Sounds about right. I'd imagine May 1 is when things start to relax a little bit.
Tine Coronavirus thread
2,647,710 Views |
20959 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by Ciboag96
There will be nothing to return to for many if we don't start returning to some normalcy. We aren't NYC and our population density is nowhere near theirs. They're packed into that ****hole like rats. What happens in the cold NE is not going to dictate what happens in a much more spread out city that is about to be 90 degreesjh0400 said:
I've yet to see any data that leads me to believe that the virus will be under control before Memorial Day. Depending on who you believe, it could be six more weeks of this or six months. My company is currently planning as if these conditions persist through the end of the year.
Edit to add: I'm not sure how you have a partial return to normalcy without introducing the risk of further exponential growth in cases. This is a long tail problem, and our course will likely be dictated by what happens in more densely populated areas like NYC in the coming days and weeks.
It's not a linear problem. Half measures won't mitigate half the impact. I'm not arguing that the impact of this won't be bad for a lot of businesses. There is no precedent for a economic slowdown that disproportionately affects service-oriented businesses. There is no easy answer here, and I'm glad I'm not the person who has to make the ultimate call on this.
I was one of the early pot-bangers complaining that this wasn't being taken seriously enough.
But now, none of the worst-case scenarios are playing out. Does this mean that the measures are working? Or that we're overreacting to something that wasn't going to be that bad? Or that it is still the calm before the storm? No one can be sure... but the UK study that caused much panic is already being altered to be more optimistic.
For sure the public health officials need to be listened to and strongly considered, but they aren't the only voice in the chorus. We're foolish if we don't at least pay attention to economic considerations as well.
Lastly, it is not totally helpful to look at stats for the entire USA. We are really separate regions with different climate, different population density and makeup, and different transportation habits. Hell, what makes sense for Houston may not make sense for Amarillo, for that matter.
Need to be smart.
But now, none of the worst-case scenarios are playing out. Does this mean that the measures are working? Or that we're overreacting to something that wasn't going to be that bad? Or that it is still the calm before the storm? No one can be sure... but the UK study that caused much panic is already being altered to be more optimistic.
For sure the public health officials need to be listened to and strongly considered, but they aren't the only voice in the chorus. We're foolish if we don't at least pay attention to economic considerations as well.
Lastly, it is not totally helpful to look at stats for the entire USA. We are really separate regions with different climate, different population density and makeup, and different transportation habits. Hell, what makes sense for Houston may not make sense for Amarillo, for that matter.
Need to be smart.
I don't think the worst case numbers were ever predicted to happen by March. Agree it shouldn't be one-size-fits-all, and that's why Pres. Trump's emphasis on federalism in all this is so good.
Who's to say the worst case numbers aren't happening because we're taking the precautions we are?
That's the catch with all this. If the precautions we're taking are successful it's gonna look like they weren't needed.
That's the catch with all this. If the precautions we're taking are successful it's gonna look like they weren't needed.
As was outlined in my post...........
Ag_07 said:
Who's to say the worst case numbers aren't happening because we're taking the precautions we are?
That's the catch with all this. If the precautions we're taking are successful it's gonna look like they weren't needed.
To me, that's exactly the outcome we want. I don't want to live through worst case scenario.
Absolutely. I want no part of what's going on in NYC and now NOLA.
I can just hear it now from the just the flu camp...See I was right. I told yall it was no big deal.
I can just hear it now from the just the flu camp...See I was right. I told yall it was no big deal.
Ag_07 said:
Absolutely. I want no part of what's going on in NYC and now NOLA.
I can just hear it now from the just the flu camp...See I was right. I told yall it was no big deal.
To me, the economy doomsdayers are no better than the virus ones.
Here's to hoping that we can mitigate damage on both fronts and bounce back ~relatively~ quickly.
I'm fortunate that I have a 7-5 corporate job. But the creativity I've seen exhibited the past couple of weeks by friends and acquaintances who are small business owners has really been amazing.
Agree with this...whatever Texas has done so far seems to be working well...we are 12th highest in confirmed cases for the US (and I know we aren't testing as much as some other states) and have only had 18 deaths, yet we're #2 in population.Jack Cheese said:
I was one of the early pot-bangers complaining that this wasn't being taken seriously enough.
But now, none of the worst-case scenarios are playing out. Does this mean that the measures are working? Or that we're overreacting to something that wasn't going to be that bad? Or that it is still the calm before the storm? No one can be sure... but the UK study that caused much panic is already being altered to be more optimistic.
For sure the public health officials need to be listened to and strongly considered, but they aren't the only voice in the chorus. We're foolish if we don't at least pay attention to economic considerations as well.
Lastly, it is not totally helpful to look at stats for the entire USA. We are really separate regions with different climate, different population density and makeup, and different transportation habits. Hell, what makes sense for Houston may not make sense for Amarillo, for that matter.
Need to be smart.
Places like NY/NJ and Louisiana are most likely going to have to stay locked down longer, but I don't see why states that are doing well and have no issues can't get back to some life. It's still people's choices if they don't want to go out to eat, go to the park, etc and plenty of people will make that choice.
it's the hospitalization rate though
in NYC, 10% of confirmed cases 18-44 are ending up in the hospital
that sucks. do not want.
in NYC, 10% of confirmed cases 18-44 are ending up in the hospital
that sucks. do not want.
cone said:
it's the hospitalization rate though
in NYC, 10% of confirmed cases 18-44 are ending up in the hospital
that sucks. do not want.
Yep. There is no doubt that today's media/social media operates under the motto "never let a good crisis go to waste."
But, this virus spreads more easily than the flu, there is no vaccine or immunity, and people are asymptomatic for up to two weeks.
Not to mention, so many of the people who get really sick need a ventilator and are on that ventilator for weeks before they recover (or die).
Just a really bad combination of problems.
We are at least a week out from our anticipated peak. This peak is if our measures have done the job. The delay factor in this disease process has everyone questioning if we did the right thing while there appears to be a lull. I think the situation is fluid but I would not start patting ourselves on the back until we know what things are looking like next weekend.
I didn't realize how many statisticians and epidemiologists were on this board. Too bad Trump doesn't visit TexAgs or he would have more set-in-stone facts than the experts are giving him.
if we were not in a pandemic right now, I easily would mistake this statement for a liucci recruiting update.Pulmcrit_ag said:
I think the situation is fluid but I would not start patting ourselves on the back until we know what things are looking like next weekend.
just like with hurricanes folks will run from danger, you know there are a lot of asymptomatic carriers fleeing South Louisiana this week headed to our area to stay with relatives, we will get what New Orleans is getting right now if we reopen things here in the next two weeks.
Nearby donut shop is "temporarily closed" due to coronavirus. We'd been stopping by about once a week because it was close enough to walk and if I don't do something with my 3 kids my wife and I will kill each other.
I'd be shocked if they reopened.
I'd be shocked if they reopened.
A friend shared with me that a client of his owns a medium sized restaurant chain and is involved in the Texas Restaurant Association. The TRA is projecting that 30%of the restaurants that close during this won't reopen when it's over.
Milwaukees Best Light
Joined:
Nov 1, 2007
Posts:
17,626
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it would have 300 stars and 6 permabans if it were a BL post.Shife said:if we were not in a pandemic right now, I easily would mistake this statement for a liucci recruiting update.Pulmcrit_ag said:
I think the situation is fluid but I would not start patting ourselves on the back until we know what things are looking like next weekend.
My oldest son is a physician in New Orleans. It's a nightmare over there.
Will be interesting to see the statistics of restaurant closures during this vs. a normal year. Don't get me wrong, this will definitely exacerbate the issue and cause some restaurants to close that wouldn't have. But I'd imagine a lot of the ones closing early were on the brink anyway, it's a tough industry.ChipFTAC01 said:
A friend shared with me that a client of his owns a medium sized restaurant chain and is involved in the Texas Restaurant Association. The TRA is projecting that 30%of the restaurants that close during this won't reopen when it's over.
Now if this is the new norm for another month all bets are off. Some strong restaurants could very well be going out of business.
But makes you wonder. How many restaurants close every year - what the usual turnover? How many of those were on the edge anyway?
The turnover rate for non-chain restaurants already seems pretty high.
Most non-chain restaurants seem to walk a fine line anyway. I can think of several independent restaurant groups that have folded in recent years that seemed to be killing it. Also, that 30% number feels low to me. I would've guessed close to half wouldn't be able to come up with the working capital to restart after liquidating current inventory and paying rent for some period of time on a non-operational restaurant.
CAKE (Cheesecake Factory) told all of their leaseholders that they can't make April rent. A $1B company doesn't have the money to make rent...now exacerbate that across the country with the non-chain stores run by people.
Eh, "can't make April rent" could also be "we have lawyers and negotiating leverage and don't want to take the cash flow hit so we're going to pass it on".
Cheesecake Factory can do that because of their size and their likely status as an anchor tenant in a lot of their suburban locations. You can't evict them without risking a lot of your other tenants leaving as well. CAKE management is most likely aware of this, so they're using it to their advantage.
I only used Cheesecake Factory as an example, but it's across the entire industry. They had to draw $90MM on their revolving credit. Hell, Fertitta laid of 40K people this week. Restaurants are not built to be closed for periods of time and even the large chains operate on slim margins.jh0400 said:
Cheesecake Factory can do that because of their size and their likely status as an anchor tenant in a lot of their suburban locations. You can't evict them without risking a lot of your other tenants leaving as well. CAKE management is most likely aware of this, so they're using it to their advantage.
What's the alternative? Leave everything open until so many people are sick that our entire health care system is overwhelmed? And restaurants and stores end up closing anyway because so many people are sick and/or scared to leave their house?
I'm certainly no economist, but both scenarios have significant economic implications. At least this way we have a chance to mitigate the impact on our health care system.
I'm certainly no economist, but both scenarios have significant economic implications. At least this way we have a chance to mitigate the impact on our health care system.
This is my take as well. For the "this is just the flu" crowd, I certainly don't keep myself from going out and living a normal life out of fear of catching the flu and by doing so risk me or my loved ones getting sick enough that we require urgent care that we won't be able to get because of the lack of resources available to the healthcare industry. But I definitly would for CV regardless of being compelled by forced closure or not.
7nine
I think that what we've done so far is making the best of both worlds. Shutting things down for 3-4 weeks to not overwhelm the health care system and assuming that these are lifted around Easter, ramping things back up so that not too many businesses go under. It's certainly a tough balance thoughTXTransplant said:
What's the alternative? Leave everything open until so many people are sick that our entire health care system is overwhelmed? And restaurants and stores end up closing anyway because so many people are sick and/or scared to leave their house?
I'm certainly no economist, but both scenarios have significant economic implications. At least this way we have a chance to mitigate the impact on our health care system.
For the record, I assume most of the "it's just the flu" crowd is actually the "it's just the flu but without a vaccine or herd immunity" crowd.
This whole thing would probably be going down the same way with the flu if we didn't have a vaccine or herd immunity.
But maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
This whole thing would probably be going down the same way with the flu if we didn't have a vaccine or herd immunity.
But maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
A Great Depression 2.0, which is a very real possibility if we shut down for many more weeks, is the worst possible scenario for everyone...and their offspring. Would be an absolute nightmare for almost everyone and we'd likely never be the same as a country.jh0400 said:
It's not a linear problem. Half measures won't mitigate half the impact. I'm not arguing that the impact of this won't be bad for a lot of businesses. There is no precedent for a economic slowdown that disproportionately affects service-oriented businesses. There is no easy answer here, and I'm glad I'm not the person who has to make the ultimate call on this.
How many millions have already filed for unemployment?
At some point, very soon, we need to say "we've done out part, now it's time for elderly and ill to be very careful and safe while the rest of us keep this country from f***ing collapsing".