General Consultant Discussion

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

I think the better solution would be to voluntarily lock down those that are in the 'high risk' group which is a relatively small percentage of the working age population.  If they sign off that they don't want to be locked down, they are on their own.  If they agree, they will have their basic necessities taken care of if they don't have a current source of income to handle it.  If they are the few that have underlying conditions but are still making a decent income, then we come up with some type of special disability plan for them if they can't work from home.

This would do vastly less damage to the economy, cost a ton less than what is likely to be at least a 50% increase in our national debt accumulated since our founding, and will likely save almost as many lives as locking us all down under threat of arrest.

Then when we develop a decent treatment and/or vaccine which is likely in 6 to 9 months, they can rejoin society

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

I think the better solution would be to voluntarily lock down those that are in the 'high risk' group which is a relatively small percentage of the working age population.  If they sign off that they don't want to be locked down, they are on their own.  If they agree, they will have their basic necessities taken care of if they don't have a current source of income to handle it.  If they are the few that have underlying conditions but are still making a decent income, then we come up with some type of special disability plan for them if they can't work from home.

This would do vastly less damage to the economy, cost a ton less than what is likely to be at least a 50% increase in our national debt accumulated since our founding, and will likely save almost as many lives as locking us all down under threat of arrest.

Then when we develop a decent treatment and/or vaccine which is likely in 6 to 9 months, they can rejoin society

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Kevin, what percent of unemployment is 'too much'?  What CFR is ok to open the economy versus destroy the economy?

I would bet other than those who are basically retired here just make some 'extra cash' by consulting, the rest of those that have 'real businesses with employees' can't weather this  for more than a total shut down period of 2 months and even then, all their cash reserves will be wiped and their employees and them will be taking very large pay cuts.  The stimulus kicks the can down the road a bit, thank god, but we have to get back up and running

I think the better solution would be to voluntarily lock down those that are in the 'high risk' group which is a relatively small percentage of the working age population.  If they sign off that they don't want to be locked down, they are on their own.  If they agree, they will have their basic necessities taken care of if they don't have a current source of income to handle it.  If they are the few that have underlying conditions but are still making a decent income, then we come up with some type of special disability plan for them if they can't work from home.

This would do vastly less damage to the economy, cost a ton less than what is likely to be at least a 50% increase in our national debt accumulated since our founding, and will likely save almost as many lives as locking us all down under threat of arrest.

Then when we develop a decent treatment and/or vaccine which is likely in 6 to 9 months, they can rejoin society

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Doug,

Believe it or not, these idiots are still doing this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7920573/Revolting-footage-shows-Chinese-woman-eating-bat-scientists-link-coronavirus-animal.html

And I won't gross people out of the videos of the eating and killing dogs and cats that still goes on in China.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Sorry, I mispoke on deathrate.

From Todays stats on www.worldometers.info/coronavirus FOR THE US.
Total Cases 226,378, Deaths, 5334.  That's 2.3%

Now the reality is the total cases is probably 2-4x higher than this since a large portion of people are asymptomatic or can't get a test.  My wife's ex husband was sick 2 weeks ago, had the symptoms, and is sitting at Day 11 after getting tested by Quest and still hasn't gotten the results so he's not counted.

That means the 'denominator' is likely much larger and that will bring the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) down significantly.  Heck, My wife and  I was sick with a bad cough for 3 weeks in February when hardly anyone was talking about this and I might have had it.  Both she and I are O- and they say that group suffers the least effects.

When we get past the worst, they will likely do much bigger statistical testing of healthy people looking for the anti-bodies and will find out what the real case rate was.  That being said, it will still likely be higher than the flu, but is it high enough to annihilate our economy for years?   The flu CFR has been as high as .6%   If Covid 19 was 1% should we shut down the economy?  Is the number 1.5%?  2%?  I'm not god, but just saying there is a number that represents 'acceptable risk' for a society to function.

WHat if after the population studies we find out Covid's CFR was less than 1%?  Was this worth it? (what we have today is about 10% of the economic severity we are going to see if this shut down lasts past april).  The Fed predicts unemployment as high as 32%, which is vastly worse than the Great Depression.

I agree with most of your points, but what is the definition of 'until this is under control'?  Let's say we are getting 10k new cases per day and it gets down to 1k cases per day.  THen we lift the order, businesses open, and people start getting infected again because it only took 1 person with the virus to create what we have today.  Then do we go back on lock down and print another 4 to 6 Trillion dollars out of thin air?

A vaccine won't be here until at least late september.  The economy will be 6 feet under by then as we literally have almost NO economy currently.

My solution is the only way to save lives and prevent the collapse of the US and world economy.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Yes - 2008 will seem like a joke. If this isn't managed carefully, we will see a worldwide Depression. It's possible there is nothing we can do to prevent it because even if the USA smooths over the hit to the economy, most businesses have worldwide customer bases and supply chains. We will be impacted by other countries too.

The focus on the numbers and fatality percents are pointless because the data is a moving target and depends on standardized reporting protocol and sufficient testing. From a worldwide perspective, there is no standardization and insufficient testing. 

That's why the real indicators needs to be "how bad are the hospitals doing right now?" 

Even that is completely regional-based. Some people drive by their hospital and say "this whole thing is a freaking joke about nothing" and others see a warzone with semis being used to store dead bodies because morgues are overflowing.

We can cross our fingers and hope that once this first wave is done, we are in the clear. I don't see any evidence that won't be the case. But I also don't see evidence it will be the case. COVID-19 has already mutated and there are reports of at least seven strains in the wild. What that means is we could cure a strain to see it mutate where the cure doesn't treat it any longer. 

There is any easy solution to all this but it exposes the fact that money is an arbitrary designation. 

Until that happens, the longer people keep saying "oh, it's only two more weeks" and setting false hopes, the longer this will last and cause frustration.

Maybe this isn't a marathon but it's not a sprint either. We - and our governments around the world - should be looking at this as a 12 - 18 month long pandemic. Solve for that. Stop wasting time and energy trying to solve for "how fast can we get people back to work?" because that problem will make worse long-term problems.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

Yes - 2008 will seem like a joke. If this isn't managed carefully, we will see a worldwide Depression. It's possible there is nothing we can do to prevent it because even if the USA smooths over the hit to the economy, most businesses have worldwide customer bases and supply chains. We will be impacted by other countries too.

The focus on the numbers and fatality percents are pointless because the data is a moving target and depends on standardized reporting protocol and sufficient testing. From a worldwide perspective, there is no standardization and insufficient testing. 

That's why the real indicators needs to be "how bad are the hospitals doing right now?" 

Even that is completely regional-based. Some people drive by their hospital and say "this whole thing is a freaking joke about nothing" and others see a warzone with semis being used to store dead bodies because morgues are overflowing.

We can cross our fingers and hope that once this first wave is done, we are in the clear. I don't see any evidence that won't be the case. But I also don't see evidence it will be the case. COVID-19 has already mutated and there are reports of at least seven strains in the wild. What that means is we could cure a strain to see it mutate where the cure doesn't treat it any longer. 

There is any easy solution to all this but it exposes the fact that money is an arbitrary designation. 

Until that happens, the longer people keep saying "oh, it's only two more weeks" and setting false hopes, the longer this will last and cause frustration.

Maybe this isn't a marathon but it's not a sprint either. We - and our governments around the world - should be looking at this as a 12 - 18 month long pandemic. Solve for that. Stop wasting time and energy trying to solve for "how fast can we get people back to work?" because that problem will make worse long-term problems.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

I know that is somewhat tongue in cheek but do we really think someone in metro NYC can be re-routed easily to a better hospital that isn't far away?

My guess is that some of the overflow issues in surrounding states are because the smarter / wealthier folks are already going to neighboring hospitals.

Chicago is setting up a unique model to allow for non-COVID patients to get treatment at different locations. I believe NYC is also doing this with the new medical ship.

It's happening. Also need to reduce number of cases too. 

Yes - 2008 will seem like a joke. If this isn't managed carefully, we will see a worldwide Depression. It's possible there is nothing we can do to prevent it because even if the USA smooths over the hit to the economy, most businesses have worldwide customer bases and supply chains. We will be impacted by other countries too.

The focus on the numbers and fatality percents are pointless because the data is a moving target and depends on standardized reporting protocol and sufficient testing. From a worldwide perspective, there is no standardization and insufficient testing. 

That's why the real indicators needs to be "how bad are the hospitals doing right now?" 

Even that is completely regional-based. Some people drive by their hospital and say "this whole thing is a freaking joke about nothing" and others see a warzone with semis being used to store dead bodies because morgues are overflowing.

We can cross our fingers and hope that once this first wave is done, we are in the clear. I don't see any evidence that won't be the case. But I also don't see evidence it will be the case. COVID-19 has already mutated and there are reports of at least seven strains in the wild. What that means is we could cure a strain to see it mutate where the cure doesn't treat it any longer. 

There is any easy solution to all this but it exposes the fact that money is an arbitrary designation. 

Until that happens, the longer people keep saying "oh, it's only two more weeks" and setting false hopes, the longer this will last and cause frustration.

Maybe this isn't a marathon but it's not a sprint either. We - and our governments around the world - should be looking at this as a 12 - 18 month long pandemic. Solve for that. Stop wasting time and energy trying to solve for "how fast can we get people back to work?" because that problem will make worse long-term problems.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

I know that is somewhat tongue in cheek but do we really think someone in metro NYC can be re-routed easily to a better hospital that isn't far away?

My guess is that some of the overflow issues in surrounding states are because the smarter / wealthier folks are already going to neighboring hospitals.

Chicago is setting up a unique model to allow for non-COVID patients to get treatment at different locations. I believe NYC is also doing this with the new medical ship.

It's happening. Also need to reduce number of cases too. 

Yes - 2008 will seem like a joke. If this isn't managed carefully, we will see a worldwide Depression. It's possible there is nothing we can do to prevent it because even if the USA smooths over the hit to the economy, most businesses have worldwide customer bases and supply chains. We will be impacted by other countries too.

The focus on the numbers and fatality percents are pointless because the data is a moving target and depends on standardized reporting protocol and sufficient testing. From a worldwide perspective, there is no standardization and insufficient testing. 

That's why the real indicators needs to be "how bad are the hospitals doing right now?" 

Even that is completely regional-based. Some people drive by their hospital and say "this whole thing is a freaking joke about nothing" and others see a warzone with semis being used to store dead bodies because morgues are overflowing.

We can cross our fingers and hope that once this first wave is done, we are in the clear. I don't see any evidence that won't be the case. But I also don't see evidence it will be the case. COVID-19 has already mutated and there are reports of at least seven strains in the wild. What that means is we could cure a strain to see it mutate where the cure doesn't treat it any longer. 

There is any easy solution to all this but it exposes the fact that money is an arbitrary designation. 

Until that happens, the longer people keep saying "oh, it's only two more weeks" and setting false hopes, the longer this will last and cause frustration.

Maybe this isn't a marathon but it's not a sprint either. We - and our governments around the world - should be looking at this as a 12 - 18 month long pandemic. Solve for that. Stop wasting time and energy trying to solve for "how fast can we get people back to work?" because that problem will make worse long-term problems.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

I know that is somewhat tongue in cheek but do we really think someone in metro NYC can be re-routed easily to a better hospital that isn't far away?

My guess is that some of the overflow issues in surrounding states are because the smarter / wealthier folks are already going to neighboring hospitals.

Chicago is setting up a unique model to allow for non-COVID patients to get treatment at different locations. I believe NYC is also doing this with the new medical ship.

It's happening. Also need to reduce number of cases too. 

Yes - 2008 will seem like a joke. If this isn't managed carefully, we will see a worldwide Depression. It's possible there is nothing we can do to prevent it because even if the USA smooths over the hit to the economy, most businesses have worldwide customer bases and supply chains. We will be impacted by other countries too.

The focus on the numbers and fatality percents are pointless because the data is a moving target and depends on standardized reporting protocol and sufficient testing. From a worldwide perspective, there is no standardization and insufficient testing. 

That's why the real indicators needs to be "how bad are the hospitals doing right now?" 

Even that is completely regional-based. Some people drive by their hospital and say "this whole thing is a freaking joke about nothing" and others see a warzone with semis being used to store dead bodies because morgues are overflowing.

We can cross our fingers and hope that once this first wave is done, we are in the clear. I don't see any evidence that won't be the case. But I also don't see evidence it will be the case. COVID-19 has already mutated and there are reports of at least seven strains in the wild. What that means is we could cure a strain to see it mutate where the cure doesn't treat it any longer. 

There is any easy solution to all this but it exposes the fact that money is an arbitrary designation. 

Until that happens, the longer people keep saying "oh, it's only two more weeks" and setting false hopes, the longer this will last and cause frustration.

Maybe this isn't a marathon but it's not a sprint either. We - and our governments around the world - should be looking at this as a 12 - 18 month long pandemic. Solve for that. Stop wasting time and energy trying to solve for "how fast can we get people back to work?" because that problem will make worse long-term problems.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...

I think the key is to hope for the best but plan for the worst.

Right now, we've seen many around the world and even here in the US, there's been a lot of hope for the best.

I stand by my assessment. The only way forward is to assume this is here for the next twelve to eighteen months and solve for that.

Let's stop pretending it's gone in a few weeks because our actions will / should be a lot different if it's here for twelve to eighteen more months. We can take more of a measured approach to ramping up containment protocols, manufacturing and securing equipment and tests, creating healthcare strategies (like Doug suggested with routing but other things as well), and planning for a post-Phase I release of people back into the work environment. 

I know that is somewhat tongue in cheek but do we really think someone in metro NYC can be re-routed easily to a better hospital that isn't far away?

My guess is that some of the overflow issues in surrounding states are because the smarter / wealthier folks are already going to neighboring hospitals.

Chicago is setting up a unique model to allow for non-COVID patients to get treatment at different locations. I believe NYC is also doing this with the new medical ship.

It's happening. Also need to reduce number of cases too. 

Yes - 2008 will seem like a joke. If this isn't managed carefully, we will see a worldwide Depression. It's possible there is nothing we can do to prevent it because even if the USA smooths over the hit to the economy, most businesses have worldwide customer bases and supply chains. We will be impacted by other countries too.

The focus on the numbers and fatality percents are pointless because the data is a moving target and depends on standardized reporting protocol and sufficient testing. From a worldwide perspective, there is no standardization and insufficient testing. 

That's why the real indicators needs to be "how bad are the hospitals doing right now?" 

Even that is completely regional-based. Some people drive by their hospital and say "this whole thing is a freaking joke about nothing" and others see a warzone with semis being used to store dead bodies because morgues are overflowing.

We can cross our fingers and hope that once this first wave is done, we are in the clear. I don't see any evidence that won't be the case. But I also don't see evidence it will be the case. COVID-19 has already mutated and there are reports of at least seven strains in the wild. What that means is we could cure a strain to see it mutate where the cure doesn't treat it any longer. 

There is any easy solution to all this but it exposes the fact that money is an arbitrary designation. 

Until that happens, the longer people keep saying "oh, it's only two more weeks" and setting false hopes, the longer this will last and cause frustration.

Maybe this isn't a marathon but it's not a sprint either. We - and our governments around the world - should be looking at this as a 12 - 18 month long pandemic. Solve for that. Stop wasting time and energy trying to solve for "how fast can we get people back to work?" because that problem will make worse long-term problems.

First off, I'm not sure where you are getting your data sets. " Of those that test positive about .5% will die." is not accurate. In Italy, we are seeing 10% of people tested dying. Overall, the fatalities to tested is hovering around 5%, not .5%.

Either way, the data is incomplete and sketchy so we won't know true numbers for awhile.

Putting that aside, this isn't just a matter of which % of coronavirus infected people die off - whether they are old or sick already and I guess in some people's minds, disposable because of that - the hospitals will be clogged with caring for those people.

Healthcare workers WILL get the virus. A percent of those people WILL die. They already are.

People needing routine treatment will be denied. Cancer treatments, dialysis, broken bones, flu, etc. A decent percent of those people WILL die. People without COVID-19 in heavy zones are already dying with otherwise treatable symptoms.

There is a balance here. It's to be found by:

1. Contain and control the current infection and enforce stay-at-home until this is under control.

2. Develop faster testing protocol and the procedure to track back new infections.

3. Remove stay-at-home for certain sectors and use the procedures from 2 above to immediately squash new infections.

4. Wait for a vaccine.

That's the only way to move forward. Any other model results in losing 1 - 5% of the country's population. That's going to impact the economy too with a heavy psychological cost.

Nothings going to happen until the mandated shutdowns end.  There will be no (non critical) warehouses open and no retailers selling anything and online only does so much.

Plus with such uncertainty and skyrocketing unemployment, consumers and businesses will be in a cash preservation mode so they will only be buying essential goods.

Even if you are lucky enough to have a secure job through this, you'll likely hold off on non-essential purchases and places where you would have spent the money (restaurants, bars, car dealerships etc) are all shut down.

I've been saying from day one, the 'cure' can't be worse than the disease.

Currently my back of the napkin math says there are about 30 people now unemployed (and probably 15 more with big pay cuts) for every person who has tested positive.  Of those that test positive, about 15% need the hospital.  Of those that test positive about .5% will die.  Of those that die, based on Italy's data, 99% have underlying conditions and/or are old.  Meaning, coldly, they wouldn't have that many more years left even if the virus didn't hit.

So at some point, someone, (who will be called the heartless devil) is going to have to make a tough call and determine what a year of life is actually worth.  Because if it were worth 'infinite' money, we w0uld already have banned cars, alcohol, built a wall on our southern border to stop the 60k/drug deaths per year, planes, trains, and virtually any other activity that could get you killed.

But we don't, as a free society has risks, some of us will die, most of us live vastly longer than if we didn't have a free society with technological improvements.

What % unemployment is 'ok' to combat this virus because as we 'social distance', 2/3 of the world's population is NOT.  Somewhere there are people fighting wars who are not 'social distancing' as they kill each other and this virus, is out and is unlikely to be irradicated to 'zero' since a huge percentage of people who have it don't even know it and show no symptoms.  And as we've seen, it only takes one person to 'change the world' by eating and undercooked bat...