bb2018

I'm agreeing with you - but isn't that the whole point of a stimulus? Boost short term economy and therefore hope, even if the gains are not long-lasting, the money floating around both helps people pay their bills and motivates them to make purchases?

There is still a couple more months of increased UI. Surely, it will be a huge fall after that, but in a much better place than if there were minimal or no increased benefits to begin with.

I would love to see another half-sized measure - but don't think the fact that it will fall in the future almost proves its usefulness.

I don't know if they will, and don't even know if they know, but I think you are 100% right that they are leaving that on the table privately. There is really nothing to stop them from undoing the policy or altering so that particular teams (which end up being a large portion of the workforce) need to come in.

For now, it saves tremendous costs as it could be over a year before their typical engineer wants to come into an office.

Thank you! I appreciate the info.

Spotify is rolling out video podcasts. Clips like that will still make their way to YouTube and other platforms (as they announced). However, you are right that making it harder to find and listen to will shrink its audience even if more economically sustainable. It reminds me a lot of Howard Stern leaving radio for satellite.

I unfortunately can't get behind the paywall - does the article mention or does anyone know how much of this actually has to do with the stockpile.

I would assume stockpiline would ultimately be a smaller factor compared to the issues of business shutdowns. I'd imagine, though I'd love to see data, that most of this just comes from an increase in online retail overall (with Wal-mart being just one of a few companies equipped to handle this) and the lack of money being spent at restaurants for everyday meals (Wal-mart is America's largest grocery store)

This is video of him stating it: https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1262487139083837448

Pretty interesting data. 2x of what it was through most of April but still 10% of what it is normally this time of year.

This is definitely a policy problem. The article (and others) seem to focus on the theory that people don't know they can be tested - but why would people like myself, who have barely left the house and show no symptoms, want to go get tested now?

It mentions that Utah has a capacity for 9000 a day but is doing 3500. Why not set aside 4000 a day for surveillance of government employees who still going into work (police officers, EMTs, firefighters, etc) or pay the testing companies to do testing for grocery stores or warehouses? Or maybe, tell restaurants they can open up sooner if they do weekly testing of employees?

I think you are missing the statistical point I and others are making. If the disease was introduced in a meaningful way in December/January it would be a statistical certainty we would see signs of it (such as nursing homes having huge waves of deaths or total mortality in subregions surging).

I'm not sure what your counterclaim is? There are no samples in America tested from that time period that would show that there was Covid nor is there any statistical evidence that would suggest there was Covid.

Yeah - if someone could point me to a nursing home where 5% of the population died in a week in December/January I'd believe it - anecdotes about people being having the flu in the winter isn't the most convincing.

That isn't true. The bats that it mostly likely come from are in China - but in Southern China about 1000 miles from Wuhan.

While a modest fraction of people trade individual stocks, a lot of Americans have some type of 401k, pension, or retirement account that is tied to the stock market.

This pegs it at 50% of private sector workers and 80% of public sector workers. https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...

Additionally, in many cases, couples may just have one person with access or contributions to the market - but this still leaves them exposed (for good and bad) to the market.

I agree.

Also, I know it is hip to say that Wall Street is short-sighted, but in reality it is one of the the few fields where people routinely think decades at a time.

If you run a large pension fund or investment account you were already risk-weighted and if the cash isn't needed for 10+ years you'd much rather own a slice of the world's largest companies ten years from now instead of gold or cash under a mattress.

Anyone have recommendations for comprehensive and unbiased sources on China's response? While I trust Taiwan more than China I generally would not trust them on coverage of China to be without agenda.

I wonder if they (or similar places) will decide to open tourism if they can test everyone coming in and out.

I feel like this is anything but shocking and the wrong takeaway? The source, as I understand it, is just where the person is living. It doesn't distinguish from people who worked from home, worked because they were essential, or those who have been going out socially.

66% of the people in the hospital are people who normally live at home. What percent of the normal population lives at home - 90%?

Thank you. I was missing more than a few.

Does anyone know if there is currently a source, or if there would be a way to calculate in retrospect, outbreaks in nursing homes? There are hundreds of nursing homes where a sizable portion of the community died in a couple of weeks which is very abnormal.

The only reason I'm confused about stories like the one above or the few about Covid-19 in California in January is that wouldn't we see such data inevitably?

A lot of people have stories about getting the worst sickness of their life in February which I understand but am also skeptical of (with bias probably 10% of the population gets a self-described worst flu of their life every year and Bayesian thinking would suggest almost none of these were Covid). However, it seems like nursing home data would be concrete.

I have been seeing all the ASL interpreters during government press conferences and have been very confused about their usefulness. These feeds are all on TV news channels with closed captioning. Do deaf people prefer an ASL interpreter on a small corner of a TV over written text?

The article mentions a deaf man who did not know about the stay-at-home order until a relative called him. Even if true, are we suppose to assume he had been watching the news broadcast of the Cuomo presser and only didn't pick up on it because there was no interpreter?

I would love for someone with more knowledge to chime in and tell me why I'm misinformed. I'm more curious than anything else.

I signed up as a volunteer on 1DaySooner and have to imagine that public support would be for human challenge trials. Limiting it to those under a certain age and who are in good health seems like a no-brainer.

While I understand health professionals across the board hesitancy to push for such things, doing so in this case would border on zealotry.

Does anyone know of a site compiling similar statistics per metro area or per state?

The chart is very illuminating for most countries and for areas like NYC. However, I would really like to see other areas like Florida, California, or a random rural area like Wyoming. I sort of imagine most of people's attitudes on opening policy are based on how many people they know in their network that have been affected.

I'd still like to know what category of product you and others are talking about. I'm not in denial - just legitimately curious.

Last year I made 349 orders on Amazon and cannot think of a single time I got a counterfeit item or felt tricked by the reviews.

I would really like to wonder of the people encountering frequent fake products on Amazon, what categories are you shopping in? Is it fashion items or something similar? My main Amazon purchases are household items/toiletries and then hobby electronic parts. I haven't had any issues with these - and beyond the review issue the Amazon pricing/delivery time/return policy is by far the best of any site I've dealt with.

Is community spread of zero a worthwhile goal? SF still has thousands of people (maybe tens of thousands) coming in and out of the city every day to deliver things, see family, return home, etc. As long as this is still happening (there is no way for SF to prevent this) what is the point of fixating on zero new cases.

Consider two cases:

- On May 15 SF has had no new cases since May 1st. It decides to reopen.

- On May 15 SF has had 150 new cases (ten a day) since May 1st. It decides to reopen.

By June 15th, is the total number of cases any different under these scenarios? In either case, has the city been able to function without having to reclose?

I'm not sure the answer to these - but my instinct is that the situations would be virtually the same.

That is not at all my argument. I am saying the posted article paints a picture of Seattle and New York City being equally susceptible to a huge explosion of cases. The differences between the two cities (in terms of density, public transit, tourists, etc) is about as significant as between a city like Boston and a city like Manchester, New Hampshire.

I agree. I think the issue with mask recommendations was ultimately that politicians/public health officials were worried people would put on a mask and then feel invincible, therefore leading to more spread.

I think that is the case with lots of calls to re-open now. There are so many businesses that could return safely now if people followed safety protocol, but realistically not only will there be unintentional safety errors but loosening of some government restrictions will lead to the loosening of people's personal safetly restrictions they have been doing since the start.

I agree. de Blasio did terrible and Inslee acted way faster than Cuomo, but there is a reason that Buffalo is much better off than NYC even though they are both under the jurisdiction of New York law. Anyone who has lived in NYC as well as other cities knows just how different it is.

My family is in New England. Massachusetts has 10x more deaths per capita than New Hampshire even though, if anything, Massachusetts has been a bit ahead in terms of closures and interventions.

First off, if you extrapolate the 0.5% estimate to the general population that could get the disease (let's just say 60% before herd immunity kicks in) that is one million people in America. I'm not sure if another reason is needed other than not having one-million people die in a very short amount of time.

- Survival from the disease is likely to be dependent on hospital capacity. It is reasonable to think that outcomes would be better if hospitals were not overworked. The only place in the United States were hospitals were truly overcrowding (and it is still not nearly as bad as it could have been without flattening) was New York. You can see how many people died at home (either due to unrelated health conditions that they couldn't get treated for or having covid but not being able to go to the hospital). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/corona.... Read stories or talk to nurses/doctors in your life about triage care.

- Treatments could improve significantly over time. For example, ventilators may not even be the recommended course of action for many cases. It is not likely we will have a miracle cure, but some treatments could help. https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disea...

I think antibody tests will soon become more useful for tracking disease progression in a population than the viral tests. The collection methods may skew things but they still are much more close to a random sample than the viral tests which have lots of issues with test shortages and people unable to get tested (or not wanting to go to the hospital with mild symptoms).

I found this to be a very interesting read and I just bought two pulse oximeters (one for me, one for parents).