The Nation's Financial Condition

[Peter Brown]

(omitted)
My 'source' might be a tad better than your online search engines; yesterday, I called two restaurant owner buddies of mine for a lunch AND dinner reservation for today.

Sample size of two to make all those conclusions. Other sample size far larger.

Hmm. Which source of investigation has the smaller error in its result?

Hence the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, now. I trust my ears and eyes.

I find this story hilarious; my guess is it makes you rage.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/03/hundreds- ... ar-a-lago/

If someone wants to parade by Mar-a-Lago that is just fine with me. I don't think I will participate. Why should I rage? You obviously don't really know me (no matter what you think). To me it is a perfect example of the 1% showing their love for Trump.

You do realize that by calling up buddies of yours you not only have a small sample size - it is a biased sample - because your friends' businesses do not represent a random sampling. And if those friends share the same political bent as you (notice I say if) then maybe your outlook on the actual dangers of spreading/getting COVID-19 are different from the majority of the population. Are the wait staff going to be wearing masks?

Let's leave it at this: in another two hours I will be sitting at a restaurant with two friends having lunch discussing business.

48 hours from then, if I find an article saying that Florida is causing more Covid spread by the insane crowds at Florida restaurants, I'll post.

Either way, Florida is getting back to business as it should.

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)

Are the wait staff going to be wearing masks?

Let's leave it at this: in another two hours I will be sitting at a restaurant with two friends having lunch discussing business.

48 hours from then, if I find an article saying that Florida is causing more Covid spread by the insane crowds at Florida restaurants, I'll post.

Either way, Florida is getting back to business as it should.

Enjoy your lunch. I notice you never answered my question. And are you going to be wearing a mask?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just saw a report tonight that perhaps as many as 40% of the restaurants in the five boroughs of NYC will likely never re-open.

Exactly why they should re open now.

Maybe. But with reduced seating and potentially very low customer demand out of fear, might not make much of a difference to many.

Fair enough. But you don’t know if you don’t try. I am willing to wager that people would be thrilled to get out and sit elsewhere at their favorite place. Likely even pay a premium to do so.

If even wager they’d have a waitlist to get it.

I can afford to pay a premium. I would be happy to pay up.

If outside and well distanced, with staff wearing masks, etc...and tested?
Me too...looking forward to it.

My comment was tongue in cheek.....Premiums to eat out is just another example of the “I got mine” mentality of the top 5%.

ahhh yes, certainly, got it...but definitely looking forward to some possibilities.
But I'm in zero rush to do so.
We won't be going to a restaurant for quite awhile, not with an 84 year old (mom) in the house and a 64 year old (brother-in-law) with diabetes too.

But there will be those who do...most will get away with it...but some will not.

By 'Premium'...I was implying generosity, to support local business owners getting the heads back above water.

Yeah. When did premium become a synonym for tip? I got mine. I can afford to pay up. In my town, there are plenty of restaurants doing curbside, I make a point to buy out 2-3 times a week. Hadn’t event thought about my willingness to pay up for a more intimate sit down service. You should see the lines of people picking up food at the food pantry. I am sure they are willing to pay up for a bespoke dinner.

When the dictionary defined it : "a sum added to an ordinary price or charge." Your signature is also wrong, you seem incapable to recognize when people care. Keep up the #trolling.

You responded before I could edit... I was going to add that you may not have realized how your post came across versus how your really feel. So you have always called a tip a Premium? Honestly? When you are out for dinner with a group you say, "who can calculate the premium?" Come on dude, its ok to say "that is not how I meant it"...... you aren't giving up ground.......

I meant it as it is defined in example #2 of the link I previously provided. You assumed tip. Gotta run....heading downtown.

Have a good day.

[Peter Brown]

(omitted)

Are the wait staff going to be wearing masks?

Let's leave it at this: in another two hours I will be sitting at a restaurant with two friends having lunch discussing business.

48 hours from then, if I find an article saying that Florida is causing more Covid spread by the insane crowds at Florida restaurants, I'll post.

Either way, Florida is getting back to business as it should.

Enjoy your lunch. I notice you never answered my question. And are you going to be wearing a mask?

At a restaurant? No. Of course not. Plus, it's an outside dining area where we will be.

We haven't really worn many masks socially here on the west coast, except for the supermarket, and that's a common courtesy extended to others who might be susceptible to the virus. I have gone to a dog park nearly every day and no one wears a mask there either. I'm not boasting like an idiot unaware of the risks; just telling you what it's like.

And before anyone gets all animated about not wearing masks, I don't know anyone in my 'hood who has tested positive, nor in my company (we have socially distanced as much as practical, and we have provided face masks to all employees and their families).

[a fan]

And before anyone gets all animated about not wearing masks, I don't know anyone in my 'hood who has tested positive, nor in my company (we have socially distanced as much as practical, and we have provided face masks to all employees and their families).

Has everyone in your neighborhood and everyone in your company been tested?

No. They haven't. So you're flying blind. Which is fine, and your choice, but you have no clue who has what.

Which is the entire problem as of today. No one knows because we don't have Covid test, so isolating protocols are impossible. And an organized reopening is impossible.

So what are we doing? Just rolling the dice, and hoping it works out.

I hope it works out. Take care of yourself.....


BTW----- 400 employees at a pork plant test positive for Covid. Every single one of them was asymptomatic. I'm hoping this is good news---and this virus won't kill any of them----and not bad news.

The more positive tests we get with no death or permanent health damage, the more the lethality of the disease drops, and the easier it is to reopen.

So again, we're right back to needed testing in order for our economy to move forward.


https://www.businessinsider.com/hundred ... tic-2020-5

[Typical Lax Dad]

And before anyone gets all animated about not wearing masks, I don't know anyone in my 'hood who has tested positive, nor in my company (we have socially distanced as much as practical, and we have provided face masks to all employees and their families).

Has everyone in your neighborhood and everyone in your company been tested?

No. They haven't. So you're flying blind. Which is fine, and your choice, but you have no clue who has what.

Which is the entire problem as of today. No one knows because we don't have Covid test, so isolating protocols are impossible. And an organized reopening is impossible.

So what are we doing? Just rolling the dice, and hoping it works out.

I hope it works out. Take care of yourself.....


BTW----- 400 employees at a pork plant test positive for Covid. Every single one of them was asymptomatic. I'm hoping this is good news---and this virus won't kill any of them----and not bad news.

The more positive tests we get with no death or permanent health damage, the more the lethality of the disease drops, and the easier it is to reopen.

So again, we're right back to needed testing in order for our economy to move forward.


https://www.businessinsider.com/hundred ... tic-2020-5

+1. Otherwise it is just a hope and a prayer. Way get lucky and catch a break.

[Peter Brown]

And before anyone gets all animated about not wearing masks, I don't know anyone in my 'hood who has tested positive, nor in my company (we have socially distanced as much as practical, and we have provided face masks to all employees and their families).

Has everyone in your neighborhood and everyone in your company been tested?

No. They haven't. So you're flying blind. Which is fine, and your choice, but you have no clue who has what.

Which is the entire problem as of today. No one knows because we don't have Covid test, so isolating protocols are impossible. And an organized reopening is impossible.

So what are we doing? Just rolling the dice, and hoping it works out.

I hope it works out. Take care of yourself.....


BTW----- 400 employees at a pork plant test positive for Covid. Every single one of them was asymptomatic. I'm hoping this is good news---and this virus won't kill any of them----and not bad news.

The more positive tests we get with no death or permanent health damage, the more the lethality of the disease drops, and the easier it is to reopen.

So again, we're right back to needed testing in order for our economy to move forward.


https://www.businessinsider.com/hundred ... tic-2020-5

I'm not picking a fight, but isn't that a risk we take every day of our lives? I mean, go visit your kids' school one day; kids are breeding grounds for viruses.

And if I want to drive at night, I am taking a risk that some wackjob will hit me drunk.

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised. It is obviously more than a simple concern with people who are overweight and have comorbidities.

And here is where I am super positive about life and why humanity always thrives, and actually improves, but also where you will say I am ice-cold. This virus will have a net benefit effect: it will force many among us to lose weight going forward. Being overweight is the fastest ticket to death you can voluntarily do to yourself.

[RedFromMI]

And before anyone gets all animated about not wearing masks, I don't know anyone in my 'hood who has tested positive, nor in my company (we have socially distanced as much as practical, and we have provided face masks to all employees and their families).

Has everyone in your neighborhood and everyone in your company been tested?

No. They haven't. So you're flying blind. Which is fine, and your choice, but you have no clue who has what.

Which is the entire problem as of today. No one knows because we don't have Covid test, so isolating protocols are impossible. And an organized reopening is impossible.

So what are we doing? Just rolling the dice, and hoping it works out.

I hope it works out. Take care of yourself.....


BTW----- 400 employees at a pork plant test positive for Covid. Every single one of them was asymptomatic. I'm hoping this is good news---and this virus won't kill any of them----and not bad news.

The more positive tests we get with no death or permanent health damage, the more the lethality of the disease drops, and the easier it is to reopen.

So again, we're right back to needed testing in order for our economy to move forward.


https://www.businessinsider.com/hundred ... tic-2020-5

I'm not picking a fight, but isn't that a risk we take every day of our lives? I mean, go visit your kids' school one day; kids are breeding grounds for viruses.

And if I want to drive at night, I am taking a risk that some wackjob will hit me drunk.

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised. It is obviously more than a simple concern with people who are overweight and have comorbidities.

And here is where I am super positive about life and why humanity always thrives, and actually improves, but also where you will say I am ice-cold. This virus will have a net benefit effect: it will force many among us to lose weight going forward. Being overweight is the fastest ticket to death you can voluntarily do to yourself.

Think of what you just said - that we need look at the positive side of all this death. It will scare the hell out of us so we lose weight.

Never mind that losing weight is not always so simple (actually it is quite hard to keep any weight that is lost off), and genetics and environment do play a large role.

Not sure that qualifies as positive...

[a fan]

I'm not picking a fight, but isn't that a risk we take every day of our lives? I mean, go visit your kids' school one day; kids are breeding grounds for viruses.

I know you're not picking a fight----this time, anyway.

There are no right answers. My sole point is: we don't have testing, and we're flying blind. Picture how much easier it would be to navigate this virus if you could test every one of your employees and their families?

We need testing. Full stop.

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

Shows again how critical testing is for decision making.

And here is where I am super positive about life and why humanity always thrives, and actually improves, but also where you will say I am ice-cold. This virus will have a net benefit effect: it will force many among us to lose weight going forward. Being overweight is the fastest ticket to death you can voluntarily do to yourself.

And the libs think that this will make people change their minds about universal health care and other social programs.

You and I both know that people won't change their behaviors in America because of this virus.

[CU77]

I heard a "freakonomics" radio show on the virus, which was quite thoughtful and interesting. (I've read some of the freakonomics books, and while I don't think they're always right, and they're a little too impressed with themselves, they often bring a point of view that is not so obvious and worth considering.) Re testing, one barrier is that the huge ramp-up that is needed requires tremendous capital investment, but then not enough time (many years) to recoup, as the need for testing will eventually go way down. So private investment doesn't want to do it. The point was then made that a societal investment (= paid by the federal gubmint) of several hundred billion dollars in testing would be recouped (by society, not by the gubmint) within months by the increased safe economic activity it allows.

[RedFromMI]

I heard a "freakonomics" radio show on the virus, which was quite thoughtful and interesting. (I've read some of the freakonomics books, and while I don't think they're always right, and they're a little too impressed with themselves, they often bring a point of view that is not so obvious and worth considering.) Re testing, one barrier is that the huge ramp-up that is needed requires tremendous capital investment, but then not enough time (many years) to recoup, as the need for testing will eventually go way down. So private investment doesn't want to do it. The point was then made that a societal investment (= paid by the federal gubmint) of several hundred billion dollars in testing would be recouped (by society, not by the gubmint) within months by the increased safe economic activity it allows.

This^^^^^

[CU77]

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

It's likely not that great. Estimates of exposure rates in the US range from 5% to 20%. Still well below the ~70% needed for herd immunity.

So even if you believe 20%, getting to 20% resulted in 70,000 deaths. So to get to 70% would require an additional (70-20)/20 * 70,000 = 175,000 deaths. If the infection rate is 5%, we would need another (70-5)/5 * 70,000 = 910,000 deaths, in line with early projections that US deaths would be 1 to 2 million with no social distancing.

And the official death count is low. Estimates based on excess deaths over a 5-year baseline are significantly higher.

So we have a long way to go.

[RedFromMI]

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

It's likely not that great. Estimates of exposure rates in the US range from 5% to 20%. Still well below the ~70% needed for herd immunity.

So even if you believe 20%, getting to 20% resulted in 70,000 deaths. So to get to 70% would require an additional (70-20)/20 * 70,000 = 175,000 deaths. If the infection rate is 5%, we would need another (70-5)/5 * 70,000 = 910,000 deaths, in line with early projections that US deaths would be 1 to 2 million with no social distancing.

And the official death count is low. Estimates based on excess deaths over a 5-year baseline are significantly higher.

So we have a long way to go.

covid19-projections.com say early August likely number infected in USA at just over 5% with a range from 2.3% to 10.3%. LONG way from herd. Also sees death totals at the same time as a bit over 160K, with a range from 95K to 282K.

[Peter Brown]

I'm not picking a fight, but isn't that a risk we take every day of our lives? I mean, go visit your kids' school one day; kids are breeding grounds for viruses.

I know you're not picking a fight----this time, anyway.

There are no right answers. My sole point is: we don't have testing, and we're flying blind. Picture how much easier it would be to navigate this virus if you could test every one of your employees and their families?

We need testing. Full stop.

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

Shows again how critical testing is for decision making.

And here is where I am super positive about life and why humanity always thrives, and actually improves, but also where you will say I am ice-cold. This virus will have a net benefit effect: it will force many among us to lose weight going forward. Being overweight is the fastest ticket to death you can voluntarily do to yourself.

And the libs think that this will make people change their minds about universal health care and other social programs.

You and I both know that people won't change their behaviors in America because of this virus.

So what is your answer? More testing? What is the time frame? What % of the population needs testing and how often?

People can not simply not work to earn money; it is a lose-lose.

[a fan]

I'm not picking a fight, but isn't that a risk we take every day of our lives? I mean, go visit your kids' school one day; kids are breeding grounds for viruses.

I know you're not picking a fight----this time, anyway.

There are no right answers. My sole point is: we don't have testing, and we're flying blind. Picture how much easier it would be to navigate this virus if you could test every one of your employees and their families?

We need testing. Full stop.

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

Shows again how critical testing is for decision making.

And here is where I am super positive about life and why humanity always thrives, and actually improves, but also where you will say I am ice-cold. This virus will have a net benefit effect: it will force many among us to lose weight going forward. Being overweight is the fastest ticket to death you can voluntarily do to yourself.

And the libs think that this will make people change their minds about universal health care and other social programs.

You and I both know that people won't change their behaviors in America because of this virus.

So what is your answer? More testing? What is the time frame? What % of the population needs testing and how often?

People can not simply not work to earn money; it is a lose-lose.

I already said what my answer was. Each individual governor, and then each individual business has to figure that out themselves.

There are no right answers. No such thing as too soon, or too late. It's impossible to know, given the information and available supplies we have on hand.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not picking a fight, but isn't that a risk we take every day of our lives? I mean, go visit your kids' school one day; kids are breeding grounds for viruses.

I know you're not picking a fight----this time, anyway.

There are no right answers. My sole point is: we don't have testing, and we're flying blind. Picture how much easier it would be to navigate this virus if you could test every one of your employees and their families?

We need testing. Full stop.

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

Shows again how critical testing is for decision making.

And here is where I am super positive about life and why humanity always thrives, and actually improves, but also where you will say I am ice-cold. This virus will have a net benefit effect: it will force many among us to lose weight going forward. Being overweight is the fastest ticket to death you can voluntarily do to yourself.

And the libs think that this will make people change their minds about universal health care and other social programs.

You and I both know that people won't change their behaviors in America because of this virus.

So what is your answer? More testing? What is the time frame? What % of the population needs testing and how often?

People can not simply not work to earn money; it is a lose-lose.

I already said what my answer was. Each individual governor, and then each individual business has to figure that out themselves.

There are no right answers. No such thing as too soon, or too late. It's impossible to know, given the information and available supplies we have on hand.

This feels a bit like a cop out, a fan, though I don't think you necessarily mean to be doing so.

First, there is a national, federal role in this process. And international.
It makes no sense to think about this based on arbitrary lines, it's a bloody pandemic.

Yes, there are no CERTAIN 'right answers' but that doesn't mean that decisions don't have material consequences, both health and economic. And we do know enough already to be able to make decisions that are directionally 'better' than those that are clearly 'worse'. And we will keep learning more...that is, if we make the right efforts to do so!

That said, I do agree that this ultimately comes down to individual choices, both people and businesses, not just governments at each level.

[MDlaxfan76]

I am betting that most of us have been exposed, or at least way many more than expected, and this is not as deadly as advertised.

I think we all agree that this is the case now that we're getting more somewhat reliable data. Again....if we had testing, we'd likely find sooooo many more people have had this thing, and that makes the death rate plummet.

It's likely not that great. Estimates of exposure rates in the US range from 5% to 20%. Still well below the ~70% needed for herd immunity.

So even if you believe 20%, getting to 20% resulted in 70,000 deaths. So to get to 70% would require an additional (70-20)/20 * 70,000 = 175,000 deaths. If the infection rate is 5%, we would need another (70-5)/5 * 70,000 = 910,000 deaths, in line with early projections that US deaths would be 1 to 2 million with no social distancing.

And the official death count is low. Estimates based on excess deaths over a 5-year baseline are significantly higher.

So we have a long way to go.

This is indeed the really painful math.
That said, we could have some intervening ways to reduce the impact.

Let's hope and pray for those.

[a fan]

This feels a bit like a cop out, a fan, though I don't think you necessarily mean to be doing so.

First, there is a national, federal role in this process. And international.
It makes no sense to think about this based on arbitrary lines, it's a bloody pandemic.

I guess it sounds like a cop out, but we have no other choice, given the fact that we don't have the testing needed to do things the smart, scientific way.

And we can't stay shut down like this, waiting for testing to catch up...because who knows when that will be? And because we don't have the proper testing, we don't really know how deadly this disease is. My guess is that it's far less deadly than we thought just 60 days ago. But again, this is just a somewhat educated guess as data comes in.

But----if you look at the "average annual deaths" some have cited? Covid Deaths are far higher. So really, we're flying blind, with no right answer.

So....we just have to do it State by State. And each State has different densities, and different levels of known sickness.

Heck, it's really city by city. Denver is in a different situation that most of the rest of the State in terms of density coupled with poverty. The rest of the State has poverty, but largely without the same density.


Yes, there are no CERTAIN 'right answers' but that doesn't mean that decisions don't have material consequences, both health and economic. And we do

[MDlaxfan76]

This feels a bit like a cop out, a fan, though I don't think you necessarily mean to be doing so.

First, there is a national, federal role in this process. And international.
It makes no sense to think about this based on arbitrary lines, it's a bloody pandemic.

I guess it sounds like a cop out, but we have no other choice, given the fact that we don't have the testing needed to do things the smart, scientific way.

And we can't stay shut down like this, waiting for testing to catch up...because who knows when that will be? And because we don't have the proper testing, we don't really know how deadly this disease is. My guess is that it's far less deadly than we thought just 60 days ago. But again, this is just a somewhat educated guess as data comes in.

But----if you look at the "average annual deaths" some have cited? Covid Deaths are far higher. So really, we're flying blind, with no right answer.

So....we just have to do it State by State. And each State has different densities, and different levels of known sickness.

Heck, it's really city by city. Denver is in a different situation that most of the rest of the State in terms of density coupled with poverty. The rest of the State has poverty, but largely without the same density.


Yes, there are no CERTAIN 'right answers' but that doesn't mean that decisions don't have material consequences, both health and economic. And we do

ok, more resignation than cop out.

Which I get.
We have the miserable federal leadership we have, it's not going to change.
They've fundamentally abdicated responsibility and been inept in most efforts they've undertaken to date.
Worse, they've actively promoted misinformation, leading to unhelpful individual behaviors.

Mostly that's been the Trump political wing, but also quite a bit of inept or downright corrupt Congressional response as well.

So, yes, it does come down to the Governors persuading their citizens to cooperate as much as possible in suppressing spread while easing into new behaviors that allow most work and some play.

We're still playing for time.
Time for testing, time for PPE, time to not exhaust healthcare workforce, time to not break food supply lines, time to develop therapies, time to develop a vaccine...

[CU77]

Making the 50 states individually work out testing is insane. Huge duplication of effort, huge inefficiencies, on a problem that is hugely expensive to begin with.

This problem cries out for a centralized, rigorous best-science approach. We should do be doing random spot tests (like a poll) to find where the problem is worst, then increase in those areas. A parallel effort should be researching more, better, faster tests. The feds should be throwing billions at this, because every day of the shut-down economy costs billions.

Will this happen? Nope. Because <100,000 voters in PA, MI, and WI thought "what the hell" and pulled the level for one D. Trump in 2016. And D. Trump is both a complete doofus and a coward to boot. He doesn't want responsibility for anything, so he casts it to the 50 winds.