Corona and Nevada opening plans..

[Norm]

There is perspective given to this -- by scientists and medical professions, particularly epidemiologists. We have been warned about this for a couple decades. And still, some don't take it seriously. And they aren't RAW numbers -- they're dead people. 206,973 thus far. Saying they're just RAW numbers, and lots of people die, is like saying the Vietnam War deaths were insignificant.

[mcallister3200]

IMO it should be measured in aggregate life expectancy lost and average life expectancy lost not lives lost to if they were interested in giving us an accurate picture. Healthy 20 year old men in Vietnam is much more life expectancy lost per person by a multiple. I also don’t think they are interested in giving us any sort of realistic or transparent data that doesn’t fit their agendas for when it’s reasonable to open things up a little bit. They will say when numbers are going down as they’re ramping up testing so they know the numbers won’t look down even if and when they are.

They give us data for how long it would get to herd immunity based on us having a homogeneous population and looking at only averages, 70% or whatever number getting it. A minority of people are involved in the majority of the social interactions, while others rarely leave their homes/computer screens as if they are all the same. It doesn’t help much towards herd immunity if the latter group gets it, but if any majority of the former group of potential superspreaders has gotten it and recovered you’ve already effectively reached herd immunity.

I don’t know where we are in this other than those in power have zero interest in giving the public any transparency or genuinely helpful guidelines about it so long as it helps them maintain submissive control.

[lij45o6]

So those who can afford to stay at home and still have income, my hat is off to you. But for millions of others, that is really not the case. The service industry has been devastated...........and I don't know how they can afford to "shelter at home" as directed. Federal stimulus or not. Even if casinos are 'paying' their workers during this time, which is definitely NOT the case for all...........most relied upon tips for their "true" income. I'm sure the near minimum wage paid dealers or cocktail waitresses doesn't go very far even if they ARE being paid. There is NO easy answer but opening wide (ignoring the pandemic) nor total isolation, staying at home is the correct answer IF we want the economy to "unfreeze". There has to be a balancing of risks involved.

I was in Vegas when it shut down. They were trying the best they could I assume under the circumstances. Shutting down half the slot machines; using only half the seats at the tables; closing most of restaurants, disinfecting the seats and tables often, etc. I do not know what the answer is but there has to be some way to open the country up without exceeding medical staffs ability to treat those who need it. Perhaps limiting or protecting the most vulnerable (elderly and those with underlying health conditions) is the actual answer. But even with what you say about deaths exceeding the Vietnam war, Norm, there still has to be some realistic way to look at the numbers than JUST the raw numbers mainstream media seems to post. For example, the average daily death toll in the U.S. is between 4600 and 4700 people EACH day. Compare that number to the Covid cases and you get a better perspective. In my State we have only reached maybe one average day's death toll. Every death is personal and unwanted, but there HAS to be some perspective given to this.

There are specific Fiscal/Monetary methods we could use. Like most things in economics: there are trade-offs. Some of these trade-offs may not align with each and every persons own economic/social normative impositions.

We could provide further stimulus via unconditional cash transfers, like what we saw with the 1200 USD stimulus check. The downside is that when the recession ends, we may face an increase in taxes for all.

We could reopen partially, like many hand-full of states are doing this coming week, but we face the effects of increase infection which could strain our already over-worked healthcare industry putting further economic pressure on the US during the recession.

We could do a mix of both, but I am not too sure how that would alleviate any issues with the increase death tolls and infection rates, the already stagnating economy, and volatile political landscape.

This sucks. From what I gather from both health and economic professionals, is that reopening the country right now or even too soon, we could face worse health/economic conditions than what we are currently projected to face. I feel that we collectively don't respect expert opinion(s) on this matter; while certain persons are aggressively pushing to reopen and put people in harms way, as well as pushing for dangerous activities (*don't drink bleach, please!)

[lij45o6]

And they aren't RAW numbers -- they're dead people. 206,973 thus far.

A death is a tragedy.
A million deaths, that is a statistic.

-"Uncle" Joe Stalin

[DSchles]

So those who can afford to stay at home and still have income, my hat is off to you. But for millions of others, that is really not the case. The service industry has been devastated...........and I don't know how they can afford to "shelter at home" as directed. Federal stimulus or not. Even if casinos are 'paying' their workers during this time, which is definitely NOT the case for all...........most relied upon tips for their "true" income. I'm sure the near minimum wage paid dealers or cocktail waitresses doesn't go very far even if they ARE being paid. There is NO easy answer but opening wide (ignoring the pandemic) nor total isolation, staying at home is the correct answer IF we want the economy to "unfreeze". There has to be a balancing of risks involved.

I was in Vegas when it shut down. They were trying the best they could I assume under the circumstances. Shutting down half the slot machines; using only half the seats at the tables; closing most of restaurants, disinfecting the seats and tables often, etc. I do not know what the answer is but there has to be some way to open the country up without exceeding medical staffs ability to treat those who need it. Perhaps limiting or protecting the most vulnerable (elderly and those with underlying health conditions) is the actual answer. But even with what you say about deaths exceeding the Vietnam war, Norm, there still has to be some realistic way to look at the numbers than JUST the raw numbers mainstream media seems to post. For example, the average daily death toll in the U.S. is between 4600 and 4700 people EACH day. Compare that number to the Covid cases and you get a better perspective. In my State we have only reached maybe one average day's death toll. Every death is personal and unwanted, but there HAS to be some perspective given to this.

The money you earn by going back to work early isn't going to do you any fucking good if you're dead. H. L. Mencken had it exactly right: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Don

[Counting_Is_Fun]

The money you earn by going back to work early isn't going to do you any fucking good if you're dead. H. L. Mencken had it exactly right: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Don

Easy to say when you are rich.
What about people who will soon go bankrupt, lose their home, lose the business they built, or can't feed their kids? You know...a lot of the population.
Opening things back up is going to be really difficult. But it does need to happen at some point soon.
Start doing it where it makes sense, with good guidelines in place...don't do it where it doesn't make sense yet.
If you are in one of the high-risk health groups and can afford to not work...then continue to stay at home.

[Wave]

I find the differing points of view regarding reopening the economy fascinating...especially the differences between members of this forum.

As APs, I think it is safe to conclude we all share a common goal of identifying an acceptable level of risk we are willing to assume in order to maximize reward...but that level of risk varies by individual and does not have an affect on anyone but ourselves.

But this is not so with the reopening of the economy. As in blackjack, we all have different levels of acceptable risk, but unlike blackjack, the level of acceptable risk in regards to reopening the economy not only affects ourselves, but also affects society as a whole due to the phenomenon of contagion. There are extreme points of view on both sides of the spectrum...saving the economy without consideration to the affect on human life v saving human life without consideration to the affect on the economy.

I am curious to learn where the balancing points will be found and how they will vary by age, race, gender, socio-economic status, and political party.

@ Norm: I am not trying to make a political statement with this post or turn this thread into a political battle...I only included political party because it is a known sociological variable and one of my degrees is in Sociology.

[lij45o6]

Easy to say when you are rich.
What about people who will soon go bankrupt, lose their home, lose the business they built, or can't feed their kids? You know...a lot of the population.
Opening things back up is going to be really difficult. But it does need to happen at some point soon.
Start doing it where it makes sense, with good guidelines in place...don't do it where it doesn't make sense yet.
If you are in one of the high-risk health groups and can afford to not work...then continue to stay at home.

This is where an direct cash transfer occurs.

Those on unemployment get an additional 2400 per month for a few months. Yes, only those who qualify. Many are in need of benefits that are out of a job.

An expansion and similar version to that of the 1200 stimulus could be an answer. Remember, we are paying people to stay home as much as possible to limit the death toll.

If we open too soon, expect to see more severe economic repercussions surrounding the healthcare industry...alongside all the millions of dead workers.

[lij45o6]

I find the differing points of view regarding reopening the economy fascinating...especially the differences between members of this forum.

As APs, I think it is safe to conclude we all share a common goal of identifying an acceptable level of risk we are willing to assume in order to maximize reward...but that level of risk varies by individual and does not have an affect on anyone but ourselves.

But this is not so with the reopening of the economy. As in blackjack, we all have different levels of acceptable risk, but unlike blackjack, the level of acceptable risk in regards to reopening the economy not only affects ourselves, but also affects society as a whole due to the phenomenon of contagion. There are extreme points of view on both sides of the spectrum...saving the economy without consideration to the affect on human life v saving human life without consideration to the affect on the economy.

I am curious to learn where the balancing points will be found and how they will vary by age, race, gender, socio-economic status, and political party.

@ Norm: I am not trying to make a political statement with this post or turn this thread into a political battle...I only included political party because it is a known sociological variable and one of my degrees is in Sociology.

This analysis ignores a variable: others that are not us.

Take charge in understanding not only what people are preferring in terms of action, but also get to know *why* they have a given position.

Not everyone is looking at this from a risk v reward perspective. People are looking at this from a political perspective: a very dangerous game.

Remember: you may turn out okay from re-opening the economy; other may not.

Let's see what the +18 states experience the next 2 weeks as they "partially re-open" their economies.

[fullhouse283]

considering so many of the people most affected by the shutdowns economically and most in need of help are off the grid and not getting any of the help, its no wonder we are screaming up for the economy (and the casinos where we make our income from +ev activities) to reopen immediately. i live out of a motel because since my income was earned underneath the table, i cant prove or verify income to rent from a normal large apartment complex in a safe neighborhood. so im getting charged $1100 a month while i have no income coming in. and im not protected from evictions in my state like u are in some other states when u live out of a hotel. i would be protected if i had a lease at an apartment instead of a hotel. ive also never had a credit card in my life just a debit card.

im still waiting on my $1200 and finally got told i was approved but not when it would be transferred to my bank account. i kept checking. id never filed taxes before because i had no record of any income and i made so little i didnt ever bother to investigate. i did get 3 w2g during the past year one for $5000 from a river dragon, and one for $1721 on a scarab machine, and one for $3400 on a video poker machine. but ive had nothing coming in the way of income for at least 5 weeks now. and im still paying food, rent and miscellaneous expenses like my phone bill, transportation, etc.

but theres not just the virus destroying peoples health. what about all the others who will die sooner due to not being able to see a doctor for routine medical care, such as being tested to find out if they have diabetes, seeing a doctor for a checkup theyve not had in years to make sure they dont have a heart attack, those who worry they might have a bad UTI and cant find out, and not being able to use the gym they really need to to avoid getting too fat. and all those people will die much sooner because of the lockdowns. also poverty will kill a lot of these people over the next few years slowly, to where it wont be noticed, but still just as many deaths. suicide, alcoholism, and extremely poor diets due to the healthiest food in the stores costing way more than the unhealthy food. and those who die because of robberies from those desperate for money

those of us who earn about $2000-3000 per month from +ev gambling are smart enough to know and take risks. if we have a 2% chance of dying, we will take it over a 98% chance of staying alive, but going thru life in extreme poverty the next 10 yrs of their life. a 2% chance of dying, but if u dont, u basically go thru life normally still able to make an income and pay your bills without becoming homeless. thats better than being unable to buy food, unable to live indoors, unable to see a doctor or a dentist, for a long time into the forseeable future. is it really worth 90% unemployment eventually, widespread food shortages when the meat runs out, and 30% homelessness before all this is over? it will never end til there is widespread herd immunity. do we really want to trust a vaccine by bill gates, when he has a history of causing tens of thousands of paralizations in india and deaths from his last major vaccine that didnt go so well?

[Wave]

This analysis ignores a variable: others that are not us.

Take charge in understanding not only what people are preferring in terms of action, but also get to know *why* they have a given position.

Not everyone is looking at this from a risk v reward perspective. People are looking at this from a political perspective: a very dangerous game.

.

Sir..literally with all due respect...I understand that political agendas are, unfortunately, a part of the equation. But, due to respect for Norm's rules, I have consciously attempted to refrain from including them in my analysis.

Regardless, you are correct that there are people looking at this from a political perspective and that to do so is a dangerous game, but I intentionally attempted to avoid politics with my post. This particular response is not intended to cause any forum disharmony, but is instead intended to enlighten you regarding my personal lack of political naivete.

[21forme]

What about people who will soon go bankrupt,

As long as they have the latest iPhone. That's what's important to them, rather than responsible budgeting/spending and its consequences.

[gayandlovingit]

i live out of a motel because since my income was earned underneath the table, i cant prove or verify income to rent from a normal large apartment complex in a safe neighborhood.

im still waiting on my $1200 and finally got told i was approved but not when it would be transferred to my bank account.

id never filed taxes before because i had no record of any income

i cant imagine the myriad of mental hoops you'd have to jump through to admit to tax evasion while crying about not receiving a stim check