A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? (/thread-19203.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? (/thread-19203.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - terry - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 11:03 AM)chrisk Wrote: Now Trump is saying he would like to have it "open" by Easter (April 12)
Some explanation of what the President means by this --
A White House official said the president does not view Easter as a date that he can begin to open things up, but a date by which the economy is speeding again. That means the loosening of restrictions would, under this scenario, start much sooner.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-he-wants-country-open-back-april-12-easter-n1167721
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - 2006alum - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 11:15 AM)2006alum Wrote:(03-24-2020, 11:06 AM)burger Wrote: I recall reading that some country (China?) designated some hospitals as covid-19 hospitals and others for "regular" illnesses to keep the infected and vulnerable apart. Is anyone discussing that here, and if not, why not? In an emergency, surely, the government should be able to dictate which hospital does what.
FWIW, Newsom has leased two empty (private and recently furloughed) hospitals specifically for COVID-19 patients. And I believe the Javits Center in NYC is also being converted for use for COVID-19 patients. One of the most effective things China did was to separate COVID-19 patients from all others, because, as Italy has learned the hard way, one of the chief modes of transmission is in hospitals.
More on the importance of this, via the Wall Street Journal:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JNBPage/status/1242527226983092224?s=20[/tweet]
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - burger - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 12:21 PM)terry Wrote:That's even worse than I imagined. I charitably assumed that he was giving us about 3 weeks before he wanted to start the unloosening.(03-24-2020, 11:03 AM)chrisk Wrote: Now Trump is saying he would like to have it "open" by Easter (April 12)
Some explanation of what the President means by this --
A White House official said the president does not view Easter as a date that he can begin to open things up, but a date by which the economy is speeding again. That means the loosening of restrictions would, under this scenario, start much sooner.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-he-wants-country-open-back-april-12-easter-n1167721
He would kill millions for a few points of stock market gain. It's criminal.
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - oldalum - 03-24-2020
Did I miss this, or how is the President going to "open up" the state- and locally imposed restrictions?
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - BostonCard - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 11:28 AM)Mick Wrote:(03-24-2020, 11:04 AM)Goose Wrote: Some of them trade off economic consequences against deaths.
We trade off economic consequences against deaths all the time. The side effects of guns, cigarettes, alcohol, even automobiles...all of them play a part in massive numbers of deaths each year. Medicine comes with side effects. Sometimes they're worth it, sometimes not.
https://youtu.be/eSdNMRtvq5g?t=84
Yes, agreed. Based on a number of methods (including the accepted cost/benefit of regulation), you can actually estimate how much we, as a society, values a life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
It is kind of cold, but not crazy. Based on what is paid for by medicare for hemodialysis, each additional year of life is worth $129,000 per year of quality life. Based on regulatory standards, saving one life from an untimely death is worth between $7.9 million and $9.6 million. So, based on the number of deaths so far (667), coronavirus has already cost $5.3 billion dollars. If doing nothing winds up costing 300,000 lives (an optimistic assessment that presumes only about 5% of the population gets coronavirus), that would be a $2.4 trillion dollar cost just in lost lives. That's about 10% of GDP over the course of a year.
In the nighmare scenario that 80% of the population gets coronavirus and 1% of those dies, and the mortality rate is 2.5 million (I don't think it will be this bad, but that's the worst case scenario based on what we know), then we're talking about $20 trillion in lost lives, which is just about the entire GDP of the country this year.
BC
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - chrisk - 03-24-2020
Now Trump is on Fox every hour telling everybody to pack the churches on Easter (April 12). We are doomed or at least those who are religious and foolish.
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - terry - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 12:38 PM)oldalum Wrote: Did I miss this, or how is the President going to "open up" the state- and locally imposed restrictions?
That's a good question.
The President's guidelines called for 15 days of moderate social distancing (social groups of no more than 10, working from home if possible, etc.). So far as I can tell, these guidelines are not binding on anyone. They are recommendations. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf
A number of states, counties, and cities have adopted mandatory requirements, such as "stay at home" orders in 17 states and counting.. These state and local requirements are legally binding, and many of them are more stringent than the President's guidelines.
The President obviously can change or rescind his own guidelines. But I have some doubt about whether the President, by means of an executive order, has the power to override state and local "stay at home" orders. I haven't done any legal research, but I think it's a serious question. Generally, public health and safety laws are considered the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. There's also a significant question of the limits of executive power in the absence of specific authorization by Congress.
I'm guessing that the President won't fight the legal battle over whether he has the power to reverse state and local "stay at home" orders. Rather, I think he will make it a public relations battle, not a legal battle. He will issue new, relaxed guidance, and he will try to rally public support for his more relaxed approach. He will press state and local officials to fall in line with his guidance. Some state and local officials probably will follow the President's lead. But other officials won't, particularly those who have serious outbreaks of the virus in their states. The President probably will pressure them, and he probably will try to blame them for tanking the economy. He may even try to financially coerce them by withholding federal aid. But I don't think he will try to legally override state and local requirements. Just my guess.
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - Goose - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 02:13 PM)terry Wrote: Rather, I think he will make it a public relations battle, not a legal battle. He will issue new, relaxed guidance, and he will try to rally public support for his more relaxed approach. He will press state and local officials to fall in line with his guidance. Some state and local officials probably will follow the President's lead. But other officials won't, particularly those who have serious outbreaks of the virus in their states. The President probably will pressure them, and he probably will try to blame them for tanking the economy. He may even try to financially coerce them by withholding federal aid. But I don't think he will try to legally override state and local requirements. Just my guess.Unfortunately, a common tactic by politicians of all stripes these days is to forcefully and unequivocally advocate a policy that they know will never be implemented. The people that agree with them love it. The politician knows they will never have to deal with the downsides or unintended consequences because it won't happen. If things turn out badly with whatever alternate plan is adopted, they can say "If only you had listened to me.". If they turn out well, they either claim things would have been even better if their plan had been adopted or alternatively they just keep their mouth shut and rely on the press and public having an attention span measured in nanoseconds. Usually works pretty well.
RE: A More Surgical Approach to the Crisis? - Mick - 03-24-2020
(03-24-2020, 12:24 PM)burger Wrote:(03-24-2020, 12:21 PM)terry Wrote:That's even worse than I imagined. I charitably assumed that he was giving us about 3 weeks before he wanted to start the unloosening.(03-24-2020, 11:03 AM)chrisk Wrote: Now Trump is saying he would like to have it "open" by Easter (April 12)
Some explanation of what the President means by this --
A White House official said the president does not view Easter as a date that he can begin to open things up, but a date by which the economy is speeding again. That means the loosening of restrictions would, under this scenario, start much sooner.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-says-he-wants-country-open-back-april-12-easter-n1167721
He would kill millions for a few points of stock market gain. It's criminal.
I don't think he gives a rip about stock market gain one way or the other. I think he understands that this country faces economic ruin in an unprecedented fashion, more so than the Great Depression.
One tiny example. Last year, my company had an epic year, at least for our business. The first two months of this year, same. Three weeks later -- yesterday -- I was told to prepare to lay off 10% of my team. Today, I was told it will be 20% to 25%. These people make an average of about $9k per month. There is no government program, not even at its apex that will provide anywhere close to that, particularly for an extended period.
Trump's conclusion is that the country cannot sit on the sidelines for 3-5 months while a number of sectors are rendered null and void. Think the airlines will recover, or most forms of transportation? The stock market is the least part of his calculus.
We peaked at 158 million employed this year. How about if 50 million get laid off? What if 40 million of them have guns? What if a mere 4 million decide to use them? That's what Trump is trying to avoid, not a few Dow point drop.