Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

I dunno. I see what you're saying.

Lord Gonchar said:

And even if the larger abstract is a net win, on the individual level, I can still see how the working poor - having not worked for four weeks or more - don't really care as much about the larger abstarct as they do the food on the table tonight.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought of. We can talk about the aggregate benefit to society of economic activity and of social distancing and we know that both the disease and the job loss disproportionately hit poorer, urban, minorities. But is the breakdown different for different actions. Like, is going back to work mostly going to benefit one demographic with a marginal gain or even marginal cost to some other demographic?

I mean, I guess I might as well say it. Is "going back to work" actually asking a sacrifice from poor people for the benefit of "the greater good" which really means lining the pockets of rich people?

I don't know. I guess I've always identified more with the working class on this one - as it's my background and a majority of my 'real life' friends and family. Seems to me, those people want to get out of the food bank lines and get back to getting a paycheck.

Could it be as simple as it benefiting both sides?

Also, here's another bit of data pointing to the idea that MANY more people have been infected than we are aware of and it was spreading earlier than we were aware of it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html

Lord Gonchar said:

Could it be as simple as it benefiting both sides?

Definitely. In almost any transaction though, there's some range (yet another slider) of benefits both parties but benefits one party way more than the other. Maybe we don't care, but maybe it's exploitation?

Lord Gonchar said:

Also, here's another bit of data pointing to the idea that MANY more people have been infected than we are aware of and it was spreading earlier than we were aware of it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html

That more people are actually infected than we understood is pretty alarming. It doesn't change the fatality rate in straight per capita terms, which is still down at 13 per 100k nationally, a much better outcome that most of Europe. Good thing we didn't wait longer to act, NYC not withstanding.

Here's another one about hidden spread. I guess on the bright side, it could have been much worse if those locales waited even longer to react.

Hidden Outbreaks Spread Through U.S. Cities Far Earlier Than Americans Knew, Estimates Say https://nyti.ms/2VysPYx

More about managing infection rates and when they're "acceptable."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/coronavirus-R0-explainer.html

Make of this what you will, but one item I'd like to cherry-pick is their mention of the reactions of some other media outlets, namely CNN:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-restrictions-ide...e/#slide-1

I recall some discussion earlier, I believe in this thread, about some negative aspects of the media. Regardless of whichever side you fall on this matter, I think that it's fair to say that the media is trying to do a job that isn't theirs to do, and that's inject their opinions into what should be the only objective of the press, which is to report on the facts. The shaming of people is ridiculous, and it accomplishes nothing, especially if the reopenings going on are successful. Are all the proponents of #floridamorons going to apologize for their shortsightedness? Even if the experiment fails, how productive is it, really, to shame people? I see people mocking those who were against the whole shutdown concept and ended up dying. That mockery carries the assumption that it was ignoring the shutdowns that led to them dying, when in reality, many could have easily been infected before the shutdowns took place.

Changing gears a bit, it is interesting is how it's possible COVID-19 is more widespread than previously thought. To me, that's encouraging, because it means we could be further along than we thought. Regardless of whether or not that's a driving factor for the following, the IHME model, with Florida data linked below, shows the peak much further in the past than originally projected:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/florida

A while back, Florida's peak was projected to be May 7th with over 240 deaths projected on that day. Now, our worst day is apparently well in the past and we weren't anywhere near where we were projected to be. I don't say that to necessarily negate any of the previous response, but rather to point out that shaming the people who want to start getting on with their lives a little bit likely isn't productive. Combining the data I referenced above with the hypotheses of a number of studies that say that perhaps COVID-19 has spread through more of the population than previously thought, I think it supports the notion that perhaps the states that have fared pretty well, or even the counties within, should be able to start moving along in reopening things.

Consider this: Florida is number three in population. Case-wise, it's eighth, and weren't a lot of people fussing about Florida fumbling the ball and getting a late start on shutting down? Texas is number two in population and even further down. Georgia is ninth in population and twelfth in case count. Ohio, at number seven in population, is fourteenth in case count, although to their credit, they were renowned for jumping on things fast.

Shoot, Seattle was a hotspot, but yet Washington State, at thirteenth in total population, is a few spots below Ohio. Should the whole state stay locked down because one city had a problem?

Data for the above case counts: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

Again, I'm not necessarily claiming that shutting things down in the first place was a total overreaction, but rather my question is this: shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that some states are starting to get the gears turning again? Let's be realistic: we were never going to shut ourselves down until the virus entirely disappeared, and yet all it apparently takes is a patient zero to start things all over again. If in fact this thing has already worked its way through a lot of people, and yet it still seems to be on the decline, I think the appropriate reaction would be that of hope for the states making early steps to get back up and running. Shouldn't we be rooting for Florida, Texas, Georgia, and soon a few others to be successful? Doesn't everybody win in that case?

I agree that shaming people is pretty much never the correct course of action.

sirloindude said:

Combining the data I referenced above with the hypotheses of a number of studies that say that perhaps COVID-19 has spread through more of the population than previously thought, I think it supports the notion that perhaps the states that have fared pretty well, or even the counties within, should be able to start moving along in reopening things.

Highest estimates are that 5% of the population has been exposed to the virus. That means 95% are still vulnerable. If herd immunity kicks in at 60%, that means we're only 1/12th of the way home. And it means that containment as a strategy is more or less totally off the table. Maybe it's still appropriate to open up, but I don't think we're closer to done in any meaningful way than we were in March.

sirloindude said:

Shouldn't we be rooting for Florida, Texas, Georgia, and soon a few others to be successful? Doesn't everybody win in that case?

If the coach of your favorite team, who has consistently shown poor decision making, does something obviously dumb, do you root for it to succeed because "It's my team" or for it to fail because "then this guy will get replaced and we can actually go on to be successful?" I mean, I'm not rooting for anyone to die, but I am rooting for the broken clock to be replaced, not win the lottery.

The story in Florida is not straight forward. As I'm fond of saying, it's like three separate states. You can't generalize about it because the actions have been radically different across south, central and the panhandle. Here in central, our infection rates have been low because the leadership in Orange (Orlando) and Hillsborough (Tampa) was relatively early and aggressive.

And come on, National Review is another talking head outlet. Quoting them is like quoting anything else that wears its bias on its sleeve.

sirloindude said:

Doesn't everybody win in that case?

We're not observing the Super Bowl of youth soccer. It's not a sports contest.

All news media sucks, whatever the bias. The sciencey side of Bloomberg and the NYT are better then most but even they have their bias.

When young people started ignoring social distancing a week into this. Notice the horror narrative "story" reporting on these one off cases affecting outliers that started appearing everywhere. If you read the bigger data often cited here, you could understand these were unique, but a lot of fear was injected to make the point. And it worked. Was it healthy and worth it?

I've thought of the population state metric. Maybe there is some validity to the idea that it doesn't like warmer weather. Therefore Texas and Florida are somewhat spared albiet their size. (To an extent. I deleted an earlier rant where I talked about the constant movement of people in this global economy, regionalize solutions aren't viable.)

This study links the climates of a bunch of the worse spread spots

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550308

Andy, regarding your comments about how far along we are, true, opening the floodgates isn't the best idea, but consider the fact that, at least in some cases, the estimates for deaths, resource utilization, etc. were way on the high side. Much earlier in this thread, back when the shutdowns started kicking in, I remember expressing how disappointed I'd be if we, as a nation, hit 23,000ish deaths even with a shutdown lasting until sometime in June. It's late April, and we're well past that point. Nationally, at least in death count, it was an underestimate, and a substantial one at that.

However, using the Florida example, we're coming in way lower than initially projected. Our peak, as I mentioned, has now essentially been assigned retroactively, over three weeks so for death count (less for resource utilization, but retroactive still). Even New York City, despite being far and away the epicenter for the worst of this disaster, at least ended up not needing nearly as many resources as were sent its way.

This leads me to a point of concern, though: these shutdowns were all implemented with the premise of flattening the curve. When these shutdowns were implemented, we weren't told it's vaccine-or-bust as far as reopening things. I'm not suggesting a full-on open-everything-as-normal approach, but my point is this: it's going to be very, VERY difficult to suddenly change reopening for criteria. If the goal is herd immunity, then full shutdowns were pointless because it didn't spread enough. Even social distancing rules might have to be partially relaxed, or else we'll never hit the magic number. For places already well past the peaks of their curves, they aren't going to hit that sixty percent if they're only at five and they're on the down-slope.

Now, if the intent was to ride it out to a vaccine, then that needed to be said at the very beginning. It's way too late in the game to change the criteria for reopening. I believe I stated earlier that 1) this shutdown business absolutely had to work and 2) it had to have an end date. Even if the best idea turned out to be shut down until there's a vaccine/cure and not reopen otherwise, well, it will take an awful lot of convincing as to why that option should be on the table. Look at the outrage in Michigan and compound it dramatically, because as much as some people like to mock those thinking of the economic side of things here, that would disappear quite dramatically if the shutdowns drag on for months and more and more people lose their jobs. The government doesn't have anywhere near the money to keep this nation afloat for that amount of time, and I'd contend it's delusional to think otherwise.

Simply put, the purpose of the shutdown was to slow the spread enough, or at least that's the way it was presented. If that wasn't the original goal, well, again, I think Michigan is a nice early indication of what's in store for a lot of places. If the criteria gets changed, the experts may as well forget about having any credibility, even if they're right.

To the point about rooting for the coach who makes horrible decisions to finally make a good one, well, isn't that a bit premature? I think Mardi Gras didn't do much for the shutdowns-aren't-doing-anything crowd, hence Louisiana being higher on the case list than the population list, but conversely, if the states doing partial reopenings fare well, wouldn't that potentially disprove the theory that they were making the bad calls? There are a lot of assumptions getting thrown around about who was right and who was wrong in the absence of a lot of data (i.e. more accurate case numbers from widespread testing) that could potentially be completely false. The behavior of case counts would seem to indicate the validity of the decision by those we considered as being in the right, but again, how much of a beating is Florida taking despite doing quite well for itself? I'll go to Jeff's point about Florida essentially being multiple states in one and say that one could argue that DeSantis was wise in leaving decisions to local jurisdictions: what happens in one area may not happen in another, and why lock down the panhandle because Miami is an epicenter? I think one could apply that nationally: you can't treat every place the same. If area A has it under control, let them reopen and get on with life. Don't make them wait for area B three states over. Kstr 737, I do understand the difficulty in implementing solutions regionally, but while you probably can't totally cut off places like NYC from the rest of the country, you can at least make them more difficult to access. Shut down the airports and put checkpoints on the major highways out of those areas. It wouldn't eliminate people from getting in or out, but it would at least slow the influxes and exoduses.

As to my National Review source, Jeff, if it's a talking head source, my apologies, but so is CNN as far as I'm concerned, and considering that the article was an attack on shaming, I think that allows a little leeway in bias. On your point about this not being a children's sporting event, though, I didn't mean it that way. I just meant that we should all hope for some encouraging results.

Yeah but regulating peoples movement domestically wasn't part of the initial lockdown. So I'll use your same arguement, how do you get there now?

I don't see the difference in opening the Kennywoods vs the Cedar Points vs Disney World.

In a manner of speaking, it was, in the sense that people were pretty much told to avoid non-essential travel. There were also closed borders (I realize that’s more international) and targeted quarantines (domestic). For the latter, a lot of places put measures in place. Florida set up checkpoints on interstates to check for drivers from hotspots and set mandatory quarantines for air travel passengers coming in from certain states along with the aforementioned drivers. I can walk off a plane from Columbus into Orlando just fine, but if I come off of a plane from Buffalo, I get politely informed that I’d better find someplace cozy for a couple of weeks. Now, as to how strictly that’s enforced, I don’t know, but I also know that airlines gutted their schedules to airports in hotspot areas disproportionately to other areas of their network (I think United has a schedule for Newark coming up with sixteen flights a day, and that’s a major hub for them), so even if you wanted to fly out of there, you won’t have a wealth of options at your disposal. Clearly some modifications to current procedures would be needed, but I think solutions exist.

Using your park example, Kennywood and Cedar Point are regional and Walt Disney World isn’t, but if you meant that symbolically and not literally, my apologies.

Kstr 737 said:

All news media sucks, whatever the bias.

No, it doesn't actually. Facts are facts, truth is truth. We have to stop accepting this bull**** that reality is a scale. It's not.

I agree. Okay not all, almost all. I said news media. Not news. I'm getting my information from Andrew Cuomo's daily press briefings.

I'm not debating the facts, I am eye rolling the way they are presented second hand. Which is part of the problem (that predates the virus). We've built and accepted a dumb system. Now we have a real problem (the virus) and it is built to divide us.

Facts are facts, Jeff, but the news media is absolutely biased and that bias absolutely sucks. Posting stock photos of crowded beaches when talking about Jacksonville’s first afternoon with the beaches open when it wasn’t nearly that crowded after railing against an administration who made a similar blunder lying about inauguration crowds doesn’t do much for credibility. There are plenty of other examples of things like selective coverage, misrepresentation of reality, etc. take place. Not all news media sucks, but the major sources (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc. etc.) where people get a lot of their news absolutely do.

Perhaps even more importantly, when news organizations do engage in actions like those I mentioned, it makes it very hard to trust them when they do decide to tell the truth.

That said, if there are some (relatively) unbiased sources you could recommend, Jeff, I truly would appreciate knowing what they are. Much as I am skeptical of much of today’s media, I still would like to keep up with what’s going on in the world.

No, "the news media" is a nebulous scapegoat. Even if the broader institution leans one way or another, it doesn't mean they report falsehoods.

As a trained journalist, with a degree, I can confidently say that the NYT, and the big three nightly news broadcasts, are generally truthful in reporting. Being truthful isn't the same as neutral. If you were covering WW2, it wasn't necessary to get the Nazi's side of the story, because there was no moral equivalence to which side was correct and just.