There should be a national dialogue in getting back to work

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don’t doubt that this is true.  But it returns us to the point that to get the economy back to normal, we need not only to reopen, but to reinstall consumer confidence.  Opening doors is meaningless unless and until consumers have a sense of health security in the places they formerly patronized.  

 

Personally, living in Orchard Park, I have no intention of going to any local restaurant anytime soon.  I love the guys at the Byrd House.  I really do.  And I’ll buy gift certificates for friends from that restaurant.  But I am not eating at any of these places not because of what they’re doing or not doing, but because of the behavior of their patrons.  I run down that road and I see little to no mask compliance at any establishment (aside from Spot Coffee) on a weekend night.  

 

That, of course, gets us back to the point that if we all just sucked it up and wore a 50-cent mask in public, we probably would be in a much, much better spot right now.  

I can only speak to my experience, but mask compliance is quite high in my travels.  I'd estimate it to be in excess of 98%.  

 

I'd also agree that there are many folks who feel like you and will avoid gatherings like the plague, there are many, many others that would move on with their lives given the opportunity.  The point is really pretty simple imo, snuffing out the life work of people that produce in our country is not an answer that doesn't bring with it a whole lot of other questions.  

 

 

[GG]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

He's wrong - JPM only ordered the trading floor employees back, not everyone.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Fair question. I am fortunate. I have a job that is amenable to telework, and that's what I've been doing since late March with only occasional office visits.

I understand that many others are in a very different situation. As for restaurants, I try to do my best to keep the local places going. Right now that's easy since I enjoy dining outdoors. And I know it will get a lot more difficult as the weather changes.

But throwing the doors open too early will not help anyone. It will bring us back to the critical situation we faced in April, with the only options being another 80% economic shutdown or catastrophic loss of life and a desperate situation in our hospitals. 

I

Thanks for speaking Frankly. I appreciate the response, and as I said, I wasn't looking for an argument or any great debate.  So far, your response tracks with what I'm finding generally.  

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I can only speak to my experience, but mask compliance is quite high in my travels.  I'd estimate it to be in excess of 98%.  

 

I'd also agree that there are many folks who feel like you and will avoid gatherings like the plague, there are many, many others that would move on with their lives given the opportunity.  The point is really pretty simple imo, snuffing out the life work of people that produce in our country is not an answer that doesn't bring with it a whole lot of other questions.  

 

 

 

Nobody disagrees that “snuffing” is bad. But the best way to get things back to normal is to restore consumer confidence.  Here’s the deal.  You and I will disagree on the next point: Trump is full of ***** and not to be trusted on anything, and is especially untrustworthy on the virus issue.  So I have no faith in whatever information is coming out of Washington with respect to testing, vax progress, etc.

 

Here’s where we can start to agree again.  Irrespective of whether one disagrees with the former view,  and Irrespective of whether one can draw confidence from what comes out of DC, this latter point remains.  Absent belief of consumers that they can return to “normal” safely, they’re not going to venture out and they’re not going to spend their money. And the longer this lasts, the less money we will have circulating throughout the economy and the less discretionary cash we will have that will be able to be spent.  One (non-comprehensive and imperfect) way to increase confidence is to have everyone show a little courtesy to one another and wear the mask.  Compliance around here is terrible, and it’s a significant reason I won’t take the kids to a restaurant, or to the zoo, or pretty much anywhere else we’ll incur a meaningful risk of running into an inconsiderate dope who might get them sick.  

 

All of these issues are intertwined, and I just don’t see how we fix the mess that has become the economy until we get the virus under control.  We can all agree that the catalyst for the economic downturn and malaise of the last six months is the virus.  So the best way to solve the problems?  Put the petty fights about masks, hydroxychloroquine, the rush to the vax, and all of the related issues behind, wear the masks, work together, and get this thing done. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Nobody disagrees that “snuffing” is bad. But the best way to get things back to normal is to restore consumer confidence.  Here’s the deal.  You and I will disagree on the next point: Trump is full of ***** and not to be trusted on anything, and is especially untrustworthy on the virus issue.  So I have no faith in whatever information is coming out of Washington with respect to testing, vax progress, etc.

 

Here’s where we can start to agree again.  Irrespective of whether one disagrees with the former view,  and Irrespective of whether one can draw confidence from what comes out of DC, this latter point remains.  Absent belief of consumers that they can return to “normal” safely, they’re not going to venture out and they’re not going to spend their money. And the longer this lasts, the less money we will have circulating throughout the economy and the less discretionary cash we will have that will be able to be spent.  One (non-comprehensive and imperfect) way to increase confidence is to have everyone show a little courtesy to one another and wear the mask.  Compliance around here is terrible, and it’s a significant reason I won’t take the kids to a restaurant, or to the zoo, or pretty much anywhere else we’ll incur a meaningful risk of running into an inconsiderate dope who might get them sick.  

 

All of these issues are intertwined, and I just don’t see how we fix the mess that has become the economy until we get the virus under control.  We can all agree that the catalyst for the economic downturn and malaise of the last six months is the virus.  So the best way to solve the problems?  Put the petty fights about masks, hydroxychloroquine, the rush to the vax, and all of the related issues behind, wear the masks, work together, and get this thing done. 

Dude, seriously, I reject the lecture as unnecessary and full of hubris. If we're all being truthful,  you would acknowledge the obvious political bent on COVID that exists beyond whatever issues you have with your President.   I don't trust anyone blindly, but learned long ago to ignore arguments that are one dimensional.  The world is complicated, and there are people and leaders in the world that would gladly snuff out the livelihood of the working class in an attempt to rule the world.  It is the way it is, it is the way it always has been, and will be the way in the future.  

 

You keep talking about the mask, I responded in kind.  98%ish compliance in my experience.  I accept your thoughts on your experience.  Your thoughts on people being willing to mix it up again are yours, and I believe you, but there are many people who disagree that hiding in the garage with the lights off is bad for all of us.  You may well be correct that reopening our economy might well be irrelevant and mot people will stay away.  I'm not so sure. 

 

As for all of us coming together, it's simply not going to happen.  One simply cannot watch the comings and goings of life and come to the conclusion that we're all in this together.  You cannot have one set of rules for the compliant group, while flaunting an entirely different set of rules for the those who choose not to be compliant.  

 

I wear a mask, I respect social distancing, I am as courteous possible and have been for decades.  Still, I'm hard-pressed to support the destruction of businesses and the livelihoods of people across the country based on this political mess we find ourselves in now. 

[The Frankish Reich]

43 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for speaking Frankly. I appreciate the response, and as I said, I wasn't looking for an argument or any great debate.  So far, your response tracks with what I'm finding generally.  

How could I speak anything other than Frankly. 

Seriously: I appreciate the pointed question. It makes me think that reasoned discourse is still possible. And that's a very good thing.

I am certainly not part of the leisure class. There's no fleeing to my second home to get away from an urban coronavirus outbreak or anything like that. But I am aware that avoiding contact with lots of other people just hasn't been an option for many people. I err more on the side of caution, partly because I am horrified by what has happened in some other countries regarding treatment of the elderly.* I am fortunate enough to have my elderly parents still living near me, and I see them frequently -- as with all people their age, they have their health issues and it is critical that I protect them. This is probably informed by my respect for life and, I guess, my faith too:

 

* for example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/08/world/europe/coronavirus-nursing-homes-elderly.html

[SectionC3]

44 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Dude, seriously, I reject the lecture as unnecessary and full of hubris. If we're all being truthful,  you would acknowledge the obvious political bent on COVID that exists beyond whatever issues you have with your President.   I don't trust anyone blindly, but learned long ago to ignore arguments that are one dimensional.  The world is complicated, and there are people and leaders in the world that would gladly snuff out the livelihood of the working class in an attempt to rule the world.  It is the way it is, it is the way it always has been, and will be the way in the future.  

 

You keep talking about the mask, I responded in kind.  98%ish compliance in my experience.  I accept your thoughts on your experience.  Your thoughts on people being willing to mix it up again are yours, and I believe you, but there are many people who disagree that hiding in the garage with the lights off is bad for all of us.  You may well be correct that reopening our economy might well be irrelevant and mot people will stay away.  I'm not so sure. 

 

As for all of us coming together, it's simply not going to happen.  One simply cannot watch the comings and goings of life and come to the conclusion that we're all in this together.  You cannot have one set of rules for the compliant group, while flaunting an entirely different set of rules for the those who choose not to be compliant.  

 

I wear a mask, I respect social distancing, I am as courteous possible and have been for decades.  Still, I'm hard-pressed to support the destruction of businesses and the livelihoods of people across the country based on this political mess we find ourselves in now. 

 

And here’s the flaw in your approach.  What’s killing businesses?  Aside from movie theaters and like entertainment venues, it’s not government regulations.  It’s the lack of consumer confidence.  Gyms are not barring people at the door because of limited capacity.  Restaurants don’t have wait lines where I live.  It’s one thing to open the doors, it’s another thing to get people to want to pass through the doors.  And that consumer confidence will not come back until we get the virus under control.  Bottom line.  

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

On 3/25/2020 at 10:40 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

RON BAILEY: Massive Coronavirus Testing Is the Way to Help Save the Economy: No time to waste; do it sooner rather than later.

 

By massively scaling up two types of tests—PCR tests that detect the active presence of virus and serology tests that detect immune system responses to being infected by the virus—population screening could identify those who are currently infected and those who have recovered and are likely not to pass along the virus to others.

 

Those who are currently infected could be isolated and their contacts traced so that they could quarantine themselves. Frequent large-scale testing of the uninfected would also help keep the epidemic in check by enabling them to withdraw if they subsequently contract the virus for a period of self-isolation in a timely fashion. Frontline health care providers and especially hard-hit regions should be given first priority as the testing regime begins its rapid expansion.

 

Those who had recovered from infection (possibly numbering ten times more than those whose symptoms drive them to seek out medical care) could help on the frontlines of the fight against COVID-19, return to work, and enjoy the pleasures of social life, e.g., dining out, meeting friends at bars, traveling, and attending performances at entertainment venues. “To make this strategy work, governments would need to involve employers, social organizations, schools and large retailers to conduct tests and provide time-stamped certifications,” propose the three researchers.

 

To ramp up both kinds of testing, the researchers urge that every laboratory capable of running PCR tests be pressed into service recruiting technicians, graduate students, and scientists to run the machines. Even better, Mesa Biotech just announced today that it has received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to roll out its point-of-use 30-minute PCR test for the virus. Other companies should be encouraged to provide such tests.

 

As I also argued last week, the researchers argue that widespread deployment of serology tests for the presence of antibodies to coronavirus needs to be prioritized. This would identify people who had recovered and could safely go back to life outside of lockdown.

 

Over at the Wall Street Journal, the perspicacious former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb also recommends massively scaling up serological surveillance. When population screening reveals that “a sizable portion of a local community has some protection, authorities can be more confident in relying on less invasive measures. Once deployed, serological tests are cheap, straightforward, and easy to scale.”

 

Several companies have already developed such tests.

 

 

Faster, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

Still waiting

On 3/25/2020 at 4:20 PM, Magox said:

You can make that criticism but I think most people understand that this is something that caught the entire world off guard including our health experts.  The only ones who were well prepared for it were the Asians and that is because they went through to it with H1N1.  

 

We can agree to disagree but if Dr Fauci and all of Europe’s top health experts were caught off guard then I won’t hold it against anyone else for doing so as well.

Oh guard? Trump knew this was real deadly and then just said it was no problem. Ya, he screwed up big time 

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

On 3/27/2020 at 2:14 PM, Tiberius said:

He isn’t listening to the doctors 

 

 

While saying in private how deadly it is. He hates regular people, thinks they are just animals, He wants to push people back out for his own purposes, he can care less if they get sick and die

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

And here’s the flaw in your approach.  What’s killing businesses?  Aside from movie theaters and like entertainment venues, it’s not government regulations.  It’s the lack of consumer confidence.  Gyms are not barring people at the door because of limited capacity.  Restaurants don’t have wait lines where I live.  It’s one thing to open the doors, it’s another thing to get people to want to pass through the doors.  And that consumer confidence will not come back until we get the virus under control.  Bottom line.  

 

I understand your point.  Considered, and rejected. Governmental regulation and threat of adverse consequences has a direct and significant impact on the business climate.  

[SectionC3]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I understand your point.  Considered, and rejected. Governmental regulation and threat of adverse consequences has a direct and significant impact on the business climate.  

 

But is it the most significant effect?  Or it’s he most significant threat the health concerns of the public?  And what are the “adverse consequences” of which you speak?

[The Frankish Reich]

37 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I understand your point.  Considered, and rejected. Governmental regulation and threat of adverse consequences has a direct and significant impact on the business climate.  

I also see this where I live. Indoor dining is allowed at 50% capacity, but I've waited up to an hour for an outdoor table while a bunch of tables are empty inside. The message that "outdoor is safer" has sunk into the consciousness of (most) people. And think about an adverse consequence: you can get sued if someone gets sick after eating indoors at your restaurant or drinking indoors at your bar or working out at your gym. That's why we've seen various proposals for immunity from lawsuits -- kind of a safe harbor rule. We can argue about whether lawsuits should be allowed when people should understand the risk (but what about secondary/downstream infections? they didn't assume any risk), but the fact is that's been our system in the United States, and the business needs to insure against it. Despite the well publicized frat party videos, I think it's fair to assume that most college students who've become infected were behaving perfectly reasonably, and still they got it -- over 1,000 cases at some universities. It is a case of weighing the risk/cost against the benefit of various activities, agreed. But I can't agree that this needs to be solely an individual decision; it can't be, because individual decisions here have societal ramifications. We need governance. Good, sensible governance, which is why I do object to largely symbolic restrictions (e.g., banning any attendance at capacity-controlled outdoor events like football games seems silly to me and tends to breed discontent with any kind of restriction).

[BullBuchanan]

This thread is aging well I see
 

tImE tO gEt bAcK tO nOrMaL
- Americans, March 2020

Edited September 11, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Buffalo_Gal]

Now do New York State!!
 

Pennsylvania's pandemic restrictions are unconstitutional, judge rules

Lawsuit was filed by Butler, Greene, Washington and Fayette counties
 

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's closing of "non-life-sustaining" businesses and restrictions on gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Monday.
 

"We're aware of the ruling and are reviewing the decision," a spokesperson for the governor's office said Monday afternoon.
 

</snip>
 

Stickman, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote in his ruling that the Wolf administration's pandemic policies have been overreaching, arbitrary and violated citizens' constitutional rights.
 

Stickman ruled in favor of individual and business plaintiffs, and he dismissed the county governments from the case. Individuals who won the favorable ruling include U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa.; state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler; and various businesses including hair salons and the Starlight Drive-In.
 

The declaratory judgment says
"(1) that the congregate gathering limits imposed by defendants' mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment;
(2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants' orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(3) that the business closure components of defendants' orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
 

</snip>

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[1B4IDye]

 

 

[1B4IDye]

 

 

Quote

The coronavirus cases on lower Broadway may have been so low that the mayor’s office and the metro health department decided to keep it secret.

Emails between the mayor’s senior advisor and the health department reveal only a partial picture. But what they reveal is disturbing.

The discussion involves the low number of coronavirus cases emerging from bars and restaurants and how to handle that.and most disturbingly how to keep it from the public.

 

[BillStime]

Trump should do his job

 

 

[B-Man]

 ‘There was zero probability going forward’: Tommy Bartlett Show to permanently close after 69 years. 

 

 

UPDATE: From the comments:

That’s the thing about the pandemic and shutting down businesses. The government thinks that they can shut them down, and months later they can open back up. Most politicians have no idea what it takes to run a business. Many businesses work on a shoestring, paying employees as revenue comes in. And when that stops they can’t pay people, and those people have to go somewhere else, and the business is ruined.

 

But don’t worry, the politicians are still getting paid. Jackass Gavin Newsom is still getting paid. The useless health director of Los Angeles, Barbara Ferrer, is still getting over $600,000 per year. So our ruling class is fine.

 

Well, that’s a relief.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

COLLATERAL DAMAGE: 

 

Yelp data shows 60% of business closures due to the coronavirus pandemic are now permanent.