Every citizen, and every elected representative, should have considered this a [I]huge[I] deal. Instead, the left tried to use it to claim the election wasn't legitimate ("the Russians want to get Trump elected"), while the right ignored the issue because they thought it cast doubt on the election's legitimacy ("there's nothing to see here, just move along"). This spiraled out of control to "He's a Russian agent" on one side and "Putin is a more accurate source of information than our own intelligence agencies" on the other. Both sides ignored what really mattered, and in the process of pursuing their own selfish ends, did a serious disservice to our election-based system.
.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
CNN is the absolute worst. They were successfully sued for slandering a poor kid who happened to be wearing a red hat. They were among the main cheerleaders for pushing the story that the POTUS was a Russian agent, a story that turned out to be based on Russian disinformation paid for by the opposing political party. When that story collapsed CNN pivoted smoothly to impeachment, with the network head's explicit directions to focus on that like a laser. When that didn't work out, they set their sights on undermining Trump's response to the pandemic, preaching the shutdown gospel, and ginning up fear of the virus. The sole reason for CNN's existence is not journalism (they know better than to even make a pretense of being unbiased and neutral), but to damage one party and advocate for another so it can get back in power. And of course, to damage one person in particular.
Not just CNN...MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WashPo, etc. All of them pushed that story which has now been proven to be false. So far none of them have retracted their 3 years of almost daily misinformation, or even pretended to be upset that their "sources" were wrong. Nope...they just moved along as if it never happened. No unbiased media would act like that.
Wow. Holy crap ONE DAY this whole thread turned into a debate about biased news? Craig I'm shocked, man but it's ok with me, it's just funny that's all. We've already gone round and round about that chart and biased news about a month ago. I may be confusing some forums now but it was here on MPN somewhere. I view all this as great fun but drastically and totally off topic.

As to you not finding that thread on KC it's because Dave nuked it last night and I'm not going to try to post here what I wrote there, it was a lot. In a feeble attempt to get back on topic, about that Arkansas chart showing a big spike in cases. For now, that's a classic case of what looks bad at first glance really isn't. Yes, percentage wise that chart looks bad but look at the number of cases on the left, about 450. That's nothing but sure, it's a concerning trend. The people themselves know all about this, they know what they should be doing and it they choose to not do it and that chart keeps going straight up then they'll figure it out. It's like that guy who was very vocal about not thinking this was serious then caught it himself and had a rough time but survived. I totally agreed with the lockdowns for the last several months but now, we've progressed to where it's up to the public because of the economy. Everybody knows the dangers now on both sides. Economy <> Covid containment. In a free country it's up to us now to decide which is more important and the politicians need to step aside and let that happen.

As to you asking about what happened the last two days it was the unemployment report and Larry Kudlow's comments on Thursday. UE was another 2.4 million, very bad. And Kudlow who has been Mr. Optimistic had an interview with the Washington Post and he was definitely not that in almost total opposition to what Trump has been saying which was shocking to say the least. Not just him going against his boss, it's just scary that's all. I take that as a sign and I posted several links and vids concerning the economy but we all pretty much know that argument anyway. I think we have no choice but, whatever.

the other thing is the Wisconsin bars. You guys here know what I thought of that, I was horrified. I just realized it's already been 10 days since they all opened? Man, time flies. I just did a search and nothing about new cases and we all know the average time for symptoms to show up is 3-5 days but of course the quarantine period is 14 days because a few do take that long plus the docs think it's prudent. The point is those bars were packed last weekend so where's new cases showing up in ER's or doctors offices this week? I think if it was only 2 or 3 cases there would be headlines about it. I'm actually baffled, I expected this to be a disaster and yes, it's still early and now it's Memorial Day weekend.

Next week could be interesting to say the least.

Edit

This is a bad musicians losing gigs article plus commentary on how bad the economy really is. This really shows that economy vs virus calculation. Open things up, let these guys get back to work but with increasing cases and probably some deaths. I don't think we really have a choice here. Everybody knows the risks now, if the public accepts that for the sake of the economy and earning a living, then that's it . We'll all learn to live with that and of course this is all voluntary. If some of us including me, are not comfortable gigging or going back to work just yet nobody is forcing us but a stimulus check and unemployment is not cutting it for a whole lot of folks.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/corona...er-for-blacks-in-new-orleans-11590226200

Bob
pinkfloydcramer I see we agree more than we disagree on the alphabet soup.

I don't have cable and don't watch TV. I turned the cable off in the late 1980s, and took the antenna mast down in the early 1990s when I had the house repainted. The last two TV shows I watched, (and I had to go to my mother-in-laws to see them) were Johnny Carson's last Tonight Show and Jay Leno's first one.

We gigged on cruise ships from 1986 to 1989 and there was no TV on the ship. When we got off I turned the cable back on, but we were so used to doing things instead of watching TV that we realized in a couple of months we were paying money for something we weren't using.

All the news I get, I read on-line. This allows me to think, mull, cross check, and digest rather than be fed without the time to think if it seems right or not. I stay away from the hyper left or hyper right because the truth usually lies somewhere between the extremes. I'll read Atlantic for the left view and The Hill for the right but that's as far as I'll go, and I don't take any of them at face value. Anything out of the 3 center sections of that chart I feel are over a 50% chance I'm being lied to. Politifact and other media watchdogs verify that.

BTW, Leilani and I play in our living room mid-day. Since we choose to live without using the air conditioner, the house is open and the music drifts over the neighborhood.

I've repeatedly told my neighbors if they don't like it, or if we are rehearsing at a poor choice of time for them, call us and let us know. The neighbors all responded that they like to hear us rehearse and it's a pleasure to hear us.

We run the volume at about 85dba, and play songs to keep our chops up. Vocal muscles are the first to get out of shape followed by flute embouchure. Then sax lip and guitar fingers are next. In non-COVID years we have always taken a vacation. We come back a week or two early to get our chops back up.

We learn new songs, but practice them off mic and only put them on the PA to rehearse. That way the neighbors don't have to hear the song again and again and again.

We try to be kind and considerate to the other people living up here.

Setting up in the driveway is not going to happen. In Florida summer thunderstorms come without warning. From Mid-May to Mid-October is traditionally our rainy season, although with climate change it isn't as regular as it used to be. Sometimes it starts early or ends late. We don't take outdoor gigs that don't have covering for us any time of the year. There is too much to lose if mother nature want's to water her flowers.

I'm still hoping for an effective vaccine or treatment sooner rather than later. I miss gigging, the interaction with the audience, and the energy that is returned to us. I've done this since I was in Junior High School and it is how I identify myself. If the world after COVID doesn't include gigging, I'll find something else to do, but I'll miss it dearly.

I walk 3 to 4 miles a day for exercise (up and back my dead-end street) and it gives me time to think about lots of things. Today I was wondering if social distancing becomes the new normal, how it will effect things like gigging, live theater, concerts, sports arenas, restaurants schools, and so many other things. What I imagine is a less happy world.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Originally Posted by Anderton
[quote=J. Dan
You're doing fine. I have my finger hovering over the delete button...but not for your posts, that's for sure. Keep doing what you're doing. .

Feel free to delete my comments, in fact I wish you would. The subject (my media outlet vs others') doesn't benefit from being rehashed, anyway. This thread is at its best when posters relate their experiences and how they are coping.

I agree, it got into the media tangent because many people are basing their decisions about what to do with their lives based on what they're hearing from the media. However I think we've all said what could be said, and it's time to get back to what we're going to do about our "new reality," such as it is.

I agree that these forums should be a politics-free zone. However, these events are so extraordinary, and impact us as musicians so much, I felt it was okay to have a thread where people could vent. Frankly, I think we've all learned something from the back-and-forth.

I truly believe everyone who has responded has done so sincerely, given the information they have. However, some have been more about asking the right questions than believing they have the answers, which is what I prefer.

FWIW, the Time-Life 60s music cruise for next March is already sold out. I know people who even before this went down, said they were never going to go on a cruise again either because of the poor safety record and pre-Covid-19 illnesses (like gastro-intestinal issues that sickened people), or the destruction cruises do to the environment. So for those who think things will bounce back, here's one example that enough people believe this is going to be all over in a year from now that they're already booking trips. Presumably they also believe that this whole experience has taught cruise lines they need to get their act together, but that may be wishful thinking.

So J. Dan - looks like there will probably be an 80s cruise waiting for you smile
I gigged on cruise ships for 3 years. It was a good gig. I worked on Carnival and switched ships once a year to get a different run with different ports.

We had the run of the ship except for the casino and passenger cabins. Passengers were allowed in our cabins, it was a lawsuit avoidance. If they are in your cabin it implies consent. And the casino? We share the area of the ship with the casino personnel. If a crew member was honestly winning near a customer who is losing, the customer might think the games are rigged. Plus rigging is a real possibility although it wouldn't be easy.

If you go on a cruise to gamble, do it at the beginning of the cruise and not the end. The odds of the slots on winning are better at the start and paying it all back near the end.

We ate the same food as the passengers but in our own staff dining room with the musicians, dancers, casino people, hairdressers, and massage folks. It was like a happy family..

We were expected to dress appropriately for the area, and if facilities were limited we were expected to give up a bar stool, exercise machine, or whatever to a paying passenger.

I did a shorter stint years later with Celebrity and I didn't like the way they treated the staff. I jumped ship at the first opportunity.

But this is definitely off on a tangent.

In the 3 years I was on, there wasn't one sickness breakout. They kept the ships clean, food was handled safely, and the worst thing I saw was a few getting sea-sick on an unusually rough day. But it can happen if someone is contagious in any closed area.

I'm glad I wasn't on during COVID and I wouldn't go back until it gets under control one way or another.

But then I wouldn't go to an all-inclusive resort before they get a handle on COVID either.

But that's just me.

Insights and incites by Notes.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I agree, it got into the media tangent because many people are basing their decisions about what to do with their lives based on what they're hearing from the media. However I think we've all said what could be said, and it's time to get back to what we're going to do about our "new reality," such as it is.

The talking head media means nothing to me, The TV (and the government for that matter) talks at me, rarely to me. Most headlines I see are the equivalent of "Trump ran over my dog". Frankly I wonder how the vast majority of those people are capable of putting their underwear on with the front facing forward, assuming they do.

We weren't exactly sure what we might find when we rode over to Savanna, Ill today but if there were any closures or stay at home orders they sure didn't apply to bikers. The streets were lined up and down with bikes, bars were all open, booze was flowing, bands were rocking and nary a law enforcement official in sight. We had a fun time! I'm sure you won't see any news reports on that.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
Trump ran over my dog

Greg, I'm so sorry to hear that. I know you really cared about that little friend of yours. And after all these years, too...well, at least Fido is in a better place now.

Quote
I'm sure you won't see any news reports on that.

No, I have not - obviously, it's another media coverup. It's outrageous that someone can just run over a dog with impunity, and get away with it.



HEY! I'm learning to take things out of context!! Maybe I have a fabulous new career opportunity waiting for me!
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
Trump ran over my dog

Greg, I'm so sorry to hear that. I know you really cared about that little friend of yours. And after all these years, too...well, at least Fido is in a better place now.

No, I have not - obviously, it's another media coverup. It's outrageous that someone can just run over a dog with impunity, and get away with it.



HEY! I'm learning to take things out of context!! Maybe I have a fabulous new career opportunity waiting for me!

I don't think he did it on purpose, I'm sure it was just an accident. I tried to train that dog not to chase cars but that dog wouldn't pay any more attention to me than I do to the media!
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
I don't think he did it on purpose, I'm sure it was just an accident.

I see they got to you already, and are forcing you to retract what you said. So sad. How much did they pay you to recant?

Accident...or conspiracy? You decide!
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
I don't think he did it on purpose, I'm sure it was just an accident.

I see they got to you already, and are forcing you to retract what you said. So sad. How much did they pay you to recant?

Accident...or conspiracy? You decide!

I cannot reveal my confidential and anonymous yet reliable sources.
Sweden's approach to combating the pandemic doesn't seem to be working out as they'd hoped

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/25/8619...j85XByGN5z1F5uCaP2o0yqUSOTdatjRqbkjAQhZg
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Sweden's approach to combating the pandemic doesn't seem to be working out as they'd hoped

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/25/8619...j85XByGN5z1F5uCaP2o0yqUSOTdatjRqbkjAQhZg
There's not enough information to know yet. The article compares two different stats and treats them as equal:

"antibodies study that showed that only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed antibodies against COVID-19 by late April"

"With 39.26 deaths per 100,000, Sweden's mortality rate is not only higher than that of the U.S. (29.87 deaths per 100,000) but also exponentially higher than those of its neighbors Norway (4.42 per 100,000) and Finland (5.56 per 100,000)"

Unless the antibody rate is the same in all 4 countries, comparing the fatality rate is misleading.
All these articles about Sweden's approach is only telling half the story. The other half is protecting their economy. When people only focus on virus related numbers they ignore economy related numbers when compared to places in an economic lockdown. The question really is how many extra cases and deaths is acceptable in order to keep people working and the economy going?

I was going to post some pics from yesterday but it's literally everywhere, it's all over the news. Beaches and bars nationwide were packed yesterday, from California to Texas to the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri to the Great Lakes to Florida to NY/NJ. Every story says the same thing, people used this holiday to completely ignore all the precautions. It's like School's Out, Let's Party!! I really did not expect this level of stupidity. Or, maybe it's not that stupid.

That's what we're going to find out and soon.

Bob
So...why are the reactions so strong? Well, two of them are eminently practical: people are afraid to die, and people are afraid to be plunged into poverty. But, we don't need a virus for those things to happen: we can be hit by a truck, and lose a job in a dying industry.

And why has what should be a scientific and social matter ended up being a political matter, which sides drawn up often based on politics? What makes matters worse is the conflicting information about everything. Everyone cherry picks they stat they want to use to support "their side," not put all the stats together to try to get a comprehensive overview of what's happening.

That's when I realized what this virus does is strike at two things that are incredibly fundamental, yet I haven't seen much about these factors.

1. The worst punishment you can dole out in prison is solitary confinement. People simply can't cope being alone all the time.
2. Mobility. Our ancestors had limited mobility. Many people were born, lived their lives, and died in the same town. Getting from point A to point B was time-consuming, often impossible, and fraught with danger. Mobility for all - automobiles, airplanes, motorcycles, interstate highways - has been a hard-fought battle for civilization as a whole.

I think those two reasons have a lot to do with why the reaction to the virus is so visceral.
Originally Posted by Anderton
So...why are the reactions so strong? Well, two of them are eminently practical: people are afraid to die, and people are afraid to be plunged into poverty. But, we don't need a virus for those things to happen: we can be hit by a truck, and lose a job in a dying industry.

And why has what should be a scientific and social matter ended up being a political matter, which sides drawn up often based on politics? What makes matters worse is the conflicting information about everything. Everyone cherry picks they stat they want to use to support "their side," not put all the stats together to try to get a comprehensive overview of what's happening.

I try to check multiple news sources myself, because I just want information from the news, not validation of personal world view or belief system.

The gist that I've gotten from reports of Sweden's COVID planning is they thought they could get away with staying open because they have a relatively young population. I don't claim deep expertise in Swedish politics, but the decision to not close was probably from a different point of view from that of American anti-lockdown protesters.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
I don't claim deep expertise in Swedish politics, but the decision to not close was probably from a different point of view from that of American anti-lockdown protesters.

Definitely, although it's not so much expertise in politics as expertise in societal behavior. Sweden is a democratic socialist state, so there's a greater sense of being part of society as a whole. I believe Swedes also trust their government more, and are therefore more likely to believe that what they're told is best for all concerned.

I find it really concerning that according to the Carnegie Mellon institute, 45%-60% of the Twitter posts about opening up came from bots. I'd be equally upset if 60% of the opinions expressed about ANYTHING were from bots. I'm starting to think that social media, which was supposed to bring people together (well, to be fair, that's what it does here smile ) is tearing society apart.
If I got my math right, Alabama has 5000 new cases in the past 14 days, and half of Montgomery County's total cases were from the same period. They reopened zoos, summer camps, movie theaters, and bowling alleys on May 22:

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...BvbLHd749PKwkq9WPYSZd9Xx6L6vlY-bfxrocVr0
I knew this week was going to be opening up so I had discussions about going into the office maybe next week and staying with my girlfriend in LA for 4 or 5 days like I've been regularly doing for three years. In order to do that the office wanted me to get a virus test so I just did that a few hours ago. Remember the old Johnny Carson joke, "May the bird of paradise fly up your nose"? Now I know what that feels like. The swab wasn't exactly painful but it sure was extremely uncomfortable and it was shoved way up in there for just that little bit longer than you would expect. I swear one more second I would have grabbed his hand and said get that effing thing out of my face!

What I still wasn't ready for was the traffic and people in the stores I needed to visit. This is in Temecula about 90 miles SE of LA, population just over 100,000. The traffic today was exactly what mid day traffic was when I moved here three years ago, meaning pretty heavy. Virus, what virus? This was not what Gov Newsom had in mind. This is not a orderly reopening, this is a jailbreak. One of my clients who lives in Santa Monica called me this morning. He said exactly the same thing. Last week he could go out for a walk down to Ocean overlooking the beach and back to his house. there would be some people out wearing masks, not a crowd, they were being respectful and all that. Yesterday? Double the traffic both car and foot, nobody's wearing masks any more, it's like somebody flipped a switch. Good grief, here I was thinking all the smart, young, liberal and wealthy West LA residents had it together, they knew what was going on unlike all the yahoos in the middle of the country (not my thinking, just paraphrasing what I've seen and heard during all this). Well, forget that.

I just told a friend I'm hopefully pessimistic. Yeah, I don't know what that means either.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Good grief, here I was thinking all the smart, young, liberal and wealthy West LA residents had it together, they knew what was going on unlike all the yahoos in the middle of the country (not my thinking, just paraphrasing what I've seen and heard during all this).

facepalm

first you said you were thinking, then you said you weren't thinking.
Don't know if that's a joke or you're serious. What do you think I was referring to?
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Good grief, here I was thinking all the smart, young, liberal and wealthy West LA residents had it together, they knew what was going on unlike all the yahoos in the middle of the country (not my thinking, just paraphrasing what I've seen and heard during all this).

Bob

Hey, I resemble that remark but to be quite certain, am quite amused by it. Certainly by circumstances and my own choices I've interacted with people and society to the greatest extent possible all this time, however, it's not entirely just because I'm a wild and crazy guy. At this point, if anyone out there has a strong immune system, I sure do! So, in what's a pretty rare occurrence of issuing words of caution, some folks should certainly re-enter society a bit more gradually. Not only do they run the risk of C19 but their immune systems may also be compromised to some of the more common forms of viruses and bacteria.
Just to be clear since I wrote that comment late last night, when I referred to yahoos and then put that qualifier in parentheses, I meant I do not think people in the middle of the country are yahoos but that's what a lot of the media thinks. Here's another very serious economic side of this:

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/499718-tenants-fear-mass-eviction-as-moratoria-expire

So much virus news every day we forget some things. The eviction moratorium is running out. If these people can't go back to work, what are they going to do? Another example of a tough choice, risk the virus or be homeless? Even if most are willing to risk the virus, this is saying 40% of jobs are not coming back soon anyway so there's going to be a lot of hardship regardless of how people feel about it.

Probably 70-80% of the bar and beach goers are under 30. Look at this very good stat page from Wisconsin. I'm using this one because I've been following that states numbers since it's now been two weeks since their Supreme Court opened all the bars up.

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/cases.htm

I don't care about total case numbers any more because look at the percentage of active cases vs the total. 37% All we're really concerned with are current active cases but do we hear that number anywhere in any new reports? The more important number is hospitalizations, ICU, and deaths. Look at these charts for people 20-29. Very minimal risk. To me if 10,000 new cases started popping up in Wisconsin what does that really mean? 9,600 of them don't need the hospital and of those that do 100 will need the ICU and a couple might die. That's a level of risk that most are willing to accept. That changes of course the higher the age group meaning people like me and a lot of others on this forum still have to be very careful. At my age a 44% chance of the hospital and then a further 11% chance of the ICU? Those numbers are not good. Again, I'm talking the big picture for the country, not for people in my age group.

I looked at the California website and it's nowhere near as clear and easy to understand as the Wisconsin site. And as far as cases it says CA now has 96,733 confirmed cases. No we don't. Wisconsin is probably close when they say 37% of cases are actually currently active. CA giving the total number is fine, it's a good number to know but they and every other state plus the feds should also give the number of current active cases as well. Of course that number would not be perfectly accurate but I think we can agree it's certainly less than half the overall total.

As scary as the reports are and what I just wrote about people doing all these risky things over Memorial Day, charts like these from Wisconsin helps to put it into better perspective.

Bob
Originally Posted by Anderton
why has what should be a scientific and social matter ended up being a political matter
I believe that happened just about the time governors and other elected officials began imposing strict, and often seemingly incoherent or baffling, rules and regulations many may have felt were not in their best interest or even the best interest of the public at large.
Agreed, the "every man for himself" approach was probably not the best strategy. But to be fair, no one had ever dealt with this before. And the reality is that in the absence of data, you're better off being blamed for being too careful than not being careful enough.

Just think about how much more is known about the virus now than last December. A lot of what was assumed was right, a lot of what was assumed was wrong, and we're nowhere near knowing everything we need to know about it to deal with it effectively.

Meanwhile, I'm working on a presentation for "virtual Gearfest." People adapt.
Originally Posted by Anderton
But to be fair, no one had ever dealt with this before.

Yes and I feel extremely fortunate that, in the grand scheme of things, the impact on me has been minimal so far, I haven't had a haircut in two months, need some dental work and I couldn't go to my favorite restaurants for a while, boohoo. Meanwhile people have died from something that didn't exist before last year while life savings, dreams, hopes and businesses have been decimated. I never foresaw living in such times as we're experiencing; it's fascinating, horrifying, confusing, maddening and emotionally draining all at the same time.

Is it to late to take a poll? I'd be curious to know how folks here might have handled things differently.
The only
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
Originally Posted by Anderton
But to be fair, no one had ever dealt with this before.

Yes and I feel extremely fortunate that, in the grand scheme of things, the impact on me has been minimal so far, I haven't had a haircut in two months, need some dental work and I couldn't go to my favorite restaurants for a while, boohoo. Meanwhile people have died from something that didn't exist before last year while life savings, dreams, hopes and businesses have been decimated. I never foresaw living in such times as we're experiencing; it's fascinating, horrifying, confusing, maddening and emotionally draining all at the same time.

Is it to late to take a poll? I'd be curious to know how folks here might have handled things differently.

Here's what I would have done, even knowing what we knew at the time. If you dig deep enough, I think that you'll find this is fact-based and objective. I welcome any corrections.

Here's an
article comparing the South Korean and US responses from Healthline, which is a non-political publication about health issues. It's sobering to realize it was published on March 30 - less than two months ago! - when the death count in the US was 2,400 people. Interestingly, COVID-19 was identified in both countries on the same day. Currently, the US has 1.7 million active cases and over 100,000 deaths, South Korea has 11,265 active cases and 269 deaths (and there's every reason to believe their numbers are accurate). Granted, the US has 6.6 times more population, but even using a multiplier, that means 74,300 active cases and 1,775 deaths would be comparable for South Korea. (Using a population difference multiplier with Germany, which initially made some of the mistakes the US did but rectified them more rapidly, they have 42,000 active cases and 34,000 deaths - way more than South Korea, but way less than the US. Their number of new cases is currently in the hundreds, as opposed to the tens of thousands in the US, and their opening up is proceeding more rapidly, albeit cautiously.)

I believe the main difference may be that South Korea had to fight an outbreak of MERS in 2015, and the government's casual response was roundly criticized within the country. Although under 40 people died, South Korea realized it had dodged a bullet, and the government decided it better not be caught by surprise again. When COVID-19 came around, they knew what to do, and did it.

What I would have done differently was to immediately steal (I mean, be inspired by, LOL) the South Koreans because it was obvious they knew what they were doing. However, they had the advantage of being prepared, so they had the ability to ramp up testing and contact tracing rapidly, which was crucial to keeping the outbreak under control, and avoid the need for a lockdown. When there was a flareup, South Korea was able to stamp it out rapidly, again due to testing and contact tracing. The US has done neither sufficiently, which is why the situation continues to deteriorate, although more slowly in some places than others.

I would have also studied how the US responded to the Ebola outbreak in 2014. There was tremendous concern it would get out of control. One big advantage compared to COVID-19 was that it could not be transmitted through the air, which meant it was highly infectious under a more limited set of circumstances (although also more deadly). The administration at that time decided the best approach would be to stop it at the source so it couldn't spread beyond Africa, because it was felt that if it worked its way into the world population, the US would have significant collateral damage. The US did a massive aid effort that sent doctors, CDC people, scientists who knew how to dispose of dead bodies, etc. There was also a primitive form of contact tracing in place where people who had been diagnosed in the US, or were on their way to the US, were isolated immediately from any contact with any people other than health workers. They had adequate protective gear (not that much was needed, owing to the limited number of patients due to the rapid response).

Like South Korea, back in 2014 the US felt it had dodged a bullet and created a task force, based on direction from the National Security Council, on how to handle upcoming pandemics. The scientific/medical community assured the NSC that the Ebola issue was not unique, and pandemics would happen, as they have happened since the beginning of recorded history. However, now any pandemic could hitch a ride in airplanes, and take advantage of society's mobility. Contrary to some claims, the pandemic task force was not exactly eliminated in 2018, but it was folded into a larger structure that also was responsible for bioterrorism and other issues. Although saying the task force was eliminated isn't technically correct, several key people resigned because they felt its importance/effectiveness had been reduced, and there have been questions about the competence of those who replaced the people who had left.

The bottom line is I would have said that we've been warned, it's happening, we need to do something now, let's talk to South Korea because they know how to handle this stuff, and use their techniques. Because the government position was that COVID-19 was simply another type of flu, and that it would disappear on its own, the US lost valuable time in stemming the problem before it became so big that the only option was a lockdown, which South Korea was able to avoid. There is evidence the lockdown has been effective in preventing a worst-case scenario, but the economic collateral damage that has resulted from the delay has been devastating.

So, yes, bottom line is the US blew it. At this point, pointing fingers doesn't do any good. But the stupidest thing this country could do is not start preparations now in case there is a second wave. Most European countries are already doing so, and most scientists believe there is a good chance - not a certainty, but a very good chance - that a second wave will occur later this year.
That's a very thoughtful and insightful response, thanks for sharing that!

Does anyone foresee any culpability placed on China? For example, I'd seen indications that our debt with them had already reached an unsustainable level long before this. Would we attempt to reduce or even cancel that debt as a punishment and could it lead to war?
I think the main difference between S.Korea and the US response was that their government's first response was to protect their citizens. They acted immediately and effectively.

Our government's response was to protect themselves, telling us for 6 weeks there is nothing to worry about while they sold stocks in their portfolio that they knew would lose money in the recession.

New Zealand had a similar response to that of S.Korea and they have effectively shut the disease down. No new cases.

I know we are not to be political, but this is pretty important to why the Corona isn't going away anytime soon. Please don't reward them by electing them again.

Insights and incites by Notes.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I think the main difference between S.Korea and the US response was that their government's first response was to protect their citizens. They acted immediately and effectively.

Our government's response was to protect themselves, telling us for 6 weeks there is nothing to worry about while they sold stocks in their portfolio that they knew would lose money in the recession.

New Zealand had a similar response to that of S.Korea and they have effectively shut the disease down. No new cases.

I know we are not to be political, but this is pretty important to why the Corona isn't going away anytime soon. Please don't reward them by electing them again.

Insights and incites by Notes.

I was going to delete the last line, but want to comment on it.

The candidate's bases are unswervingly in favor of their candidates, so trying to change their opinions is pointless. All you can do is present them with data, and see if they change their opinions based on a new data set.

What we are lacking in this country is the ability for ALL people to be able to look at elected officials and make judgements about what is being done correctly, and what isn't. People want to see their political favorites as all good, or all bad. That simply isn't the case.

The people need to monitor the politicians and apply course corrections. For example, take the WHO. I think any objective person would agree that reforms are needed. Also, any objective person would dispute the claims about what the US pays, because the figure that's quoted in the media is almost always what the US is supposed to pay, not what it actually pays, which is considerably less.

In my ideal world, this would open up a discussion among all stakeholders in the WHO - which is basically the world - on what reforms are needed, how they can be accomplished, and the time frame in which they would occur. By immediately turning it into a partisan issue based around stoking anger against China (not that it's undeserved, but that's not the point), any possibility of having true, meaningful reforms made by the members became impossible. So, what's broken will probably not be fixed, the organization will fade into irrelevance, and the world will be worse off as a result.

It seems very, very few people in power are willing to say "okay, we had problems in the past, let's put those behind us and deal with making things right in the future." It's like married couples who keep finding fault with each other until they get divorced, instead of absolving each other of whatever happened in the past, and concentrating on what can be done moving forward.

This is an opinion: the problem with the Chinese and US response was hubris more than anything else. South Korea had been humbled by its previous experience. Both China and the US felt they were so powerful "it can't happen here." Both countries delayed because of a misplaced belief in their own invincibility. South Korea knew that in a fistfight with a virus, which has no political affiliation, the virus will beat you up.
Thinking about re-opening your studio when things loosen up a bit? The Recording Academy (the Grammy folks) Producers & Engineers Ring just published a set of guidelines for your studio and your clients.

Great Googly Moogly !!!!!!!!

Nothing here that you haven't read or heard before, tailored to microphones, vocal booths, control rooms, and such. I suppose work will get done, but it's going to be harder to have fun.

You can read the PDF here.
Originally Posted by Anderton
What we are lacking in this country is the ability for ALL people to be able to look at elected officials and make judgements about what is being done correctly, and what isn't. People want to see their political favorites as all good, or all bad. That simply isn't the case.

The people need to monitor the politicians and apply course corrections. For example, take the WHO. I think any objective person would agree that reforms are needed. Also, any objective person would dispute the claims about what the US pays, because the figure that's quoted in the media is almost always what the US is supposed to pay, not what it actually pays, which is considerably less.

In my ideal world, this would open up a discussion among all stakeholders in the WHO - which is basically the world - on what reforms are needed, how they can be accomplished, and the time frame in which they would occur. By immediately turning it into a partisan issue based around stoking anger against China (not that it's undeserved, but that's not the point), any possibility of having true, meaningful reforms made by the members became impossible. So, what's broken will probably not be fixed, the organization will fade into irrelevance, and the world will be worse off as a result.

It seems very, very few people in power are willing to say "okay, we had problems in the past, let's put those behind us and deal with making things right in the future." It's like married couples who keep finding fault with each other until they get divorced, instead of absolving each other of whatever happened in the past, and concentrating on what can be done moving forward.
I find it really frustrating that people are so willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in fact, I never hear anyone use that expression anymore). People insist that if the system is broken, it must be thrown out, instead of seeing if it can be fixed. And they don't have any suggestion to replace it, either. So in this case, because the WHO might have screwed up, we're going to lose it entirely? That's ridiculous. Between agendas of those who want to get rid of these systems or organizations, and the impatience and susceptibility of those who listen to those who want to get rid of these things, plus dumb human nature, we're constantly fighting for all or nothing instead of nuance and fixing things. It's really frustrating to watch.

(Please note the non-partisan stance of my reply. smile )
Too many countries put faith in WHO proclamations and it was later found out that they deliberately withheld important information. The fact is that WHO has a political agenda and answers to one country. You can say don't get political or don't get partisan but that doesn't solve the problem and in the future the same things will happen again.
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
I find it really frustrating that people are so willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (in fact, I never hear anyone use that expression anymore). People insist that if the system is broken, it must be thrown out, instead of seeing if it can be fixed.

I put part of the blame on technology. Devices used to be repaired by replacing the parts that screwed up. Then it went to board swaps, then it went to "just replace the entire thing." People replace mates rather than try to work things out. People switch jobs because a workplace sucks, and management is too convinced of their own self-importance to listen to the people who actually make the organization run.

There is so much emphasis on productivity that creation is all that matters. There is no longer the patience or desire to maintain.

Overall, a lot of our current problems are the result of selfishness, a sense of entitlement, and an inability to recognize that a healthy society benefits all individuals in that society. The "looking out for #1" ethos is ultimately destructive to #1, not just numbers #2 - infinity.

It's not just "all about me." If someone came to me and said "If you pay $50 more in taxes, veterans will be taken care of properly, and you won't trip over junkies in the street," I'd say that's a lot more important than buying 10 coffees at Starbucks. Sure...here's $50. It's worth it.
There's a country that conducts extensive commerce with China (which continued during the initial outbreak), has a population of 23.6 million, and as of today has 441 cases of COVID-19 with 7 deaths (based on population, that would be equivalent to about 95 deaths in the US instead of 100,000[I/]). This article tells how Taiwan did it, basically by leaving nothing to chance.

Would Americans put up with enforced quarantines, fines for flagrant violators, neighborhood wardens who deliver food and check on people, and having to provide detailed health and travel information upon arriving in the country, to cut the death toll by 99.999905%? Probably not, if they think just wearing a mask is too much to ask for you.

Granted, the US is a bigger country, and apples to oranges comparisons are inevitable. But still, suppose dealing with the virus here was [I]100 times more difficult than Taiwan...that would still be only 9,500 deaths instead of 10 times that.

It's interesting to see the results that come from different cultures having different priorities.
Originally Posted by Anderton
It's interesting to see the results that come from different cultures having different priorities.

here is a new result

Sweden has the highest daily coronavirus death rate in the world – and it’s getting worse

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-sweden-lockdown-death-rate-144650769.html
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
The fact is

Usually any sentence that starts with this means that the opposite is occurring wink
Craig, even though it's popular and easy to do, comparing the US to S. Korea is useless. It's not the relative size of the populations it's the relative sizes of the countries themselves which is exactly the same reasons why highly dense populations living in small areas can have great mass transit and high speed trains which it's totally impractical here outside of the few obvious places.

The biggest thing to me in controlling this virus is the Asian habit of wearing masks for the last 75 years if someone has so much as a sniffle. I was in Japan from 65 to 67 and I saw it there all the time. They live right on top of each other so sanitation, overall cleanliness and respect for others is ingrained into their culture which is quite admirable. This goes back to the end of WW2 because they were in shambles and I'm sure that included health care so they wore masks to give some protection while they're slowly cleaning up rubble with who knows what in it. I was in northern Japan only 40 clicks from where the Fukishima nuclear plant is now. At that time they didn't have a sewer system, they had covered "Benjo" ditches. Open sewers maybe a foot deep and a foot or so wide with boards covering them parallel to the sidewalks in some areas. If I was living like that I'd be wearing a mask too and now it's just normal to them. Contact tracing is very easy because they're not taking flights to visit relatives 2,000 miles away. Most families live together in the same house including grandparents or very close to each other in the same neighborhood.

S. Korea is 38,000 square miles. Maine is 35,000. S. Korea is 52 million people in an area 10% bigger than Maine. See the point? Of course testing, tracing and all that is much easier there. Plus everybody was already wearing masks and those that wern't put them on immediately at the first sign of this virus. It's their culture. I doubt the government had to supply masks, all those households already had them so I don't think comparing the S. Korean response or Japan's for that matter to the to the US has any relevance at all.

Another point concerning supplies and this is just one of many examples. Right after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico FEMA sent about 500 ventilators to them. They sat in a warehouse untouched until this virus happened and somebody remembered them. They were useless because they need regular maintenance, they can't just sit there untouched for years and they're expensive. This is one of many reasons we didn't have huge stockpiles of these things waiting around for a pandemic to happen. That interview I talked about with the head of Mass General in Boston talked about that too. The supply issue is not as simple as it looks from reading a few news reports.

Also, the feds do not have the responsibility to have supplies on hand to cover every state in the country. The states have primary responsibility for that but yes, the feds should have enough to help with hot spots in certain locations which they mostly did. Lots of articles I won't bother posting tell about governors of many states removing these sorts of pandemic supplies from their budgets over the last five years. This is because governors have the power of a line item veto which the president doesn't have. The NSC would have little to do with that. If you want to blame the feds for their response to this you may as well blame our entire constitutional system. Get rid of the states, turn them into mere districts and have a huge, strong central government. It's so easy to forget we are not a simple democratic country, we are a democratic republic and the states have a lot of autonomy under that system. Many times Trump forgets that too.

Finally, you're referring to the "total cases" number of 1.7 million as if they are all current confirmed cases. They are not current, that is the total count since day one. As I pointed out in that Wisconsin chart, they show the percentage of current cases as 37% of the total which sounds reasonable to me. That would make the US current case count around 630,000 and that is the number we should be referring to now. That US case page we all see should say 1.7 million total cases, roughly 630,000 current cases, roughly 970,000 recovered and 100,000 dead. Or whatever they think those numbers should be on a nationwide basis, I'm just using Wisconsin as an example. if these numbers were presented that way it would not look so scary. Personally I think that's deliberate to make us be careful. Yes, I can almost agree with that but still...

Bob
Here is a great article from San Francisco about testing a "Census Tract" in the Mission District, they did 4,000 tests in a very short period of time. There is so much here to read and digest I won't even comment on it. Yeah, yeah, hold the applause...

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/28...ow-wage-essential-workers-san-francisco/

Bob
Originally Posted by Dave Holloway
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
The fact is

Usually any sentence that starts with this means that the opposite is occurring wink
Sometimes, but not always. I notice that you didn't provide any opposing data... wink
It's a big world out there and people approach it from a lot of different angles. For myself, and many like me, we have heightened awareness and defense mechanisms that can be easily triggered by seeing people wearing masks, I'm actually a fairly pedestrian dude compared to some I know but seeing people in masks is really messing with my defense instincts.
There have always been a lot of desperate people out there running around but that number is likely to increase, perhaps exponentially, as this situation continues to evolve. The more criminal element of society will undoubtedly tend to view people running around with surgical masks on as weak and possible prey. We're already beginning to see some chaos erupt out there.
The way I understand it isthis -- those masks are not so much to protect the person wearing it, but to protect others.

If an asymptomatic person or one who doesn't yet have symptoms and wears a mask, he/she is protecting you and I from getting COVID by keeping his/her virus mist mostly contained.

But the person not wearing the mask is putting other people at risk if he/she is positive.

So the way I see it is this, I wear the mask as a courtesy to others. I am telling you it's saver to be nearer to me.

For those who are not wearing a mask, I consider them a potential danger, a potential threat, and stay more than 6' away from them.

I have a very strong immune system. I get a mild 2 day cold once every 15 or so years, and that's it. I am on zero medications, and can't remember the last time I was on meds for any sickness. If I get COVID, it will probably be either asymptomatic or a very mild case (but there are no guarantees). I don't like wearing the mask, it's uncomfortable, it steams up my glasses, it ends up putting my mustache in my mouth, but I wear it as a courtesy to others.

I just believe potentially protecting others is the civilized thing to do.

Insights and incites by Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
The way I understand it isthis -- those masks are not so much to protect the person wearing it, but to protect others.

So the way I see it is this, I wear the mask as a courtesy to others.

I just believe potentially protecting others is the civilized thing to do.

Insights and incites by Notes

Just to be clear, I understand that the focus is mainly on the covid thing and my message is not meant to insinuate that you shouldn't wear a mask. I'm simply trying to make people aware of a different perspective that could be important and may not have been considered by some. It may be as simple as losing the surgical mask and wearing a bandanna to look a little more badass! That may appear to be flippant but it's important to remember that covid is not the only threat out there and the tables are already gradually turning away from it.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Craig, even though it's popular and easy to do, comparing the US to S. Korea is useless. It's not the relative size of the populations it's the relative sizes of the countries themselves which is exactly the same reasons why highly dense populations living in small areas can have great mass transit and high speed trains which it's totally impractical here outside of the few obvious places.

Well, as I said, "Granted, the US is a bigger country, and apples to oranges comparisons are inevitable. But still, suppose dealing with the virus here was 100 times more difficult than Taiwan...that would still be only 9,500 deaths instead of 10 times that." But, it works both ways. Countries with developed mass transit systems and dense populations make it easier to test and trace, but it also puts people in closer proximity (like New York), which encourages the spread. But there's no denying that regardless of size, population, etc., South Korea was prepared in case there was another pandemic. I don't see how that could not have made a difference in their ability to contain it.

Of course the US would find it harder to manage a country that's so much larger, where the virus can start on the coasts, and leisurely work its way over thousands of miles to the interior. But the flip side is that the interior should have known it was coming and been prepared. Now several interior states are maxing out ICU beds. No matter how you want to slice it, the US was not prepared, and didn't react as fast as other countries that have had more success in containing the virus.

On a different topic, I find the material at http://www.graphics.reuters.com very helpful in getting my head around what's happening. Scroll down to "Where US Coronavirus Cases Are on the Rise." You'll find both encouraging and discouraging signs. For example, it's interesting to track what's happening on the states that have opened, or never locked down significantly in the first place. It's very encouraging that deaths are on the way down, but with cases on the rise and deaths being a lagging indicator, we don't know what's next. Note that the curves are all normalized to peaks, not absolute, but in a way that makes the information much easier to assimilate and understand. (Unfortunately, you were right - it seems your concerns about Wisconsin not opening up correctly have been confirmed.)

Fingers crossed.
What I really need to know is whether I should be drinking Coke or Pepsi. I don't want anybody in public to think I'm racist or uneducated, or irresponsible because I'm drinking the wrong soft drink. I want to make sure I drink the socially acceptable soft drink but I haven't been told which one to drink yet. Can somebody please help me? Maybe there's a Facebook group I could join.
On the original subject, "Social Distancing Is Not Enough: We will need a comprehensive strategy to reduce the sort of interactions that can lead to more infections."

Quote
Today, states are emerging from the lockdown phase of the crisis and entering a queasy period of reopening. But offices, schools, stores, theaters, restaurants, bars, gyms, fitness centers, and museums will have no semblance of normalcy until we learn how to be safe—and feel safe—inside.

To open these spaces, we must be guided by science and expertise. Fortunately for us, researchers are discovering the secrets of how COVID-19 spreads with a combination of clever modeling and detective work.

Before we review the relevant studies and draw out lessons for the future of the great indoors, a brief word of humility. Our understanding of this disease is dynamic. Today’s conventional wisdom could be tomorrow’s busted myth. Think of these studies not as gospels, but as clues in a gradually unraveling mystery.



3. COVID-PROOF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT



These stories, combined with the science of large-droplet and airborne transmission, suggest that social distancing isn’t enough: We need saliva control too. Other countries are doing so, already. Germany has reportedly banned singing at religious services, and South Korea has prohibited spitting in its professional baseball league.

Spittle rules won’t be enough to make our public entertainment places safer, either. We will need a comprehensive strategy to reduce the sort of interactions that can lead to more infections. “When we go back to sports stadiums and theaters, people are going to have to adjust their expectations,” says Joseph Allen, an assistant professor of exposure-assessment science at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health.

First, he told me, full-capacity stadiums will be impossible in the social-distancing age, and most attendees will be advised to wear masks. Second, everything that can be made touchless should be, including ticketing and concessions. “To avoid clustering at the hot-dog stands, stadium food vendors should serve as much as possible directly to people’s seats,” Allen said. Third, public-entertainment venues will have to reimagine queuing. “Our theories about crowd control, which are dominated by concerns for physical security, typically squeeze large numbers of people into a scarce number of heavily guarded entrances,” he said. But in a pandemic, tightly packed queues are the very hazard we want to avoid. “It’ll be very important to reduce crowding at the entrance of stadiums and theaters by adding additional entrance points or staggering admissions by time to avoid overcrowding, Allen said.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
What I really need to know is whether I should be drinking Coke or Pepsi. I don't want anybody in public to think I'm racist or uneducated, or irresponsible because I'm drinking the wrong soft drink.

Drinking either one shows a lack of understanding of today's realities. To find out if you're drinking the right beverage, look at the bottle's label. If it doesn't display a two-digit number (higher is better) followed by the word "proof," you're drinking the wrong beverage.
yeahthat grin
Originally Posted by J. Dan
What I really need to know is whether I should be drinking Coke or Pepsi. I don't want anybody in public to think I'm racist or uneducated, or irresponsible because I'm drinking the wrong soft drink. I want to make sure I drink the socially acceptable soft drink but I haven't been told which one to drink yet. Can somebody please help me? Maybe there's a Facebook group I could join.

You need to get wise to the ways of the street, you mix the Coke with the Jack Daniels. It's the rock star breakfast of champions dating back decades!
Here is a different take on how to get to work partially and still slowly defeat COVID.

I don't know if it would work, and if it did it would need complete compliance, something some people in the US are not ready to do, but it's an interesting concept anyway. It's about a 16 minute long TED talk.

A COVID-19 "exit" strategy to end lockdown and reopen the economy

Notes
I really, really hate to bring this up but I feel I must. Craig if I'm wrong please just nuke this post, I'll understand.

First, I'll say this right up front so there's no doubt where I stand. Floyd was murdered, plain and simple. Doesn't matter what he did or what his record is or was or even if he had a record. The cops murdered him and they will go down for it.

A lot of what we've been nicely and politely writing about COVID 19 just went out the window. We must control the entrances to stadiums, we must control our actions to help contain this virus. All of us need to pull together in order to beat or at least contain this thing. We as musicians are mourning the loss of our gigs. We need to get everybody back to work so we can have at least part of our lives back and to avoid another Depression.

We wring our hands in sympathy because the minority communities especially the black community, is getting hit harder than everybody else. So here we have the hardest hit community with the highest percentage of untested virus cases and what happens? Not the majority but enough to make an impact, decides to go out and riot all over the country not just for one quick protest but for days with no end in sight until the National Guard rolls in with heavy equipment. Contact tracing? Oh sure, no problem.

ER nurse. "Do you know who you came in contact with who may have been infected?"

Patient: "Oh yeah, well, it was last week when I was out looting the Best Buy store with about a hundred other people, Some of them didn't look like they were feeling too good, I'll see if I can get some numbers for you."

Right, that's gonna happen.

I know you shouldn't write things when you're upset and I'm really upset right now. My problem is I tend to write in blunt terms. Am I being too blunt now? Am I being too insensitive? I don't know but I do know I'm pissed. Forget the underlying politics of this, forget the racial implications, just focus on the medical. Putting all this rioting together with all the bars and beaches reopening with huge crowds, this is bad. This could ruin any chance we had (if we had any chance) of getting things somewhat back to normal over the next few months.

You're right Craig, the US was unprepared. What do you think they would have done in S. Korea if riots like this had broken out all over?

Bob
Here's why I'm not going to nuke it: There wasn't any politics, pro or con, like trashing a political party or particular political figure. There was a sensitivity toward the racial problems that still exist in this country. And the fact remains that many of us are musicians and like it or not, studios are closed, gigging is closed, touring is closed. That takes away a LOT of an occupation. It's like saying bookkeepers can't use spreadsheets anymore.

So it's crucial we know what the hell is going on so we can react accordingly. If we can...

However, there are three comments I would make. Admittedly, in many of the early images of the protest, people were wearing masks and seeming to maintain distance while there was still a sense of order. But, protestors are not unique. I think many folks took it at face value when they saw headlines about Federal and state governments saying it was time to open things up, and that the virus was under control. So they went to pool parties in the Ozarks, beach parties in Florida and California, bars in Wisconsin, restaurants that were open (whether they practiced social distancing or not), and hey...might as well do protests, too. "We're okay, right? Body count is going down, and we're under 50. No problem with #boomerremover." Don't know if we would have seen any of this when the headlines were about exponential rates of death in New York, and that it was a harbinger for the rest of the country.

Another comment is that it's important to differentiate between protestors and looters. In the early phases, this was about protestors. Once the protests got traction, looters saw an opening. Looters have no political, ideological, racial, or moral affiliation. They'll come in after a tornado, earthquake, hurricane, riots...it doesn't matter. They see an opportunity whenever law enforcement or government is overwhelmed, and they'll run with it. Literally.

My daughter lives in LA, where things are particularly bad. She pointed out that the places being smashed aren't banks, but stores with goods that can be re-sold at a high value, which brings me to my final comment.

One-third of the renters in LA will not be able to pay their rent this month. Unemployment rates are astronomical. Jobs like being an Uber driver have the twin issues of a) people aren't going anywhere much anyway, and b) you're not about to test people before they get into your car. And people were driving Uber in the first place because they either couldn't, or didn't want to, have regular jobs.

To quote Bob Dylan, which seems particularly appropriate given the 60s protest/riot flashback some of us are experiencing: "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

Frankly, at this point, the words of wisdom we need aren't coming from our leaders, but from a line in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, when people from the future asked Bill & Ted what wisdom they could impart. After an awkward silence trying to think of something to say, IIRC is was Bill who said "Be excellent to each other."

Works for me.
excellent, non political, scientific article about viruses and general and COVID 19 specifically. long read though

"Monster or Machine? A Profile of the Coronavirus at 6 Months"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/...module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
This is an excellent article Dave, thank for posting it. The conclusions are nothing new but they are presented in a very good way plus it's a great history of viruses in general. The main takeaway reinforces what several of us have already said, without a vaccine the virus will eventually infect everyone on the planet. That means keeping everyone locked down is impossible no matter what happens which I've also discussed many times. The fact that so many are now jamming the beaches and bars or even out rioting and looting is irrelevant in the big picture. It doesn't matter, those of us who are smart enough to bother to read that article will have to protect ourselves the best we can and get on with our lives.

The biggest single thing to keep in mind is just because we see people out and about, see traffic getting worse and worse so things appear to be looking normal, do not be fooled! The virus is still there, all around us. All it means is society as a whole has chosen to live with it and accept the consequences, if any one of us or our families are worried about it then we have to take steps to not be one of those consequences.

The second biggest takeaway is 35% of people who catch it are asymtomatic meaning the true case number is approx 12 times the number of published cases. I've been saying for two and a half months now that increases the amount of possible herd immunity plus it reduces the overall death rate so it's not as scary as it looks from simply reading the published confirmed case numbers vs deaths. It's interesting that even though this article was just published today, that 35% asymptomatic number and the 12 times confirmed case numbers are very similar to studies I posted links to mid March. Since some of those links were to conservative leaning sites they were mostly ignored on this forum as biased.

Bob
Last night and again tonight I'm back at the restaurant where I have played piano for the last several years. I was offered the weekend or these 2 nights and opted for the sparser crowd. Last night was very sparse indeed. I'm not exactly a magnet for client contact anyway, but the closest anyone got was a few feet away, feeding the tip jar. All staff masked. I couldn't think of any cute pandemic songs to play. Pick up a check tonight and probably no more for a while.
We're still out of work, and probably will be until at least October. 7 months without gigging frown

Since Leilani and I started this duo in 1985 the longest we've been out of work is 6 weeks, when we took a 5 week vacation in Australia and added a week buffer just in case there might have been a problem getting back -- and we turned down gigs for that time period.

We're working on new aftermarket products for Band-in-a-Box, but it takes many months to write something and debug it. It's moving in a positive direction.

I think gigging won't be the same for a long time, so we all have to think about how to survive, which of course is the point of this thread.

Notes
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Since some of those links were to conservative leaning sites they were mostly ignored on this forum as biased.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I think back in March that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, knew that a large number of people were asymptomatic (hence the warnings about social distancing, because you didn't know who had it and who didn't), and also knew that the number of cases was far greater than measured. So it's really no surprise that continues to be accurate. The problem with couching valid scientific data in either left- or right-leaning viewpoints is they baggage that goes along with them, like the virus being manufactured in a lab, debates over testing preparedness, people on both sides trying to score political points, assigning blame, etc.

Also, the purpose of lockdowns was never to keep everyone from being infected. It was to prevent a huge surge in people getting it all at once, thus overloading the medical system not just with COVID-19 patients, but preventing those who needed other medical care from getting it. Overall, that seems to have been a successful strategy when you compare the overall results of nations that locked down early compared to those who delayed.

Again, my position is that what matters is the science of a situation, not the political lens through which it's viewed. What science is telling us now is that it's not over yet, so to quote the post above, "we all have to think about how to survive, which of course is the point of this thread."
Sigh, my bad I just did it again. This thread started March 28, my comment about people saying some of my links were biased was early March on that KC thread that Dave had to nuke.

Today, we find out George Floyd was positive and asymptomatic (nothing against him at all, just another data point showing the virus is out there) and a protester in NY who was arrested also is positive. Who knows where these numbers will be in two weeks or a month. If it turns out there is no huge spike after all this man, what a great thing that would be on many levels and I'm still hopeful...

Bob
Curiously, where did you read about Floyd being positive and asymptomatic. I read a few different articles about the autopsy reports and none mentioned that.

With perhaps 40% or more of the people with it asymptomatic, and a ban on live music still in effect here, I'll continue to live in the cautious world.

These are indeed strange times we are living in.

Notes
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Curiously, where did you read about Floyd being positive and asymptomatic.

George Floyd was infected with COVID-19, autopsy reveals

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...h-covid-19-autopsy-reveals-idUSKBN23B1HX
Good news and bad news. The good is the Missouri health dept says there has been no cases other than the one from the parties at the Lake of the Ozarks. The bad is I just watched a local Las Vegas CBS TV report on the casino's reopening today. The video showed the casino absolutely packed and only a few wore masks and the reporter was stunned both at the size of the crowds and few masks. My friend had a doctors appointment today in Temecula and everything is wide open in spite of what Governor Newsom says. He ate at a large Mexican restaurant with restricted seating and then he went to the Walmart. The parking lot was so packed he almost didn't go in but when he did it was very crowded and only a fraction were wearing masks. it's been two weeks since I went shopping and it was nothing like that.

No further comments, we all know what this could mean.

Bob
How I long for those easier, simpler times when I just had to concern myself with a catastrophic pandemic.
Again, let me mention graphics.reuters.com if you want to see what's going on in different states with new cases. It really shows there's no one-size-fits-all option. Pennsylvania is having a dramatic, and ongoing decrease, while California keeps increasing. Nevada had been going down, but then an uptick started, and now the casinos are open...so who knows where that's going to end up. Wisconsin is skyrocketing - is that because they opened up, bad luck, or dumb people? In any event, it really seems Jazzmammal's fears may have been justified.

There are some encouraging signs. It seems that people with certain blood types are more susceptible than others. It seems that Africa won't explode with cases and start a new round of infections, because the average population is much younger. It seems opening up some states hasn't caused too much of a problem. But, this isn't over yet, and we really should be monitoring things carefully on a Federal level and issuing meaningful guidelines.

Granted, most people won't die from it...but I'm not thrilled about surviving if it means permanent lung and kidney damage. I'd rather just not get it in the first place.
CES 2021 is going ahead as an in-person event. This seems insane to me, but I wonder how many will go.

Originally Posted by Anderton
Granted, most people won't die from it...but I'm not thrilled about surviving if it means permanent lung and kidney damage. I'd rather just not get it in the first place.
Here's another risk of the disease I ain't thrilled about. COVID-19 Can Last for Several Months

Quote
COVID-19 Can Last for Several Months
The disease’s “long-haulers” have endured relentless waves of debilitating symptoms—and disbelief from doctors and friends.

When I spoke with LeClerc on day 66, she was still experiencing waves of symptoms. “Before this, I was a fit, healthy 32-year-old,” she said. “Now I’ve been reduced to not being able to stand up in the shower without feeling fatigued. I’ve tried going to the supermarket and I’m in bed for days afterwards. It’s like nothing I’ve ever experienced before.” Despite her best efforts, LeClerc has not been able to get a test, but “every doctor I’ve spoken to says there’s no shadow of a doubt that this has been COVID,” she said. Today is day 80.

I interviewed nine of them for this story, all of whom share commonalities. Most have never been admitted to an ICU or gone on a ventilator, so their cases technically count as “mild.” But their lives have nonetheless been flattened by relentless and rolling waves of symptoms that make it hard to concentrate, exercise, or perform simple physical tasks. Most are young. Most were previously fit and healthy. “It is mild relative to dying in a hospital, but this virus has ruined my life,” LeClerc said. “Even reading a book is challenging and exhausting. What small joys other people are experiencing in lockdown—yoga, bread baking—are beyond the realms of possibility for me.”
I just read the Floyd/COVID today in my local paper. I guess they are a bit behind the times.

Thanks for posting the link.

I wonder how many demonstrators have been exposed (of course there is no way to know).

Notes
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
CES 2021 is going ahead as an in-person event. This seems insane to me, but I wonder how many will go.

NAMM is planning on going ahead with the Winter show as well. However, they're not in "come hell or high water" mode, but "let's continue monitoring the situation" mode.

Quote
Here's another risk of the disease I ain't thrilled about. COVID-19 Can Last for Several Months

There seem to be new angles discovered about this thing every day, some good (it's not mutating into different enough forms to make a vaccine pointless) and some bad (more children are being affected by it). This does seem to be a long-haul type of thing.
The weather turned out to be great last night for our first gig since Valentines Day. It was outdoors of course and we had a great crowd of appreciative folks there. We set up on the patio where they'd built an outdoor "grain bin" bar last year. Lots of people hung out around the bar all night, there are a few tables out in the yard and lots of other people brought their own lawn chairs. It was a lot like a concert in the park type of thing. It was great to see people enjoying life, we got numerous compliments on our performance and ran out of business cards that people were requesting.

I tried out the "new" backing track system I've been working on, still a lot of work to do with that but the system ran smoothly for the songs I had prepared. I had to adjust a little when I realized I'd forgotten the transmitter for my guitar wireless unit but no biggie. Now I need to get back to figuring out how to boost our PA capability, something I'd been working on before we fell into the abyss. For us here the only way is up!
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
The weather turned out to be great last night for our first gig since Valentines Day. It was outdoors of course and we had a great crowd of appreciative folks there. We set up on the patio where they'd built an outdoor "grain bin" bar last year.

That's great, although I guess running out of business cards is even better smile.

Now that I think about it, it's good luck that things are starting to open up just as the weather is getting good, so most gigs can be outdoors where it's easier to do the social distancing thing, which medical people still think is one of the most effective ways to control the spread.

It will also be interesting to see how the heat/humidity factor plays out. I think there are actual scientific studies, not magical thinking, about the virus potency being reduced in high humidity coupled with heat. The question is how much is the reduction, and will it be enough to healthy immune systems to have a much easier time fighting it off.

It's a real-time medical drama, and everyone has front-row seats.
I think the biggest factor RE being outdoors, is the way respiratory droplets disperse much more there than indoors. Making for a much less potent viral load, thus not as severe a case. In the KC forum, posters were putting up months-old links to studies that claimed the virus can be spread outdoors, carried on the wind, where the dispersion was ignored. I suppose that's the reason whereby some heavy handed governors are still outlawing outdoor restaurants, unless the patrons protest while they eat, I suppose.
It's getting pretty hot here in Houston, and cases have been going up the last couple of weeks. frown
Honestly, I'm surprised this LA guitar shop has survived as long as it has.

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona..._campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates
They need to sell strings, accessories, guitars, and repairs online!!
They look like a poster child for the E myth. I once was.
Originally Posted by Anderton
<...snip...
It will also be interesting to see how the heat/humidity factor plays out. I think there are actual scientific studies, not magical thinking, about the virus potency being reduced in high humidity coupled with heat. The question is how much is the reduction, and will it be enough to healthy immune systems to have a much easier time fighting it off.

It's a real-time medical drama, and everyone has front-row seats.

I live in Florida - and I don't live with air conditioning (by choice) so I should be OK.

But then I read bald guys are high risk and I went bald at 24 years old, so I don't know if it cancels the humidity or not.

Type A blood is supposed to be high risk, so I'm safe there I don't have A

Yes, front row seats while we watch the brightest medical scientific minds gather clues to eventually solve mysteries.

It looks like more scientists are moving to the camp with my brother-in-law that it is more of a blood vessel disease than a respiratory one. We'll see if that's a red herring or not.

---

I'm glad you're gigging Greg - bands are still banned here, but your report gives me hope for us when we eventually start gigging again.

Bars are still closed in FL, restaurants limited to 50% capacity, but from what I read in the papers, they are lucky to have 10%. The state is having a huge resurgence of confirmed cases according to the press. Of course that could be due to more testing as easily as it can be for relaxing the 'safer at home' directive.

Stay tuned for more developments.

Insights and incite by Notes
Originally Posted by Anderton
They need to sell strings, accessories, guitars, and repairs online!!

I have a friend who owns a local music store - not a chain, just a store that's been in St. Louis for many decades. He told me that with all the catalog houses they can't make a dime on keyboards, guitar, amps, etc. because margins are razor thin... The ONLY way he stays in business is having rooms where independent folks give lessons, and when the students come in, they buy strings, reeds, cables, etc. as well as do repairs. They pay their mortgage on that.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I'm glad you're gigging Greg - bands are still banned here, but your report gives me hope for us when we eventually start gigging again.

Bars are still closed in FL, restaurants limited to 50% capacity, but from what I read in the papers, they are lucky to have 10%. The state is having a huge resurgence of confirmed cases according to the press. Of course that could be due to more testing as easily as it can be for relaxing the 'safer at home' directive.

Stay tuned for more developments.

Insights and incite by Notes

Fortunately the season has arrived for outdoor shows in this area, I'm not aware of any indoor ones; not banned per se but capacities are ostensibly limited to 50%. I'd pointed out before but perhaps it's worth mentioning again that in the upper midwest, where winters are cold and often harsh, there's not much chance of keeping people pinned down inside when the weather gets milder.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
Originally Posted by Anderton
They need to sell strings, accessories, guitars, and repairs online!!

I have a friend who owns a local music store - not a chain, just a store that's been in St. Louis for many decades. He told me that with all the catalog houses they can't make a dime on keyboards, guitar, amps, etc. because margins are razor thin... The ONLY way he stays in business is having rooms where independent folks give lessons, and when the students come in, they buy strings, reeds, cables, etc. as well as do repairs. They pay their mortgage on that.

I don't think catalog stores do repairs, by and large. And surely the store has an email list, and can at least count on loyal customers to help burn through their inventory so it's not tying up capital on a shelf? Then again, maybe the concept of a "loyal customer" no longer exists...
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by J. Dan
Originally Posted by Anderton
They need to sell strings, accessories, guitars, and repairs online!!

I have a friend who owns a local music store - not a chain, just a store that's been in St. Louis for many decades. He told me that with all the catalog houses they can't make a dime on keyboards, guitar, amps, etc. because margins are razor thin... The ONLY way he stays in business is having rooms where independent folks give lessons, and when the students come in, they buy strings, reeds, cables, etc. as well as do repairs. They pay their mortgage on that.

I don't think catalog stores do repairs, by and large. And surely the store has an email list, and can at least count on loyal customers to help burn through their inventory so it's not tying up capital on a shelf? Then again, maybe the concept of a "loyal customer" no longer exists...

They are actually doing some modest online activity. From the article:

"While the store is closed, Delgado put all but two of his employees on paid leave. To generate much-needed income, he hired guitar instructor Kenneth Del Río to do online classical guitar lessons.

"That's helping a little bit. We're hoping that will pick up and help sustain us through the next couple months," he says."

And he has indeed been selling and repairing guitars:

"Since the pandemic shut Candelas' doors more than two months ago, Delgado says, he has been building more classical and flamenco guitars, and he's doing more restoration work."

In the electric violin community, the concept of loyal customer is alive and well. A bunch of us support Electric Violin Shop for example. I'm also loyal to Potter's Violins in DC.
Meanwhile New Zealand has "reopened". Made possible, no doubt, by their much more effective response to the pandemic compared to other countries. Granted, orchestrating an effective pandemic response would seem to be easier for a country with a smaller population and size than the US.

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...6kZ4ZlizM4fXE2zi9nMq7PZ7uPPjylTE7L3h5qIM
New Zealand now has zero active cases, and they are reopening with caution. I do wish them luck, I think they are doing the best anyone can.

- - - - - -

I patronize my local "mom and pop" music stores for whatever I can get there. The margin on strings and reeds are probably low, but it's cash flow. If I want something bigger and they don't have it, I'll see if they can order it for me. I don't haggle prices with them, but they never cheat me. They know how much the Internet retailers charge.

In return I get good service no big-box or Internet store will give me.

The owner of my local store gave me his personal cell phone number and told me if anything fails on the gig, call him, and he will deliver what I need to finish the gig. I hope I never need that as I prepare for all the emergencies I can, but it's nice to have it.

I went looking for a new gigging sax mic, the owner recommended a Sennheiser MD421. He went in the back to his recording studio, gave me one to try on the gig with no deposit, no credit card, just trust. I loved it. I had him order one for me, and he told me to keep the loaner until the new one came in. In the meantime He charged me a few dollars less than I could get on-line, and I didn't have to pay shipping. I did pay sales tax in the end I actually saved an insignificant amount of money (small change).

There are more examples like this.

So I might spend less than an extra buck for a 10 pack of strings. It's worth it to me to keep a small business in business and for the extra service I get that only a small business can provide.

Insights and incites by Notes
I try and buy as much as I can from the music store in my hometown. It means I have to pay shipping usually, as I live about four hours away, but I want to support them as much as I can. I've known the owner and manager both personally since I started taking piano lessons at 5 years old a long time ago. grin I bought my first professional keyboard from them and practically grew up in their keyboard and piano section. Only if they can't order something in will I shop elsewhere. Not to mention they can get equal or better prices than online retailers. I get the impression there aren't that many people who are "loyal customers" any more sadly, anywhere.
Originally Posted by Mighty Motif Max
I get the impression there aren't that many people who are "loyal customers" any more sadly, anywhere.
And that's too bad. A lot of people use the music store to test out something then they buy it online to save a few bucks. I do the opposite...I research extensively online then try it out in the local store and buy it there. I'm old enough and not so broke that I have to or care to save $50 on a $500 item.
Originally Posted by Anderton
I don't think catalog stores do repairs, by and large. And surely the store has an email list, and can at least count on loyal customers to help burn through their inventory so it's not tying up capital on a shelf? Then again, maybe the concept of a "loyal customer" no longer exists...

A lot of it is the convenience of picking up the consumables like strings and reeds when you're in there for your lessons. If you have to order online or make a special trip without the music lesson, the local store loses any advantage over the catalog house. Yes, customer loyalty would be nice but I think we've already seen how much customer loyalty means to people as the Guitar Centers of the world have replaced the mom and pops.


By the way, World Health Organization is now saying that it isn't spread easily if you are asymptomatic. The "super spreaders" are the people with symptoms.
I've been needing a few incidentals, like some spare strings, but what I mainly need right now are a couple of Boss foot switches for my MFX.

I'd been looking online, doing price comparisons, while waiting for my FLMS to do what we're calling a Phase 1 partial re-opening, where you place an order online for curbside pickup, but no one can just go in the store to shop. Anyhow, prices for these things vary by as much as $10 apiece, and my FLMS is on the high end of scale; all the online stores are ordering free shipping, so that doesn't figure into the expense.

I decided that the online stores had been able to do business on some level, even during the local shutdowns, while my FLMS had to close its doors during the lockdown, but kept ALL of their employees! I figure it's more than worth an extra $20+/- right now, to support a place that I've been going to for decades, and that protected their people's jobs. On top of all that, if I added up all the little, and sometimes substantial discounts they've given me over the years, it would add up to more than a few $20 bills. I want to see them stick around . . .
I am ready for this whole thing to be over! I want to be able to go back to work, but can’t as I was laid off for a second time. It’s also hard buying anything online, because the Pandemic is making it harder for sellers to ship items. I’m not blaming the seller, it’s not their fault. Demand for shipping during this whole situation is hard.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
By the way, World Health Organization is now saying that it isn't spread easily if you are asymptomatic.

which is exactly the opposite of what they said 3 months ago and caused the global shutdown
https://apple.news/AdvgI-h7yRuSTNbyg5T6XLg

WHO walks back story.
Originally Posted by davedoerfler
Originally Posted by J. Dan
By the way, World Health Organization is now saying that it isn't spread easily if you are asymptomatic.

which is exactly the opposite of what they said 3 months ago and caused the global shutdown
And then suddenly it was perfectly okay to gather by the thousands to protest certain things but you still can't protest a lockdown.

Trust the experts...even if they are wrong or keep changing their mind based on their political stance.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
And then suddenly it was perfectly okay to gather by the thousands to protest certain things but you still can't protest a lockdown.

I don't think anyone is saying it's okay to gather by the thousands to protests. Everything I've read from medical people say it's a really bad idea and will likely cause more spikes. That may be part the reason for the following, or maybe it's the opening up element...or maybe just bad luck:

Twenty-one U.S. states reported weekly increases in new cases of COVID-19, with Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico all posting rises of 40% or higher for the week ended June 7 compared with the prior seven days, according to a Reuters analysis.

The three southwestern states joined hot spots in the South to help push the national number of new infections in the first week of June up 3%, the first increase after five weeks of declines, according to the analysis of data from The COVID Tracking Project, a volunteer-run effort to track the outbreak.


That was from the Reuters site that graphs current infection increases and decreases. You can see a lot of states went down and are going back up again. Others continue to go down. Some never stopped going up.

Quote
Trust the experts...even if they are wrong or keep changing their mind based on their political stance.

So far no one has been right about virtually any aspect of the corona virus. Look back over statements from the White House (wildly optimistic), the CDC (wildly pessimistic), and the WHO (wildly variable). We'll ultimately know who was right on January 1, 2021.

Before anyone says the COVID Tracking Project is biased, do some research, The White House chose the COVID Tracking Project as the best source to cite for daily US test numbers in its “Opening Up America Again” testing strategy. The same data powers many newspapers. The COVID Tracking Project people started it specifically because they believed the CDC numbers were at best incomplete, and at worst, wrong. For now, I think it's the best data we have...and it shows that the US is all over the place, with huge differences even among adjoining states.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Trust the experts...even if they are wrong or keep changing their mind based on their political stance.

The scientific method, by definition requires altering your stance as further information comes to hand. It's absolutely appropriate, and as the WHO have now clarified, they misspoke on the 'very rare' component. Yes scientists get it wrong, but in the context of constantly looking more deeply at things on very short timeframes.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
you still can't protest a lockdown.

Lockdown protesters - even the ones blatantly carrying guns while marching on their state capitols - were treated very, very differently by the police, to say the least.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
you still can't protest a lockdown.

Lockdown protesters - even the ones blatantly carrying guns while marching on their state capitols - were treated very, very differently by the police, to say the least.
Of course they were treated different....they weren't looting, burning buildings, or smashing windows. It sure is interesting what the media decides is newsworthy and what you need to see.
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
you still can't protest a lockdown.

Lockdown protesters - even the ones blatantly carrying guns while marching on their state capitols - were treated very, very differently by the police, to say the least.
Of course they were treated different....they weren't looting, burning buildings, or smashing windows. It sure is interesting what the media decides is newsworthy and what you need to see.

Its possible the turnout for lockdown protests was too small for would-be looters to take advantage.

Sure, I get that certain people here have their favorite media sources and only stick to those.
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
Sure, I get that certain people here have their favorite media sources and only stick to those.

Frankly, I think this thread is doing a better job than most media.
I've been going back to the original interview of W.H.O. related to the "very rare comment" as well as the subsequent comments apparently "walking it back" as it's been characterized. I think you can group various things that have been said into a few characterizations. The "very rare" comment was with respect to a collection of studies that have been done. They have not divulged the details of those studies as to how controlled they were or what the environmental conditions were, etc. There was a 30-40% comment made regarding spread from asymptomatic. That apparently came from a model. What data was fed into the model? Which model? We all know the models have been wildly wrong in many cases. Finally, they know that there HAS been spread from people who were asymptomatic, but don't really know how much. I would again add, under which circumstances, environmental conditions, age range, location, etc?

Intuitively, it makes sense using basic logic that somebody who is asymptomatic would spread it much less if they are not coughing/sneezing, than somebody who is symptomatic. That doesn't mean they CAN'T spread it, but it would logically be at a much lower rate, especially if you practice common sense behaviors like hand washing. One doctor suggested that asymptomatic spread might be from people breathing heavily from exercise or possibly singing/yelling, etc.....probably not just from regular breathing as has been suggested. So again, they have not done a good job as of yet of releasing concrete data from studies that would tie a rate of spread to specific activities, environmental conditions, etc. People will leave that piece of information out and pick the result that is either the best or the worst, depending on their agenda.

I'm going to continue going about my life in a way that makes sense which is relatively unchanged from what I was doing 3-4 months ago. I think when all is said and done, the data will come in line with my choices.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
[quote=Anderton]<...snip...>
By the way, World Health Organization is now saying that it isn't spread easily if you are asymptomatic. The "super spreaders" are the people with symptoms.
The WHO retracted that statement.

Florida partially re-opened 3 weeks ago and are not reporting record cases of COVID-19. Governor says it's because more people are being tested, but the newspaper says this is untrue - testing is about the same and perhaps even a little less.

So who do I believe?

I'll go with record confirmed cases after partial re-opening as evidence that it isn't going away yet, and isolating was working.

As much as I'm wishing thing were back to normal, I'm not going into the ocean until the shark fins have moved on.

I really miss gigging. I really miss going to the store without a mask and gloves. I really miss going out to dinner every once in a while. But it's better than getting sick - I make my living with my lungs (saxophone, wind synth, flute and vocals).

For now I'll continue to stay home and write more aftermarket style and song software for Band-in-a-Box. In a year or so when it's done, I'll have some income from it. I know that's a long time, but at least I'm doing something productive at home.

Insights and incites by Notes.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Originally Posted by J. Dan
[quote=Anderton]<...snip...>
By the way, World Health Organization is now saying that it isn't spread easily if you are asymptomatic. The "super spreaders" are the people with symptoms.
The WHO retracted that statement.

They didn't retract it, they clarified it, the media is saying they're "walking it back" not retracting it. I spoke to this in detail immediately prior to your post.

If you don't want to read my subsequent comments and instead quote my initial comment based on what they said Monday, I'll give you the cliff notes of what I posted afterwards:

"Spread is Rare if Asymptomatic" - based on a handful of scientific studies
"30-40% spread asymptomatic" - based on models (no detail of which model or what data was entered into the model)
"We know it has spread from asymptomatic but don't know how much" - latest comments that does not make any correlation to specific activities and/or environmental conditions

The main terminology being walked back was the specific term "very rare" because it gave the impression that you can't spread it without symptoms. You CAN spread it when asymptomatic but that doesn't mean it isn't rare. Again, no correlation to circumstances.
Originally Posted by J. Dan
I'm going to continue going about my life in a way that makes sense which is relatively unchanged from what I was doing 3-4 months ago. I think when all is said and done, the data will come in line with my choices.
Same here. The experts have been wrong and the models have been wrong on several occasions. Wear a mask, don't wear a mask...it can be spread, it can't be spread. You can walk on the beach here but not over there. 2 million people will die or maybe not that many, etc.

I've basically gone back to "normal", although I'm washing my hands more and not shaking hands. One of my bands is rehearsing again and long time friends had us over for dinner last week.
So while we're running around mumbling at each other through masks a huge European PCB manufacturer has built a new plant for expansion.......in China....

European PCB Manufacturer Schweizer Electronic Makes Strategic Move With China Expansion
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
And then suddenly it was perfectly okay to gather by the thousands to protest certain things but you still can't protest a lockdown.

Trust the experts...even if they are wrong or keep changing their mind based on their political stance.

On a related note, a blonde babe newscaster (who apparently can't figure out how Google works), stated that the media was vocal about Trump rallies potentially spreading corona virus, but quiet about the protests doing the same. I decided to see if that was true. Fortunately, despite being a musician, I know how to do an internet search.

I was actually taken aback by how much of the media did sound a warning, but also noted that a lot of these warnings were from "liberal" media. Here's just the first page of links. Many of them reference concerns from health experts, they're not op-ed pages. I didn't include a link to the Washington Post because it's behind a pay wall.

I just don't understand how supposed "journalists" can be so amazingly ignorant to state "facts" that, with 30 seconds of search time, are clearly fiction.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...oronavirus-cases-that-depends-2020-06-03

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...virus-public-health-experts-say-n1220551

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pikes-but-he-encourages-them/ar-BB156rZl

https://www.wtnh.com/news/health/co...in-covid-cases-hartford-healthcare-says/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/c...h&utm_name=Bing&utm_content=PSR3

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/04/coronavirus-newsom-spike-covid-19-ghaly-tubbs-pandemic/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/protests-pandemic/612460/

https://www.inquirer.com/health/cor...eader-outdoor-transmission-20200531.html
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
So while we're running around mumbling at each other through masks a huge European PCB manufacturer has built a new plant for expansion.......in China....

European PCB Manufacturer Schweizer Electronic Makes Strategic Move With China Expansion

Did you mean to imply they are not wearing masks in China?
Originally Posted by dboomer
Did you mean to imply they are not wearing masks in China?

If I'm implying anything, it's not that.
Coachella, Stagecoach music festivals canceled for 2020 on virus concerns

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...for-2020-on-virus-concerns-idUSKBN23H2CG
Originally Posted by PrairieGuy
Same here. The experts have been wrong and the models have been wrong on several occasions.

To be fair, they were also right on many occasions. It is highly contagious. No existing vaccine is effective against it. And there are other things we will simply never know, like whether the estimates of how many people would die if no mitigating measures were taken was right or wrong, because mitigating measures were taken. In the US, it's not going away overall. There are over 2,000,000 confirmed cases and 114,000 deaths, so that's a death rate of 5.6%, which isn't far off from what most medical people predicted. Now, some people say that there are really a lot more cases so the death rate should be lower, while others say the number of deaths is underreported, so the death rate should be higher. That discrepancy is on the people doing the statistics, not epidemiologists trying to get a handle on the disease. They said hundreds of thousands of people would die. So far 400,000 have died worldwide, and this isn't over yet. The rate of confirmed cases and deaths in the United States stubbornly refuses to go down; it has hit a plateau with another 1,000 people (give or take a few) dying every day.

Quote
I've basically gone back to "normal", although I'm washing my hands more and not shaking hands. One of my bands is rehearsing again and long time friends had us over for dinner last week.

I'm not a doctor. My gut tells me that those going back to "normal" will probably be okay. The odds of dying from COVID-19 are remote. You don't want to get sick either, but then again, you probably don't want to get any life-threatening disease, even if you know you probably won't die. The virus will keep moving, hitting some states harder, while other states diminish. It will go to countries where it hasn't hit too hard and start additional cycles. It's going to be around for a while, a lot more people are going to die worldwide and in the US...but you probably won't.

To judge experts as clueless because they had zero experience with something that had never existed before, and had to try and figure out what they were dealing with in real time, while it was happening, with governments pushing back on providing real data...I think that's a harsh judgement. Medical experts are not psychics. Science works slowly because it has to collect data and sort out what that data means. The experts are STILL, several months into this, trying to figure out exactly what this enemy is, and its modus operandi. People can say the countries that escaped relatively unscathed were lucky, or acted more intelligently than the US, or whatever. We'll never know. There is no alternate earth where we can set up a control group. We're ALL beta testers, in all aspects of this.
one of our forumites posted an article on Facebook that stated that 13 states had increases in covid-19 cases after "reopening". They went into great detail about those 13 states, then one sentence saying 16 states had major decreases in cases after reopening. Our forum friend was still trying to make the case that the 13 were significant while the 16 were not. Cherrypicking data. To me it says that opening vs not opening isn't the issue, it's how you do it. I'm not saying to go lick each others faces. Wear masks, wash hands, practice distancing where appropriate, but we can open safely. 13 increases, 16 decreases....seems like that favors opening despite the headline.
I watched a live news conference yesterday given by the LA County Health Dept. Lots of stats and some I can't remember but here are the very interesting highlights. First, LA county has 10 million people but has about half the total cases in California. LA's case count as of now is 67000 cases and just under 2,800 deaths. The stats:

1. 92% of the deaths involved underlying conditions. No definitions of what those are but we all know obesity, diabetes, heart disease all tend to go together.
2. 42% of cases are health care professionals, about 10% nursing homes and another 10% in misc other isolated cases like prisons and homeless shelters meaning over 60% of cases do not involve us "regular folks" who are not in those categories.
3. Hispanics are about 21% of cases but blacks are only 8%. I was surprised when she said that.
4. Total number of tests is just over 800,000 and they're expecting to hit a million this week.
5.. The positive tests vs total numbers of tests were running at about 8% but have dropped to around 5% in the last few weeks.
6. Finally the biggie. No spike is cases since the protests started on Memorial Day but they assume there will be in the coming week.

Interesting numbers for sure considering how big LA County is and the numbers of total tests there have been. This is a very big sample and as I've been talking about for months now, the California Mystery is still alive and well. These numbers are way, way lower than the other hot spots were around the country. Recently the numbers have declined but not to the parameters set out by the governor. Hospitalizations though are stable and have met the standard.

One final note, I read a comment that I had forgotten about. Roughly 100,000 people die in hospitals every year due to various infections they picked up in the hospital. It's getting late, I'm not searching for a specific link but I've heard similar numbers about that for years. Yet another variable concerning COVID deaths. Did they die of the virus or another infection they just picked up?

Bob
The one statistic that we are not mentioning and of course can't be measured is the number of people who don't die but end up with permanent brain, lung, kidney, heart or other organ damage.

I read that the rate of permanent damage is high, even for people with mild symptoms.

Encouraging news is there is a promising drug being developed in Russia based on a Japanese drug that stops the virus from replicating.

https://www.worldhealth.net/news/promising-covid-19-busting-drug-russia/

Science works its way through blind alleys, dead ends, red herrings, and eventually is let to good facts. Finding out what COVID isn't is a step in finding out what it is. Unfortunately there is no way to make the discovery process instant. But with all the people who are working on this, I'm sure it is progressing as fast as possible.

Notes
Originally Posted by J. Dan
. 13 increases, 16 decreases....seems like that favors opening despite the headline.

That says to me that averaging the data by state boundaries doesn’t tell you want you want to know. The real answer probably looks more like how much social contact people have or don’t have.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
The one statistic that we are not mentioning and of course can't be measured is the number of people who don't die but end up with permanent brain, lung, kidney, heart or other organ damage.

I read that the rate of permanent damage is high, even for people with mild symptoms.

Notes

This statistic can't be measured? And why not?

And the rate of permanent damage is high, even for mild symptoms? I haven't "read" that in my daily google feed, which overall doesn't shy away from articles designed to instill fear of the virus.

Anecdotally I know only 1 family personally, that has contracted COVID. A couple in their late 40's that got it from their little boy. They recovered at home and are now back at work, they're fine.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Anecdotally I know only 1 family personally, that has contracted COVID. A couple in their late 40's that got it from their little boy. They recovered at home and are now back at work, they're fine.


If it is confirmed that longer term damage does occur with kidneys, heart etc (and I agree it's not been 100% established yet), you wouldn't expect to see those affects immediately - could take months or years. We'll probably know in a decade if there's a defined set of syndromes / disease that result in chronic illness and/or early mortality.
Originally Posted by pinkfloydcramer
Anecdotally I know only 1 family personally, that has contracted COVID. A couple in their late 40's that got it from their little boy. They recovered at home and are now back at work, they're fine.

I know a lot of people. You get enough emails like this, and it changes your perspective.

"Unfortunately [my father has] been unconscious on a ventilator in intensive care over last 5 weeks in a location impossible for me to access. So opened up a huge new introspective process for me to bide my time with."
Originally Posted by J. Dan
To me it says that opening vs not opening isn't the issue, it's how you do it.

I was very disappointed when several states re-opened without meeting the conditions recommended by the government AND the White House. I wonder if those are the ones having the most problems.

Again, I can't recommend this site enough if you want to see where cases are rising, deaths are rising, what's falling, by how much, meaningful percentages of change, etc. I can see no partisan leanings at all, in fact the people who come up with the stats are doing so because they felt the CDC wasn't accurate enough. These were the stats used by the White House regarding coming up with re-opening guidelines.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and trying to push a solution that conforms to a particular political ideology is just plain stupid. And that goes for the right and left-leaning sides of the story, who are both trying so hard to outdo each others' stupidity.

I really think anyone in right-wing media should be forced to read left-wing media, and left-wing media should be forced to read right-wing media. Come to think of it, maybe one reason why this has remained a productive and inquisitive decision is because it's pretty clear quite a few people are reading both sides of story...so now they know enough not to trust either one smile
Now, here's a quote I can REALLY get behind - regarding the spike in some places but not others, and the cause:

“This virus is much more spotty,” said Arnold Monto, professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan School for Public Health. “It is so complicated that when people give you a simple answer to this, it’s probably not right.”
Originally Posted by Anderton
... it's pretty clear quite a few people are reading both sides of story...so now they know enough not to trust either one smile
That’s the real story that isn’t being reported or meaningfully analyzed - the media has failed miserably and continues to do so. It’s a a huge problem for our societies/culture. There’s something deadly disfunctional about the media + government combined driving the current stories of the day. Look how fast the virus fell off the radar and was replaced by protests and rioting - and I’m sure it will all be replaced again soon enough! The news is not reporting on what people are actually doing, ‘we the people’ are not driving the story; instead the story is about how we are reacting to the current news cycle, soon to be replaced by another news event and stories about our reaction to the “new” situation - ad nauseum. That kind of constant narrative whiplash and cultural A.D.D. Is not healthy for our societies and it’s subject to incredible abuse.
My latest "I read somewhere": Older people are affected more severely by COVID because they are lower on sex hormones, that protect against lung damage. So keep that testosterone level high! Apologies in advance for the comments and braggadocio sure to follow. lol.
Originally Posted by Groove On
Originally Posted by Anderton
... it's pretty clear quite a few people are reading both sides of story...so now they know enough not to trust either one smile
That’s the real story that isn’t being reported or meaningfully analyzed - the media has failed miserably and continues to do so. It’s a a huge problem for our societies/culture. There’s something deadly disfunctional about the media + government combined driving the current stories of the day. Look how fast the virus fell off the radar and was replaced by protests and rioting - and I’m sure it will all be replaced again soon enough! The news is not reporting on what people are actually doing, ‘we the people’ are not driving the story; instead the story is about how we are reacting to the current news cycle, soon to be replaced by another news event and stories about our reaction to the “new” situation - ad nauseum. That kind of constant narrative whiplash and cultural A.D.D. Is not healthy for our societies and it’s subject to incredible abuse.

Maybe I'm naive, but that's why I really like what's happening here. It's clear we have lefties and righties, BUT they're having a dialog. People are being respectful of each other. Of course we won't always agree, but we can understand that everyone has a reason to believe what they believe.

This forum reminds me of Democrats and Republicans in the senate, back in the 50s. They didn't always agree on things, but they wanted what was best for everyone...which usually meant some constituency wasn't going to get what it wanted. They just figured that was part of the deal, and they waited for their turn. Now, it's all "I want ME, and screw everyone else, I'm right, they're wrong, I'm entitled." What they don't realize is that we live in a society.

I'd also bet you could pick the most leftie from this thread and the most rightie, put them in a room, get them talking about music, and they'd walk out best friends...maybe even after solving some of the world's problems.

I like this little part of the world. I wish the larger part of the world was more like it.
Here's an article that summarizes what I've been saying for two months. The public was willing put up with being locked down and unemployed for a certain period of time but that time is up. As a society we're accepting the risks and moving on.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/502182-us-showing-signs-of-retreat-in-battle-against-covid-19

Mnuchin said basically the same thing yesterday:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/tre...we-cant-shut-down-the-economy-again.html

This is the new reality. Like the man said, this virus will be with us basically forever even with a vaccine so we have to accept it and learn to live with it.

Bob
Agreed, there probably won't be massive lockdowns again due to political and economic realities. Many more people are going to die before this gets under control. Most folks seem okay with that, considering the alternative.

But the lockdowns were then, and this is now. The first set of lockdowns almost certainly prevented a higher degree of spreading. I think even uninformed people realize that, because countries that locked down in the quickest and most complete manner are re-opening with the least amount of problems. They paid their dues, now they're reaping the rewards. Countries that minimized the problem initially, like the US, UK, Brazil, Russian, and Spain, are paying much heavier dues.

My biggest takeaway is that it didn't have to be like this. Hopefully, the lessons learned from the bumbling, chaotic response of the countries that got hit hardest will be taken to heart, so something similar in the future doesn't follow the same trajectory. It's like we set fire to a house, and then complained there wasn't enough water to put out the fire...so it's the water's fault.

And don't pin your hopes on a vaccine. Not only does one need to be developed and tested (to make sure that, y'know, pregnant women who get the vaccine don't give birth to two-headed demon spawn), a supply chain has to be developed to distribute it world-wide. Good luck with that. It's not over yet by any means.

Humans...can't live with them, can't live without them.

And don't forget what I've said about large-scale, x-class solar flares when one of the survivors says "well seriously...who would have thought that was actually going to happen?"
I consider myself a political moderate - I lean a little left on social issues and a little right on fiscal issues. -- 50+ years registered independent.

We are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Keeping in isolation hurts the poorest people the most. They are the ones that have to work to live, and the most dangerous jobs have always gone to the disadvantaged.

But not reopening will also worsen the economy. Financially this hurts everyone, from the CEOs, hedge fund managers, right down the line. A bad economy also kills people, and again, the poorest are the first to go.

On the other hand opening the economy will solve part of the economic problems, but spread the disease more rapidly. This will kill a lot of people too.

The question seems to be this to me: "Do you want to risk death or permanent organ damage for the DOW?" That's a very tough one to answer, and there is no right answer, it seems to me both Yes and No are in some ways wrong.

I don't read anything to the left of The Atlantic or the right of The Hill. From MSNBC to the extremes are over 50% false. From FOX to the other extremes are also over 50% false in the opposite direction. Politifact and other news fact check organizations all seem to agree on this.

In our local paper, a month or so ago, a 45 year old healthy, athletic man caught the disease and survived. It killed his kidneys and now has to get dialysis 3 times a week for the rest of his shortened life.

I read an article I think in Scientific American about the brain damage studies.

The American Academy of Anti-Aging medicine has outlined the permanent damage caused by COVID.

Our local paper swings a bit right, the other two are not left-wing publications but scientific reporting.

The USA has about 6 percent of the world population and about 30 percent of the world's COVID cases. Clearly this should have been handled better,

Florida is reopening and 3 weeks later is having daily record new cases. Is the death and disability rate worse than it would be if we stayed locked down and the economy fails and inflation goes crazy?

I don't pretend to know.

Notes
Originally Posted by Anderton
And don't forget what I've said about large-scale, x-class solar flares when one of the survivors says "well seriously...who would have thought that was actually going to happen?"
From what I’ve read, the sun has entered an excessively quiet state right now and it’s expected to be like that for quite awhile.

What I’m actually worried about is the Earth’s drifting magnetic field, if it flips or worse goes chaotic - like it has in the distant past, we’re going to be in for a wild ride. With all the craziness in our human world, it would be poetic if all of a sudden we had 3 magnetic norths and couple of magnetic souths, and a lot of electronics unable to function.

Just saying, it’s prudent to keep those acoustic imstruments in good shape and nicely tuned.
back to the virus smile

excellent article written by a MD, also a physician scientist, no politics

"Am I immune to COVID-19 if I have antibodies?"

https://news.yahoo.com/am-immune-covid-19-antibodies-121523168.html
Maybe we should all just SHUT UP!
Originally Posted by davedoerfler
back to the virus smile

excellent article written by a MD, also a physician scientist, no politics

"Am I immune to COVID-19 if I have antibodies?"

https://news.yahoo.com/am-immune-covid-19-antibodies-121523168.html

That's really interesting. The idea of a "proofreader gene" is fascinating. It's also encouraging to know that the immune system is fairly effective against it in the first place.
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara

No way Joe, we're having way too much fun. And I agree there is better balanced information right here than I get from a lot of the news.

As far as other cataclysms that have happened in the past my favorite is monster 1,000 foot waves that have hit the Pacific Basin from Mt. Everest sized landslides caused by various volcano's in Hawaii To anybody living anywhere on the West Coast of the US, just look at an elevation map. Then imagine what a wave that size would do and where it would end up. Interesting read:

https://www.livescience.com/25293-hawaii-giant-tsunami-landslides.html

As to the virus I think if the spikes in case get bad enough some will self isolate again and some will probably refuse to go to work. Others will ignore it and keep on keeping on. That's basically what a free society is all about, we'll collectively monitor the situation and muddle our way through while balancing the risks against everything else. This is why all the financial guru types I follow are saying the same thing. Things are gradually getting better and that will continue but the recovery will not be quick like the Administration hopes. Still way too much uncertainty for that and it all hinges on the same two things we've been talking about for months. A vaccine and/or good treatments.

Bob
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara

I would think German would be the worst...



laugh roll
After reading Bob Boilen's tribute to the 930 Club my friends and I wondered if he was implying 930 Club was really closed - as in, out of business.

Then I saw an announcement from them that they're going to open a popup restaurant soon.
So my wife got tested on Wednesday and she learned her result was negative earlier today, by association it's safe to assume I don't have it either. Although no one has a clue what's right it's with absolute certainty that I've gone out of my way to do it all wrong. Of course that's just the test to determine if one currently has it and I'm not sure when we might be able to get the test for whether she or I had already had it.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara

No way Joe, we're having way too much fun. And I agree there is better balanced information right here than I get from a lot of the news.
I hope you read the link. Typing is fine. No excessive ejections with that. wink

Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
As to the virus I think if the spikes in case get bad enough some will self isolate again and some will probably refuse to go to work. Others will ignore it and keep on keeping on. That's basically what a free society is all about, we'll collectively monitor the situation and muddle our way through while balancing the risks against everything else. This is why all the financial guru types I follow are saying the same thing. Things are gradually getting better and that will continue but the recovery will not be quick like the Administration hopes. Still way too much uncertainty for that and it all hinges on the same two things we've been talking about for months. A vaccine and/or good treatments.
I have a theory about the openings and about where things are going up and not going up. It's not the heat. Plenty of hot places in the U. S. and Latin America are climbing. It seems like the northeast isn't going up. They were hit pretty hard early. Maybe people up there are being more cautious, wearing masks, keeping distance, etc. because they saw how bad it can be both from how bad the disease can be and how seemingly randomly it can spread. In other parts of the country like around here in Texas, we weren't hit hard, the curve was flattened, and then a lot of people complained, pushed to open things up, and protested about wearing masks. So my guess is and it's only a guess, I have zero data except what I just wrote, that people in Texas and places like this that weren't hit hard aren't being as cautious by wearing masks, keeping distance, not going out except when they have to, etc.

Our mayor and county judge (administrator) are asking people to stay at home as much as possible, wear masks when going out, but they can't make them nor can they close businesses because the governor won't let them. He claims to be monitoring the situation but despite setting record numbers in Texas including in the Houston and Dallas areas, he hasn't reversed any openings he allowed yet, and I doubt he will.

I spoke to a doctor this week who told me when this started back in March one patient caught it and since then no patients did. This week, three of their patients tested positive, possibly a fourth but they were waiting on results. One of them had a stroke, and no other reason to have a stroke, but it turned out it was because of COVID-19. Meanwhile, this doc and the other physicians in their office have done hundreds of antibody tests and not a single positive result. In this doc's words, "it's gonna be a shitshow."
Originally Posted by J. Dan
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara

I would think German would be the worst...
laugh roll
Heh, good point, actually.
Blue Zones Interview

An interesting interview with one of the leading epidemiologists in the country. I think Joe Rogan interviewed this guy too.
Originally Posted by ToddP
Blue Zones Interview

An interesting interview with one of the leading epidemiologists in the country. I think Joe Rogan interviewed this guy too.

It doesn't explain where he's coming up with 5%?

"Right now, about 5% of the US population has been infected; although it’s higher in places like New York City and some urban areas, across the world it’s about 5%.". "When you think about only 5% of this country’s been infected to date, and you understand the pain, the suffering, the death, and economic disruption that’s occurred with just 5%, then you can imagine what it’s going to take for us to get to 60 or 70%.". "Well, I think you can do your own math in the sense that if 5% of the population has been infected to date and we have 100,000 deaths, it’s a 12-fold increase to get to 60 or 70%.". "So it would not be unreasonable to say based on what I just shared with you with 100,000 deaths for 5% of the population infected"

Any data on how he arrived at that number or did I miss it?
NYT's latest article on Vitamin D and COVID-19. The gist seems to be that getting some sunshine is good, no harm in buying some supplements, but don't go crazy and don't pin too much false hope

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/well/live/coronavirus-vitamin-d-immunity.html
Osterholm is the real deal and to answer your question about the 5% I think it's fair to say he is the source. There's a guy on the PG Music forum who works in the same field and knows him, he posted the Joe Rogan interview with him in early March I think. Unfortunately similar to the KC forum here, that thread finally got nuked over politics. Osterholm gives lectures and conducts seminars at universities and hospitals all over the world. That vid is about an hour and a half long so they really get into it. At one point Joe went away from the virus and asked him about using probiotics because of his close connection to the UFC. He kept baiting him and baiting him but Osterholm didn't bite. All he said is basically those things are useless bs in a nice way of course and tried to steer the conversation away but Joe kept pushing it probably because he's a spokesman for one of those companies or something. He nailed the prediction of what would and has happened and is one of the few who I would believe concerning further predictions and numbers going forward. In my opinion he should have been the voice of the Administration or at least be one of the primary interviewees on the news shows. I found the Rogan interview from March 10:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw&t=4524s For some reason this vid is not embedding correctly but it plays fine on YT itself.

I was about to post this and decided to find a more recent video interview and I found this from a month ago:



Man, this is not good. Here's a guy who's one of the foremost experts in the world in infectious diseases and he's saying one of his biggest worries is cases start to go down and not because anything we've done? In other words that's a big head fake and it means COVID 19 is following the influenza model meaning there will be a huge spike in the fall. Then he goes on with more good news.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
For some reason this vid is not embedding correctly but it plays fine on YT itself.

Delete the &t=4524s off the end and it will embed. That's a server side variable that tells it to start the video at a certain time. Those variables can't be read but the forum software so anytime there's a "&" at the end, delete that part of it.
Florida is having day after day of record cases. Over 2000 per day. This doesn't look good.

The third week of reopening started the spike, which is what some scientists predicted due to the average incubation period,

The government is even fudging the figures. A scientist who refused to lie to the public got fired. She started her own "dashboard" using freedom of information act but the gov't is fudging that info now.

Florida relies on tourist dollars, so I can see the incentive. My job also relies on tourist dollars. But should the people we elect to office be able to lie to us? I suppose that is as old as government but it's not the way I think it should be.
Well, Florida has a 21 million population. LA County has 10 and we've been seeing about 1,000 new cases a day for quite a while now so it's comparable. One difference could be the increase in cases has been fairly flat here. 2000 daily cases against a 21 million population it's a pretty small number imho. In LA anyway, 1,000 new cases a day is not enough to make a dent in our healthcare system. Also fwiw, I just had a telephone consult with my VA doctor about some recent lab work I had done. Everything is normal and I asked him again about cases at the big West LA VA hospital and again he said just a few. I find that remarkable considering a large majority of people I see there are mostly my age meaning Vietnam era vets plus there are several large assisted living facilities within a few miles of it. Yes, I know Osterholm says this type of observation really means nothing in the long term prognosis of how this virus will go. It's hard to know what to think but I certainly feel people our age still need to be careful regardless of what we see others doing.

Then there's this from Minneapolis/St. Paul:

https://www.twincities.com/2020/06/...-early-test-results-show-few-protesters/

Just another virus head fake? We actually should be concerned? I dunno.

Bob
I don't think we can go off of "reported cases" due to such differences in testing over time and differences state to state. All along, deaths and hospitalizations tell the story. Look at that trend. After all if all the cases are minor or asymptomatic, then who cares anyway, as long as we aren't getting hospitalizations and/or deaths?
City Enters Phase 4 Of Pretending Coronavirus Over
I read reports from a few fairly believable science ezines that say if your blood type is A you are most likely to be hospitalized and if your blood type is O you are least likely - all other factors being equal.

Being overweight seems to come up again and again as being a high risk factor for hospitalization as does other unhealthy conditions like hypertension, diabetes, heart problems, and so on.

And of course old age is another factor for hospitalization, but it seems not for getting the disease in the first place.

There are still a lot of unknowns out there, and science is collecting clues, discarding red herrings, and improving their understanding for prevention and hopefully either vaccine or cure.

Since I'm unemployed until at least late October, and that means I need to be frugal with my savings money, I'm staying at home for the most part anyway.

Notes
Finally, a common drug that reduces the death rate by up to 30%

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/16/steroid-dexamethasone-reduces-deaths-from-severe-covid-19-trial.html

Bob
Originally Posted by J. Dan
as long as we aren't getting hospitalizations and/or deaths?

That's particularly good since many hospitals are facing bankruptcy and up to 50% of staff have been furloughed while remaining staff is forced to take pay cuts but hey, we're really nipping this thing in the bud!
One of the major vectors for virus transmission is exposure indoors. We know the majority of cases came from homes, nursing care facilities and hospitals.

My corona weather forecast:
I predict as we head into summer we see an increase of cases in hot weather states as more people stay inside to stay cool. States with cooler and temperate weather will probably see a decrease in the summer as more people enjoy the outdoor weather.

For those places with 4 seasons, like NYC, I wonder if the spring and autumn weather will help to decrease cases, while increases might be seen in the more brutal summer and winter months.
Originally Posted by Groove On
My corona weather forecast:
I predict as we head into summer we see an increase of cases in hot weather states as more people stay inside to stay cool. States with cooler and temperate weather will probably see a decrease in the summer as people enjoy the temperate outdoor weather.

Interesting theory except that if that were the case, you would expect hot weather states to also have spikes in cold and flu during the summer. I'm not aware of that being the case.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal

It looks very hopeful - but the trials make a more modest claim overall than 30%.

The results suggest that one death would be prevented by treatment with dexamethasone among every eight ventilated Covid-19 patients, Landray said, and one death would be prevented among every 25 Covid-19 patients that received the drug and are on oxygen.

Among patients with Covid-19 who did not require respiratory support, there was no benefit from treatment with dexamethasone.


It was only "among the most severely ill Covid-19 patients admitted to hospital" that they saw "reduced death rates by around a third"

Which still registers Wonderful on the Good News Guage.

If an effective vaccine proves hard to produce, the other tack of treating those who have contracted in such a way that the death rate is reduced to "acceptable" levels, would be another way to wrestle this thing to the ground. Then achieving herd immunity would not be such a disaster in deaths.

ah, me - I'm looking forward to the day this is all "oh,yeah, remember when?" stuff....

nat
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
Originally Posted by J. Dan
as long as we aren't getting hospitalizations and/or deaths?

That's particularly good since many hospitals are facing bankruptcy and up to 50% of staff have been furloughed while remaining staff is forced to take pay cuts but hey, we're really nipping this thing in the bud!

Very true. I finally had my three month late periodontal dental appointment the other day. I asked her what she thought of all of this and she was basically pissed. She said shutting down all the dentists in CA was a joke. They know how to control this in their offices and wasn't worried in the least. She wore a full body medical gown, gloves and had what looked like a standard surgical mask plus a full face shield. So yeah, she was covered up way more than you usually see for a standard dental apt. Another new thing was a mildly unpleasant tasting liquid I had to swish around my mouth for 30 seconds to kill anything that might be hiding in there, then she proceeded. Her office was so busy she did the cleaning herself because her hygienist was totally booked. This is another example of regardless of what the virus does, we're not going to be locked down again. It was obvious to me my dentist won't put up with it and the way she talked it's probably most of them feel that way.

Bob
In the good news, bad news category: I read an article today, but unfortunately can't find the link. Bottom line is that it said casual contact with people, packages, etc. wasn't much of a problem. Prolonged contact with multiple people, particularly where ventilation is poor and there's lots of talking or singing, is the most problematic.

The way I read that is it's okay to dip into a store for a few minutes, or pretty much anyplace else as long as you're careful, but bars and concerts are problematic...which doesn't really help out my SSS bros.
Originally Posted by Anderton
In the good news, bad news category: I read an article today, but unfortunately can't find the link. Bottom line is that it said casual contact with people, packages, etc. wasn't much of a problem. Prolonged contact with multiple people, particularly where ventilation is poor and there's lots of talking or singing, is the most problematic.

The way I read that is it's okay to dip into a store for a few minutes, or pretty much anyplace else as long as you're careful, but bars and concerts are problematic...which doesn't really help out my SSS bros.

Well, I can back up the info you can't reference as to source with something I heard from a relative! (Is this hard science or what?)

Actually - my son-in-law is the Adminstrator for a sizable Dallas GP practice - the GPs are really on the front lines - and he has been saying basically the same thing. That the amount of time you spend with people is an extremely important factor. Carriers don't spread the virus all the time all day long, but only at certain short moments, doing certain things (like sneezing or coughing or talking right in your face, etc.) So the docs, seeing lots patients for short times, actually can be less at risk than the staff, working in the same area all day long with a few co-workers.

It's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.

nat
All I can say is that my cat and I have been snuggling closely for months and neither of us have caught the virus. She is elderly and has pre-existing conditions, including an unsightly cist on her back.
There are several articles today about a group of friends who all went to a bar in Jacksonville Florida on June 6 to celebrate someone's birthday. They all caught it plus 7 of the staff at the bar. Here's one: https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/06/17/16-friends-coronavirus-florida-bar/

The good news is this quote: Everyone in the group tested positive; and though some had flu like symptoms, none got seriously ill.

This was one of the five points that doctor wrote about in the Hill article I posted weeks ago. Let the young people go out and do whatever they want, it's unlikely they will get seriously ill and very unlikely they will get hospitalized and extremely unlikely to die from it. That's how you build up herd immunity. They're not stupid including the girl in the article, they know they need to protect their older family members. Give them another week or so, they're now immune and can go on with their lives.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Give them another week or so, they're now immune and can go on with their lives.

wishful thinking, I hope you are right. Science hasn't been able to prove this yet.

On another front : After Weeks Of No New Cases Of COVID-19 In New Zealand, 2 Arrivals Test Positive

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...9-in-new-zealand-2-cases-arrive-from-u-k

and this : Beijing extends movement curbs to contain resurgent coronavirus

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tain-resurgent-coronavirus-idUSKBN23O02G

New Beijing outbreak raises virus fears for rest of world


https://apnews.com/54374ff841dfd84323a1fb86d1e93180

strap yourselves in, folks. This long and bumpy ride is far from over
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
There are several articles today about a group of friends who all went to a bar in Jacksonville Florida on June 6 to celebrate someone's birthday. They all caught it plus 7 of the staff at the bar. Here's one: https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/06/17/16-friends-coronavirus-florida-bar/

The good news is this quote: Everyone in the group tested positive; and though some had flu like symptoms, none got seriously ill.

This was one of the five points that doctor wrote about in the Hill article I posted weeks ago. Let the young people go out and do whatever they want, it's unlikely they will get seriously ill and very unlikely they will get hospitalized and extremely unlikely to die from it. That's how you build up herd immunity. They're not stupid including the girl in the article, they know they need to protect their older family members. Give them another week or so, they're now immune and can go on with their lives.

Bob

I humbly advise that you consider these issues:

1. anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. What happens to happen in any particular situation with say, a dozen or so people, can't be extrapolated across to 300 million other people and used to make a telling point. Anecdotes are great for illustrations, but don't give a true grasp on a massive, complicated situation.

2. so, for purposes of discussion, let's grant your point, that the young people are probably going to be fine. They will still become carriers and, unless they quarantine themselves or practice very strict distancing/handwashing/mask protocols, they will spread the disease to not-so-young people.

3. Maybe the girl in the article was not stupid - having been young and stupid myself some decades back, I can 100% guarantee that young people as a whole cannot be relied upon to somehow just keep the disease among themselves. Even with the best of intentions, they can't live in a "young people only" world. Exposed people who socialize without precautions are...and this is in bold...a social menace with regard to this exceptionally communicable disease that is killing and killing and killing people by the hour.

4. Herd immunity is estimated to be achieved with 70% infection rate. The entire 15 - 54 year old population is still less than 50% of total US population. Herd immunity is still a disastrous scenario unless it's largely achieved via a vaccine that doesn't exist yet.

I would love to think otherwise, right? So I'm open to any and all corrections of my views....

nat
No, you're not wrong it's just many doctors have said and are still saying, basically this is just another covid virus. The others did produce immunity after infection and there's no evidence saying that's not the case now. You can call that a "glass is half full" thing. To further your point, we still have a long ways to go. Here's a sobering article about all the confusing things we don't know about this virus:

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/arti...oes-it-spare-15345984.php#photo-19561473

The big takeaway to me is right at the end where it says this:

Another wrinkle: People who have little history of viral infections tend to have more severe reactions when they get infected later in life.

Many older people on this forum and others have said they've been very healthy, haven't had any kind of cold or illness in years and imply they probably wouldn't get hit too hard even if they caught this because they're so healthy. I am also one of those but this statement says exactly the opposite. Those people actually would get hit harder because they've never built up a lifetime of immunity to all those things. Hmmm...

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Many older people on this forum and others have said they've been very healthy, haven't had any kind of cold or illness in years and imply they probably wouldn't get hit too hard even if they caught this because they're so healthy. I am also one of those but this statement says exactly the opposite. Those people actually would get hit harder because they've never built up a lifetime of immunity to all those things. Hmmm...

If you're up for some heavy reading, a couple days ago the CDC released a pretty comprehensive report on what we know so far. It mostly confirms existing knowledge - old people die, people with underlying conditions die, young people don't die much - but breaks it down further than just that.

Being an official Old Guy, my takeaway is to stay away from crowds.
I'm so tired of the "young people aren't affected as much" thing. When I see that a healthy woman in her 20s needed a double lung transplant after she fought off the infection because her lungs were destroyed, I don't think anyone can say for certain that this damned thing is easier on young people. Even if statistically it is, I think it can be way too devastating to take that risk.
Originally Posted by Groove On
One of the major vectors for virus transmission is exposure indoors. We know the majority of cases came from homes, nursing care facilities and hospitals.

My corona weather forecast:
I predict as we head into summer we see an increase of cases in hot weather states as more people stay inside to stay cool. States with cooler and temperate weather will probably see a decrease in the summer as more people enjoy the outdoor weather.

For those places with 4 seasons, like NYC, I wonder if the spring and autumn weather will help to decrease cases, while increases might be seen in the more brutal summer and winter months.
Ah, I've never liked living with Air Conditioning. I grew up in Florida before homes were closed up like tombs.

I have a white painted, insulating roof, and plenty of shade trees in the yard. It rarely gets over 80 indoors. I get birdsongs coming in the windows with the ocean breezes, and highly oxygenated, fresh air. The only time I turn on the AC is when guests come over, and since COVID, we have no guests.

They way I see it is that you can expose yourself, and it's playing COVID roulette. You could get mild symptoms, no symptoms, or end up in a hospital fighting death. The death may be a 5% chance as suggested (but not proven) or 20% (who really knows), permanent damage greater than that, (again who really knows) but you can't click Ctrl+Z or Undo if you end up in the hospital.

I read so many conflicting things from middle-of-the-road press and science articles, the one thing I'm sure of is nobody knows how many people have it, how many people who get it end up damaged or dead, and how this is going to end up.

Florida is having day after day of breaking records of new cases. And the state is fudging the figures to minimize the impact. People are dying. I don't want to take that chance.

Others do, and I guess it's all about our personal risk/benefit assessment.

Is a dinner out, haircut, or a night at a bar worth a chance at death or permanent damage to you?

The 15 ladies who went to the bar and all caught it aren't very sick - yet. And who knows, some people think their doing fine and weeks later, all of a sudden get a cytokine storm and end up on a ventilator.

I'm pretty comfortable at home, have zero debt, social security, and a wife who I could spend 24/7 with and it still isn't enough. That puts me in a good position to hunker down and be safe.

I do miss gigging though. It's my bliss. I miss the money, but most of all the pleasure of playing music to an appreciative crowd that seems like my extended family.

When the time comes, gigs will be back.

I'll patiently wait. How about you?

Notes
Yeah, I can wait somewhat patiently. As a 60-something, I've already got my stay-at-home stuff to do, the music studio, the books, the stereo, the yard, cooking, fixing the place up, the home gym setup, the bike, a great marriage, etc. etc. I can do this for a long time.

But I think a lot about the kids in high developmental stages, their lives being so disrupted at such critical times of life. There's a hard core of kids that just won't do distance learning. There's kids scared out of their wits while their grandparents suffer and die alone, in isolation. For the time being - no school bands, no school sports, no private piano lessons, no hanging out just being a kid with other kids, no kissing behind the stadium, no trips to the movies or Disneyland or rock concerts or parties at friend's houses, no field trips to the museum or library or zoo or state capitol or classical concert, on and on and on. It's a cultural gutting, being filled with lots of TV and video games and fear of everything outside the house. An entire generation is going to be majorly changed by all this emotionally, socially, sexually, economically, psychologically.

Sure, it's worse in war, of course. Cold comfort the old "but it could be worse", right? And consider there's no big cause to get all rah-rah about - no moral high ground to defend except trying not to get sick or make other people sick. The average person can't be a hero here, just a survivor.

And an altered "normality" to return to later. Oh, we'll survive, sure. But the cost will be counted for decades and decades to come. Hopefully our nation will get behind some serious preparedness for pandemics. That would help redeem the losses to a significant extent.

I think us oldies have it comparatively easy if you manage to not get infected, which is not that hard to do.

nat
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
Yeah, I can wait somewhat patiently. As a 60-something, I've already got my stay-at-home stuff to do, the music studio, the books, the stereo, the yard, cooking, fixing the place up, the home gym setup, the bike, a great marriage, etc. etc. I can do this for a long time.

But I think a lot about the kids in high developmental stages, their lives being so disrupted at such critical times of life. There's a hard core of kids that just won't do distance learning. There's kids scared out of their wits while their grandparents suffer and die alone, in isolation. For the time being - no school bands, no school sports, no private piano lessons, no hanging out just being a kid with other kids, no kissing behind the stadium, no trips to the movies or Disneyland or rock concerts or parties at friend's houses, no field trips to the museum or library or zoo or state capitol or classical concert, on and on and on. It's a cultural gutting, being filled with lots of TV and video games and fear of everything outside the house. An entire generation is going to be majorly changed by all this emotionally, socially, sexually, economically, psychologically.

Sure, it's worse in war, of course. Cold comfort the old "but it could be worse", right? And consider there's no big cause to get all rah-rah about - no moral high ground to defend except trying not to get sick or make other people sick. The average person can't be a hero here, just a survivor.

And an altered "normality" to return to later. Oh, we'll survive, sure. But the cost will be counted for decades and decades to come. Hopefully our nation will get behind some serious preparedness for pandemics. That would help redeem the losses to a significant extent.

I think us oldies have it comparatively easy if you manage to not get infected, which is not that hard to do.

nat

Well put. I remember how pivotal my first year of university was, and totally feel for those kids experience what they are at the moment...
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
I get birdsongs coming in the windows with the ocean breezes, and highly oxygenated, fresh air. The only time I turn on the AC is when guests come over ...
Here's on odd data point, that's been turning windmills in my head:

In February 2020, I visited friends on Boracay Island in the Philippines. It's a party/leisure island, sometimes called the Ibiza of Asia. The island hosts thousands of tourists from all over the world. It is a narrow, sun-drenched island so you're always breathing in a clean ocean breeze. Almost all activities are outdoors, and almost all restaurants are setup to enjoy the outdoors.

- It was corona free until yesterday (June 17) when a doctor who came from Manila was diagnosed. The larger province (Aklan) has reported only 3 cases (including the doctor). All cases were travelers who brought the virus from outside. Other than that basically corona free this while time.

Here's the kicker - all through Oct, Nov, Dec 2019 ... up until February 2020, it was receiving daily plane loads of Chinese tourists direct from Wuhan. To be exact, it had 6 daily flights direct from Wuhan - during the height of the China outbreak?!?

Make you wonder doesn't it?
Originally Posted by Groove On
Make you wonder doesn't it?

Sure does.
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Ah, I've never liked living with Air Conditioning. I grew up in Florida before homes were closed up like tombs.

Just to show SSS has an influence...after reading your comments on air conditioning, my girlfriend and I decided to try an experiment - no air conditioning.

It still hasn't been turned on smile And trust me, Tennessee gets hot in the summer!

What we found is that we've become acclimated. After coming in from swimming, it's great not be hit by a blast of cold air. We open up the windows and turn on the fans at night, then close everything up in the morning to trap the cold air.

I have a fan in my studio that cools the computer, not me smile

Admittedly OT, and I don't know if we'll make it through mid-July...but so far, we're digging it.
Originally Posted by Joe Muscara
I'm so tired of the "young people aren't affected as much" thing. When I see that a healthy woman in her 20s needed a double lung transplant after she fought off the infection because her lungs were destroyed, I don't think anyone can say for certain that this damned thing is easier on young people. Even if statistically it is, I think it can be way too devastating to take that risk.
Of course that's a very rare exception, just like a healthy 21-year old personal trainer dying from the flu:

https://time.com/5099042/influenza-deaths-flu/
C'mon Joe, nothing is 100%. The reciprocal of that is saying old people really are not affected that much because a few 85-100 year olds survived or saying smoke all you want because look at all these old folks like Groucho who lived to ripe old ages by smoking their whole lives.

Bob
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
Very true. I finally had my three month late periodontal dental appointment the other day. I asked her what she thought of all of this and she was basically pissed. She said shutting down all the dentists in CA was a joke. They know how to control this in their offices and wasn't worried in the least.

Bob

My wife is very much of the same opinion, she's recently returned to the clinic for in person appointments where she's a psychiatrist specializing in geriatric patients. When she goes in she must wear a mask as well as a face shield and be temp screened, patients wear a mask and are temp screened. She tells me the first thing they ask when they get in her office is if they can remove the mask and they conduct the appointment as normal human beings.

I finally got in to have a chipped tooth repaired myself recently. They had me text when I arrived and then notified me when it was time to come in. I needed a mask and they temp screened me. When I got to the chair though it was just like old times.

At the huge avionics/aerospace company where I work there must be at least 2000 people a day in and out of these buildings. This whole time they've had three confirmed cases yet the requirement here since some time in May is that everyone wears a face covering.

It's like we're all living in some kind of weird Twilight Zone episode where no one wants to admit how ridiculous this whole thing is.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
It's like we're all living in some kind of weird Twilight Zone episode where no one wants to admit how ridiculous this whole thing is.

That's an apt description for me as well. Multiply X 10 if you're newly trying to adapt to living alone, after years of having a family member with you. Weird times.

Last night 3 friends came over to rehearse in my garage for a gig, it was so great to hear music coming out of there and to be able to see them (mental health is a thing, too). One of them, my best friend and neighbor, has a nice kit set up in there, another one has a PA. Acoustics aren't bad at all. So I am plotting to use my cool (or more accurately, very HOT) garage as bait to lure other musicians to rehearse. Devious, I know.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
[quote=Jazzmammal]



It's like we're all living in some kind of weird Twilight Zone episode where no one wants to admit how ridiculous this whole thing is.

I have 2 acquaintances that have died from Covid 19. It was no joke.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...kers-covid-19-waterloo-perry/5170796002/

"Coronavirus infects more than 1,600 workers at four Iowa meatpacking plants"

Humans can learn to adapt , esp if its about 'inconvenience or ' change' if they have to.

Our grandparents and great grand parents adapted frequently due to the 1918 pandemic and 2 world wars.
We could learn from that.

Masks have proven to be effective deterrent to Covid.
I can understand feeling that the reaction is overblown. Here in Travis County, the counted cases as of today are 4,771 and the total deaths 106. This includes Austin, definitely a young people Mecca. The 2019 census counted 1,274,000 souls. So the deaths as a % of the population comes to 0.008%. Deaths as a percentage of known cases, 0.374%.

January 1 thru April 15, 2020 traffic deaths, 836.

It's not at all like this in many other harder-hit areas. So we have this "one size fits all" response to situations that are not at all equivalent. Seems unfair or stupid at times, right?

So why am I still totally onboard with all the precautions, the masks, the social distancing, etc.?

1 - I firmly believe the deaths would be a whole lot higher had the precautions not been taken.
2 - It ain't over 'till it's over. Do you drop your guard in a boxing match because the guy didn't land a good punch in the first round?
3 - since the U.S. has a piss-poor infrastructure with regard to pandemic response, the precautions we are taking is the best we can come up with in the context of public resistance and political lack of will.
4 - the kicker with foregoing precautions in low-incidence areas is one word - travel. Travel is the reason it's here in the first place.

Yeah, it feels stupid sometimes being so careful when, in my particular time and place, the chances of getting sick and/or dying are so low. But the mask cost me $2 and the distancing I kind of like except for close friends and family. So what's the harm? The mask doesn't make me bleed out of my eyes or anything. And peer pressure is for 12 year-olds.

It takes mass cooperation to make the precautions work. So I'm just one worker ant whose personal actions are probably negligible. But the overall cooperation is what keeps the big nest alive.

I recommend watching the Frontline episode on the South Korean response to the pandemic. Makes us all look like fools, really. Maybe we'll learn to be as smart and prepared. Maybe not.

nat
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
It's like we're all living in some kind of weird Twilight Zone episode where no one wants to admit how ridiculous this whole thing is.

I think it's more like living in some kind of weird Twilight Zone episode where the citizens can choose their news based on what they want to hear. smile

Anyone who lived through what happened in Italy (34,514 dead), New York (24,550), New Jersey (12,625), or Massachusetts (7,624) will tell you it was no joke. So will the medical people in those areas. I know some of those people, they have been traumatized from dealing with suffering and death beyond anything they had experienced before in their line of work. And these are people who see suffering and death every day.

On the other hand, anyone in Wyoming (18 dead), Montana (19 dead), Idaho (87 dead), or West Virginia (88 dead) could easily think it's a joke. People extrapolate what's happening with them to the world at large.

The wide variation in problems from state-to-state would give credence to the "let the states figure it out" policy. BUT...I think a "let the states figure it out based on a national strategy to contain it where it's bad, and keep it from spreading to states that are less affected," would make more sense. It would be a real shame if, say, Florida or Arizona could have pretty much ended COVID-19 in their states if only they'd waited one more month before opening up.

Quote
At the huge avionics/aerospace company where I work there must be at least 2000 people a day in and out of these buildings. This whole time they've had three confirmed cases yet the requirement here since some time in May is that everyone wears a face covering.

But is that due to COVID-19, or lawyers and insurance companies? If all of a sudden you had a meatpacking-type situation where hundreds of people were testing positive and getting sick, how many lawyers - seeing a huge company with deep pockets - would turn into ambulance-chasing attack dogs?

I'm still thinking there is no good solution, only less bad ones.
Originally Posted by Nowarezman
It takes mass cooperation to make the precautions work.

nat

Therein lies the problem because due to my, and others I trust, observations over these many months I refuse to accept that the majority of people can't get on with their lives. Note that it doesn't bother me in the least that others remain frightened or concerned but now that it affects my life even more I'm troubled and upset. I can't force myself to just go along with what makes no sense to me, I'm not built that way.
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
I refuse to accept that the majority of people can't get on with their lives.
It all depends on where they live, and how they act. If getting on with your life means going out in the world and doing errands, sure. If it means jamming into a sports bar with 100 people in a non-ventilated space and doing karaoke in a state where new cases are increasing by 50% in the past week (Florida) or deaths by 96% in the past week (Georgia)...maybe not so much.
And of course, if initially there had been testing, admitting the potential of the problem instead of minimizing it, and tracking/isolation of those who had the disease to prevent spreading it, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you would be able to get on with your life. This is why so many people consider how the US handled the coronavirus as an epic fail.
Originally Posted by Jazzmammal
C'mon Joe, nothing is 100%. The reciprocal of that is saying old people really are not affected that much because a few 85-100 year olds survived or saying smoke all you want because look at all these old folks like Groucho who lived to ripe old ages by smoking their whole lives.

Bob
My point is that I don't believe for a second that we know enough about this disease to say to any age group that they don't really need to worry about how badly it might affect them. We recommend flu shots for people six years and older. If we had a vaccine for SARS‑CoV‑2 we would be recommending it for the same people or whoever it was determined to be safe for. Why risk getting it?
Everything we do in life involves some level of risk mitigation....not elimination, because that's impossible. We choose to take a shower when you could slip in the tub. We choose to step outside even though you could get struck by lightning, shot, or all kinds of other things. We choose to drive even though car accidents are a common cause of death. We eat tasty bacon despite its risk to our health.

Risk MITIGATION. When you drive you make choices - maybe you pick a car with a good rating in crash tests, air bags, you drive safely. I'm paying attention to this right now - I signed up for a discount at Progressive where you install an app on your phone and it tracks your driving. Your rate can go up or down depending on the results. It gives you tips about safe driving and how to improve your score. One of them was not driving late at night, especially on weekends....not because of your driving, but because you're more likely to encounter drunk drivers. I didn't have to install the app and don't have to follow the guidelines. On the other hand, I could choose not to drive at all if I want to try to avoid all risk. Government Role? They have safety inspections, post speed limits, have traffic laws, and require wearing seatbelts. Reasonable, I think. They aren't imposing curfews or anything like that.

We all have choices to make in terms of our risk mitigation when dealing with this, and nobody should be shamed for their decisions, whatever they are. There is SOME role of government to issue loose guideline, IMO tighter on the local level based on the conditions on the ground, so to speak. I think we can go back to work (well, if I can find a replacement for the job I lost because of this) safely by just practicing common sense. Most of the folks on hear seem to have that common sense, and most of the people I've encountered publicly as of late are also showing common sense and mutual respect. But that's here - it seems some of you are seeing something different in your corners of the world.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
Ah, I've never liked living with Air Conditioning. I grew up in Florida before homes were closed up like tombs.

Just to show SSS has an influence...after reading your comments on air conditioning, my girlfriend and I decided to try an experiment - no air conditioning.

It still hasn't been turned on smile And trust me, Tennessee gets hot in the summer!

What we found is that we've become acclimated. After coming in from swimming, it's great not be hit by a blast of cold air. We open up the windows and turn on the fans at night, then close everything up in the morning to trap the cold air.

I have a fan in my studio that cools the computer, not me smile

Admittedly OT, and I don't know if we'll make it through mid-July...but so far, we're digging it.

Many years ago I took a job working as a Cable TV Field Engineer. This involved a lot of working outdoors and it gets hot in Florida too.

The guys who lived in AC were acclimated to 68-75 degrees and when it came to doing hard work outside, they just melted. I was able to carry on with energy.

I think that rather defeats the use of AC.

I think of it this way. "Up north" when September comes around and it gets 60 degrees people are cold and put on winter coats, because they have been acclimated to the heat.

Then after the cold winter, 60 degrees comes along and they are outdoors in shorts and T shirts.

If you live in 70 degrees and it's 85 out, it seems really, really hot. If you live in 80 degrees 85 is pleasant.

Plus Air Conditioners are not only an expense for the homeowner, but they contribute to global warming. They are the biggest household use of electricity and they also pump out hot air creating hot islands in cities. I read that the total energy use of Air Conditioners in the US is greater than the total industrial use of energy.

The old fashioned way of having a white roof and plenty of shade trees seems to me a better way for the earth, and a better way for me. Plus my indoor air is fresher and healthier.

I've also read that dry air makes your respiratory system both more hospitable to COVID and less able to defend you.

Notes
Originally Posted by Anderton
And of course, if initially there had been testing, admitting the potential of the problem instead of minimizing it, and tracking/isolation of those who had the disease to prevent spreading it, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you would be able to get on with your life. This is why so many people consider how the US handled the coronavirus as an epic fail.

Absolutely 1000%.

And not just with regard to the illness, but also to keeping economies going and people financially afloat while the period of strict and effective measures were in place.

nat
Just though you might be interested.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/live-nation-memo-pay-cuts-covid-1016989/
Originally Posted by dboomer

holy moly facepalm
Originally Posted by dboomer

Truly a wonderful company that takes care of its people
Originally Posted by Notes_Norton
The guys who lived in AC were acclimated to 68-75 degrees and when it came to doing hard work outside, they just melted. I was able to carry on with energy.
I moved to Texas from "the north" (grew up on Long Island, went to school in Maryland, worked in Michigan) and early on I noticed that while many of us transplants liked that it was warmer here, some native Texans were pretty addicted to A/C. They wouldn't just run it but would crank it down to low 70s or high 60s. That would drive me crazy. At one job, I had to keep a space heater in my office. I hated going to some stores in the summer because I'd be comfortable, then walk inside and it would be freezing. Getting stuck inside at a meeting or conference was torture, I'd sweat because I was clenching to try to stay warm. I'd love breaks to go outside and "recharge," stretch out and warm up my core. I still often carry a sweatshirt or hoodie to places where I'm going to be for a while like rehearsals.
Originally Posted by Anderton
Originally Posted by Greg Mein
At the huge avionics/aerospace company where I work there must be at least 2000 people a day in and out of these buildings. This whole time they've had three confirmed cases yet the requirement here since some time in May is that everyone wears a face covering.

But is that due to COVID-19, or lawyers and insurance companies? If all of a sudden you had a meatpacking-type situation where hundreds of people were testing positive and getting sick, how many lawyers - seeing a huge company with deep pockets - would turn into ambulance-chasing attack dogs?

I'm still thinking there is no good solution, only less bad ones.

I’m certain that is correct, the state legislature have quickly passed a law whereby people won’t be able to sue random businesses claiming they picked up the ‘rona at your restaurant or shop.

The wife and I are currently with some friends who have a home on the Lake of the Ozarks where we’ll be spending the weekend. Simple precautions, or what I like to call normal common sense behavior, will keep us healthy just as it has all along as we go out and mingle.
Yes, many people in warm climates overboard with AC.

When I was a child in South Florida, AC units in houses were rare. Almost everybody had white roofs and houses were built with cross ventilation in mind. Those who had AC used what we now call window units that were built into the wall. They were noisy.

Then came central AC and along with that came a home construction boom. Few homes have white roofs anymore because the heat trapped by dark roofs can be battled by cranking up the AC and burning even more carbon based fuel thus adding more hot air into the environment. The new people traded shade trees for green lawns, another environmental catastrophe. Instead of living with the environment, they came here and want to change it.

The town I grew up in had fewer than 2,000 people, now it has about 2,000,000. People move here, live in their Air Conditioned homes and complain about how hot it is. I could never figure that one out. There are climates in the US from tropical to permafrost, why intentionally move somewhere that has a climate you hate?

I'd like to see a ban on both home air conditioning and lawns, but of course I'm in the minority with that opinion and I don't expect it will ever happen in my lifetime. If you believe the majority of climate scientists by the time the robber barons admit there is a serious problem, we will have passed the point of no return anyway.

I'm glad I grew up when I did. I got to see the USA when it was at it's peak, the greatest country in the world, when even the German Chancellor drove around in a Detroit made Cadillac. If you had casual sex with someone the worst STD you could catch was completely curable in a week with a couple of injections of penicillin. The US had a thriving middle class. Landfills were called dumps and they didn't make mountains. The water was clean and the air clear except for a few huge cities.

My father used to breed tropical fish and sell them to pet stores. One thing you learn when you have 50 or so aquariums is that everything goes along just fine and is manageable until there are too many fish in the tank. When the population crowds two things happen (1) the fish get aggressive and violent as they compete for limited room and resources and (2) diseases that are very hard to stop run rampant and can wipe out an entire population.

Life lives on life. Everything is a food source for something else. We are not the top of the food chain but a member of the food cycle. We don't have to worry too much about lions and crocodiles, they don't take enough of us to limit the population. What feeds on us are the tiny things. Mosquitoes, sand flies, bacteria, and viruses.

When the tank is not overcrowded, the little feeders don't wipe out the big food. When the tank has too many fish, the little feeders wreak havoc in the aquarium

So the way I see it is this. World capitalism demands perpetual growth to continue to prosper, and we who depend on that system buy into it. But we have passed the limit. This perpetual population growth has hit the tipping point to where there are too many people in our ecosystem (tank) and we have become the biggest food source for the tiny things on the planet. Those tiny things will evolve to exploit this food source, and COVID seems to be one of those who have successfully adapted to feed on us. The fact that there are too many of us is evident by the amount of pollution fouling our aquarium Earth just as too many fish foul their tank and upset the equilibrium.

Of course this is all non-scientific opinion based on my observations and experience, and I could be totally wrong about it, so think about it, but don't take it as gospel truth.

Insights, incites and musings by Notes
We are finally getting more useful descriptions of what we have. This is about Covid-19 variants.

Local Chicago news picked up a story from Northwestern University because it noted a variant that appeared to be centered in Chicago.

Cautions:
this is a small study with analysis based on the analysis of 88 subjects.
the source is a research preprint (before a peer review)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20107144v1

Quote
...we examined the genome sequences of 88 SARS-CoV-2 viruses from COVID-19 patients in Chicago, USA and identified three distinct phylogenetic clades. Clade 1 was most closely related to clades centered in New York, and showed evidence of rapid expansion across the USA, while Clade 3 was most closely related to those in Washington. Clade 2 was localized primarily to the Chicago area with limited evidence of expansion elsewhere. Average viral loads in the airways of patients infected with the rapidly spreading Clade 1 viruses were significantly higher than those of the poorly spreading Clade 2. These results show that multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2 are circulating in the USA that differ in their relative airway viral loads and potential for expansion.

I think the most significant feature of the research is the higher "Average viral loads in the airways" associated with Clade 1.

April 9 we had this story that pointed to the variant from Italy as the source of infections in New York. At the time Dr. Fauci acknowledged that this was "probably correct."
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-...ted-europe-study-finds/story?id=70062642

The Beeb has a story on waste water samples that present a timeline:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53106444

Quote
Italian scientists say sewage water from two cities contained coronavirus traces in December, long before the country's first confirmed cases.

The National Institute of Health (ISS) said water from Milan and Turin showed genetic virus traces on 18 December.

It adds to evidence from other countries that the virus may have been circulating much earlier than thought.

Chinese officials confirmed the first cases at the end of