Time to Reopen America (Michigan, Louisiana, welfare, issues)

[moneill]

Originally Posted by xboxmas

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...z&ocid=SL5LDHP

Even Cuomo wants New York to be open as soon as possible.

If you listened to the whole interview you heard that Cuomo wants a very calculated approach to 'reopen' the economy in his area. There has to be much thought, strategic planning, coordination with other states, all the communities.

That's the kind of talk we need to hear.

That it is going to be a complex approach that has to account for all kinds of factors.

[moneill]

I think we all want things to go back to normal and as soon as they can but we have to be feel good how it is done and that we can be relatively safe in doing so.

I think the concern is more the image of just widely declaring the country has to go back to normal -- schools opening, etc....without consideration for a possible wave of continued spreading of the virus

[ncguy50]

Originally Posted by jertheber

Here's what I think, here's my thoughts, jeeez does it ever dawn on some that we as a modern day people want/and need verifiable facts, good research, intelligent investigation, but not the opinions, views, suspicions, and hyperbole that has become the pillar of truth for so many. We're pawns in a game, and that has become more obvious with every passing day, and yet so many are coming forward with this kind of stupidity based on their supposed scientifically formed "opinion." No thanks, we can wait for the real science to let us know what the best path forward may be..

CDC came out today and said cases have stabilized and peaked. There's the science you asked for. Or is it just the messages you want to hear you consider to be "real science"?

[Chowhound]

Originally Posted by moneill

I think we all want things to go back to normal and as soon as they can but we have to be feel good how it is done and that we can be relatively safe in doing so.

I think the concern is more the image of just widely declaring the country has to go back to normal -- schools opening, etc....without consideration for a possible wave of continued spreading of the virus

Trump is in a real tough spot. If he opens up and the virus takes off again, he's going to get it. If he doesn't up the economy soon and things take a real dump, he's going to get it.

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

[calgirlinnc]

Originally Posted by moneill

I think we all want things to go back to normal and as soon as they can but we have to be feel good how it is done and that we can be relatively safe in doing so.

I think the concern is more the image of just widely declaring the country has to go back to normal -- schools opening, etc....without consideration for a possible wave of continued spreading of the virus

I'm beginning to think we might be years and years away from being back to "normal."

[beach43ofus]

Originally Posted by Chowhound

Trump is in a real tough spot. If he opens up and the virus takes off again, he's going to get it. If he doesn't up the economy soon and things take a real dump, he's going to get it.

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

The MSM already has the articles & film clips written & taped bashing him no matter which way he goes with it.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by Chowhound

Trump is in a real tough spot. If he opens up and the virus takes off again, he's going to get it. If he doesn't up the economy soon and things take a real dump, he's going to get it.

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

What exactly is Trump going to open or reopen?

[jertheber]

Originally Posted by moneill

If you listened to the whole interview you heard that Cuomo wants a very calculated approach to 'reopen' the economy in his area. There has to be much thought, strategic planning, coordination with other states, all the communities.

That's the kind of talk we need to hear.

That it is going to be a complex approach that has to account for all kinds of factors.

There is obviously two schools of thought here, one is centered exclusively on the negative financial aspects of an ordered shutdown of business, the other deals with the facts surrounding the nature of viral infections. There is no clear correlation between the desire to open all business and the facts of a spreading contagious disease, none. No one with an ounce of brains is advocating for this shutdown to last beyond a reasonable time, but it will be reasonable: (adjective; of a person having sound judgment; fair and sensible) not arbitrary.

When the numbers of those in hospital care begins to lessen to the extent that we can handle more cases of infection on a limited scale, then and only then can we even begin to entertain thoughts of "opening up" the now shuttered businesses. On another view: Who will be foolish enough to think that this virus can become "controlled?" There is NO proof of viral infections ever lessening just because someone looks in their empty wallet and proclaims that to be "the signal" for the all clear. Personally, I won't be going out to bars or restaurants for quite some time, I've gotten used to living in this predicament and I'm doing fine.

We will find a time to act upon the facts. But, it is essential that we understand the reality that prevents us from trying to morph that information into something that suits the desperation driven financial narrative of those who would sacrifice others in their own self interest..

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by nyyfanatic85

Hardly the doom and gloom that the models predicted.

Obviously, you don't understand models.

The models are not wrong, they've just been recalculated to factor in the positive effects of social distancing and other measures to stop the spread of the disease and your inability to recognize that is not even inspiring.

FICA tax revenues are a very basic model:

Total FICA Revenues = # of Workers * Wages * FICA Tax

From our 6th Grade Math, we know that if we change any of the variables -- # of Workers or Wages or FICA Tax -- we change the output.

If we increase the # of Workers, then Total FICA Revenues increase.

If we increase the FICA tax, then Total FICA Revenues increase.

If we decrease any of the variables, Total FICA Revenues decrease.

If we decrease some variables and increase others, we get a mixed result.

You did complete the 6th Grade, didn't you?

I just don't want to talk over your head.

Population models are just like that, except the math is a little different because of the use of summations and square root regressions and such.

A very valid assumption is that it's "business as usual" and if one person can infect 6 people in a given day, then you can see how it spreads, right?

1 person infects 6 who each infect 6 people who each infect 6 people.

How many people is that?

That's 1 + 6 + 36 + 216 = 259 people infected.

Recalculate for 1,800 carriers of COVID-19:

1,800 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 = 503,884,800

That's how many people are infected in 7 days: 500 Million

If you alter the variables by reducing the number of contacts per day to just 1 using social distancing and shut-downs and such so that one carrier only infects one other person then you significantly reduce the number of people infected to just 12,600 people which is a helluva lot less than 500 Million.

That's just a simple explanation. If you want to do it the correct way, then assume something like 600 carriers who infect 2 people per day:

Day 1: (600 * 2) + 600 = 1,800 infected
Day 2: (600 * 2) + (600 * 2) + 1,200 = 3,600 infected
The original 600 carriers are still infecting people.
Day 3: (600 * 2) + (600 * 2) + (600 * 2) + 1,800 = 5,400
Day 4: 16,200 infected
Day 5: 48,600 infected
Day 6: 145,800 infected
Day 7: 437,400 infected
Day 9: 1,312,200 infected
Day 10: 3,936,600 infected
Day 11 : 11,809,800 infected
Day 12: 35,429,400 infected

If your model assumed weeks instead of days, then at the end of 12 weeks there'd be 35.4 Million infected. Obviously, I didn't account for dead people and those hospitalized no longer spreading the disease, but a real model would.

[jertheber]

Originally Posted by ncguy50

CDC came out today and said cases have stabilized and peaked. There's the science you asked for. Or is it just the messages you want to hear you consider to be "real science"?

Here is a quote from an earlier post of yours that spelled out your exuberant response to the CDC's update:

"Lets get a plan to get this nation back up in running, stat. CDC now says cases have stabilized and peaked. _NOW_ is the time to put together a plan to quickly get back to work and fire up the engine of our economy.

Let's go!"

Where are you going? And what is driving your need to open things up to a far worse situation? It isn't the facts of the disease, it's simply based upon your financial needs. Plenty of people are hurting, and the plentiful information at their fingertips will guide them as to how they should be construing reports of the CDC. It's as though you, and your vast scientific investigative efforts, have allowed YOU, a special kind of understanding. I'll wait for the CDC to elaborate on the subject of returning to a more normal situation..