Chisoxfn

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).

I said very early in this thread, we can come out of this crisis stronger & more together. We can fund a lot of cheap infrastructure growth & ultra low interest rates and do things that can create massive jobs and overall sustainable growth in our economy (after we get through this) but only if we can come together as a society and get real progress in Washington. The current environment (and I WILL CONTINUE to blame both sides of the aisle) is doing nothing but driving greater differences and non-existent change (just worthless talk on both sides).

Greg - I'll give you what my day looks like (and I will caveat that I'm a lucky family that in which both my wife & I have thus far maintained our jobs *knock on wood* ). I'll give a before & after. But let me just say that my personal day is nothing like what you describe above (and despite all the challenges I know damn well that I am very lucky to be in the situation we are in (and hopefully we can remain in this situation). Before Virus: - M:F = Wife = At work @ 6:00 AM - Gets off Around 4:30 & Goes to Pick Up Each of Our Kids; She is responsible for Dinner Mon-Thursday and kids homework etc (we prep over weekend, so largely we can reheat food that we had cooked in preperation); I get home for bed-time routine with our kids (most night...unless I have to work late in which case I'll work very late so I can be home @ reasonable time other nights) - M;F = Me = AM take kids to school (each go to seperate school); Get to work around 8:30 and am at work until 6:30-7 most nights; During my busy time (quarter-end / year end / plan & budget season), I have a couple nights each week that are much later; By and large lunch is at my desk (in between meetings) and/or eaten during a meeting; Nights I get home, spend time with kids (story time is my thing with the kids, talk to them about their day, and tuck them in to bed). If busy...get back and do a bit more work (if there is anything urgent...again...need to do because I have drop-off duties for kids). Weekend: Family time; Youth Sports / Other Activities / Hikes with family or just General Adventures (usually we get in quite a bit of physical activities, etc and than have relaxing dinners at home; maybe grab lunch out and get together with extended family) With Virus: - Both of us continue to work. The only thing that has changed is, we don't commute (which is great I might add). Instead, schooling our children (5 & 6 years old) has pivoted to our responsibility. This is on top of our normal commitments to work. My wife & I are still expected to do what needs to be done work wise and we both try our best to make sure we are delivering for our kids. Neither of us are school teachers, so are we perfect, no, but we do the best we can and basically this becomes a new focus for us during the day where we will prioritize time with them. We make sure to each dedicate time (when we aren't in meetings, etc) to just hanging out with them (and this has been truly fantastic - something we don't regularly get to do). But whatever we put in with the kids, we make up later on @ night as we still have our work responsibilities, which, have largely gotten more difficult (post COVID vs. pre COVID). More analysis, unique tech challenges, etc. We make sure we eat lunch & dinner as a family each night and get out on a nightly exercise too (really key for us - because being cooped up is hard); To extent we can...we also try to do during lunch. - Weekends aren't actually that much different (pre vs. post), other than youth sports are shot and instead we spend our own time playing outdoors, going on bike rides, just getting good outdoor time. And of course everything is spent with us as a family (vs. with friends), with exception that on Sundays, we still have them see their 2 cousins (shame me all you want - but we are both complying and it is a risk I'll take (*knock on wood*). I also (individually) go on a weekly run to the store, where I buy a weekly food supply (I bought a bunch of frozen meat & veggies when the initial pandemic hit and have just been buying weekly fresh food allotments that cover my weekly needs at this point; if things went south, I have a few weeks of frozen meats & veggies before having to switch to canned beans, pasta, etc). - Personally speaking - I've never been more tired because I'm working more hours (not less) and adding in schooling my kids (because virtual learning puts 95% of the work on the parent vs. the teacher (at least at my kids age - and everyone I've talked to with kids in similar ages have had the same views). Good news is my kids emotionally are 110% okay (other than being scared by the fact that my wife & I are just not nearly as effective to trained professionals (& not as patient) when it comes to teaching various curriculum). - Spending Wise - I am spending less money now vs. before because we eat in 85-90% of the time (w/2 takeout/pickup meals a week (+ an iced coffee on the weekend); we pick local restaurants we like and make sure we order from them to support them and than have been tipping more to try and do our part (since we are lucky to maintain our jobs). We'll do that as long as we can continue to do so (and again...very much frequenting the places we like best).

THey'll do the job. Nothing is perfect, but by and large, I think the key is something is much better than nothing.

Plus Vitamin D may actually have a positive impact on an individuals ability to fight this (in general Vitamin D is good) and exercise and being out flat out counters the risk of increased diabetes, hypertension and everything else from people being locked in their houses consistently. A happy medium is opening things up, but requiring mandatory masks (I don't get why this isn't just a fed thing - it flat out works) and be reasonable about what you open up (i.e,. no amusement parks, no full openings of restaurants, no fans in attendance to live sports). Keep those crazy things in check until this thing has passed. If we do this...I think they can keep things manageable. There is obviously going to me more infections with the above than a complete stay at home order, but I also think in general it is likely a happy medium that will manage economic devastation with human devastation (i.e. lives lost). There is some trade off and I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision on that.

And lets cherry pick the fact that even if deaths are understated by 2x, the actual cases are understated somewhere between 10 & 50 times. I think you have to consider both aspects of the equation (and I personally don't believe deaths are understated by a magnitude of 2x). But I could be wrong. New York might have 20-25% infected and an overall state wide mortality rate of .2% (looking at aggregate population). And that .2% is elevated by fact that they couldn't actually keep up with cases (which is real and clearly elevates mortality rates). If you assume 20% of population and get to some stat where 80% is infected over course of next 1.5 years, you are looking at a .8% stressed mortality rate (since the .2% is based upon some level of stresses). Obviously this stat can be scaled up / down based upon how much you think the actual state has been infected. I would hope over time, all of those numbers would be scaled down as our doctors are learning how to better treat the virus (both in terms of up-front actions that can be taken & as well as with various treatments that emerge). All of the above is why it is important to bend the curve to us to build up a time to better learn how to treat and/or come up with a vaccine.

Allen Robinson is the only guy. And I think they will have him resigned during the offseason.

Me too. Franchise is like $26-$28M so either way not a big deal.

Foles only positive over the other ones you listed is fact he has familiarity with the Bears system. That is it. I get why Bears did it, but I don't have to like it. Dalton is a superior QB (at least career wise) and Cam is clearly best of the group (when healthy). Winston was always a guy I would have liked to take a change of scenery chance on. He likely doesn't stop being a turnover machine, but if you can limit that, he's a pretty good QB who might have his best years ahead of him. Pace did the safe thing, which is not his usual MO, but I think this is because he feels cornered to some extent and because he is obligated to get Nagy the guy he wants (so Nagy can show that he isn't just a flash in the pan). I just don't know why they so quickly bet on someone as mediocre as Foles. I agree with everyone who says Bears need a playoff appearance for Pace to keep his gig (and Nagy for that matter), but still, this was a rare off-season where you could have really upgraded the QB position (or done better than Foles).