Chisoxfn

Awesome story - Thanks for sharing and I LOLD hard at the last sentence. That is Jordan in a nutshell.

Was at that game. Was such a great game.

What happened?

It would be a death sentence to baseball. I think worse than the 94 strike. One thing to cancel because of the virus, another because of money (at a time when we are facing record unemployment).

I am going to guess big pharma started racing on a vaccine as soon as the outbreak in Wuhan became large enough. By that point, there was enough potential money to do more work. I don't think Big Pharma waited for any government funding to do what they would have needed to do (because potential profits & PR benefits of being the Company to solve this thing would be massive). Now the government could have created broader collaboration networks sooner and for all I know maybe they did those exact things (just kept it quiet...but with this regime if they did anything worthwhile or even somewhat worthwhile they would have talked about it from a mountaintop).

Tex - You hit on a key point I think others aren't discussing. If we know there isn't a vaccine for 3 years, should we hold and wait 3 years with limited our entire way of living, or at that point, is it just manage the entire way through this thing, focusing on ensuring that our hospitals can handle the surge and where surges exceed, manage back through until we get through this entire bugger. Maybe we target higher levels of continued quarantine for the most high risk population to buy further time for better treatments? The part of me that is bugged by this is, it certainly seems like we've seen areas / other countries who have knocked this thing out better and faster than us and why should we be talking about a much different containment strategy than others (unless we believe our data indicates that there is truly no containment and no matter what these other countries have done, at some point, 1 year from now or 2 years from now, they are going to deal with everything. I consider all of the above a worse case scenario because it essentially means we have no choice but to slowly manage to herd immunity.

I might be naive, but the way the message is delivered matters. If the message is delivered and notes that as part of our plans to open up the economy/states in a measured and safe way, we will be requiring social distancing and use of masks within all stores. This is to ensure we can safely re-open our economy and these measures will, in part, help ensure we can continue to maintain a re-opened economy. I'd also highlight the extreme benefit in wearing the mask (in a simple fashion). I think if you had a united message from the president in chief all the way to the states, you would see any protests being an extreme minority (and no matter what you do, someone is going to complain). When the message is mixed and unclear, than I think it leaves/causes more of those challenges. Obviously the science needs to support this, but I see no reason why the science wouldn't support the fact that if everyone wore masks (and if we did it sooner), we probably are much closer to wiping this thing out (earlier use of masks with a more coordinated social distancing effort).

Would a Michigan security guard have that incident happen if we had a federal mandate? I get it, people are always going to complain. Even if you softly policed it, wouldn't you still be better than the alternative? I get it, I don't like being told what to do, but by wearing a mask, I can freely enter a store and have freedom to get what i need. We have laws in place that require people to wear clothes in stores too.

I will point out - while there are data gaps, I know 60K+ in additional deaths, despite social distancing, tells you that COVID is serious (and worse than a flu). What I think there are major challenges on is how much more severe (10 times worse; 100 times worse; 5 times worse). I also know that this virus seems to be a superbug where it can massively infect certain areas, so if a high risk area is all together and one person has it, it can spell absolute doom (i.e., a nursing home or say a weekly church group full of more elderly individuals). So to me, the data is clear that we need to act on this. How you act and what response is taken and how long different responses are needed, its tough to say, and I can't pretend to know the data that is driving the various decisions and what the net cost is to the different decisions.

Nope - But I will try this next time. Thanks B!

Yeah - My post quoted you but I was really building off what you were talking about (so not really a "counter" to you...more of a general counter). Like I have said on here all along, there is no perfect choice and those making these decisions have to consistently be learning from the information as it comes in and pivoting on their decisions. I tell people all the time (and I live in a data world and all I do for a living is enable data driven decision making), that with just limited info, I can make data tell any story I want. There is a power with data but also a responsibility that comes with data and ensuring you have a 360 view of the choices you are making (i.e., a complete picture to enable the best decision knowing the relevant risks and counters).

I simply don't understand why we don't require masks to be worn. Period. You are close to people - Wear a mask. And I hate wearing the mask, in fact, it is probably the thing that bothers me the most, because with glasses, I walk around my local costco (getting my full supply of groceries for family + my mom) and literally am walking around not able to see half the time (thankfully I know the store). But whatever - In grand scheme, my glasses being fogged is a small price to pay for the fact that by wearing the mask, I dramatically reduce the fact that I get anyone else infected (in the case I am asymptomatic carrier).

It is the counter to this. How many more people are becoming addicted to opiods or alochol or anything else during this time. How many more people are becoming more obsese or increasing chances of diabetes, etc. How much more mental illness and impacts of elevated stress for those people who have lost their jobs and or are stressing job loss. Maybe it is nothing, maybe it is "Yuuuge". I don't know, but someone should be understanding all of those dynamics and knowing what the impacts (good and bad) are to the decisions that are being made.

It isn't easy - But there is a need to massively test those facilities, so you know what you are doing with. If a facility has no one with the virus, than you need regular monitoring of all the patients (and nurses) to ensure it stays that way and if there is a blip, you have an immediate plan to shift and contain (for the greater good). And for those facilities who have issues - than they need to tackle them in as proactive and aggressive of a manner as possible. Than again I don't get the hypocry from the White House. They are finally instituting what everyone has been saying but only for them. If it is what is needed to keep them safe, shouldn't we be doing it for the general population. By the way, the big essential factories where it is difficult to social distance and get the job done...well those places of business need to be GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND on everything they can control. Daily temperature checks, regular testing of employees, etc. Again this would be a higher risk area given the close nature of the work being done and thus a higher risk for an outbreak. Tackle and monitor accordingly. We can't use a one size fits all approach. This has to be a targeted approach across many avenues and the response thus far has been pathetic. Testing the entire population may just be too hard because of our size (I would argue anything is doable in this country...anything....we just need to ensure it has the right priority and focus). But if you can't do that...test smart and be smart. Ensure targeted extreme measures where appropriate and than good homogeneous population and testing so you have good views of your more generically exposed population.

The hard part is, most people don't have that luxury (as the cost of at home care, especially for someone in that state, can be extensive). Even than, you are trading one risk for another (but in this case at least it is 1 or 2 health providers vs. an entire facility). But I know if my dad were in a facility and I had any possible ability to care for him, I would do so (unless I had extreme confidence in the facilities controls).

What is everyone on here's view around nursing homes. I had read a couple articles highlighting that ~1/3rd of the US deaths were from assisted living facilities (and in NY I think the # might have been worse). We all know that certain populations are more at risk and in particular age is one of the big triggers and when you combine age and fact that people in assisted living facilities are not usually in perfect health, you end up with a really at risk population. How is it that through all of this, the fed and states haven't came up with a much more targeted approach to tackle and aid what is the absolute highest risk portion of our population. I don't know the answer but from what I've seen from caufield (who has family in this situation) and I'm sure many others on here, it certainly doesn't seem like much effort is being put into the equation. From a prevention magnitude, shouldn't these facilities be mandated (and be given support) to do much more rigorous cleaning & testing and be given resources for regular testing (I know difficult to do given how many facilities that exist, but it would seem like a wise avenue to invest such funds (given massive risk that exists in these areas).

I just know my wifes work is supposedly sending everyone back to the office last week of May / 1st week of June (with no real changes in precautions). I'm to the point where I'm going to tell her to quit because I think what they are doing is absurd (and because we have a child-care need that they are ignoring and currently no childcare is available for us - not that I would send my kids aggressively before it would be safe). She should be able to work from home and continue to work from home (as she can effectively work remote and I believe in the cases we can effectively work remotely, we should be having people do exactly that). I think every company that can should be doing that (as it will help ensure for those jobs who can't that we are creating paths for them to get back to work faster and in a more sustained environment). And it means we can prioritize "child care" normalization for those who are essential 1st (i.e., 1st line responders and people whose total economic livelihood depends on them being in a retail setting). For example, I am in a similar situation as her (but obviously work at a different company) and I will be WFH through at least September. I have told people who work for me who have childcare / elderly care issues during these times that those items will be prioritized and if need be, I'll support WFH longer (what do I care where the work is done as long as it is done and done right). I expect them to do their job and those expectations don't change but I certainly am going to give them the flexibility to handle key family situations (as that is 1st priority). I'm glad I'm not put in a position where my organizations view(s) around people and treatment in this scenario don't align with my personal views as it would put me in a tough position (and for those who haven't figured it out by now, I'm not a shy individual when it comes to my opinion - even when it differs from the majority). PS: I absolutely hate working from home and don't like the idea of doing it for another 3 months while juggling everything else. I would much rather be at the office today, etc, as to accomplish what i need to on a daily basis, it takes me more time now than it did, but you know what, I'll live with it cause I'm lucky to have a job (*knock on wood*) and its a small price relative to what others are actually going through. I know one day things will get back to normal and if I did what I could to ensure that "normal" comes sooner vs. later and with the least amount of aggregate pain, than I can look at myself in the mirror with a straight face (and better yet be proud of how I've treated those indirectly dependent on me (i.e., my team).

I go back to....we probably can't get everyone to be as extreme as what is asked so behaviorally you have to be careful of what you wish for. We could say we do X and it is all done, but I don't think our society handles that. However, we should have everyone wearing masks in public places (indoors). If you are outdoors and away from people, that is up to each person and what they are comfortable, but until this goes away I think just having everyone wearing masks when indoors and/or tight spacing is huge to reduce transmission amongst asymptomatic carries (and people who just skirt the rules and go out anyway). I think you get more general buy-in and long term effectiveness (outside of jailing people - which I don't think as a country will go over well) if you open things slowly but require masks, etc vs. go cold turkey or force people to make up their own minds. I just don't see why anyone would really complain about wearing a mask if they are given more flexibility to do what they are comfortable with (obviously within reasoning and with right testing in place). I think one of the keys to some of the countries successes have been around the widespread use of masks. In hindsight, if we shutdown a bit more rapidly and required masks faster, I think we would be in a much better spot, having not experienced a New York and talking about how we might be able to regionally contain this bugger. We haven't and I know I'm in the minority on this board (but when I talk to my neighbors and others, I seem to be in the majority) who believe there is a balance to everything when it comes to how much everything needs to be shut down but that analysis has to be given very targeted and careful considerations that weight fewest loss of lives and LT economic considerations (and this has to include considerations of what high unemployment rates & LT stay effect stay home has on individuals underlying health (emotional and physical). This includes fact that there is just elevated mortality from people not actually seeing dr's and getting normal treatment.

I went to pick something up on Sunday (and I'm in CA) and it felt like much more normal weekend traffic than any recent week. As I was driving, so lots of places with long lines, etc. I don't know if it is the combination of warm weather & mother's day or if it is just macro fatigue over everything. This weekend was very different from any recent weekend (no doubt about that).

Congrats jack - that is awesome news!!!

Flip Flops while working (my garage is my office); Shift to my running shoes while going on walks / bike rides with kids.

I'll go with the Bears...mainly because It at least has a Chicagoan sports moniker.

None of which is even close to being right or okay.

You and I will not see eye to eye on this (and I understand this). My opinion is There is a trade off and there has to be one. We make trade offs every day as a society. If the answer was do x or do y than you need to evaluate pros and cons to x and y. That is a fact. Do you think the USA would act the same based upon below sets? Should they act the same? I would argue they shouldn’t. I will admit I don’t have any data so I don’t know what we are talking about when it comes to the net impact. I do know that you and I would agree that if this government did a better job responding we wouldn’t be in our current state (and it was this type of scenario that drove me to absolutely not vote for Trump). Situation 1: Bad flu or flu like virus. Model projects additional 25k deaths in us (with no intervention). Intervention can reduce by 75%. Situation 2: New virus, minimal immunity. 500k - 1M deaths (with no intervention); intervention can reduce deaths by 75%. Lets assume intervention in either scenario looks like what we are doing for covid today. What decision do you think is made under both scenarios.

I'm using this time to remember what is really important. Its the time with those you are close to (family and/or friends). It isn't the regular trips to the mall or any of the other non-sense. In fact, the only thing i personally really miss (outside of being able to see friends) is my attachment to live sports (forget attending in person - just being able to watch). But I try to be a glass half full kind of guy (whenever and wherever possible). Now I'll caveat that times like this clearly bring on additional stress - but I've calmed significantly from when we first started locking everything down; I'll do the best I can and will hunker down and fight through however I can and have built up good relationships with our neighbors (that didn't exist before) and I know if things got bad, we'll find ways to help each other too. But I very much worry about the economy and how deep this cut will be and obviously worry about what will happen over next 3-24 months (or whenever this thing ends).