All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[runrussellrun]

....but colleges are demanding (some) payment YESTERDAY. Tough call for millions of potentially college bound.....

Who had the better online credentials? Phoenix of Hopkins/Harvard?

Can bill gates make phenylacetic acid online? Or, at all.

Yet.....he IS an expert on v-19

[6ftstick]

Science, whatever that means, can't guide us. First, science is more about questions and rethinking than guiding. Guiding is done through policy, and that is done through politics. Our political system is so blinded by market idolatry, that individual interests overwhelm policy. CA schools and Hopkins might be able to go remote, but what about small schools without such public funding or decent endowments? Tuition dependent schools will open face to face or die, especially if they are in areas with low infection rates. Of course, that will increase mobility and spread of the virus, and it may mean more closures.
Small schools were already facing tremendous challenges before COVID. Without clear guiding policy and massive support, we'll see schools go in different directions on this. It would help if there were national guidelines, state guidelines, NCAA guidelines, accrediting guidelines, and agreement by institutions of higher education to all follow together.

+1

It would be interesting to know whether the original CDC guidelines recently submitted to the Task Force included these details in their recommendations. What's being reported is that the CDC indeed got quite granular, but the White House doesn't want it to have such specifics. argghhh

I am hoping it will be a State by state decision. My daughter’s college state has had low infections and deaths. Hopefully she can get back on campus. Without an effective testing strategy it is going to be hard get kids back in hot states / communities. Those poor early decisions are killing us. Here we are 5 months in and still no effective testing strategy.

What a crock of democrat crapola.

99.9% of people who contact the Chinese virus RECOVER. If you're afraid. YOU STAY HOME.

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

[RedFromMI]

Science, whatever that means, can't guide us. First, science is more about questions and rethinking than guiding. Guiding is done through policy, and that is done through politics. Our political system is so blinded by market idolatry, that individual interests overwhelm policy. CA schools and Hopkins might be able to go remote, but what about small schools without such public funding or decent endowments? Tuition dependent schools will open face to face or die, especially if they are in areas with low infection rates. Of course, that will increase mobility and spread of the virus, and it may mean more closures.
Small schools were already facing tremendous challenges before COVID. Without clear guiding policy and massive support, we'll see schools go in different directions on this. It would help if there were national guidelines, state guidelines, NCAA guidelines, accrediting guidelines, and agreement by institutions of higher education to all follow together.

+1

It would be interesting to know whether the original CDC guidelines recently submitted to the Task Force included these details in their recommendations. What's being reported is that the CDC indeed got quite granular, but the White House doesn't want it to have such specifics. argghhh

I am hoping it will be a State by state decision. My daughter’s college state has had low infections and deaths. Hopefully she can get back on campus. Without an effective testing strategy it is going to be hard get kids back in hot states / communities. Those poor early decisions are killing us. Here we are 5 months in and still no effective testing strategy.

What a crock of democrat crapola.

99.9% of people who contact the Chinese virus RECOVER. If you're afraid. YOU STAY HOME.

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

WRONG. Death rate is not yet certain, but best calculations so far peg it near 1%. Those are actual facts, based on NYC numbers. Even if the final number is a half percent - that is more lethal than the flu by a factor of around 5, and there are significant numbers of patients who have continuing health problems due to COVID-19.

But you can keep your head in the sand...

[RedFromMI]

The tech giants have made decisions on work from home:

Facebook will work from at home until 2021.

Google will work from home until 2021.

Twitter - some will work from home forever.

[seacoaster]

Here is an article by Ezra Klein in Vox. I could have posted this in the Orange Duce thread, but topically, this seemed better:

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/13/21255221/ ... n-liberate

"We are used to policy debates revolving around whether the administration has chosen the right or wrong plan. You could imagine that being the case here.

There are, at this point, a slew of reopening plans from think tanks and academics, economists and epidemiologists, liberals and conservatives. They differ in important, controversial ways. There are proposals that go all-in on mass testing. There are others that imagine a vast architecture of digital surveillance. Some rely on states, others emphasize the federal role. And within the plans, details worth debating abound: What level of risk is acceptable? How should recommendations vary between dense cities and rural areas? Who counts as an essential worker? How do we prevent mass unemployment? What is technologically possible?

The Trump administration could have chosen any of these plans or produced its own. But it didn’t. The closest it has come is a set of guidelines for states to consult when reopening. You can read them yourself at the White House’s “Opening America” landing page. The guidelines are not quite a plan, but they are at least a framework: They call for states to reopen when caseloads have fallen for 14 days, when hospitals can test all health care workers continuously, when contact tracing architecture is up and running.

President Trump, however, shows neither familiarity with, nor support for, his own guidelines. He routinely calls on states to reopen though they have not met the criteria his administration suggests. For instance, his series of tweets calling on right-wing protesters to “LIBERATE!” Michigan, Virginia, and Minnesota from stay-at-home orders contradicted his own administration’s guidance and created a distraction for state officials trying to manage a crisis.

Americans don’t have a functional president, but we have someone playing a dysfunctional president on TV, and he’s keeping other leaders from successfully doing their jobs.

This is not federalism

Some of Trump’s allies have tried to frame the president’s policy response — or lack thereof — as a principled commitment to small-government conservatism. “He has given pride of place to federalism and private enterprise—lauding the patriotism and proficiency of our fantastic governors and mayors, our incredible business leaders and genius companies,” wrote Hudson’s Christopher DeMuth in the Wall Street Journal.

This is creative but unconvincing. Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics has put together a detailed road map advocating for a federalist approach and showing how one might work. If states are to take the lead, they argue, the federal government has to support them in three ways: coordinate the supply chain so states don’t end up in a ruinous bidding war against each other, issue the debt necessary to backstop state and local spending as revenues collapse, and deploy the federal government’s vast scientific resources to ensure the best available evidence is being processed and disseminated to the states quickly and clearly.

But none of that is happening now. Instead, the authors write, “today disharmony reigns, as states compete for the supplies and personnel necessary to meet the exigencies of the moment.” Diplomatically, they omit any discussion of the president’s repeated efforts to foment political unrest against the governors he dislikes.

Trump’s approach to state needs has been transactional, not philosophical. He has been explicit in his belief that his administration should only engage with the governors that have been sufficiently politically supportive of him. At a press conference, Trump said he told Vice President Mike Pence, “don’t call the governor of Washington. You’re wasting your time with him. Don’t call the woman in Michigan.’” In this, as in so much else, the Trump administration is maneuvering around the president’s grudges and impulses.

States, too, are having to maneuver around the Trump administration to secure their response. In a remarkable admission, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, told the Washington Post that after purchasing 500,000 tests from South Korea, he made sure the plane bearing the tests landed under the protection of state troopers because he feared the federal government would take for itself the tests he had fought to procure. The move reportedly enraged Trump, who “saw Maryland’s deal with South Korea as a bid to embarrass the president.”

To state the obvious: This is not a president who believes in federalism.

Forget a plan. There isn’t even a goal.

It is, in truth, incoherence all the way down. And I do mean all the way.

As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has argued, the White House — and thus the country — has not even chosen a goal. The Trump administration has never decided whether the aim is “mitigation,” in which we slow the virus’s spread so the health system doesn’t get overwhelmed, or “suppression,” in which we try to eradicate the virus so as to save lives. It is possible, as Thomas Friedman writes, that the US is actually pursuing neither goal — instead, officials are following Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the virus, and Trump “just hasn’t told the country or his coronavirus task force or maybe even himself.”

This, then, is the state of things: The White House does not have a plan, it does not have a framework, it does not have a philosophy, and it does not have a goal. That is not because these things are impossible. At this point, there are dozens of plans floating around and dozens of governments offering models it could choose from. Germany’s response has been a success, and I’m sure officials would share the lessons they’ve learned. In South Korea, professional baseball is restarting, and in Taiwan, there have been about a dozen new Covid-19 cases in the month of May so far.

It is not that the president is doing the wrong thing — he is doing basically nothing. But he has combined a substantive passivity with a showman’s desire to dominate the narrative and a political street fighter’s obsession with settling scores, so he is making the job of governors and mayors harder, neither giving them what they need to beat the virus nor leaving them to make their own decisions free from his interference and criticism.

The result, as David Wallace-Wells writes at New York magazine, is that “the country has accomplished essentially none of the necessary preparatory work required to safely begin to reopen and return to some semblance of normal life.”

Americans have made tremendous sacrifices to buy their government time, and that time has been wasted. That is why we are left with an increasingly polarized, and polarizing, debate between endless lockdowns and reckless reopening: The government has failed to do what functional governments in other countries have done and create a better option.

“It’s like the Lewis Carroll line, ‘If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there,’” Osterholm says. “Well, I don’t know where we’re going.”

[6ftstick]

Science, whatever that means, can't guide us. First, science is more about questions and rethinking than guiding. Guiding is done through policy, and that is done through politics. Our political system is so blinded by market idolatry, that individual interests overwhelm policy. CA schools and Hopkins might be able to go remote, but what about small schools without such public funding or decent endowments? Tuition dependent schools will open face to face or die, especially if they are in areas with low infection rates. Of course, that will increase mobility and spread of the virus, and it may mean more closures.
Small schools were already facing tremendous challenges before COVID. Without clear guiding policy and massive support, we'll see schools go in different directions on this. It would help if there were national guidelines, state guidelines, NCAA guidelines, accrediting guidelines, and agreement by institutions of higher education to all follow together.

+1

It would be interesting to know whether the original CDC guidelines recently submitted to the Task Force included these details in their recommendations. What's being reported is that the CDC indeed got quite granular, but the White House doesn't want it to have such specifics. argghhh

I am hoping it will be a State by state decision. My daughter’s college state has had low infections and deaths. Hopefully she can get back on campus. Without an effective testing strategy it is going to be hard get kids back in hot states / communities. Those poor early decisions are killing us. Here we are 5 months in and still no effective testing strategy.

What a crock of democrat crapola.

99.9% of people who contact the Chinese virus RECOVER. If you're afraid. YOU STAY HOME.

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

WRONG. Death rate is not yet certain, but best calculations so far peg it near 1%. Those are actual facts, based on NYC numbers. Even if the final number is a half percent - that is more lethal than the flu by a factor of around 5, and there are significant numbers of patients who have continuing health problems due to COVID-19.

But you can keep your head in the sand...

Sorry skippy. Destroying the lives and lifestyles of 320 MILLION people based on your "best calculations" doesn't hold water any more.

No ones heads in the sand except for you TDS folks who insist the sky was is and will continue falling.

Generally: All the powers that be have lied to us for nearly 4 years. Proven lies. We should believe you now?

Specifically: Respected physicians virologists and researchers show us demonstrable benefit to a coronavirus treatment. You TDS folks tell us don't believe your eyes and ears. LISTEN TO US.

Can't listen to you any longer. Especially when everything we find out points to more lies from the TDS folks.

[seacoaster]

More on testing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opin ... e=Homepage

"Whether you think the country is reopening too fast or too slowly (or whether you think “it depends”), almost everyone agrees that testing should be critical to the next phase of our coronavirus existence. In particular, antibody tests that detect whether a person has developed immunity to the virus seem to offer a promising path forward.

But what does a positive antibody test mean? It means you should feel confident that you can work, shop and socialize without getting sick or infecting others, right?

Not so fast.

The confidence that we should have in antibody tests depends on a key factor that is often ignored: the base rate of the coronavirus. The base rate is the actual amount of infection in a known population. In the United States, that appears to be between 5 percent and 15 percent.

This simple fact is essential to understanding the accuracy of an antibody test. Yet overlooking this fact is also one of the most common decision-making errors made, so much so that it has its own name: the base rate fallacy.

Here’s an example. If you took an antibody test that was 90 percent accurate, and it determined that you had coronavirus antibodies, how confident should you be that you actually have those antibodies?

Most people say about 90 percent, with the average answer being above 50 percent. This makes sense. After all, 90 percent accuracy is pretty high.

But the predictive value of an antibody test with 90 percent accuracy could be as low as 32 percent if the base rate of infection in the population is 5 percent. Put another way, there is an almost 70 percent probability in that case that the test will falsely indicate a person has antibodies.

The reason for this is a simple matter of statistics. The lower prevalence there is of a trait in a studied population — here, coronavirus infection — the more likely that a test will return a false positive. While a more accurate test will help, it can’t change the statistical reality when the base rate of infection is very low.

If this shocks you, you’re not alone. The base rate fallacy is not only common, it’s also almost universal, even among those that should know better. Doctors themselves make these errors. In fact, one of the most referenced studies demonstrating the base rate fallacy took place among students at Harvard Medical School.

So what does this mean as the country begins to open?

Mostly it means we have to educate ourselves to safeguard our own health. And it means that we’re all at risk of getting infected and spreading the virus, even if we’ve had a positive antibody test.

So we have to be circumspect. Just because a test is highly accurate, that may not be as comforting as it first appears.

To be sure, antibody tests are important, and we should encourage greater access to these tests. But we should also view them with thoughtful reflection, informed predictions as to their accuracy and, at the very least, good decision-making."

[6ftstick]

More on testing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opin ... e=Homepage

"Whether you think the country is reopening too fast or too slowly (or whether you think “it depends”), almost everyone agrees that testing should be critical to the next phase of our coronavirus existence. In particular, antibody tests that detect whether a person has developed immunity to the virus seem to offer a promising path forward.

But what does a positive antibody test mean? It means you should feel confident that you can work, shop and socialize without getting sick or infecting others, right?

Not so fast.

The confidence that we should have in antibody tests depends on a key factor that is often ignored: the base rate of the coronavirus. The base rate is the actual amount of infection in a known population. In the United States, that appears to be between 5 percent and 15 percent.

This simple fact is essential to understanding the accuracy of an antibody test. Yet overlooking this fact is also one of the most common decision-making errors made, so much so that it has its own name: the base rate fallacy.

Here’s an example. If you took an antibody test that was 90 percent accurate, and it determined that you had coronavirus antibodies, how confident should you be that you actually have those antibodies?

Most people say about 90 percent, with the average answer being above 50 percent. This makes sense. After all, 90 percent accuracy is pretty high.

But the predictive value of an antibody test with 90 percent accuracy could be as low as 32 percent if the base rate of infection in the population is 5 percent. Put another way, there is an almost 70 percent probability in that case that the test will falsely indicate a person has antibodies.

The reason for this is a simple matter of statistics. The lower prevalence there is of a trait in a studied population — here, coronavirus infection — the more likely that a test will return a false positive. While a more accurate test will help, it can’t change the statistical reality when the base rate of infection is very low.

If this shocks you, you’re not alone. The base rate fallacy is not only common, it’s also almost universal, even among those that should know better. Doctors themselves make these errors. In fact, one of the most referenced studies demonstrating the base rate fallacy took place among students at Harvard Medical School.

So what does this mean as the country begins to open?

Mostly it means we have to educate ourselves to safeguard our own health. And it means that we’re all at risk of getting infected and spreading the virus, even if we’ve had a positive antibody test.

So we have to be circumspect. Just because a test is highly accurate, that may not be as comforting as it first appears.

To be sure, antibody tests are important, and we should encourage greater access to these tests. But we should also view them with thoughtful reflection, informed predictions as to their accuracy and, at the very least, good decision-making."

Noise. All your doing is sowing confusion.

Testing Testing Testing. Well no testing won't blah blah blah

Vaccine Vaccine Vaccine. Well no a vaccine blah blah blah

Treatment treatment treatment. Nah this treatment blah blah blah

Doesn't matter whats put forth as a way out of quarantine you folks step on and cast doubts on IMMEDIATELY

[Typical Lax Dad]

Science, whatever that means, can't guide us. First, science is more about questions and rethinking than guiding. Guiding is done through policy, and that is done through politics. Our political system is so blinded by market idolatry, that individual interests overwhelm policy. CA schools and Hopkins might be able to go remote, but what about small schools without such public funding or decent endowments? Tuition dependent schools will open face to face or die, especially if they are in areas with low infection rates. Of course, that will increase mobility and spread of the virus, and it may mean more closures.
Small schools were already facing tremendous challenges before COVID. Without clear guiding policy and massive support, we'll see schools go in different directions on this. It would help if there were national guidelines, state guidelines, NCAA guidelines, accrediting guidelines, and agreement by institutions of higher education to all follow together.

+1

It would be interesting to know whether the original CDC guidelines recently submitted to the Task Force included these details in their recommendations. What's being reported is that the CDC indeed got quite granular, but the White House doesn't want it to have such specifics. argghhh

I am hoping it will be a State by state decision. My daughter’s college state has had low infections and deaths. Hopefully she can get back on campus. Without an effective testing strategy it is going to be hard get kids back in hot states / communities. Those poor early decisions are killing us. Here we are 5 months in and still no effective testing strategy.

What a crock of democrat crapola.

99.9% of people who contact the Chinese virus RECOVER. If you're afraid. YOU STAY HOME.

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

[ggait]

And laxgunea is likely right that wealthier schools may opt to stay virtual and those who can't afford to do so will gamble. And those less wealthy schools are also less likely to afford the kinds of PPE and policies that would be necessary to prevent a bloom, and to test and trace and isolate. They'll just gamble.

Heard this from an acquaintance who is a prof at a top 50 private university.

Their plan (at least for now) is to have all the students come back to campus in the fall. Among the measures they will use to accomplish that is to build their own testing lab (this university has a med school and teaching hospital so lots of science capabilities) so that they would be able to test every student and staff member every other day. 50k people so 25k in house tests per day. And then have several dorms or hotel facilities dedicated to isolation.

Really expensive to do. But not nearly as expensive than if parents refuse to send their kids and stroke the tuition checks. TBD if that level of testing/isolation investment is medically necessary. But the school concluded that such investment was needed (as a practical business matter) to get the customers to buy the product.

[ggait]

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

Six -- the guys at Wharton say that we'd get to 715k deaths by July 15 with a full reopening. And we'd add about 5 million jobs over that time.

Is that what you think we should do?

If no, then what is your plan?

Please give us your plan, rather than just blah blah Freedom, blah blah Bill of Rights.

FYI, that would work out to about 2,000 deaths per million pop. Right now, Italy is up to about 500.


https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/

[6ftstick]

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

Six -- the guys at Wharton say that we'd get to 715k deaths by July 15 with a full reopening. And we'd add about 5 million jobs over that time.

Is that what you think we should do?

If no, then what is your plan?

Please give us your plan, rather than just blah blah Freedom, blah blah Bill of Rights.

FYI, that would work out to about 2,000 deaths per million pop. Right now, Italy is up to about 500.


https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/

More models.

We disagreed about "models" a month ago.

Lets go back to work. Obviously it can be done—we've had people working across multiple market segments since this all began.

South Carolina and Florida belie all the BS.

Its unavoidable to put two and two together and see that the keep things locked down crowd are the same Russia Russia Russia, Impeach Trump TDS crowd. And each day shows what a lie all that was.

[Kismet]

Scott Gottlieb MD is feeling better today

"Daily covid19 testing continues to increase nationally while the positivity rate continues to decline. These are hopeful signs that -- at least in many parts of the nation -- the epidemic is slowing. Some models show that the doubling time is now 45 days and the Ro is 1.10"



Still a ways to go Ro needs to be closer to 0.5. Probably need another week to 10 days to factor in the first state re-openings

He also reports that "a new study shows that the Abbot ID NOW COVID19 test missed a third of the samples detected positive by Cepheid's Xpert Xpress (GeneXpert) when using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and more than 48% when using dry nasal swabs." - Abbott testing is what the WH uses. 33% error rate might miss more than a few infections there - does DOPUS know this?

[wgdsr]

she tested negative a bunch of times, and now i guess she's positive. this is why testing doesn't work.

anyway, the tests will get better. i think? you can bet if there's a big market for something, corporate america will find a way to take advantage and get in on it. no better time than when we are printing money and debt.

[Peter Brown]

Do democrats really believe the Bill of Rights only apply when everything goin fine.

I thought the constitution Guaranteed our freedoms when things were bad.

Six -- the guys at Wharton say that we'd get to 715k deaths by July 15 with a full reopening. And we'd add about 5 million jobs over that time.

Is that what you think we should do?

If no, then what is your plan?

Please give us your plan, rather than just blah blah Freedom, blah blah Bill of Rights.

FYI, that would work out to about 2,000 deaths per million pop. Right now, Italy is up to about 500.


https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/

More models.

We disagreed about "models" a month ago.

Lets go back to work. Obviously it can be done—we've had people working across multiple market segments since this all began.

South Carolina and Florida belie all the BS.

Its unavoidable to put two and two together and see that the keep things locked down crowd are the same Russia Russia Russia, Impeach Trump TDS crowd. And each day shows what a lie all that was.

If we can just skip past the part where this virus is not nearly as deadly as some want it to be, everyone needs to step up and tell us when the crossover date of 'deaths from Covid-19' to 'deaths from economic decline' occur, can the country go back to work? Or is 'data' not critical anymore?

[6ftstick]

Scott Gottlieb MD is feeling better today

"Daily covid19 testing continues to increase nationally while the positivity rate continues to decline. These are hopeful signs that -- at least in many parts of the nation -- the epidemic is slowing. Some models show that the doubling time is now 45 days and the Ro is 1.10"



Still a ways to go Ro needs to be closer to 0.5. Probably need another week to 10 days to factor in the first state re-openings

He also reports that "a new study shows that the Abbot ID NOW COVID19 test missed a third of the samples detected positive by Cepheid's Xpert Xpress (GeneXpert) when using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and more than 48% when using dry nasal swabs." - Abbott testing is what the WH uses. 33% error rate might miss more than a few infections there - does DOPUS know this?

So in the interest of transparency

Have you shorted Abbot stocks and bought Cepheid

Otherwise your post is just more TDS noise.

[6ftstick]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

[Typical Lax Dad]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

[6ftstick]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

You guys just posted that tests are almost 40% false negatives positives whatever fits your agenda.

Keep moving the goal posts.

[ggait]

We disagreed about "models" a month ago.

Lets go back to work. Obviously it can be done—we've had people working across multiple market segments since this all began.

South Carolina and Florida belie all the BS.

Its unavoidable to put two and two together and see that the keep things locked down crowd are the same Russia Russia Russia, Impeach Trump TDS crowd. And each day shows what a lie all that was.

Six -- so let's say you are the governor of your state and have TDS immunity. What exactly are you going to do?

Open all lower schools?

Open all upper schools?

Open all businesses? Or only some of them?

Open all parks?

Require any type of SD?

Just tell us what you'd actually do. And what level of incremental deaths you'd find acceptable in response to what you'd do.

I'm not asking for blah blah blah about TDS, the Rusher thing, etc.

FYI, the guys at Wharton aren't exactly a bleeding hearts club.