[2006alum]

Great share. I loved this paragraph, which in and of itself is encouraging in a way many of us have taken for granted: as a country, we've responded in a monumentally historic, collective, and voluntary way:

As Zeynep Tufekci has brilliantly written for the Atlantic, models like these are not meant to be crystal balls, producing projections we can all take to the bank, but a survey of possible futures that depend on what choices are made and what policies are engineered and implemented in response to the pandemic threat. Nevertheless, the gap between what experts projected a few weeks ago and what they are projecting now is absolutely astounding, and it is primarily a reflection of just how much has been done, and how quickly, to defend against and respond to the coronavirus. In many cases, we have achieved so much more than modelers even imagined possible that the range of outcomes we are now looking at did not even appear at the very low end of initial forecasts. The models weren’t “wrong,” exactly, they seemingly just underestimated how widespread, thorough, and steadily maintained social-distancing measures could be. How could they not? It can be easy to forget, a few weeks into something like a hemisphere-wide lockdown, just how absolutely unprecedented this public-health mobilization truly is: nearly every American in every state embracing punishing, restrictive quarantine-like isolation for the sake of the country as a whole. We are doing so willingly, with hardly any meaningful resistance to shelter-in-place guidance, even though the statistical profile of the disease, while brutal, would allow most Americans to think it was a much more significant threat to others (the case fatality rate here now estimated between 2 and 3 percent). This is solidarity I simply didn’t believe was possible in this country anymore and under any circumstances, and it has arrived in the space of just weeks, in the midst of national political chaos with tribal partisanship still boiling at a feverish peak. It is breathtaking.

[2006alum]

Great share. I loved this paragraph, which in and of itself is encouraging in a way many of us have taken for granted: as a country, we've responded in a monumentally historic, collective, and voluntary way:

As Zeynep Tufekci has brilliantly written for the Atlantic, models like these are not meant to be crystal balls, producing projections we can all take to the bank, but a survey of possible futures that depend on what choices are made and what policies are engineered and implemented in response to the pandemic threat. Nevertheless, the gap between what experts projected a few weeks ago and what they are projecting now is absolutely astounding, and it is primarily a reflection of just how much has been done, and how quickly, to defend against and respond to the coronavirus. In many cases, we have achieved so much more than modelers even imagined possible that the range of outcomes we are now looking at did not even appear at the very low end of initial forecasts. The models weren’t “wrong,” exactly, they seemingly just underestimated how widespread, thorough, and steadily maintained social-distancing measures could be. How could they not? It can be easy to forget, a few weeks into something like a hemisphere-wide lockdown, just how absolutely unprecedented this public-health mobilization truly is: nearly every American in every state embracing punishing, restrictive quarantine-like isolation for the sake of the country as a whole. We are doing so willingly, with hardly any meaningful resistance to shelter-in-place guidance, even though the statistical profile of the disease, while brutal, would allow most Americans to think it was a much more significant threat to others (the case fatality rate here now estimated between 2 and 3 percent). This is solidarity I simply didn’t believe was possible in this country anymore and under any circumstances, and it has arrived in the space of just weeks, in the midst of national political chaos with tribal partisanship still boiling at a feverish peak. It is breathtaking.

[teejers1]

Great share. I loved this paragraph, which in and of itself is encouraging in a way many of us have taken for granted: as a country, we've responded in a monumentally historic, collective, and voluntary way:

As Zeynep Tufekci has brilliantly written for the Atlantic, models like these are not meant to be crystal balls, producing projections we can all take to the bank, but a survey of possible futures that depend on what choices are made and what policies are engineered and implemented in response to the pandemic threat. Nevertheless, the gap between what experts projected a few weeks ago and what they are projecting now is absolutely astounding, and it is primarily a reflection of just how much has been done, and how quickly, to defend against and respond to the coronavirus. In many cases, we have achieved so much more than modelers even imagined possible that the range of outcomes we are now looking at did not even appear at the very low end of initial forecasts. The models weren’t “wrong,” exactly, they seemingly just underestimated how widespread, thorough, and steadily maintained social-distancing measures could be. How could they not? It can be easy to forget, a few weeks into something like a hemisphere-wide lockdown, just how absolutely unprecedented this public-health mobilization truly is: nearly every American in every state embracing punishing, restrictive quarantine-like isolation for the sake of the country as a whole. We are doing so willingly, with hardly any meaningful resistance to shelter-in-place guidance, even though the statistical profile of the disease, while brutal, would allow most Americans to think it was a much more significant threat to others (the case fatality rate here now estimated between 2 and 3 percent). This is solidarity I simply didn’t believe was possible in this country anymore and under any circumstances, and it has arrived in the space of just weeks, in the midst of national political chaos with tribal partisanship still boiling at a feverish peak. It is breathtaking.

So far, yes.  But even in going on walks, I'm seeing glimpses of very minor "rebellion" - which I have no issue with, given that the "violators" are ones (a) jumping the fence to play tennis on empty court, (b) sidestepping a locked gate to run laps around soccer field (while others are actually working on soccer drills on the field), and © playing Pickleball on courts that are "locked."  I don't view this as indicative of anything, other than over-zealous decision-makers imposing ridiculous restrictions.  So, it hardly augurs mass rebellion as waves of people congregate within 3 feet of each other.  Still, I'm glad to see that some people are still willing to Question Authority when it comes to silly rules - and yes, there are silly rules, even in this pandemic.

First and foremost, people are adhering to the basic principles of social distancing.  Good.

But if some want to "rebel" at the silly restricitons, I do not blame them (or oppose their actoins).  [And btw, neither I (nor any family member) was among the violators I saw.  We remain amongst the sheep].

[teejers1]

Great share. I loved this paragraph, which in and of itself is encouraging in a way many of us have taken for granted: as a country, we've responded in a monumentally historic, collective, and voluntary way:

As Zeynep Tufekci has brilliantly written for the Atlantic, models like these are not meant to be crystal balls, producing projections we can all take to the bank, but a survey of possible futures that depend on what choices are made and what policies are engineered and implemented in response to the pandemic threat. Nevertheless, the gap between what experts projected a few weeks ago and what they are projecting now is absolutely astounding, and it is primarily a reflection of just how much has been done, and how quickly, to defend against and respond to the coronavirus. In many cases, we have achieved so much more than modelers even imagined possible that the range of outcomes we are now looking at did not even appear at the very low end of initial forecasts. The models weren’t “wrong,” exactly, they seemingly just underestimated how widespread, thorough, and steadily maintained social-distancing measures could be. How could they not? It can be easy to forget, a few weeks into something like a hemisphere-wide lockdown, just how absolutely unprecedented this public-health mobilization truly is: nearly every American in every state embracing punishing, restrictive quarantine-like isolation for the sake of the country as a whole. We are doing so willingly, with hardly any meaningful resistance to shelter-in-place guidance, even though the statistical profile of the disease, while brutal, would allow most Americans to think it was a much more significant threat to others (the case fatality rate here now estimated between 2 and 3 percent). This is solidarity I simply didn’t believe was possible in this country anymore and under any circumstances, and it has arrived in the space of just weeks, in the midst of national political chaos with tribal partisanship still boiling at a feverish peak. It is breathtaking.

So far, yes.  But even in going on walks, I'm seeing glimpses of very minor "rebellion" - which I have no issue with, given that the "violators" are ones (a) jumping the fence to play tennis on empty court, (b) sidestepping a locked gate to run laps around soccer field (while others are actually working on soccer drills on the field), and © playing Pickleball on courts that are "locked."  I don't view this as indicative of anything, other than over-zealous decision-makers imposing ridiculous restrictions.  So, it hardly augurs mass rebellion as waves of people congregate within 3 feet of each other.  Still, I'm glad to see that some people are still willing to Question Authority when it comes to silly rules - and yes, there are silly rules, even in this pandemic.

First and foremost, people are adhering to the basic principles of social distancing.  Good.

But if some want to "rebel" at the silly restricitons, I do not blame them (or oppose their actoins).  [And btw, neither I (nor any family member) was among the violators I saw.  We remain amongst the sheep].

[2006alum]

More on the theory that it arrived in CA prior to January:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

More on the theory that it arrived in CA prior to January:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321?s=20[/tweet]

[magnus]

Further arguments to dispel notion of earlier introduction to CA

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321?s=20[/tweet]
Notes that Seattle flu study sequenced many samples from January.  Not a single match.   And only 10 from February.   Also notes genome sequence tracing indicates first entry to US end of January directly from China. Other entries later by way of Europe. 

Other interesting tidbit, speculates we are undercounting cases by 10-20x.  But even that only gets us to 2-3% prevalence.

[magnus]

Further arguments to dispel notion of earlier introduction to CA

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1249414291297464321?s=20[/tweet]
Notes that Seattle flu study sequenced many samples from January.  Not a single match.   And only 10 from February.   Also notes genome sequence tracing indicates first entry to US end of January directly from China. Other entries later by way of Europe. 

Other interesting tidbit, speculates we are undercounting cases by 10-20x.  But even that only gets us to 2-3% prevalence.

[Genuine Realist]

Great share. I loved this paragraph, which in and of itself is encouraging in a way many of us have taken for granted: as a country, we've responded in a monumentally historic, collective, and voluntary way:

As Zeynep Tufekci has brilliantly written for the Atlantic, models like these are not meant to be crystal balls, producing projections we can all take to the bank, but a survey of possible futures that depend on what choices are made and what policies are engineered and implemented in response to the pandemic threat. Nevertheless, the gap between what experts projected a few weeks ago and what they are projecting now is absolutely astounding, and it is primarily a reflection of just how much has been done, and how quickly, to defend against and respond to the coronavirus. In many cases, we have achieved so much more than modelers even imagined possible that the range of outcomes we are now looking at did not even appear at the very low end of initial forecasts. The models weren’t “wrong,” exactly, they seemingly just underestimated how widespread, thorough, and steadily maintained social-distancing measures could be. How could they not? It can be easy to forget, a few weeks into something like a hemisphere-wide lockdown, just how absolutely unprecedented this public-health mobilization truly is: nearly every American in every state embracing punishing, restrictive quarantine-like isolation for the sake of the country as a whole. We are doing so willingly, with hardly any meaningful resistance to shelter-in-place guidance, even though the statistical profile of the disease, while brutal, would allow most Americans to think it was a much more significant threat to others (the case fatality rate here now estimated between 2 and 3 percent). This is solidarity I simply didn’t believe was possible in this country anymore and under any circumstances, and it has arrived in the space of just weeks, in the midst of national political chaos with tribal partisanship still boiling at a feverish peak. It is breathtaking.

I do have to react to this with some exasperation, and I hope not too politically. I'm a committed Populist, in the Lincolnian/Bryan meaning of the word, a firm believer in the American people.

Solidarity of the type displayed is ALWAYS the reaction of the American people. (You might remember the Cajun navy during the 2017 floods, and so many other collective responses to emergencies.) The only ones who are surprised are ideologues whose agendas blind them to the actual cultural reality of this society.

[Genuine Realist]

Great share. I loved this paragraph, which in and of itself is encouraging in a way many of us have taken for granted: as a country, we've responded in a monumentally historic, collective, and voluntary way:

As Zeynep Tufekci has brilliantly written for the Atlantic, models like these are not meant to be crystal balls, producing projections we can all take to the bank, but a survey of possible futures that depend on what choices are made and what policies are engineered and implemented in response to the pandemic threat. Nevertheless, the gap between what experts projected a few weeks ago and what they are projecting now is absolutely astounding, and it is primarily a reflection of just how much has been done, and how quickly, to defend against and respond to the coronavirus. In many cases, we have achieved so much more than modelers even imagined possible that the range of outcomes we are now looking at did not even appear at the very low end of initial forecasts. The models weren’t “wrong,” exactly, they seemingly just underestimated how widespread, thorough, and steadily maintained social-distancing measures could be. How could they not? It can be easy to forget, a few weeks into something like a hemisphere-wide lockdown, just how absolutely unprecedented this public-health mobilization truly is: nearly every American in every state embracing punishing, restrictive quarantine-like isolation for the sake of the country as a whole. We are doing so willingly, with hardly any meaningful resistance to shelter-in-place guidance, even though the statistical profile of the disease, while brutal, would allow most Americans to think it was a much more significant threat to others (the case fatality rate here now estimated between 2 and 3 percent). This is solidarity I simply didn’t believe was possible in this country anymore and under any circumstances, and it has arrived in the space of just weeks, in the midst of national political chaos with tribal partisanship still boiling at a feverish peak. It is breathtaking.

I do have to react to this with some exasperation, and I hope not too politically. I'm a committed Populist, in the Lincolnian/Bryan meaning of the word, a firm believer in the American people.

Solidarity of the type displayed is ALWAYS the reaction of the American people. (You might remember the Cajun navy during the 2017 floods, and so many other collective responses to emergencies.) The only ones who are surprised are ideologues whose agendas blind them to the actual cultural reality of this society.

[BostonCard]

I do have to react to this with some exasperation, and I hope not too politically. I'm a committed, in the Lincolnian/Bryan meaning of the word, a firm believer in the American people.

Solidarity of the type displayed is ALWAYS the reaction of the American people. (You might remember the Cajun navy during the 2017 floods, and so many other collective responses to emergencies.) The only ones who are surprised are ideologues whose agendas blind them to the actual cultural reality of this society.

You are of course correct, and generally tragedies like this bring out the best, not the worst, of us (this has been shown empirically, though finidng the article at this point would be challenging for me).  That being said, under the circumstances it is not to difficult to envision the mind going to a dark place.  I think most people consistently underestimate other's response in the face of a tragedy.

That being said, your point is well taken.  We should have higher expectations of one another, as time and again, we rise to them.

BC

[BostonCard]

I do have to react to this with some exasperation, and I hope not too politically. I'm a committed, in the Lincolnian/Bryan meaning of the word, a firm believer in the American people.

Solidarity of the type displayed is ALWAYS the reaction of the American people. (You might remember the Cajun navy during the 2017 floods, and so many other collective responses to emergencies.) The only ones who are surprised are ideologues whose agendas blind them to the actual cultural reality of this society.

You are of course correct, and generally tragedies like this bring out the best, not the worst, of us (this has been shown empirically, though finidng the article at this point would be challenging for me).  That being said, under the circumstances it is not to difficult to envision the mind going to a dark place.  I think most people consistently underestimate other's response in the face of a tragedy.

That being said, your point is well taken.  We should have higher expectations of one another, as time and again, we rise to them.

BC

[M T]

The "Stanford antibody test" is the Premier Biotech test (per the Stanford Daily)
This page at Johns Hopkins lists a number of serology tests and their claimed accuracy.  That test has no numbers giiven.

The UK has complained that the tests they were investigating, rated at (Alltest) "Company claims up to 98.6 per cent" and  (Wondfo) no claim published, were not good enough to use. "The problem is after a couple of weeks [after symptoms appear], the detection rate remains at about 50 per cent to 60 per cent, especially in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases."

Some analysis of these tests can be found in this unreviewed preprint.

In Austin, one place is advertising non-FDA-approved antibody tests for $45.  These are Aytu Biosciences/Orient Gene Biotech POC tests. "The sensitivity is 87.9% and specificity is 100% for IgG, and for IgM it is 97.2% and 100%, respectively."   However, the manufacturer notes:  "In general, antibodies can be detected 1-3 weeks after infection as there is a window period".

[M T]

The "Stanford antibody test" is the Premier Biotech test (per the Stanford Daily)
This page at Johns Hopkins lists a number of serology tests and their claimed accuracy.  That test has no numbers giiven.

The UK has complained that the tests they were investigating, rated at (Alltest) "Company claims up to 98.6 per cent" and  (Wondfo) no claim published, were not good enough to use. "The problem is after a couple of weeks [after symptoms appear], the detection rate remains at about 50 per cent to 60 per cent, especially in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases."

Some analysis of these tests can be found in this unreviewed preprint.

In Austin, one place is advertising non-FDA-approved antibody tests for $45.  These are Aytu Biosciences/Orient Gene Biotech POC tests. "The sensitivity is 87.9% and specificity is 100% for IgG, and for IgM it is 97.2% and 100%, respectively."   However, the manufacturer notes:  "In general, antibodies can be detected 1-3 weeks after infection as there is a window period".

[BostonCard]

I think we can pretty definitively rule out widespread prevalence of SARS-CoV2 in the Bay Area before March, based on a new study from Stanford.  The virology retrospectively looked at its respiratory samples collected January 1 to February 26 for all patients who were negative for other respiratory viruses.  Out of 2740 samples, they found 2 (<0.1% were positive).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

Of the two that were positive samples, one was from Feb 17-23 and one was from Feb 24-26.  There were no positive samples before February 16.

A total of 292 pools were screened, corresponding with 2740 nasopharyngeal samples and 148 bronchoalveolar lavage samples (Figure 1). The confirmed positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 was 0.07% (2/2888) (Figure 2). The positive results were from nasopharyngeal samples collected on February 21, 2020, and on February 23, 2020. The 2 positive samples showed detection of E and RdRp. Sanger sequencing revealed 100% identity with the SARS-CoV-2 E gene. Only 1 pool showed a positive E signal that was not reproducible with testing of the individual samples of that pool.

Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

So Mick, whatever flattened you at the end of last year was probably not COVID-19 (though if a serology test is available, by all means go for it), and akiddoc, all those kids coming in with hacking cough almost certainly didn't have COVID-19 either.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think we can pretty definitively rule out widespread prevalence of SARS-CoV2 in the Bay Area before March, based on a new study from Stanford.  The virology retrospectively looked at its respiratory samples collected January 1 to February 26 for all patients who were negative for other respiratory viruses.  Out of 2740 samples, they found 2 (<0.1% were positive).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

Of the two that were positive samples, one was from Feb 17-23 and one was from Feb 24-26.  There were no positive samples before February 16.

A total of 292 pools were screened, corresponding with 2740 nasopharyngeal samples and 148 bronchoalveolar lavage samples (Figure 1). The confirmed positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 was 0.07% (2/2888) (Figure 2). The positive results were from nasopharyngeal samples collected on February 21, 2020, and on February 23, 2020. The 2 positive samples showed detection of E and RdRp. Sanger sequencing revealed 100% identity with the SARS-CoV-2 E gene. Only 1 pool showed a positive E signal that was not reproducible with testing of the individual samples of that pool.

Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

So Mick, whatever flattened you at the end of last year was probably not COVID-19 (though if a serology test is available, by all means go for it), and akiddoc, all those kids coming in with hacking cough almost certainly didn't have COVID-19 either.

BC

[dabigv13]

The "Stanford antibody test" is the Premier Biotech test (per the Stanford Daily)
This page at Johns Hopkins lists a number of serology tests and their claimed accuracy.  That test has no numbers giiven.

The UK has complained that the tests they were investigating, rated at (Alltest) "Company claims up to 98.6 per cent" and  (Wondfo) no claim published, were not good enough to use. "The problem is after a couple of weeks [after symptoms appear], the detection rate remains at about 50 per cent to 60 per cent, especially in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases."

Some analysis of these tests can be found in [/url][url=https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.20056325v1]this unreviewed preprint.

In Austin, one place is advertising non-FDA-approved antibody tests for $45.  These are Aytu Biosciences/Orient Gene Biotech POC tests. "The sensitivity is 87.9% and specificity is 100% for IgG, and for IgM it is 97.2% and 100%, respectively."   However, the manufacturer notes:  "In general, antibodies can be detected 1-3 weeks after infection as there is a window period".

Did a quick read of the paper. Never have I read so many preprint, pre peer reviewed papers, but this is the time of covid. The Wantai total Ab test with 100% specificity looks pretty good. Of concern though is how uniformly poor sensitivity is with the IgG tests, since these are the more mature antibodies.

Could correlate with the other literature showing low levels of IgG in people who had the disease. Doesnt mean they aren't immune necessarily (their bodies could ramp up production when they need it perhaps) but does mean testing for it could be difficult. If only 50-60% sensitivity, that means a lot of people could have had disease but test would say they didn't. The combined tests and IgM tests are more sensitive it seems, but those antibodies are only produced early on. So a complete antibody test may be useful if you had an infection recently, but if you had it months ago, may be an issue.

Good they can get 100% specificity though....false positives probably more dangerous than false negatives all things considered. 

Would love to see data from the Stanford test.

[dabigv13]

The "Stanford antibody test" is the Premier Biotech test (per the Stanford Daily)
This page at Johns Hopkins lists a number of serology tests and their claimed accuracy.  That test has no numbers giiven.

The UK has complained that the tests they were investigating, rated at (Alltest) "Company claims up to 98.6 per cent" and  (Wondfo) no claim published, were not good enough to use. "The problem is after a couple of weeks [after symptoms appear], the detection rate remains at about 50 per cent to 60 per cent, especially in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases."

Some analysis of these tests can be found in [/url][url=https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.20056325v1]this unreviewed preprint.

In Austin, one place is advertising non-FDA-approved antibody tests for $45.  These are Aytu Biosciences/Orient Gene Biotech POC tests. "The sensitivity is 87.9% and specificity is 100% for IgG, and for IgM it is 97.2% and 100%, respectively."   However, the manufacturer notes:  "In general, antibodies can be detected 1-3 weeks after infection as there is a window period".

Did a quick read of the paper. Never have I read so many preprint, pre peer reviewed papers, but this is the time of covid. The Wantai total Ab test with 100% specificity looks pretty good. Of concern though is how uniformly poor sensitivity is with the IgG tests, since these are the more mature antibodies.

Could correlate with the other literature showing low levels of IgG in people who had the disease. Doesnt mean they aren't immune necessarily (their bodies could ramp up production when they need it perhaps) but does mean testing for it could be difficult. If only 50-60% sensitivity, that means a lot of people could have had disease but test would say they didn't. The combined tests and IgM tests are more sensitive it seems, but those antibodies are only produced early on. So a complete antibody test may be useful if you had an infection recently, but if you had it months ago, may be an issue.

Good they can get 100% specificity though....false positives probably more dangerous than false negatives all things considered. 

Would love to see data from the Stanford test.

[BostonCard]

Control serum samples included archived anonymous serum samples obtained from healthy blood donors 18-64 years with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 10) and no recent travel history, sera from patients with acute viral respiratory tract infections caused by other coronaviruses (n = 5) or non-coronaviruses (n = 45), and sera from patients positive for dengue virus (n = 9), cytomegalovirus (CMV; n = 2) and Epstein Barr virus (EBV; n = 10). One patient was positive for both CMV and EBV.

By my count that's about 80 samples. Assuming that by 100% specificity they mean that 0 of the 80 were false positives, the 95% confidence interval around that is 95.5% to 100%. If you are using this as a screening test, assuming a low prevalence, you probably need to establish at least a 99% specificity, for which you would need at least 300 samples.

BC

[BostonCard]

Control serum samples included archived anonymous serum samples obtained from healthy blood donors 18-64 years with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 10) and no recent travel history, sera from patients with acute viral respiratory tract infections caused by other coronaviruses (n = 5) or non-coronaviruses (n = 45), and sera from patients positive for dengue virus (n = 9), cytomegalovirus (CMV; n = 2) and Epstein Barr virus (EBV; n = 10). One patient was positive for both CMV and EBV.

By my count that's about 80 samples. Assuming that by 100% specificity they mean that 0 of the 80 were false positives, the 95% confidence interval around that is 95.5% to 100%. If you are using this as a screening test, assuming a low prevalence, you probably need to establish at least a 99% specificity, for which you would need at least 300 samples.

BC

[dabigv13]

Very good point. Clearly we are early days, but none of the tests in the paper really look ready for prime time.

[dabigv13]

Very good point. Clearly we are early days, but none of the tests in the paper really look ready for prime time.

[Genuine Realist]

I think we can pretty definitively rule out widespread prevalence of SARS-CoV2 in the Bay Area before March, based on a new study from Stanford.  The virology retrospectively looked at its respiratory samples collected January 1 to February 26 for all patients who were negative for other respiratory viruses.  Out of 2740 samples, they found 2 (<0.1% were positive).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

Of the two that were positive samples, one was from Feb 17-23 and one was from Feb 24-26.  There were no positive samples before February 16.

A total of 292 pools were screened, corresponding with 2740 nasopharyngeal samples and 148 bronchoalveolar lavage samples (Figure 1). The confirmed positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 was 0.07% (2/2888) (Figure 2). The positive results were from nasopharyngeal samples collected on February 21, 2020, and on February 23, 2020. The 2 positive samples showed detection of E and RdRp. Sanger sequencing revealed 100% identity with the SARS-CoV-2 E gene. Only 1 pool showed a positive E signal that was not reproducible with testing of the individual samples of that pool.

Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

So Mick, whatever flattened you at the end of last year was probably not COVID-19 (though if a serology test is available, by all means go for it), and akiddoc, all those kids coming in with hacking cough almost certainly didn't have COVID-19 either.

BC

H-ll, Mick, don't worry about drowning. The fall will probably kill ya.

[Genuine Realist]

I think we can pretty definitively rule out widespread prevalence of SARS-CoV2 in the Bay Area before March, based on a new study from Stanford.  The virology retrospectively looked at its respiratory samples collected January 1 to February 26 for all patients who were negative for other respiratory viruses.  Out of 2740 samples, they found 2 (<0.1% were positive).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

Of the two that were positive samples, one was from Feb 17-23 and one was from Feb 24-26.  There were no positive samples before February 16.

A total of 292 pools were screened, corresponding with 2740 nasopharyngeal samples and 148 bronchoalveolar lavage samples (Figure 1). The confirmed positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 was 0.07% (2/2888) (Figure 2). The positive results were from nasopharyngeal samples collected on February 21, 2020, and on February 23, 2020. The 2 positive samples showed detection of E and RdRp. Sanger sequencing revealed 100% identity with the SARS-CoV-2 E gene. Only 1 pool showed a positive E signal that was not reproducible with testing of the individual samples of that pool.

Here's the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...ultClick=1

So Mick, whatever flattened you at the end of last year was probably not COVID-19 (though if a serology test is available, by all means go for it), and akiddoc, all those kids coming in with hacking cough almost certainly didn't have COVID-19 either.

BC

H-ll, Mick, don't worry about drowning. The fall will probably kill ya.

[Mick]

H-ll, Mick, don't worry about drowning. The fall will probably kill ya.

I think either one will do the job.  I'm more worried about dying from the current economy in freefall.  People everywhere underestimate how bad it's going to get and don't understand that it won't come back to full strength.  Here's a few data points:

* Goldman Sachs initially predicted a 24% drop (annualized) during the second quarter, then revised it to 37%.  JP Morgan just projected 40%.

* 16,780,000 jobs lost in three weeks.  Jobs lost in the Great Recession was 15 million, and it took 18 months to get there.  We self-inflicted ours in three weeks.

* We were at 155 million employed, now at 138 million.  We lost 10.8% of our employment in three weeks.  The stock market crashed in October 1929.  Unemployment was at 3.5%.  It didn't reach 14% until mid-1932.  In other words, America has been through 47 recessions, but in three weeks we self-inflicted the jobs damage that it took a year and a half in the worst of the recessions in the Industrial Era, the Great Depression.


* Apart from the people I furloughed, I was asked to cut my budget on 3/20, then again on 4/5.  Then Friday, I was asked to come to a call today, the purpose of which is to cut my budget again.  Prior two cuts amounted to 30%.  Let's see what today's cuts bring.

And an aside to those who are tired of reading my posts about the economic devastation: I don't give a rip.  I'll keep being one of a few lonely voices who understand that the carnage we've inflicted on ourselves will ruin this country.  Read it or don't.  Care or don't.

[Mick]

H-ll, Mick, don't worry about drowning. The fall will probably kill ya.

I think either one will do the job.  I'm more worried about dying from the current economy in freefall.  People everywhere underestimate how bad it's going to get and don't understand that it won't come back to full strength.  Here's a few data points:

* Goldman Sachs initially predicted a 24% drop (annualized) during the second quarter, then revised it to 37%.  JP Morgan just projected 40%.

* 16,780,000 jobs lost in three weeks.  Jobs lost in the Great Recession was 15 million, and it took 18 months to get there.  We self-inflicted ours in three weeks.

* We were at 155 million employed, now at 138 million.  We lost 10.8% of our employment in three weeks.  The stock market crashed in October 1929.  Unemployment was at 3.5%.  It didn't reach 14% until mid-1932.  In other words, America has been through 47 recessions, but in three weeks we self-inflicted the jobs damage that it took a year and a half in the worst of the recessions in the Industrial Era, the Great Depression.


* Apart from the people I furloughed, I was asked to cut my budget on 3/20, then again on 4/5.  Then Friday, I was asked to come to a call today, the purpose of which is to cut my budget again.  Prior two cuts amounted to 30%.  Let's see what today's cuts bring.

And an aside to those who are tired of reading my posts about the economic devastation: I don't give a rip.  I'll keep being one of a few lonely voices who understand that the carnage we've inflicted on ourselves will ruin this country.  Read it or don't.  Care or don't.

[2006alum]

And an aside to those who are tired of reading my posts about the economic devastation: I don't give a rip.  I'll keep being one of a few lonely voices who understand that the carnage we've inflicted on ourselves will ruin this country.  Read it or don't.  Care or don't.

I don't think anyone doesn't "understand that the carnage we've inflicted on ourselves will [significantly hurt] this country." Speaking from my own experience, my industry has been completely flattened, already. Future recruiting for entry-level positions has been pushed back a year, at least, probably more. It's very likely some firms won't survive at all, and the entry-level generation will be starting their careers permanently 2-3 years behind. I have family members who've already closed their small businesses AND MOVE STATES to live with relatives. They're not sure whether they'll ever go back. To be honest, I'm a bit insulted that you think only you alone can understand the damage this has inflicted.

From my vantage point, we all know that. But saying we committed economic "suicide" is just ludicrous when you look at places like NYC, Italy, and Spain, which are essentially warzones due to slow interventions to shut things down. We had no choice -- the alternative would have been a suicide of even greater propositions.

But now that it's happened/happening, how do we move forward? How do we "re-open" (whatever that means) the economy? My view is that this will also be an opportunity, because a lot of our current economy didn't make much sense. There was a very interesting story on Bob Iger on the front page of the NY Times last night that noted how he's basically back running Disney and recognizes how much things will change when this is all over:

Mr. Iger is now intensely focused on remaking a company that will emerge, he believes, deeply changed by the crisis. The sketch he has drawn for associates offers a glimpse at the post-pandemic future: It’s a Disney with fewer employees, leading the new and uncertain business of how to gather people safely for entertainment.

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

[2006alum]

And an aside to those who are tired of reading my posts about the economic devastation: I don't give a rip.  I'll keep being one of a few lonely voices who understand that the carnage we've inflicted on ourselves will ruin this country.  Read it or don't.  Care or don't.

I don't think anyone doesn't "understand that the carnage we've inflicted on ourselves will [significantly hurt] this country." Speaking from my own experience, my industry has been completely flattened, already. Future recruiting for entry-level positions has been pushed back a year, at least, probably more. It's very likely some firms won't survive at all, and the entry-level generation will be starting their careers permanently 2-3 years behind. I have family members who've already closed their small businesses AND MOVE STATES to live with relatives. They're not sure whether they'll ever go back. To be honest, I'm a bit insulted that you think only you alone can understand the damage this has inflicted.

From my vantage point, we all know that. But saying we committed economic "suicide" is just ludicrous when you look at places like NYC, Italy, and Spain, which are essentially warzones due to slow interventions to shut things down. We had no choice -- the alternative would have been a suicide of even greater propositions.

But now that it's happened/happening, how do we move forward? How do we "re-open" (whatever that means) the economy? My view is that this will also be an opportunity, because a lot of our current economy didn't make much sense. There was a very interesting story on Bob Iger on the front page of the NY Times last night that noted how he's basically back running Disney and recognizes how much things will change when this is all over:

Mr. Iger is now intensely focused on remaking a company that will emerge, he believes, deeply changed by the crisis. The sketch he has drawn for associates offers a glimpse at the post-pandemic future: It’s a Disney with fewer employees, leading the new and uncertain business of how to gather people safely for entertainment.

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

[2006alum]

And returning to the significance of antibodies, here's a very thorough review of the state of knowledge about whether SARS-COV-2 antibodies confer immunity:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1249646012341329920?s=20[/tweet]

And although this is just a preliminary study, there's some scary evidence that having had SARS-COV-2 in your system will not necessarily produce the antibodies in significant quantities to ward off another bout of illness:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/status/1247851267604516865?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

And returning to the significance of antibodies, here's a very thorough review of the state of knowledge about whether SARS-COV-2 antibodies confer immunity:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1249646012341329920?s=20[/tweet]

And although this is just a preliminary study, there's some scary evidence that having had SARS-COV-2 in your system will not necessarily produce the antibodies in significant quantities to ward off another bout of illness:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/status/1247851267604516865?s=20[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

The most important part of the suggested Iger moves was left out in the above post.

That is when he said they will "permanently" have "less office space." This could mean fewer employees, but it also means more people working from home, and companies now knowing they really don't need to be leasing as much space, to say nothing of businesses going under that once leased, or those that might have, not gonna be leasing ever.

The commercial real estate market is going to be crushed, so naturally the FED is going to buy CRE mortgages now. 

Picking up on the thrust of this thread, the serology testing only matters if we know those who test positive for the antibodies have enough of them to fight off the virus, and if we know immunity lasts.  The issue I see is there seems to be consensus from virologists that immunity isn't likely to last more than 2 years. This has implications for vaccine being viable. And it's not like the flu vaccine completely stops people from getting the flu as is.

Even if 10x more people have been infected than have been reported in confirmed case count (which seems likely), and 5 million Americans have been exposed, that's just 1.5% of the population. So the virus is  going to be new for most people for a long ass time. All these realities make going back to pre-pandemic life fraught with problems that will keep a large percentage of GDP from returning for some time.

Given the scale of issues, I'd put 1/3 of my medical research budget effort into vaccine development, 1/3 into testing and contact tracing, and 1/3 into researching what happens with re-infections and antibodies. 

It's comical to see these Wall Street investment knuckleheads talking about hopeful signs based on curves flattening, when they are only flattening because we have shut down life outside our homes. As soon as we go back to normal, the waves will build again, even if only because the virus is everywhere across the globe.

[OutsiderFan]

The most important part of the suggested Iger moves was left out in the above post.

That is when he said they will "permanently" have "less office space." This could mean fewer employees, but it also means more people working from home, and companies now knowing they really don't need to be leasing as much space, to say nothing of businesses going under that once leased, or those that might have, not gonna be leasing ever.

The commercial real estate market is going to be crushed, so naturally the FED is going to buy CRE mortgages now. 

Picking up on the thrust of this thread, the serology testing only matters if we know those who test positive for the antibodies have enough of them to fight off the virus, and if we know immunity lasts.  The issue I see is there seems to be consensus from virologists that immunity isn't likely to last more than 2 years. This has implications for vaccine being viable. And it's not like the flu vaccine completely stops people from getting the flu as is.

Even if 10x more people have been infected than have been reported in confirmed case count (which seems likely), and 5 million Americans have been exposed, that's just 1.5% of the population. So the virus is  going to be new for most people for a long ass time. All these realities make going back to pre-pandemic life fraught with problems that will keep a large percentage of GDP from returning for some time.

Given the scale of issues, I'd put 1/3 of my medical research budget effort into vaccine development, 1/3 into testing and contact tracing, and 1/3 into researching what happens with re-infections and antibodies. 

It's comical to see these Wall Street investment knuckleheads talking about hopeful signs based on curves flattening, when they are only flattening because we have shut down life outside our homes. As soon as we go back to normal, the waves will build again, even if only because the virus is everywhere across the globe.

[BostonCard]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

[BostonCard]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

[2006alum]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

BC, I think you and I are talking about two slightly different issues. 

In terms of short-term effects, I totally agree with you about the first dominoes to fall. Small business based services like bars, restaurants, etc., will be crushed by this. But I don't think in 12-18 months that bars and restaurants will be a questionable long-term business proposition. I don't think, in the era of an ongoing global pandemic, that we should be asking whether bars and restaurants should cease to exist as a sector of the economy.

However, in terms of medium to longer-term effects, I do think this global pandemic should call into question just how dependent we want to be on substantial international travel and trade. Should we ever be reliant on foreign governments for access to essential medicines and PPE? If the feds are telling the states that they are responsible for themselves, should states like CA start to develop their own state-operated command-and-control manufacturing of essential components? If so, should the state be able to block the feds from taking them, as seems to be happening?

And this also speaks to certain sectors of the economy more generally. If there will likely be more rounds of border closings and intermittent limitations on foreign travel, how can industries that depend on open borders for trade and high volumes of international travel survive? I can see a universe where bars re-open in 6 weeks in a reformulated capacity; I can't see the major airlines or cruise lines returning to even a fractional version of normal operations any time in the next year. Etc.

And just to illustrate this, look at what China is now doing almost 3 months after locking down Wuhan:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/business/status/1249591660872380416?s=20[/tweet]

Cross-border risks of infection are going to be a very serious impediment to "re-opening" the economy, which means we need to start thinking seriously about sectors of the economy that rely on quasi-open borders.

[2006alum]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

BC, I think you and I are talking about two slightly different issues. 

In terms of short-term effects, I totally agree with you about the first dominoes to fall. Small business based services like bars, restaurants, etc., will be crushed by this. But I don't think in 12-18 months that bars and restaurants will be a questionable long-term business proposition. I don't think, in the era of an ongoing global pandemic, that we should be asking whether bars and restaurants should cease to exist as a sector of the economy.

However, in terms of medium to longer-term effects, I do think this global pandemic should call into question just how dependent we want to be on substantial international travel and trade. Should we ever be reliant on foreign governments for access to essential medicines and PPE? If the feds are telling the states that they are responsible for themselves, should states like CA start to develop their own state-operated command-and-control manufacturing of essential components? If so, should the state be able to block the feds from taking them, as seems to be happening?

And this also speaks to certain sectors of the economy more generally. If there will likely be more rounds of border closings and intermittent limitations on foreign travel, how can industries that depend on open borders for trade and high volumes of international travel survive? I can see a universe where bars re-open in 6 weeks in a reformulated capacity; I can't see the major airlines or cruise lines returning to even a fractional version of normal operations any time in the next year. Etc.

And just to illustrate this, look at what China is now doing almost 3 months after locking down Wuhan:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/business/status/1249591660872380416?s=20[/tweet]

Cross-border risks of infection are going to be a very serious impediment to "re-opening" the economy, which means we need to start thinking seriously about sectors of the economy that rely on quasi-open borders.

[Genuine Realist]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

I take Mick's views on the economy very seriously. Where I disagree is the casting of alternatives as binary, either/or. To my way of thinking, the hit was coming one way or another. Whether you lockdown, as has been done, or let the disease run its course, the hit to the economy is going to be colossal. 

The Washington Post is doing some scandal-mongering today, as I understand, suggesting that Trump considered simply letting the virus go, in the manner Boris Johnson promoted. But there's no scandal in thinking of this as an alternative - because, sooner or later, we are going to have to live with a certain level of exposure, infection, and morbidity. Society cannot continue in this state indefinitely. 

I imagine we reopen about May 1st, with an enormous change in the manner of socialization, and many geezers (such as myself) relying on delivery services and avoiding possible infectious areas to the extent possible. There will be business opportunities that arise as well.

[Genuine Realist]

I just wish we'd focus on what happens going forward: what do you think proactive steps should be? How do we manage the risk when we don't even know whether those who have antibodies can have the virus reactivated in them? How do we encourage folks to start participating in the economy who are worried about SARS-COV-2? How do we put a testing, tracing, and isolation system into place like the successful ones in Taiwan and South Korea. What industries, like cruise lines and amusement parks, are unlikely to re-open in the same way any time soon? Do we have to rethink our assumptions about international travel and international trade? Dependency on global supply chains and "just in time" delivery patterns? Etc.

The thing is, while companies dependent on global supply chains and just in time delivery will be hurt (and some companies, who operated on thin marginss, or returned most of their earnings to shareholders, will be hurt badly and possibly irrevocably), the folks most hurt by this are the small businesses with only a handful of employees, who necessarily operate on very thin margins, and will struggle to make payroll/pay rent.  A lot of those small businesses are in the service sector and won't survive.  And ideas like supply chains and "just in time" delivery are more or less alien to them.

My brother is about three years removed from being a bar owner in Santa Barbara.  He would have been crushed by this.  He had expensive rent on State Street to pay, and aside from not being able to support himself for however long this went, he would have had to lay off/furlough all his employees.  As it is, he works as a salesman for a liquor distributor, and basically his commissions for March/April are going to be zero, so while his company isn't laying anyone off (it's still making money from selling to supermarkets and grocery stores), he's taken a very large hit to his income.

BC

I take Mick's views on the economy very seriously. Where I disagree is the casting of alternatives as binary, either/or. To my way of thinking, the hit was coming one way or another. Whether you lockdown, as has been done, or let the disease run its course, the hit to the economy is going to be colossal. 

The Washington Post is doing some scandal-mongering today, as I understand, suggesting that Trump considered simply letting the virus go, in the manner Boris Johnson promoted. But there's no scandal in thinking of this as an alternative - because, sooner or later, we are going to have to live with a certain level of exposure, infection, and morbidity. Society cannot continue in this state indefinitely. 

I imagine we reopen about May 1st, with an enormous change in the manner of socialization, and many geezers (such as myself) relying on delivery services and avoiding possible infectious areas to the extent possible. There will be business opportunities that arise as well.

[magnus]

I imagine we reopen about May 1st, with an enormous change in the manner of socialization, and many geezers (such as myself) relying on delivery services and avoiding possible infectious areas to the extent possible. There will be business opportunities that arise as well.

Even if the federal government tries to reopen on May 1st, I'm highly skeptical that many states will follow suit,  especially CA.

[magnus]

I imagine we reopen about May 1st, with an enormous change in the manner of socialization, and many geezers (such as myself) relying on delivery services and avoiding possible infectious areas to the extent possible. There will be business opportunities that arise as well.

Even if the federal government tries to reopen on May 1st, I'm highly skeptical that many states will follow suit,  especially CA.