Are you ready for the country? The country don't want you tRumpist patriots.
South Lake Tahoe issues $1,000 fines to tourists and short-term rental owners - SFGate


https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/While-South-Lake-Tahoe-welcomes-back-second-15272363.php

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Oops

Could COVID-19 be less lethal than we thought?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-could-covid-19-be-less-dangerous-than-we-thought/

---

First sentence in the link:

Quote:

---

When I was collecting data for my PhD thesis in epidemiology at the University of Oxford,

---

According to janky:

Quote:

---

Epidemiology is not a science. And I say this as a PhD scientist.

---

Oops.

Stanford's bogus serological survey now has a whistleblower. Oops.

Iowa not having a SIP order may have increased cases. Oops.

Being a ****poster like janky is exactly as easy as you would imagine. Oops.

---

Yeah f that guy. I hate that guy. I know him in real life. He's awful.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

Coronavirus cases aren't surging in high-risk states - Axios


https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-map-high-risk-states-8ceeaa05-cc07-4e8b-b9f4-df3a3315f143.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

This article/link supports reopening (which as you know, I'm in favor of), but the numbers seem to be unreliable. Measuring cases over a 7 day average is not a proper metric unless you correct for changes in testing during that period. Obviously, the number of reported cases is strongly correlated to the number of tests. I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing.

If we knew that testing was constant or increasing in all states (which could be the case), then the numbers would have more significance. Hopefully that is the case.

---

Curious as to what specific basis you have for this belief. The LA Times has a nice page showing county level growth (among a number of other things), and it appears that LA county is growing more quickly than other places and that this is driving the growth statewide. When I look at the historical data, it appears that the daily positive test rate has been fairly consistent the past few weeks, which would indicate that the testing is increasing more or less proportional to the number of infected.

I would like to think that the spread of the virus is slowing throughout the state, the way it appears to be in the bay area, but I don't have a strong basis to do so. If you have such a basis, I would love to hear it.

Here's the county by county chart I mentioned:


And additional data for every county with more than 1k cases:

---

Nothing you posted shows the positive test rate/percentage per 1,000 tests (or similar) or, for that matter indicates who is being tested. That info might be backed out if I was willing to take the time - which I'm not. There is a potential (likelihood) of selection bias since the tests are not being administered randomly.

---

I provided a link to which you could determine the daily positive rate. I've calculated it and it's within a fairly narrow band for the last few weeks. Rather than do the math (which is quite simple), you prefer to just assume that you are correct without inspection.

What this amply demonstrates is that you are more interested in asserting a narrative than actually obtaining the truth. Everyone can "just ask questions" to push whatever narrative they are interested in pursuing and you consistently do so while ignoring people who present data that confounds your preferred narrative.

You've mentioned a few different types of data that might be valuable, concluded that they wouldn't be perfect and then assumed that the narrative you've chosen is probably right because no reasons.

For everyone keeping score at home, this is yet another example of BG pushing an unsupported theory that allows him to make a baseless claim and manage to insult anyone who is actually interested in having a conversation based on facts and data.

With people like this pushing the "we must open now" narrative, is there any wonder that people who care about doing the right thing are urging caution?

---

Man are you dense or acting in bad faith (or both). I specifically said I didn't do the math because the results would not be instructive due to statistical flaws.

So I didn't waste my time, particularly because the data cannot be easily exported - at least that I could find after a brief look. If you feel the data is accurate and important, feel free to do your own homework.

Seriously - I started off pointing out that stats someone else posted arguably showing reduced cases/spread and which support my preferred outcome (reopening) were flawed and shouldn't be used for that purpose. Why in the world are you criticizing me for that? Unlike you, I was being intellectually honest.

I literally did not use this data to support an "open now" narrative - I did the exact opposite and said the data did not necessarily support that. You - not me - seems to be suggesting the case data might (not for sure) show a slow of spread.

Every post from you includes a personal attack - simply because we disagree about a policy preference. You transparently include ad hominim attacks and then claim to be taking the high road. You cite to data that is not helpful or statistically valid - and which you admit may not be accurate - and then accuse me of ignoring facts and data.

I'm the one preventing an honest discussion? That's rich.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

Coronavirus cases aren't surging in high-risk states - Axios


https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-map-high-risk-states-8ceeaa05-cc07-4e8b-b9f4-df3a3315f143.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

This article/link supports reopening (which as you know, I'm in favor of), but the numbers seem to be unreliable. Measuring cases over a 7 day average is not a proper metric unless you correct for changes in testing during that period. Obviously, the number of reported cases is strongly correlated to the number of tests. I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing.

If we knew that testing was constant or increasing in all states (which could be the case), then the numbers would have more significance. Hopefully that is the case.

---

Curious as to what specific basis you have for this belief. The LA Times has a nice page showing county level growth (among a number of other things), and it appears that LA county is growing more quickly than other places and that this is driving the growth statewide. When I look at the historical data, it appears that the daily positive test rate has been fairly consistent the past few weeks, which would indicate that the testing is increasing more or less proportional to the number of infected.

I would like to think that the spread of the virus is slowing throughout the state, the way it appears to be in the bay area, but I don't have a strong basis to do so. If you have such a basis, I would love to hear it.

Here's the county by county chart I mentioned:


And additional data for every county with more than 1k cases:

---

Nothing you posted shows the positive test rate/percentage per 1,000 tests (or similar) or, for that matter indicates who is being tested. That info might be backed out if I was willing to take the time - which I'm not. There is a potential (likelihood) of selection bias since the tests are not being administered randomly.

---

I provided a link to which you could determine the daily positive rate. I've calculated it and it's within a fairly narrow band for the last few weeks. Rather than do the math (which is quite simple), you prefer to just assume that you are correct without inspection.

What this amply demonstrates is that you are more interested in asserting a narrative than actually obtaining the truth. Everyone can "just ask questions" to push whatever narrative they are interested in pursuing and you consistently do so while ignoring people who present data that confounds your preferred narrative.

You've mentioned a few different types of data that might be valuable, concluded that they wouldn't be perfect and then assumed that the narrative you've chosen is probably right because no reasons.

For everyone keeping score at home, this is yet another example of BG pushing an unsupported theory that allows him to make a baseless claim and manage to insult anyone who is actually interested in having a conversation based on facts and data.

With people like this pushing the "we must open now" narrative, is there any wonder that people who care about doing the right thing are urging caution?

---

Man are you dense or acting in bad faith (or both). I specifically said I didn't do the math because the results would not be instructive due to statistical flaws.

So I didn't waste my time, particularly because the data cannot be easily exported - at least that I could find after a brief look. If you feel the data is accurate and important, feel free to do your own homework.

Seriously - I started off pointing out that stats someone else posted arguably showing reduced cases/spread and which support my preferred outcome (reopening) were flawed and shouldn't be used for that purpose. Why in the world are you criticizing me for that? Unlike you, I was being intellectually honest.

I literally did not use this data to support an "open now" narrative - I did the exact opposite and said the data did not necessarily support that. You - not me - seems to be suggesting the case data might (not for sure) show a slow of spread.

Every post from you includes a personal attack - simply because we disagree about a policy preference. You transparently include ad hominim attacks and then claim to be taking the high road. You cite to data that is not helpful or statistically valid - and which you admit may not be accurate - and then accuse me of ignoring facts and data.

I'm the one preventing an honest discussion? That's rich.

---

What are you talking about? I quoted your post and highlighted where you said "I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing." I asked you what your basis was for that statement. I presented data showing daily testing results with which you could easily confirm, as I did, that the daily testing rates were consistent which would not support your statement. I asked you to provide the basis for your statement but you chose not to.

So spare us the hysterics. I was perfectly polite but you were unable to back up your (apparently baseless) statement so you went on a gish gallop of points that basically amount to "you can't trust any data". If you don't want people to ask you about unsupported statements, perhaps you came to the wrong place.

bearister said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

bearister said:

---

May God bless these great American patriots!


https://s3.india.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/gun.jpg

*My heroes have always been cowboys.... that BRING DA RUCKUS!

---

You seem to be the resident gun nut LOL.

---

No, I'm just a wannabe fanboy. Bearswiins actually has knowledge on the subject. I'm sure he could give you specs on that .50 cal and rocket launcher. blueblood was a paratrooper so he knows stuff too.

---

Blueblood loved the smell of napalm in the morning.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

Coronavirus cases aren't surging in high-risk states - Axios


https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-map-high-risk-states-8ceeaa05-cc07-4e8b-b9f4-df3a3315f143.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

This article/link supports reopening (which as you know, I'm in favor of), but the numbers seem to be unreliable. Measuring cases over a 7 day average is not a proper metric unless you correct for changes in testing during that period. Obviously, the number of reported cases is strongly correlated to the number of tests. I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing.

If we knew that testing was constant or increasing in all states (which could be the case), then the numbers would have more significance. Hopefully that is the case.

---

Curious as to what specific basis you have for this belief. The LA Times has a nice page showing county level growth (among a number of other things), and it appears that LA county is growing more quickly than other places and that this is driving the growth statewide. When I look at the historical data, it appears that the daily positive test rate has been fairly consistent the past few weeks, which would indicate that the testing is increasing more or less proportional to the number of infected.

I would like to think that the spread of the virus is slowing throughout the state, the way it appears to be in the bay area, but I don't have a strong basis to do so. If you have such a basis, I would love to hear it.

Here's the county by county chart I mentioned:


And additional data for every county with more than 1k cases:

---

Nothing you posted shows the positive test rate/percentage per 1,000 tests (or similar) or, for that matter indicates who is being tested. That info might be backed out if I was willing to take the time - which I'm not. There is a potential (likelihood) of selection bias since the tests are not being administered randomly.

---

I provided a link to which you could determine the daily positive rate. I've calculated it and it's within a fairly narrow band for the last few weeks. Rather than do the math (which is quite simple), you prefer to just assume that you are correct without inspection.

What this amply demonstrates is that you are more interested in asserting a narrative than actually obtaining the truth. Everyone can "just ask questions" to push whatever narrative they are interested in pursuing and you consistently do so while ignoring people who present data that confounds your preferred narrative.

You've mentioned a few different types of data that might be valuable, concluded that they wouldn't be perfect and then assumed that the narrative you've chosen is probably right because no reasons.

For everyone keeping score at home, this is yet another example of BG pushing an unsupported theory that allows him to make a baseless claim and manage to insult anyone who is actually interested in having a conversation based on facts and data.

With people like this pushing the "we must open now" narrative, is there any wonder that people who care about doing the right thing are urging caution?

---

Man are you dense or acting in bad faith (or both). I specifically said I didn't do the math because the results would not be instructive due to statistical flaws.

So I didn't waste my time, particularly because the data cannot be easily exported - at least that I could find after a brief look. If you feel the data is accurate and important, feel free to do your own homework.

Seriously - I started off pointing out that stats someone else posted arguably showing reduced cases/spread and which support my preferred outcome (reopening) were flawed and shouldn't be used for that purpose. Why in the world are you criticizing me for that? Unlike you, I was being intellectually honest.

I literally did not use this data to support an "open now" narrative - I did the exact opposite and said the data did not necessarily support that. You - not me - seems to be suggesting the case data might (not for sure) show a slow of spread.

Every post from you includes a personal attack - simply because we disagree about a policy preference. You transparently include ad hominim attacks and then claim to be taking the high road. You cite to data that is not helpful or statistically valid - and which you admit may not be accurate - and then accuse me of ignoring facts and data.

I'm the one preventing an honest discussion? That's rich.

---

What are you talking about? I quoted your post and highlighted where you said "I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing." I asked you what your basis was for that statement. I presented data showing daily testing results with which you could easily confirm, as I did, that the daily testing rates were consistent which would not support your statement. I asked you to provide the basis for your statement but you chose not to.

So spare us the hysterics. I was perfectly polite but you were unable to back up your (apparently baseless) statement so you went on a gish gallop of points that basically amount to "you can't trust any data". If you don't want people to ask you about unsupported statements, perhaps you came to the wrong place.

---

Let's break this down:

1. Bearister posts that Corona cases are not surging in high risk states. Not just CA, multiple states.

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-map-high-risk-states-8ceeaa05-cc07-4e8b-b9f4-df3a3315f143.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

2. I post that unfortunately, the data which appears to support reopening arguments might not due to testing/statistical problems. Said problems include, but are not limited to the fact that the gross case counts don't adjust for increases in testing. I write that I "suspect" the increase in "cases" might be due to increased testing. I didn't say I "knew that" - I thought it was possible/likely. And I didn't say that was the only reason case counts might increase.

I said that at this point (the outset of the pandemic) the "number of reported cases, is strongly correlated to the number of tests." Somehow that was controversial to Unit2, who is always looking to dispute a point and construct strawmen, all to justify launching another ad hominem attack.

One thing we know - for a fact - is that we started with literally no test/testing and generally speaking there has been a steady increase in nationwide testing over the last month (or whatever period you want to pick since March). True in CA as well where the most significant increases in testing have come more recently.

https://abc7news.com/california-coronavirus-update-testing-for-covid-contra-costa-county/6164793/

Its really not complicated. You get confirmed cases by running tests. The more tests, the more cases.

Is it possible that the increased CA case count is due solely to a factors other than increased testing? Yes - theoretically possible but not likely. Which is why I said "suspect."

Are you really disputing the logic that if you test more people, you'll get more positives reported?

3. Unit2 then posts links that he claims prove positive test percentages/rates have been consistent in CA including this one:

https://covidtracking.com/data/state/california#historical

That's contrary to the link posted above and other reports. Maybe there's something wrong with Unit2s link? Could that be? Let take a closer look . . .

4. It turns out, Unit2's link doesn't even show what he thinks it does. Specifically, it does not show "new cases" or any change in the percentage of people with new positives.

Said link specifically says that it is showing positive specimens - not positive people and not new cases. It also reveals that CA changed its testing methodology:

"As of April 22, California now reports specimens tested instead of people tested. Because some people may be tested more than once, this number is probably higher than the number of people tested."

They changed the methodology midway, making before/after comparisons and conclusions hard to reach. If a sick person gets tested 4 times (to see if they've cleared the virus), that is 4 positives in Unit2s chart. One case/person = multiple positives.

5. So literally, the numbers Unit2 linked to do not show new cases or even new people tested. As a result, based on those numbers, it is not possible to calculate whether spread is increasing/decreasing and/or if the percentage of new people (not specimens) testing positive is increasing or decreasing.

In sum, the numbers are useless for calculating changes in the rate of spread.

And, contrary to your claim, you did not present "data" confirming "the daily testing rates were consistent " Your data is trash and shows no such thing.

6. All of this proves my original point, we don't really know who is tested which introduces selection bias and other problems into the numbers. We certainly don't know the number of new cases - at least not from the data Unit2 posted. In looking at the CA official site, it appears that's not available there either.

No one has yet answered me this. Literally I am begging someone to come up with a coherent and scientifically based answer to this question: WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE LOCKDOWN RIGHT NOW?

hanky1 said:

---

No one has yet answered me this. Literally I am begging someone to come up with a coherent and scientifically based answer to this question: WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE LOCKDOWN RIGHT NOW?

---

To allow politicians to self-aggrandize and to make rich people who are unreasonably afraid of corona feel better about themselves. Otherwise, they'd see people resuming normal life and have to confront that reality.

BearGoggles said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

No one has yet answered me this. Literally I am begging someone to come up with a coherent and scientifically based answer to this question: WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE LOCKDOWN RIGHT NOW?

---

To allow politicians to self-aggrandize and to make rich people who are unreasonably afraid of corona feel better about themselves. Otherwise, they'd see people resuming normal life and have to confront that reality.

---

By the same token, the politicians in red states are allowing what their constituents want to drive their health policy because they know even if some get sick, they won't get blamed.

Which is why I give no politicians courage for their coronavirus decisions. Maybe there's someone in a red state that is advocating lockdowns and maybe there's someone in a blue state who is being uncautious, but I seriously doubt it. There is a middle ground to be found here and Newsom's timeline is overly cautious when we have people going to work every day and people having interactions with those people every day and no major catastrophes.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

Coronavirus cases aren't surging in high-risk states - Axios


https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-map-high-risk-states-8ceeaa05-cc07-4e8b-b9f4-df3a3315f143.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

This article/link supports reopening (which as you know, I'm in favor of), but the numbers seem to be unreliable. Measuring cases over a 7 day average is not a proper metric unless you correct for changes in testing during that period. Obviously, the number of reported cases is strongly correlated to the number of tests. I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing.

If we knew that testing was constant or increasing in all states (which could be the case), then the numbers would have more significance. Hopefully that is the case.

---

Curious as to what specific basis you have for this belief. The LA Times has a nice page showing county level growth (among a number of other things), and it appears that LA county is growing more quickly than other places and that this is driving the growth statewide. When I look at the historical data, it appears that the daily positive test rate has been fairly consistent the past few weeks, which would indicate that the testing is increasing more or less proportional to the number of infected.

I would like to think that the spread of the virus is slowing throughout the state, the way it appears to be in the bay area, but I don't have a strong basis to do so. If you have such a basis, I would love to hear it.

Here's the county by county chart I mentioned:


And additional data for every county with more than 1k cases:

---

Nothing you posted shows the positive test rate/percentage per 1,000 tests (or similar) or, for that matter indicates who is being tested. That info might be backed out if I was willing to take the time - which I'm not. There is a potential (likelihood) of selection bias since the tests are not being administered randomly.

---

I provided a link to which you could determine the daily positive rate. I've calculated it and it's within a fairly narrow band for the last few weeks. Rather than do the math (which is quite simple), you prefer to just assume that you are correct without inspection.

What this amply demonstrates is that you are more interested in asserting a narrative than actually obtaining the truth. Everyone can "just ask questions" to push whatever narrative they are interested in pursuing and you consistently do so while ignoring people who present data that confounds your preferred narrative.

You've mentioned a few different types of data that might be valuable, concluded that they wouldn't be perfect and then assumed that the narrative you've chosen is probably right because no reasons.

For everyone keeping score at home, this is yet another example of BG pushing an unsupported theory that allows him to make a baseless claim and manage to insult anyone who is actually interested in having a conversation based on facts and data.

With people like this pushing the "we must open now" narrative, is there any wonder that people who care about doing the right thing are urging caution?

---

Man are you dense or acting in bad faith (or both). I specifically said I didn't do the math because the results would not be instructive due to statistical flaws.

So I didn't waste my time, particularly because the data cannot be easily exported - at least that I could find after a brief look. If you feel the data is accurate and important, feel free to do your own homework.

Seriously - I started off pointing out that stats someone else posted arguably showing reduced cases/spread and which support my preferred outcome (reopening) were flawed and shouldn't be used for that purpose. Why in the world are you criticizing me for that? Unlike you, I was being intellectually honest.

I literally did not use this data to support an "open now" narrative - I did the exact opposite and said the data did not necessarily support that. You - not me - seems to be suggesting the case data might (not for sure) show a slow of spread.

Every post from you includes a personal attack - simply because we disagree about a policy preference. You transparently include ad hominim attacks and then claim to be taking the high road. You cite to data that is not helpful or statistically valid - and which you admit may not be accurate - and then accuse me of ignoring facts and data.

I'm the one preventing an honest discussion? That's rich.

---

What are you talking about? I quoted your post and highlighted where you said "I suspect CA is showing more cases because of increased testing." I asked you what your basis was for that statement. I presented data showing daily testing results with which you could easily confirm, as I did, that the daily testing rates were consistent which would not support your statement. I asked you to provide the basis for your statement but you chose not to.

So spare us the hysterics. I was perfectly polite but you were unable to back up your (apparently baseless) statement so you went on a gish gallop of points that basically amount to "you can't trust any data". If you don't want people to ask you about unsupported statements, perhaps you came to the wrong place.

---

Let's break this down:

1. Bearister posts that Corona cases are not surging in high risk states. Not just CA, multiple states.

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-cases-map-high-risk-states-8ceeaa05-cc07-4e8b-b9f4-df3a3315f143.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

2. I post that unfortunately, the data which appears to support reopening arguments might not due to testing/statistical problems. Said problems include, but are not limited to the fact that the gross case counts don't adjust for increases in testing. I write that I "suspect" the increase in "cases" might be due to increased testing. I didn't say I "knew that" - I thought it was possible/likely. And I didn't say that was the only reason case counts might increase.

I said that at this point (the outset of the pandemic) the "number of reported cases, is strongly correlated to the number of tests." Somehow that was controversial to Unit2, who is always looking to dispute a point and construct strawmen, all to justify launching another ad hominem attack.

One thing we know - for a fact - is that we started with literally no test/testing and generally speaking there has been a steady increase in nationwide testing over the last month (or whatever period you want to pick since March). True in CA as well where the most significant increases in testing have come more recently.

https://abc7news.com/california-coronavirus-update-testing-for-covid-contra-costa-county/6164793/

Its really not complicated. You get confirmed cases by running tests. The more tests, the more cases.

Is it possible that the increased CA case count is due solely to a factors other than increased testing? Yes - theoretically possible but not likely. Which is why I said "suspect."

Are you really disputing the logic that if you test more people, you'll get more positives reported?

3. Unit2 then posts links that he claims prove positive test percentages/rates have been consistent in CA including this one:

https://covidtracking.com/data/state/california#historical

That's contrary to the link posted above and other reports. Maybe there's something wrong with Unit2s link? Could that be? Let take a closer look . . .

4. It turns out, Unit2's link doesn't even show what he thinks it does. Specifically, it does not show "new cases" or any change in the percentage of people with new positives.

Said link specifically says that it is showing positive specimens - not positive people and not new cases. It also reveals that CA changed its testing methodology:

"As of April 22, California now reports specimens tested instead of people tested. Because some people may be tested more than once, this number is probably higher than the number of people tested."

They changed the methodology midway, making before/after comparisons and conclusions hard to reach. If a sick person gets tested 4 times (to see if they've cleared the virus), that is 4 positives in Unit2s chart. One case/person = multiple positives.

5. So literally, the numbers Unit2 linked to do not show new cases or even new people tested. As a result, based on those numbers, it is not possible to calculate whether spread is increasing/decreasing and/or if the percentage of new people (not specimens) testing positive is increasing or decreasing.

In sum, the numbers are useless for calculating changes in the rate of spread.

And, contrary to your claim, you did not present "data" confirming "the daily testing rates were consistent " Your data is trash and shows no such thing.

6. All of this proves my original point, we don't really know who is tested which introduces selection bias and other problems into the numbers. We certainly don't know the number of new cases - at least not from the data Unit2 posted. In looking at the CA official site, it appears that's not available there either.

---

Great let's go through the individual points

2. We agree you said you suspect that the case count increase was based on an increase in testing. I appreciated when you launched this ad hominem attack on me: "who is always looking to dispute a point and construct strawmen, all to justify launching another ad hominem attack." Sounds like projection.

You also ask "Are you really disputing the logic that if you test more people, you'll get more positives reported?" Trump's recent statements that "if we didn't do any testing, we would have very few cases" sounds pretty similar. Obviously Trump is off his rocker and you are making a slightly different point, but yes - I dispute the logic because it is speculative and public health experts have said that they look for a decreasing number of positive test results as a percentage of total tests.

You could just as easily speculate that people generally get tested when they have symptoms. As you will see from my responses below (and as I said in my prior post), the number of positive results (as a percentage of tests) has been consistent for the past few weeks. You may also recall that The White House promulgated a plan for reopening America that specifically cited the following as a possible criteria for satisfaction prior to reopening: "Downward trajectory of positive tests as a percent of total tests within a 14-day period (flat or increasing volume of tests)". If you disagree, you should probably let them know.

By the way, as the bay area has increased testing, we have seen a decrease in the number of positive test results.

3-4. Unfortunately, you misunderstood what I wrote and constructed a strawman to knock down. Hey, just like you accused me of above. What a surprise. If you read what I wrote, you would see that I wasn't referring to tests dating back beyond April 22, I specifically said "I look at the historical data, it appears that the daily positive test rate has been fairly consistent the past few weeks, which would indicate that the testing is increasing more or less proportional to the number of infected." Guess what - if you go back to May 1, almost every day is between 4 and 6% (if you take that day's increase in cases divided by "new tests"). The page says "may be tested more than once" but you have no reason to believe that would have a material impact on this point.

5. You are the one who claimed with no basis) that the increase in tests is responsible for the growth in new cases. The burden on you is to provide a basis for your speculation.

6. I do agree that testing isn't perfect and that testing bias may be a problem. That problem could manifest in a number of different ways.

For example, let's apply your analysis to the other thread where you are debating Orange County's results. Orange County has been criticized for undertesting relative to other counties. As I note above, you said more testing leads to more cases, but you neglected to mention that OC has tested a much lower percentage of its population than other highly infected counties and yet it's comparable in positive test results (per test administered) with the other counties (other than LA which is much higher).

Finally, in the other thread you say that OC's testing has increased without noting that "Effective May 6, 2020, counts of Orange County COVID-19 tests performed replaced the count of people tested for COVID-19. This change more accurately reflects testing conducted by Public Health, clinical and commercial labs." That is precisely the day their testing increased. It's interesting that you noted the change in methodology in your inaccurate response to my post above, but somehow omitted to mention it in your OC analysis.

Funny that your position on testing seems to depend entirely on which side of the argument you are on.

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

BearChemist said:

---

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

There is no Bill of Rights in Asia or Europe

hanky1 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

There is no Bill of Rights in Asia or Europe

---

Although I actually halfway agree with you on this issue, in general, I am curious which of our rights are being infringed upon (as per the Bill of Rights). Okay, there is the part in the First Amendment that says "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", but what else? Seems like Trump has done more to violate the Bill of Rights than state and local officials have.

hanky1 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

There is no Bill of Rights in Asia or Europe

---

American exceptionalism.... mmm k

BearChemist said:

---

Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

It seems to me the real snowflakes are the ones who clutch their pearls and scream "you'll kill my grandma" anytime they're confronted with an opposing point of view on the lockdown.

It's the rallying cry of house arrest supporters. "But you'll kill my grandma!!!"

There was a Simpsons episode that foreshadowed this but instead of grandma it was children.

It's like hypothetical killing of your grandma is grounds for shutting down any type of dissent and discussion

BearChemist said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

There is no Bill of Rights in Asia or Europe

---

American exceptionalism.... mmm k

---

Nah it's not American exceptionalism. It's just the oldest law that our country was founded upon. The one that some people demand our whole country forfeit because 'you'll kill my grandma'

hanky1 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

It seems to me the real snowflakes are the ones who clutch their pearls and scream "you'll kill my grandma" anytime they're confronted with an opposing point of view on the lockdown.

It's the rallying cry of house arrest supporters. "But you'll kill my grandma!!!"

There was a Simpsons episode that foreshadowed this but instead of grandma it was children.

It's like hypothetical killing of your grandma is grounds for shutting down any type of dissent and discussion

---

"House arrest," says someone who claims to eat out everyday.

hanky1 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

There is no Bill of Rights in Asia or Europe

---

American exceptionalism.... mmm k

---

Nah it's not American exceptionalism. It's just the oldest law that our country was founded upon. The one that some people demand our whole country forfeit because 'you'll kill my grandma'

---

Forget political science. This is a moral issue where certain group is so convinced of their moral righteousness in shutting down the economy indefinitely that they are ignoring all other moral consideration. And quite frankly, that perspective is a luxury of the rich (like those of us debating this) who can do this indefinitely.

Flattening the curve is 100% necessary. You don't want hospitals to be overrun. Shutting down the economy until certain conditions that will take months or years are met is insanity. People in millions will lose jobs permanently for years. And those are not just numbers but actual families and their physical and mental well being. Prices will escalate from inflation and scarcity and there won't be some miracle reduction when we reopen. You can't keep devaluing money by printing and spending in trillions and not think prices will stay the same. We are talking about basic things like food. You can't keep putting small businesses and some large businesses out of business and not think that will not have long term impact on well being of millions. And our kids will be burdened with suffocating debt. Our younger generation will permanently have their lifetime earning capacity and wealth reduced just like the Great Recession impacted millennials. You can't keep cutting taxes, spendings as if trillions are the new billions and borrowing without limit. But while we shut down, that will be necessary. And our kids will be impacted long term by shutting down schools. Education is important, right? There has been no data that shutting down now in places where the curve has been flattened is better for people's well being. It seems to be a conclusion based on one side of facts without considering the impact. Cutting off someone's head because he has brain tumor probably doesn't make sense. I understand the current conditions that have been suggested before we open up. We should be working toward that but without explaining how long that will take, making that a condition by order is insanity. What if it takes four more months? A year?

And I say this as someone who desperately would like someone else in the White House. Democrats need to be careful to avoid this buffoon in the White House who utterly failed to lead in this crisis being now viewed by some as their only hope of being able to feed their family against excessive shut down orders. I fear that the hard line positions taken by the left will lead us to four more years. Things that work in places like Northern California or Queens will not work in Swing States. Leaders like Bill Clinton and Obama knew how to communicate and understand middle class America. Democrats now have lost so much touch with so many Americans and are so tone deaf that someone like Trump is beginning to seem to enough middle class Americans to be the sane one among the alternatives. As a result, I fear he most likely will win again unless we pivot to bringing the economy back to recovery soon.

"A skeptical president. Millions refusing to socially isolate themselves."

"This would not have happened if effective measures had been adopted from the start. [They] adopted half measures, not as firm as they should have been, which is prolonging the suffering and economic impact. The longer we stay in this intermediate state, the greater the economic cost."

"There is a continuous conflict of message and strategy, and a political conflict, and this is reflected in [the] difficulty in acquiring equipment, such as respirators and tests, and even individual protection material, such as masks."

"[The] far-right president has been dismissive from the start of the seriousness of COVID-19, going on walkabouts to greet supporters and saying the virus was just a "little cold." When [they] passed the 5,000-death mark, his response began: "So what?" When it passed the 10,000 mark last weekend, he took a widely-publicised [golf trip]."

"The crisis has also caused serious instability in the federal government. The Health Minister was fired after clashes over how to handle the epidemic and [others in the administration] quit after claims of political interference. On Friday, the replacement also resigned after rejecting the President's request to recommend the unproven drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment."

"Throughout, the President has been hostile to protective measures adopted by state governors, which have included suspending schools, prohibiting intercity buses, and shutting down shops, bars and beaches but have generally stopped short of complete lockdowns. Just this week, the president decreed gyms and beauty salons as "essential" businesses that could reopen."

"From the beginning, [there was] not have a clear strategy and homogeneous message from the federal government," Nicolelis says. "Even with the previous Health Minister, the message was dubious and ineffective. The aid to states was minimal, and far from adequate."

"The President has faced opposition from state governors, mayors, the Supreme Court and his own ministers. The governors of the two largest states imposed strict isolation rules in their states in March and criticised the President."

"As the crisis has worsened, lockdowns have been introduced in other states. But most governors have shied away from a complete shutdown that would shutter industry and create the potential for social disorder."

As you may have guessed this is about Brazil, but it could have been written about the US and Donald Trump.

For good measure:

"The president's son claimed on Twitter that his father's comments were being distorted by liberal journalists seeking to destroy his reputation."

(Source: https://time.com/5837434/brazil-coronavirus-covid-19-latin-america/)

BearChemist said:

---

Comparing to various Asian and European countries, there is no LOCKDOWN in the US. Don't victimize yourself, snowflakes.

---

Deflection

Quote:

---

Whataboutism. Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

---

Why life went on as normal during the killer pandemic of 1969


https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/why-life-went-on-as-normal-during-the-killer-pandemic-of-1969/


My whole family got it during a Christmas Vacation in 1968 in SoCal. I remember the symptoms coming on when I was in the theater watching Bullitt. We got so sick we had to stay over an extra week in the hotel. We all lived to tell the tale.

calbear93 said:

---

I understand the current conditions that have been suggested before we open up. We should be working toward that but without explaining how long that will take, making that a condition by order is insanity. What if it takes four more months? A year?.

---

I'm pretty sure that the leaders (governors mostly) setting these conditions are laying out their expected timelines too. They can't be 100% certain about the timelines because humanity is not 100% certain about how this virus works yet. But I don't think any of them are talking about full shutdowns for four months or longer. Even the ones you might THINK said that didn't actually say that.

I also just want to point out (not just for you) that while I do see some media hysteria around COVID-19 that probably makes it seem worse than it is, this idea that Democrats are trying to keep the economy shut down indefinitely and that people will die from that is ALSO hysteria. There is no real evidence that anyone wants to do that; governors do not want their states losing their tax revenue for that long unless they think they have to.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

this idea that Democrats are trying to keep the economy shut down indefinitely and that people will die from that is ALSO hysteria. There is no real evidence that anyone wants to do that; governors do not want their states losing their tax revenue for that long unless they think they have to.

---

---

Yes, the irony is not lost on me that the same people complaining about the accuracy of counting COVID deaths have absolutely no problem speculating on how many suicides will occur as a result of government shutdowns.

bearister said:

---

NWhy life went on as normal during the killer pandemic of 1969


https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/why-life-went-on-as-normal-during-the-killer-pandemic-of-1969/


My whole family got it during a Christmas Vacation in 1968 in SoCal. I remember the symptoms coming on when I was in the theater watching Bullitt. We got so sick we had to stay over an extra week in the hotel. We all lived to tell the tale.

---

Remember trying to make that jump in a Kharmann Ghia. Didn't work.

bearister said:

---

Why life went on as normal during the killer pandemic of 1969


https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/why-life-went-on-as-normal-during-the-killer-pandemic-of-1969/

---

"Between 1968 and 1970, the Hong Kong flu killed between an estimated one and four million, according to the CDC and Encyclopaedia Britannica, with US deaths exceeding 100,000." From the article...

There is your answer. We did nothing and only 100k died. 2020, we have done a lot and even so, we approach 100k after just two months. Not the same beast.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I understand the current conditions that have been suggested before we open up. We should be working toward that but without explaining how long that will take, making that a condition by order is insanity. What if it takes four more months? A year?.

---

I'm pretty sure that the leaders (governors mostly) setting these conditions are laying out their expected timelines too. They can't be 100% certain about the timelines because humanity is not 100% certain about how this virus works yet. But I don't think any of them are talking about full shutdowns for four months or longer. Even the ones you might THINK said that didn't actually say that.

I also just want to point out (not just for you) that while I do see some media hysteria around COVID-19 that probably makes it seem worse than it is, this idea that Democrats are trying to keep the economy shut down indefinitely and that people will die from that is ALSO hysteria. There is no real evidence that anyone wants to do that; governors do not want their states losing their tax revenue for that long unless they think they have to.

---

Let me ask you this. What is the end goal of keeping the shelter in place now and how long will that last? Can you answer that? Is there any data that keeping the shelter in place after the curve has been flattened is more beneficial overall after taking into account the damage it will do than not doing it? I may have missed it. Also, if anything, there is not enough coverage over the actual long term damage this is doing to the well being, especially the poor and the young.! The government cannot keep writing checks with diluted money and saturated debt. Generation Z and millennials are already screwed long term from the damage that has already been done. Generation X like me will be fine. We already have significant wealth and earning capacity. We can continue to work remotely. But all we hear on CNN is how crazy it would be to open up the economy. Why? How is it not crazy to shut down production and earning capacity and expect people to not be damaged mentally and physically?

This shut down orders without knowing the side effects of the order is like some clown recommending a remedy without knowing the benefits or side effects.

There is a reason we don't release every potential cure or vaccine without understanding the benefits and side effects. Only after we do clinical trials and FDA approves the consequences will it be cleared. We would insist on it unless it was life or death. Hospitals overrun was life and death. It is not anymore. This type shut down order based on hope it will do more good holistically than bad is like releasing untested medicine and forcing it on the entire population without knowing the full benefit or harm. Illogical.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I understand the current conditions that have been suggested before we open up. We should be working toward that but without explaining how long that will take, making that a condition by order is insanity. What if it takes four more months? A year?.

---

I'm pretty sure that the leaders (governors mostly) setting these conditions are laying out their expected timelines too. They can't be 100% certain about the timelines because humanity is not 100% certain about how this virus works yet. But I don't think any of them are talking about full shutdowns for four months or longer. Even the ones you might THINK said that didn't actually say that.

I also just want to point out (not just for you) that while I do see some media hysteria around COVID-19 that probably makes it seem worse than it is, this idea that Democrats are trying to keep the economy shut down indefinitely and that people will die from that is ALSO hysteria. There is no real evidence that anyone wants to do that; governors do not want their states losing their tax revenue for that long unless they think they have to.

---

Let me ask you this. What is the end goal of keeping the shelter in place now and how long will that last? Can you answer that? Is there any data that keeping the shelter in place after the curve has been flattened is more beneficial overall after taking into account the damage it will do than not doing it? I may have missed it. Also, if anything, there is not enough coverage over the actual long term damage this is doing to the well being, especially the poor and the young.! The government cannot keep writing checks with diluted money and saturated debt. Generation Z and millennials are already screwed long term from the damage that has already been done. Generation X like me will be fine. We already have significant wealth and earning capacity. We can continue to work remotely. But all we hear on CNN is how crazy it would be to open up the economy. Why? How is it not crazy to shut down production and earning capacity and expect people to not be damaged mentally and physically?

This shut down orders without knowing the side effects of the order is like some clown recommending a remedy without knowing the benefits or side effects.

There is a reason we don't release every potential cure or vaccine without understanding the benefits and side effects. Only after we do clinical trials and FDA approves the consequences will it be cleared. We would insist on it unless it was life or death. Hospitals overrun was life and death. It is not anymore. This type shut down order based on hope it will do more good holistically than bad is like releasing untested medicine and forcing it on the entire population without knowing the full benefit or harm. Illogical.

---

The states with "shutdown" orders are already planning phased reopenings. They are already underway in many cases (including CA). This isn't a thing to argue over. No one who matters wants a shutdown to last much longer.

I suppose one can argue that the timelines are too slow, but personally I agree with the prudence, particularly in high population areas that are at greater risk of an infection rebound. You don't know exactly how risky it is either; everyone is making their best guess.

One of the best takes I've heard on COVID

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I understand the current conditions that have been suggested before we open up. We should be working toward that but without explaining how long that will take, making that a condition by order is insanity. What if it takes four more months? A year?.

---

I'm pretty sure that the leaders (governors mostly) setting these conditions are laying out their expected timelines too. They can't be 100% certain about the timelines because humanity is not 100% certain about how this virus works yet. But I don't think any of them are talking about full shutdowns for four months or longer. Even the ones you might THINK said that didn't actually say that.

I also just want to point out (not just for you) that while I do see some media hysteria around COVID-19 that probably makes it seem worse than it is, this idea that Democrats are trying to keep the economy shut down indefinitely and that people will die from that is ALSO hysteria. There is no real evidence that anyone wants to do that; governors do not want their states losing their tax revenue for that long unless they think they have to.

---

Let me ask you this. What is the end goal of keeping the shelter in place now and how long will that last? Can you answer that? Is there any data that keeping the shelter in place after the curve has been flattened is more beneficial overall after taking into account the damage it will do than not doing it? I may have missed it. Also, if anything, there is not enough coverage over the actual long term damage this is doing to the well being, especially the poor and the young.! The government cannot keep writing checks with diluted money and saturated debt. Generation Z and millennials are already screwed long term from the damage that has already been done. Generation X like me will be fine. We already have significant wealth and earning capacity. We can continue to work remotely. But all we hear on CNN is how crazy it would be to open up the economy. Why? How is it not crazy to shut down production and earning capacity and expect people to not be damaged mentally and physically?

This shut down orders without knowing the side effects of the order is like some clown recommending a remedy without knowing the benefits or side effects.

There is a reason we don't release every potential cure or vaccine without understanding the benefits and side effects. Only after we do clinical trials and FDA approves the consequences will it be cleared. We would insist on it unless it was life or death. Hospitals overrun was life and death. It is not anymore. This type shut down order based on hope it will do more good holistically than bad is like releasing untested medicine and forcing it on the entire population without knowing the full benefit or harm. Illogical.

---

The states with "shutdown" orders are already planning phased reopenings. They are already underway in many cases (including CA). This isn't a thing to argue over. No one who matters wants a shutdown to last much longer.

I suppose one can argue that the timelines are too slow, but personally I agree with the prudence, particularly in high population areas that are at greater risk of an infection rebound. You don't know exactly how risky it is either; everyone is making their best guess.

---

OK, let's bottom line this because I feel like we are just engaging in semantics. When do you think CA will reopen and why is that future date versus now a better date? I have not heard of a firm date. Saying there is a plan is meaningless because there has always been a plan but we are still shut down. As I stated earlier, this type of debate is a luxury of the rich like us. When can those families where the parents have lost jobs permanently and will not get it back anytime soon be told they can start looking for jobs again? Have you had to tell your kids you lost your job? I am fortunate that I can do my job indefinitely remotely and my job is not at risk. And my wealth has for the most part been preserved. What is the date? And really any date that has been given in the past has moved further back. I completely get why people are protesting and I don't dismiss them as idiots like some have implied here. And I believe the Democrats are at the tipping point of losing the battle of messaging that was a slam dunk when Trump, as expected, was being the complete feckless leader he is.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I understand the current conditions that have been suggested before we open up. We should be working toward that but without explaining how long that will take, making that a condition by order is insanity. What if it takes four more months? A year?.

---

I'm pretty sure that the leaders (governors mostly) setting these conditions are laying out their expected timelines too. They can't be 100% certain about the timelines because humanity is not 100% certain about how this virus works yet. But I don't think any of them are talking about full shutdowns for four months or longer. Even the ones you might THINK said that didn't actually say that.

I also just want to point out (not just for you) that while I do see some media hysteria around COVID-19 that probably makes it seem worse than it is, this idea that Democrats are trying to keep the economy shut down indefinitely and that people will die from that is ALSO hysteria. There is no real evidence that anyone wants to do that; governors do not want their states losing their tax revenue for that long unless they think they have to.

---

Let me ask you this. What is the end goal of keeping the shelter in place now and how long will that last? Can you answer that? Is there any data that keeping the shelter in place after the curve has been flattened is more beneficial overall after taking into account the damage it will do than not doing it? I may have missed it. Also, if anything, there is not enough coverage over the actual long term damage this is doing to the well being, especially the poor and the young.! The government cannot keep writing checks with diluted money and saturated debt. Generation Z and millennials are already screwed long term from the damage that has already been done. Generation X like me will be fine. We already have significant wealth and earning capacity. We can continue to work remotely. But all we hear on CNN is how crazy it would be to open up the economy. Why? How is it not crazy to shut down production and earning capacity and expect people to not be damaged mentally and physically?

This shut down orders without knowing the side effects of the order is like some clown recommending a remedy without knowing the benefits or side effects.

There is a reason we don't release every potential cure or vaccine without understanding the benefits and side effects. Only after we do clinical trials and FDA approves the consequences will it be cleared. We would insist on it unless it was life or death. Hospitals overrun was life and death. It is not anymore. This type shut down order based on hope it will do more good holistically than bad is like releasing untested medicine and forcing it on the entire population without knowing the full benefit or harm. Illogical.

---

The states with "shutdown" orders are already planning phased reopenings. They are already underway in many cases (including CA). This isn't a thing to argue over. No one who matters wants a shutdown to last much longer.

I suppose one can argue that the timelines are too slow, but personally I agree with the prudence, particularly in high population areas that are at greater risk of an infection rebound. You don't know exactly how risky it is either; everyone is making their best guess.

---

OK, let's bottom line this because I feel like we are just engaging in semantics. When do you think CA will reopen and why is that future date versus now a better date? I have not heard of a firm date. Saying there is a plan is meaningless because there has always been a plan but we are still shut down. As I stated earlier, this type of debate is a luxury of the rich like us. When can those families where the parents have lost jobs permanently and will not get it back anytime soon be told they can start looking for jobs again? Have you had to tell your kids you lost your job? I am fortunate that I can do my job indefinitely remotely and my job is not at risk. And my wealth has for the most part been preserved. What is the date? And really any date that has been given in the past has moved further back. I completely get why people are protesting and I don't dismiss them as idiots like some have implied here. And I believe the Democrats are at the tipping point of losing the battle of messaging that was a slam dunk when Trump, as expected, was being the complete feckless leader he is.

---

I think the highlighted question will really depend on the industry and the function. It will also greatly depend on how prevalent the virus remains. I sound like a broken record on this because I haven't heard anything to change my mind.

When will you go back to your office?
When will you send your children back to school?
When will you begin travelling again?
When will you return to a crowded restaurant?
When will you begin taking risks purely to help other people make a living?

I will be perfectly candid in my response. I will send my kids to school as soon as the schools are willing to take them. I think the benefits to my kids being in school far outweigh the risks to my (young) kids and my wife and I.
For everything else, the answer is not until I feel safe. I used to enjoy going to restaurants and bars, but I won't be returning until well after things are safe. I can still support them by ordering takeout/delivery, but it's hard for businesses to survive on that.

From my perspective, the quicker we can get to a "safe enough for people to engage in in-person commerce with only light mitigation measures in place" the better for our economy. Testing and tracking is one way to get there, but perhaps not the only way. Only then will business travel resume. Only then will international travel resume into the US. Only then will brick and mortar establishments be able to return to profitable operation. I fear we are greatly extending the period of time before that happens and that we are going to destroy far more lives through prematurely opening than we could had we waited until we could test and trace. I fear that we will open up too soon, and our economy will continue to contract because enough people will reduce their risk to make it impossible for front line businesses to thrive and that it will trickle up throughout the economy. My business isn't a front-line business but we've already seen the negative impact from the demand shock. We will not be returning to our offices for many months, if ever. I urge people to truly consider whether just declaring this war over is going to generate a return to any sort of normalcy.

Obviously you and I both share a disdain for Trump, but I believe he was correct when he said: "Nothing would be worse than declaring victory before the victory is won." I don't see how anyone can say that we've won yet.

hanky1 said:

---

One of the best takes I've heard on COVID

---

Excellent take. And in typical Fareed Zakaria fashion, all of his ideas are lifted from someone else's work. Peggy Noonon wrote a column on this 3 days ago.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scenes-from-the-class-struggle-in-lockdown-11589498276?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1&fbclid=IwAR0jayNl5lHQ_vPoC7Vkqj7dNMXG0ueJLNwj-THCGgeDB1GEt6SL8ebGgCA

calbear93 said:

---

OK, let's bottom line this because I feel like we are just engaging in semantics. When do you think CA will reopen and why is that future date versus now a better date? I have not heard of a firm date. Saying there is a plan is meaningless because there has always been a plan but we are still shut down. As I stated earlier, this type of debate is a luxury of the rich like us. When can those families where the parents have lost jobs permanently and will not get it back anytime soon be told they can start looking for jobs again? Have you had to tell your kids you lost your job? I am fortunate that I can do my job indefinitely remotely and my job is not at risk. And my wealth has for the most part been preserved. What is the date? And really any date that has been given in the past has moved further back. I completely get why people are protesting and I don't dismiss them as idiots like some have implied here. And I believe the Democrats are at the tipping point of losing the battle of messaging that was a slam dunk when Trump, as expected, was being the complete feckless leader he is.

---

What this comes down to is risk management.

I will tell you the dates that my employer is planning for. We have had people who need to do critical work on-site the entire time. That is about 5-10% of the workforce. Starting next week that number is going to double to about 15% of the workforce. The reason for the increase is that we have to do it in order to meet our commitments. So starting next week about 15% of the workforce will be going into work regularly.

So what about the other 85%? Of the other 85% we are looking at having about half of those back starting in July. We fully expect the other half of the workforce to not come back until possibly January of 2021 and allow people to telecommute until then if they can and have to either because of children or because they are just uncomfortable.

Now, a lot of the work that we do lends itself to telecommuting and so we have the luxury of coming back slowly, but that is what our leadership has determined is a safe and responsible course of action. Also, we have a lot of older employees who are very difficult to replace (world leaders in their fields) who are maybe more at risk than the general population so we have to protect them.

We are just now starting to be able to obtain the supplies of hand sanitizer, masks, disinfectant, and other items we will need in the quantity we will need. We are making other changes, too, like converting more doors into automatically opening doors and installing HEPA filters in the HVAC system where possible. Until we can get the supplies we need and can finish making other changes (some which pose real challenges both in terms of logistics and privacy - like for example the possibility of mandatory testing or taking temperatures when entering) we are not putting our employees at risk because without them we can't make our deliverables.

The economy will not be fully open until everyone can mitigate the risk of opening. For some people that will be sooner than others. That is why setting a date is a silly idea. You can set all the dates you want, but business will hire/get back to work when they are ready and so will employees. Don't expect anything close to normal until sometime in 2021. So that's your date: spring of 2021 to be fully reopened.

If you want a date for when companies can start to make those decisions for themselves, then I would say that we are getting closer. July 1 seems like a date that people can plan to, although some areas like LA may find themselves under restrictions even longer than that.

dimitrig said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OK, let's bottom line this because I feel like we are just engaging in semantics. When do you think CA will reopen and why is that future date versus now a better date? I have not heard of a firm date. Saying there is a plan is meaningless because there has always been a plan but we are still shut down. As I stated earlier, this type of debate is a luxury of the rich like us. When can those families where the parents have lost jobs permanently and will not get it back anytime soon be told they can start looking for jobs again? Have you had to tell your kids you lost your job? I am fortunate that I can do my job indefinitely remotely and my job is not at risk. And my wealth has for the most part been preserved. What is the date? And really any date that has been given in the past has moved further back. I completely get why people are protesting and I don't dismiss them as idiots like some have implied here. And I believe the Democrats are at the tipping point of losing the battle of messaging that was a slam dunk when Trump, as expected, was being the complete feckless leader he is.

---

What this comes down to is risk management.

I will tell you the dates that my employer is planning for. We have had people who need to do critical work on-site the entire time. That is about 5-10% of the workforce. Starting next week that number is going to double to about 15% of the workforce. The reason for the increase is that we have to do it in order to meet our commitments. So starting next week about 15% of the workforce will be going into work regularly.

So what about the other 85%? Of the other 85% we are looking at having about half of those back starting in July. We fully expect the other half of the workforce to not come back until possibly January of 2021 and allow people to telecommute until then if they can and have to either because of children or because they are just uncomfortable.

Now, a lot of the work that we do lends itself to telecommuting and so we have the luxury of coming back slowly, but that is what our leadership has determined is a safe and responsible course of action. Also, we have a lot of older employees who are very difficult to replace (world leaders in their fields) who are maybe more at risk than the general population so we have to protect them.

We are just now starting to be able to obtain the supplies of hand sanitizer, masks, disinfectant, and other items we will need in the quantity we will need. We are making other changes, too, like converting more doors into automatically opening doors and installing HEPA filters in the HVAC system where possible. Until we can get the supplies we need and can finish making other changes (some which pose real challenges both in terms of logistics and privacy - like for example the possibility of mandatory testing or taking temperatures when entering) we are not putting our employees at risk because without them we can't make our deliverables.

The economy will not be fully open until everyone can mitigate the risk of opening. For some people that will be sooner than others. That is why setting a date is a silly idea. You can set all the dates you want, but business will hire/get back to work when they are ready and so will employees. Don't expect anything close to normal until sometime in 2021. So that's your date: spring of 2021 to be fully reopened.

If you want a date for when companies can start to make those decisions for themselves, then I would say that we are getting closer. July 1 seems like a date that people can plan to, although some areas like LA may find themselves under restrictions even longer than that.

---

That is consistent with what we are doing with essential workers who need to be on site working while most of us are telecommuting. We have not restructured the workforce or furloughed any employees. We are fortunate. I am not asking the economy to be opened up for those like us although even all of us will eventually be impacted. We are not the ones hurt by this. I can do this indefinitely other than overcoming my sense of restlessness.

How about the hourly employees at small businesses, restaurant workers, etc. who do not have the ability to be enjoy the conservative risk mitigation? It is too easy for the privileged like us to take this position. I am fairly certain if your job was permanently eliminated, you may not be as patient and willing to be conservative.

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OK, let's bottom line this because I feel like we are just engaging in semantics. When do you think CA will reopen and why is that future date versus now a better date? I have not heard of a firm date. Saying there is a plan is meaningless because there has always been a plan but we are still shut down. As I stated earlier, this type of debate is a luxury of the rich like us. When can those families where the parents have lost jobs permanently and will not get it back anytime soon be told they can start looking for jobs again? Have you had to tell your kids you lost your job? I am fortunate that I can do my job indefinitely remotely and my job is not at risk. And my wealth has for the most part been preserved. What is the date? And really any date that has been given in the past has moved further back. I completely get why people are protesting and I don't dismiss them as idiots like some have implied here. And I believe the Democrats are at the tipping point of losing the battle of messaging that was a slam dunk when Trump, as expected, was being the complete feckless leader he is.

---

What this comes down to is risk management.

I will tell you the dates that my employer is planning for. We have had people who need to do critical work on-site the entire time. That is about 5-10% of the workforce. Starting next week that number is going to double to about 15% of the workforce. The reason for the increase is that we have to do it in order to meet our commitments. So starting next week about 15% of the workforce will be going into work regularly.

So what about the other 85%? Of the other 85% we are looking at having about half of those back starting in July. We fully expect the other half of the workforce to not come back until possibly January of 2021 and allow people to telecommute until then if they can and have to either because of children or because they are just uncomfortable.

Now, a lot of the work that we do lends itself to telecommuting and so we have the luxury of coming back slowly, but that is what our leadership has determined is a safe and responsible course of action. Also, we have a lot of older employees who are very difficult to replace (world leaders in their fields) who are maybe more at risk than the general population so we have to protect them.

We are just now starting to be able to obtain the supplies of hand sanitizer, masks, disinfectant, and other items we will need in the quantity we will need. We are making other changes, too, like converting more doors into automatically opening doors and installing HEPA filters in the HVAC system where possible. Until we can get the supplies we need and can finish making other changes (some which pose real challenges both in terms of logistics and privacy - like for example the possibility of mandatory testing or taking temperatures when entering) we are not putting our employees at risk because without them we can't make our deliverables.

The economy will not be fully open until everyone can mitigate the risk of opening. For some people that will be sooner than others. That is why setting a date is a silly idea. You can set all the dates you want, but business will hire/get back to work when they are ready and so will employees. Don't expect anything close to normal until sometime in 2021. So that's your date: spring of 2021 to be fully reopened.

If you want a date for when companies can start to make those decisions for themselves, then I would say that we are getting closer. July 1 seems like a date that people can plan to, although some areas like LA may find themselves under restrictions even longer than that.

---

That is consistent with what we are doing with essential workers who need to be on site working while most of us are telecommuting. We have not restructured the workforce or furloughed any employees. We are fortunate. I am not asking the economy to be opened up for those like us although even all of us will eventually be impacted. We are not the ones hurt by this. I can do this indefinitely other than overcoming my sense of restlessness.

How about the hourly employees at small businesses, restaurant workers, etc. who do not have the ability to be enjoy the conservative risk mitigation? It is too easy for the privileged like us to take this position. I am fairly certain if your job was permanently eliminated, you may not be as patient and willing to be conservative.

---

I was going to edit my post to say that the dates are arrived at by a combination of epidemiology and practicality. The epidemiology says that cases are still increasing. If we were willing to SIP with 10% the number of cases then why would we not be when the number of cases is 10x as many? You are a lot more likely to catch it now than you were on Easter which means you are more likely to bring it into the workplace. For us, that is just something we can't afford to have happen.

In practical terms, we have just not been able to open up safely. We have multibillions per year in contracts and yet we had trouble obtaining really simple items like hand sanitizer. It is only in the last week or two that we can even get our hands on actual Purell. Up until then we had been buying hand sanitizer from a distillery. Since we have the capability to test we actually tested it to make sure it was up to standards. But then we could not find enough pump bottles to actually deploy it to the end users. Who know the actual bottles would be hard to get? So we could only safely work at the numbers we were at because of lack of availability of supplies which I think is ab-so-lute-ly ridiculous! Now that we are finally able to start resolving these practical issues (which also involve designing patterns of flow in the office and procedures for disinfecting keyboards and basic stuff like that) we finally feel like we can think about reopening. That just wasn't a possibility until recently unless the epidemiology supported it, which it doesn't.

We have a highly skilled, highly trained workforce. Losing a significant percentage of that to a virus would be a big blow. It is a risk we cannot take. If you are an employer with an unskilled workforce then you are willing to take on more risk because it is easier to replace employees if they quit or, God forbid, die. However, those employees should not be forced into risking their lives or the lives of their loved ones just because they are easier to replace.

These Republican governors (and others) who insist on reopening are not providing a means for people to do so safely. Some employers will take it upon themselves to protect their employees but many won't and, quite frankly given our experience obtaining PPE, I think that even if they want to do the right thing they won't be able to either because of cost or availability of the supplies needed to do so safely.

I see this environment as very risky for small business right now unless the owner is a very caring and responsible owner with not only the financial strength to do it but the intellectual capacity to thoroughly understand and mitigate the risks. I fear many will not be.

In some sense I think it is incumbent on us as a society to protect our weakest and most vulnerable populations. yes, the right derides that as liberal elites who want to tell you what is best for you. That is probably a fair characterization. However, jobs will come back. People won't.

Our current administration doesn't care if you die and they don't care if you lose your house either. It is every man for himself. To me it is incumbent on those of us who know better to push back against that whether it is well-received by everyone or not. Trust me when I say that we have some very well educated employees who are Republicans and Libertarians who think this whole SIP is stupid and want to get back to work. I think it is okay for them to fume a little bit, because we are going to need them and they are useless to us dead or incapacitated because they have some misguided ideas about liberty and freedom.

I also want to say that it doesn't do us a lot of good to put all of these protections in place for our knowledge workers if:

1. Their wives/girlfriends/kids are going to jobs or schools where they are at risk of getting sick

2. They are running around dining in at restaurants and other establishments that are taking risks

That is why we decided as a society to SIP. We are only as strong as our weakest links.

If governments want to allow reopenings there have to be strongly communicated and enforced standards for doing so.

One thing we are considering is enforcing that anyone who has traveled out of state is not allowed on our campus for a minimum of 14 days and WITH a negative test as well (because people lie about travel). We are also developing an app to track the movements of everyone while on campus so we can do contact tracing. Masks are mandatory. We don't care if you think it looks stupid. If you don't have one we will provide it.

We wouldn't have to have all of these ridiculous policies if Trump didn't allow some governors to just do nothing. Trust me when I say that this epidemic will be more costly the way that Trump is handling it than it could have been. Trump likes to focus on the shutdown destroying the economy, but it is his inaction that has led to that.