Magox

I remember telling my wife in early March when we had our trip planned to NY that we had coming, that we should think twice about posting our pictures on social media. My wife looked at me completely puzzled, like "WTF are you talking about?" And I told her that there was going to be a social shaming movement that would be coming very soon for people who are going around freely, having fun with no social distancing. Keep in mind, at this time there were no social distancing measures except in Washington State. So the very idea that I brought this up was not something that was in the mainstream....But I sensed it was coming. Now, I sense that the pendulum is swinging. People and not just righties, but people in general are going to be sick of staying at home. If there is a perception that local/state governments are being overly cautious at the expense of their livelihoods and civil liberties, I believe you will see a shift in public sentiment firmly against this. I think Trump has got a good pulse on this and for those policy makers that resist people at least returning to some level normalcy with too much caution I believe will be punished at the polls

I wouldn't be surprised to see some realignments from a socioeconomic standpoint. I could see people moving slightly more towards a libertarianish bent if these social distancing and infringement of civil liberty policies persist.

It's gonna suck. But I believe we'll get there, just that it will take some time. I know Trump believes it will be a V recovery, I just don't see that happening.

For sure, but that's not what I was implying. I'm taking into account businesses permanently shuddering which there will be lots and eventually new businesses replacing them in some sort of capacity. And that full economic activity won't return to pre Covid 19 levels for some industries for at least 30 months.

Unfortunately, I don't think people are going to come back in droves in the airline, hotel and vacation business anytime soon. Or for that matter a number of other industries, until the public perception believes that the Virus is pretty much under near full control which won't be until after a vaccine. And even then, it takes time for the Vaccine to be applied to the masses and then there is still the economic fallout that will take time to rebuild. I don't see places like Vegas or South Beach being what they were for probably another 30 months or so. That's not to say that other industries won't recover sooner than that or even all hospitality businesses. There are a number of variables involved. The two big keys will be: Public perception, when the public feels safe to go back to life pre COVID 19. And the economic fallout, how long will it take to recover?

To me that should be the standard. The question is based off of the data at hand, what is the best way to maximize the economy without overwhelming the hospitals.

That's not what I was suggesting. What I was saying was that due to governments world wide applying self-imposed lock downs and/or heavy social distancing measures that people are becoming unemployed, businesses are getting destroyed and therefore more people are moving into poverty.

Right, but that doesn't mean there should be reckless abandonment as well. You can do both.

We were somewhat discussing this topic earlier in another area but I think it deserves its own thread. This is going to be a long thread, so I apologize and I don't expect most to read it. If policy makers are going to make huge impacting decisions then I think it's important that the overall picture is considered with as much reliable data so that decisions based off of science-based statistical analysis are considered with more weight as opposed to allowing fear drive eventual outcomes. Right now, I don't think there is a clear message that is being communicated from Federal, State and local governments on what is driving policy regarding CoVid. It seemed to me that what was dictating policy was "flattening the curve". The whole hypothesis behind this was that the government wanted to flatten the curve so that it wouldn't apply so much stress on our hospital systems so that virtually every potential patient could get the adequate care needed. I think that is a fair and reasonable standard. It is becoming apparently clear that the Hospital systems are in a position to do what is necessary to help out their citizenry when it comes to CoVid. But the debate and some policy makers stated positions seem to be shifting. I don't hear that flattening the curve is the priority when it comes to opening things up as much as what I'm hearing in that "we need to protect our citizens". I want citizens to be protected as well. But what does that mean exactly? It would be helpful if they could properly define this. Flattening the curve is a stated goal that is definable. "Protecting our citizens", is not being defined. For me, the standard should first be about flattening the curve. But even then, once the curve is flattened, that doesn't mean that everything is all hunky-dory and we can back to business as usual. The Virus doesn't just disappear. I think the key to restoring confidence among the citizenry is data. As much good statistical data as possible. Which means, not just CoVID related data, but also data based off of studies on the impacts of mental health, impacts on stress to immune systems, isolation, increased poverty and how that relates to worse health outcomes etc etc. If you are going to do this in a logical manner and the true stated goal is to have a better overall health outcome, then you can't just view CoVid in a vacuum. It appears to me that many policy decision makers are viewing this purely on a CoVid health spectrum and not nearly enough on the impacts to people's health due to the economic decisions that are being self-imposed by governments throughout the world. Suicide rates are going up and it is a proven fact that when economies go south, suicide rates are increased. The projections vary, but some projections have the numbers could end up being as high as the Virus itself. Suicide hotlines are already seeing an astonishingly 800% increase in calls over normal times. This is a perfect storm of events for suicides because not only is unemployment a leading cause but isolation as well. This is like a double whammy, not to mention the sensationalism of the media that amplifies those fears. Then we have to take into consideration what stress does to people's auto immune systems and how that affects peoples health outcomes. There was a Harvard study that linked over 260,000 EXCESS Cancer due to the 2008 downturn. That's just cancer related, that doesn't take into account heart disease and how stress affects those outcomes. Then there are anecdotal reports of around 40% to 60% less reported heart attacks and strokes over the past 45 days or so. That is almost an unbelievable number. Obviously there aren't 40-60% less people suffering from heart attacks and strokes, common sense dictates that people are afraid to leave their homes and are suffering with this without proper medical care. The economic carnage is going to be devastating, there are studies out there that indicate we could end up seeing Half a billion people move into poverty. HALF A BILLION PEOPLE. They do preface it that if "urgent action" isn't taken, which there will be. But not all countries are lucky enough to be able to accumulate so much debt and have the power of the federal reserve to bail them out. Plus, even here in the U.S, there will be a lot of people who slip through the cracks and will fall into poverty. The more people who fall into poverty, the more people who will have worse health outcomes. That is a sad and undeniable fact. So these things need to be considered as well and need to be considered heavily when policy makers are making huge impacting decisions. So how can policy makers restore confidence? Data data data. We need to know what the actual mortality rate. And not just the overall mortality rate but broken down by age, by comorbidities, genetics, etc etc. In order to know this we need to have a clearer picture of both the divisor and the denominator. The death count is a bit more clear but is still a bit murky. The infection count is truly the unknown. In regards to the death count, there needs to be more clarity and some critical thinking analysis that is applied here. Right now, the common accepted COVID related death that is being used is if the patient tested positive and he/she parishes then no matter what other underlying condition they have, it counts as a COVID death. No questions asked. Then the other one that is beginning to be used is if a doctor/coroner suspects that if the person who passed away never tested positive but they were suspected to have contracted COVID based off symptoms and other evidence that is gathered, then they will consider that a COVID death. I think a deeper statistical analysis needs to be applied. I think those in the CDC or whatever decision making board should do is to view outside data as well. How many people normally die from the flu during these months? How many were reported to have died during these months? How many heart, cancer and other health afflicted related deaths normally occur during these months and how many were reported? From there extrapolate the normally reported deaths due to these underlying conditions vs the reported deaths and TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. Not just the supposed COVID deaths but even the positive tested ones as well. That is only logical. Policy makers have to get this right. And in order to get it right, they need to get the true COVID related death count. You have to have the divisor and the denominator to get a true count and in order for the analysis to be correct it has to be as accurate as possible. And in regards to the infection rate. I think mass randomized antibody testing throughout the country administered by each state and reviewed by the Federal government will give us a true idea. This will give you an idea of the infection rate. And if you can do both of these, then you can get an idea of what the infection rate, more accurate COVID death rate will be meaning you will get the coveted COVID mortality rate. And from there, you can make truly responsible decisions. With that said, this will take some time, several months at a minimum. That doesn't mean that everything should be shut down until then. Policy makers in the meantime could begin making decisions to lax some of the social distancing measures that they believe is appropriate. But they should be cautious until more data comes out. It doesn't have to be black or white. But as more data comes in, and if it turns out to be favorable for more economic conditions then they can loosen things up as the data comes in. Sorry for the long post.

I don’t trust that at all. There is a lot of overlap between symptoms. Also the fact that there are underlying conditions in the vast majority of cases make it even more dubious. This is not scientific. I I could even possibly accept some other post forensic analysis that isn’t entirely conclusive but a simple snap judgement based off of symptoms is no helpful. At all. Getting true mortality rates is an EXTREMELY important data point. This data point in my view would be one of the most important determinants in setting policy. I am 100% against counting deaths as COVID deaths based off symptoms alone. Again, that is not scientific. I wouldn’t be opposed to doctors telling their families that since they didn’t test positive for COVID, they suspect there is a chance that this was COVID related but that they can’t be sure. That would be a reasonable response for their families. But not as a matter of public count. Specially when we want true data coming in so that public policy can be set.

Counting all people who showed symptoms but didn’t test positive is not scientific. In fact, it’s the opposite of scientific. Showing symptoms is essentially the same as showing symptoms of the flu. What they should do is conduct some sort of a forensic deeper look into it that is conclusive. Without doubt if they go about it the way they are suggesting then there will be a considerable number of non covid related deaths that were considered covid and it goes completely contrary to getting a true handle of the virus in gathering important data such as true mortality rates.

I think he should continue doing this rapid fire form of answering questions. Makes him look more of a presidential leader than someone getting in a tic for tac skirmish with a reporter. I thought it was a better look for him today. I think he is being advised to cut the Q&A’s down in time.

Different approach. Very quick and forceful responses. Is not allowing the reporters to ask follow up questions. Moves quickly onto the next question. Shorter time period briefers. This is a better tact for him.

I tell you who would. TYTT and maybe Devnull

Nope

I don't doubt that there are numerous deaths where the patient hadn't tested positive, but like you, I do think it's probably somewhere in between.

It appears New York is going to count all deaths from people who were never tested to be positive for CoronaVirus but suspected to have it. I certainly understand that it's important for families of wanting to know the true reasons why they passed away, but without doubt there will be many people who may have had flu symptoms but had other underlying conditions that passed away to something aside from CoronaVirus. I'm not sure I agree with this policy.

I called it. That he would do an about-face. And this is about as much of a walk back that you’ll ever see Trump do.

Pretty much.

I know he won’t follow through with it. That was his ego talking. He’s already beginning to change his tune in his own special way.

He won’t go through with it. His ego drove him to his latest utterance. People behind the scenes Im sure are telling him to in his own way to do an about-face.

As I was saying. Libertarian sort of voters and hard core constitutional conservatives don't like this from Trump. People can ignore his antics and just consider it "Trump being Trump", but once he starts acting like a Monarch, his support from the Right side will begin to erode. He needs to change tact and change quickly. I'm guessing he will.

7 months before the 2016 elections according to RCP Hillary had a 9 point advantage over Trump in the national polls. We all saw how that worked out.

Jamie Dimon, who I respect tremendously when it comes to the world of finance. Thinks we could be opening up relatively soon.

It isn’t so much that Biden is weak on China than it is that he and his sole surviving son are inextricably intertwined with Beijing. . Biden has a lot of vulnerabilities. A) The China issue is going to be huge. He is going to get hammered on how he supported bad trade deals such as NAFTA and TPP. His sons dealings with China. His unwillingness to take them to task. The China travel ban. This will be an ongoing and pummeling theme from now to election day. B) His mental acuity. Or lack thereof. Trump is going to hammer him on this. Trump is going to be seen as the one with a lot more stamina than Joe and I think that will be apparent to voters. C) His history of making bad decisions. Iraq war, Nafta, China travel ban, how he would have backed down on killing Osama when Obama decided to do it. D) Creepy Joe and this sexual assault. I would expect this wouldn't be an overarching theme, but targeted to females in suburban areas to depress voter turnout of those that would be inclined to choose him over Trump. E) HIs leftward lurch. His position being against fracking is gonna get him in lots of trouble in the parts of Pennsylvania. His positions on climate, taxes, energy, forgiving debt will scare some of the moderate right leaning suburban women who hate Trump, but don't like lefty positions either. F) Trump took this economy to new highs one time and he will make the case that "I did it once and I will do it again". That's a powerful argument. It's forward thinking. But to your point, the China one will be central to his case to being president.