|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 26, 2020 21:24:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 4, 2020 15:03:42 GMT -6
If there’s no college football this fall we are hosed. And it’s not looking good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 6, 2020 8:01:57 GMT -6
If we're into the fall and still sheltering in place, we've got bigger issues than college sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 6, 2020 9:12:24 GMT -6
If we're into the fall and still sheltering in place, we've got bigger issues than college sports. Might not be in place late August or September. Still a problem to open campus.
Several problems for administration. One that hits football is that large gatherings may be limited even shelter in place is dropped.
The second more general problem will be that while we may see the order amended to allow a lot of activities then, the university has to plan for 4 months in the Fall and the second wave would be a distinct possibility to create issues later. So will they want to open on campus and then have the expensive mitigation that would be required later. It is chaotic, inefficient and costly to start, stop. So maybe cut losses by going to online only this Fall.
Who knows about the demand side, too. Families are going to be cash strapped then. On campus living expenses are a big part of their budget. And students if they are able to work at home might need to do that instead of returning.
The cost of opening everything up ready for business but only having smaller on campus enrollment is a related issue. The break even point for all those on campus activities is pretty high. Assuming we know in advance how many to expect. We could easily see a significant and unexpected drop in on campus enrollment and much stronger demand for online. Even if we open.
If universities see any of these problems as likely they might plan on only on line operation. Much cheaper, still charge tuition dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 6, 2020 9:47:41 GMT -6
I'm thinking bigger.
The entire nation can't stop for months on end.
To put it bluntly, we're gonna have to determine how many dead the rest of us (I say us even though I could be one of the dead!) are willing to live with, if we're going to have a country left.
People are getting restless, and some desperate. A very bad combo.
4 more months of this will not go well.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 6, 2020 11:13:14 GMT -6
I'm thinking bigger. The entire nation can't stop for months on end. To put it bluntly, we're gonna have to determine how many dead the rest of us (I say us even though I could be one of the dead!) are willing to live with, if we're going to have a country left. People are getting restless, and some desperate. A very bad combo. 4 more months of this will not go well. Things not going well for 4 months is not thinking bigger though.
Thinking bigger is realizing this is not going to go well probably for longer than 4 months. No matter what we do. Take that off the table.
Just looking at current mitigation and seeing the downside is not the big picture either. There is upside to what we have done. And. We have to plan for what happens after we have knocked back the first wave and bought some time.
The time frame for the current mitigation may be another 2 months or another 4 in worse cases. We can handle that if we have to, I do not buy that would mean we had no country left. THAT is panic. Exaggeration. We can adapt and will What is involved longer term? Let a lot of people die and the rest go on as normal is not the best plan. Besides it doesn't work that way...there is a lot of cost related to that and economic disruption. Letting the disease go on damages the survivors and has long term health consequences for them.
You are right that the same kind of lock down we have now is not a solution by itself.
The best informed scientists are not advocating that either. A reasonably likely scenario is we can relax current restrictions sooner than 4 months. But cannot plan on normal either. It will be necessary that there be social distancing, no large gatherings and other mitigation. Probably some restrictions for more than a year.
Right now is way to soon to talk about normal. We return closer to normal only if we have testing and tracking of new cases. Isolating those who have the disease quickly, vaccine, better treatment, stockpiling for peak infection, developing herd immunity. All are impossible right now. We are NOT able to do that now and it takes a wartime effort to make it possible to relax restrictions by the summer. The government is not communicating that this is really an 18 month problem. INSTEAD our leaders are promising "normal." Some very soon. That is the wrong message. THERE IS NO NORMAL for the next 12-18 months. HOW CLOSE TO NORMAL is the question. Initially the response was bungled to make it worse than it has had to be. The mitigation we are doing is not being done as well as it should. Fog of war partly. But the sacrifice is winning time. If we use that time we are buying and also treat what follows as still an emergency we are much better off than pretending we can go back to normal. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2020 6:30:28 GMT -6
Sure, it's easy to say all that when you still have a job.
A lot of people don't. A lot of business are going to close. A lot of people and business will incur huge debt.
Police are issuing tickets for being out of your house in Cali. Basic freedoms to move freely are already being denied.
Another month on lockdown, and you're going to see rioting. 2 more, and you're going to see basic social systems start to break down.
We won't get to 3 more. People won't stand for it.
Yes, people are going to die. Yes, it's terrible. That's reality, and the other reality is that the people remaining have to be able to live.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruffledfeathers on Apr 7, 2020 7:20:20 GMT -6
Could not have said it better lurkin.Pictures show trendy stores boarded up in places like NYC. It's the reason guns sales have skyrocketed and ammo prices are up 30% since last month.
The lock down needs to end yesterday.
RF
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 7, 2020 7:55:09 GMT -6
Personally, as a person in the high risk group, with a family, including a daughter who works in health care and sees what’s happening on the front lines, I’d just as soon not yet embrace your cold reality that people are going to die so screw it. I can’t quite take the attitude of “oh well, people are going to die, let’s just start things back up.” I’m not in favor of killing more health care workers. I fear for my daughter who knows first hand the lack of enough PPE. For me that’s a very personal stake in this. Or let’s kill more people in nursing homes. Or my coworkers. We can’t open back too soon and flood the health care system. That’s really the whole point of this.
I do not like being cooped up. Of course I hope it ends soon. But it beats the alternative. And I think it’s pretty callous to put shopping over death.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruffledfeathers on Apr 7, 2020 8:09:22 GMT -6
It's not shopping over death. It's lives against the livelihood of others' lives. Those other have a God given right to earn a living to feed and shelter themselves and their families. And no government pooh-bah should be able to dictate a business close under these circumstances. That should be the choice of the rightful owner, and his customers who choose to patronize his business.
And BTW, I am also in the so called high risk group. It's up to me avoid the risk.
RF
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Apr 7, 2020 8:09:55 GMT -6
I'm with you cardfan.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 7, 2020 8:28:34 GMT -6
My son was laid off yesterday because of all this. He understands. He also is more concerned about me, and his sister. The economic implications are devastating, yes.
But, you’re telling me (and yourself, and everyone else) that we need to freaking take our chances and it’s up to us to avoid the risk. Now go ahead and explain how we do that without knowing who might be carrying the virus? How do we “get back out there” and do business and be out in the general public not having a clue who has the ticking time bomb? How do we do avoid a risk we can’t freaking see? It’s not like we can see a giant hole in the ground or a bridge that’s out or a house that’s on fire and avoid the risk.
You’ll say, avoid big crowds. Ok, but If everyone avoids the risk by avoiding big crowds then essentially we’re doing what we are now. And certainly a crowded sporting event would be a breeding ground. Churches that have ignored the stay at home order end up with sick or dying members. Look at the spring breakers! Quite a few of them got sick and took the virus back home. Back home to people trying to avoid the risk.
Just please explain how we get back to normal while also avoiding the risk? And does everyone have a mask and or gloves? Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2020 9:15:40 GMT -6
And I think it’s pretty callous to put shopping over death. Well, then, that ends the debate, doesn't it? God knows that feelings are more important than economic chaos, hyperinflation, failing monetary systems, and social upheaval for 330 million people (which is where we're heading). Trying really hard not to be shitty in my response, but statements like the above make it really difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2020 9:18:18 GMT -6
A. Get back to normal
B. Avoid risk
Pick one. You can't have both. I just happen to pick A.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2020 9:41:39 GMT -6
It's not shopping over death. It's lives against the livelihood of others' lives. Those other have a God given right to earn a living to feed and shelter themselves and their families. And no government pooh-bah should be able to dictate a business close under these circumstances. That should be the choice of the rightful owner, and his customers who choose to patronize his business. If opening a business is a threat to the public health, I don't think the individual has a god given right to do whatever they want. This is a case where the owner and the customers aren't the only ones who can suffer the consequence. If they were the only ones taking the risk I could agree. In this case if either one is positive and passes the disease to the other it would not just be them hurt, but be everyone they meet elsewhere who also is at risk.
I agree we need to make a longer term balance between unavoidable risk of disease and unavoidable economic harm to people. This is short term restriction. Painful. Death is rather more long term a cost...
|
|
