9 ms·

A surprising number of people commenting that this is an overreaction. I suggest reading this[1] and this[2] before you're so hasty to dismiss this. This is abs

A surprising number of people commenting that this is an overreaction. I suggest reading this[1] and this[2] before you're so hasty to dismiss this. This is absolutely the right move (and if anything should have been done sooner). Also luckily the comment ranking here seems to mean your peers disagree with you. [1]: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop... [2]: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/

generalpass 7y ago
> A surprising number of people commenting that this is an overreaction. I suggest reading this[1] and this[2] before you're so hasty to dismiss this. This is absolutely the right move (and if anything should have been done sooner). > Also luckily the comment ranking here seems to mean your peers disagree with you. > [1]: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop.. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop.... > [2]: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ I've noticed these discussions all revolve around problems related to the virus. However, these quarantine measures are also economic in their nature and I'm not seeing even the standard university economics professor trotted out in front of the press to support why this is all going to be okay. If you are concerned about old people, consider that their investments go belly-up, their pensions funds dry up, their house goes negative equity, and they cannot physically work. How bad is for them after this happens? Because this is what is going to happen with the economy shut down.
- scurvy 7y ago
  Old people are generally in bonds at this point in their life. Bonds have been on a tear lately. Their investments are doing OK.
  - generalpass 7y ago
    > Old people are generally in bonds at this point in their life. Bonds have been on a tear lately. Their investments are doing OK. This is assuming no CPI increases from all the money creation, especially if they send the money directly to consumers, likely reducing the Cantillon effects. And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity.
    - scurvy 7y ago
      > And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity. They'll be even higher if/when that happens. They're not in bonds for the interest. They're in bonds for safety and price appreciation.
      - generalpass 7y ago
        > > And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity. > They'll be even higher if/when that happens. They're not in bonds for the interest. They're in bonds for safety and price appreciation. Assuming someone is interested in buying those bonds, since during inflation physical assets (e.g., precious metals) tend to be what buyers prefer.
        scurvy 7y ago
        That's a retro thinking back to the era of the bond vigilantes. That's gone. There's so much stuatory purchases of t-bills that will outweigh any inflationary pressure from QE4. The demand for t-bills was almost insatiable _before_ this mess. Now, it's even more. T-bills will do just fine despite any outward appearances of inflation. BTW, would rather load up on real estate than "precious" metals. Gold is a relic from a bygone era.
        generalpass 7y ago
        > That's a retro thinking back to the era of the bond vigilantes. That's gone. There's so much stuatory purchases of t-bills that will outweigh any inflationary pressure from QE4. The demand for t-bills was almost insatiable _before_ this mess. Now, it's even more. > T-bills will do just fine despite any outward appearances of inflation. BTW, would rather load up on real estate than "precious" metals. Gold is a relic from a bygone era. It is further back to the inflationary period of the 70s, which is the last period that there was a mass flight from dollars due to the rate of CPI increase. Investopedia[1] states the problem related to T-Bills rather well: > Treasuries also have to compete with inflation, which measures the pace of rising prices in the economy. Even if T-Bills are the most liquid and safest debt security in the market, fewer investors tend to buy them in times when the inflation rate is higher than the T-bill return. For example, if an investor bought a T-Bill with a 2% yield while inflation was at 3%, the investor would have a net loss on the investment when measured in real terms. As a result, T-bill prices tend to fall during inflationary periods as investors sell them and opt for higher-yielding investments. So when the CPI is going up and dollars are being used to bid up the price of physical assets, who is buying T-Bills? [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/treasurybill.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/treasurybill.asp
  - thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
    Not the type of bonds that give returns. Anything that's yielding more than 0% real (higher than 2.5% nominal), like high yield bonds (4-5%) are way down, even high yield muni bonds are down 20% or more from their peaks.
    - scurvy 7y ago
      People don't buy bonds for yield any more.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  How bad is it for all these "old people" if they are dead? It would be really nice to hear compassion instead of worry about money. How about we keep people alive, then deal with the economy? Something tells me the country that can burn $2T in less than a week will be just fine until this passes. Talking about the long term health of the economy in terms that push people out into unsafe situations, when we have a virus that kills people in 3 weeks, borders on evil. There is one way to solve the virus problem: social isolation. There are infinite ways to solve made up economic problems we foist on ourselves.
  - marnett 7y ago
    Small tidbit but the Federal Reserve, which I assume is what you refer to with the statement around $2T, is a private central Bank. It is not public and it is not affiliated with the US Government or what we would typically consider a “government bailout.” --- EDIT: as expanded on below my main intent behind the Federal Reserve <> Government affiliation remark is that the Feds decisioning and repro market fund pumping is not government affiliated.
    - vajrabum 7y ago
      Not affiliated with the federal government? You do know about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 don't you? Member banks are required to buy stock in their district Federal Reserve Bank and keep a certain amount of money on "reserve" at the Fed as set by the Governors. The Fed Board of Governors is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
      - marnett 7y ago
        My larger intent behind the affiliation remark was "The Fed pumps $1.5T into overnight repro markets" is not a Government action and it is not government money - and theoretically all decisioning Fed decisioning is to be 100% apolitical. These outrageous figures that individuals are conflating with "Wall Street Bailouts" are not government affiliated and are not government funds.
    - 7y ago
solidasparagus 7y ago
One perspective is that people are tired of getting the short end of the stick. Yet again the young incur an outsized proportion of the cost while the old reap an outsized proportion of the benefit.
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  You’ll be old one day, if you’re lucky.
  - solidasparagus 7y ago
    I don't think that's a very productive comment. It's true, but it has zero relevance to the fact that people are naturally resistant to being told to make huge sacrifices almost solely for the benefit of another group of people. Particularly at a time when one of the major (pre-coronavirus) world storylines is around the first group of people suffering from the climate decisions made by the older group.
    - giggles_giggles 7y ago
      Every generation inherits a world full of the problems created or only half-solved by the generation before it. It's not unique to our generation and it won't be unique to the next one, unless the young people are the first generation of perfect people capable of living their lives without creating a single new problem for the next generation. The older generation also solved a lot of problems, and gave us great gifts, as did every generation before them, and as we will for the ones that follow us. It's not productive to try to pit the young against the old, and the GP is right to point out that you too will be old one day, if you're lucky, so it's certainly unwise to reform the system so that it discriminates against the very group you should hope to join someday (and sooner than you would imagine, sooner than anyone wishes), especially considering the alternative.
      - solidasparagus 7y ago
        I think my point is more that the pandemic + this sort of government response inherently pits the young vs old. The government has enacted a sweeping lockdown (unprecedented loss of freedom AFAIK^) that overwhelming hurts people of working age for the benefits of high-risk older people. But where is the help for those that now can't pay their rent or buy enough food? That situation inherently breeds resentment at a time where resentment is already a mainstream topic. ^This matters because it shows that the government is capable of taking dramatic action
kordlessagain 7y ago
Alameda County ORDER: http://www.acgov.org/documents/Final-Order-to-Shelter-In-Place.pdf http://www.acgov.org/documents/Final-Order-to-Shelter-In-Pla... I was reading the Contra Costa County order when their site went down.
- aftbit 7y ago
  Google cache for Contra Costa County order shows it is nearly identical to Alameda County order: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ilhKHPS5DDkJ:https://cchealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-2020.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ilhKHP... When the panic hugs end, the Contra Costa order will be available in one of these two locations: https://www.contracostahealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-2020.pdf https://www.contracostahealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19... https://cchealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-2020.pdf https://cchealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-202...
- ddlatham 7y ago
  Happy to see some exceptions: 10 a. For the purposes of this Order, individuals may leave their residence only to perform any of the following "Essential Activites." ... iii. To engage in outdoor activity, provided the individuals comply with Social Distancing Requirements as defined in this Section, such as, by way of example and without limitation, walking, hiking, or running
bgorman 7y ago
This is a massive overreaction. We are past the point of containment, yet we are enacting policies based on containment. The virus is here to stay in the US for the next year. It doesn't make any sense to limit social interaction (for young people) for just 2 weeks. If there is no vaccine and the rate of expose gets down, after the "lockdown" is lifted, transmission will simply pick up again. The media and WHO are complicit in spreading hysteria like claiming the mortality rate is 3.4% (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/05/coronavirus-trump-disputes-world-health-organization-death-rate/4961519002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/05/coro...) based on completely faulty numbers. These numbers are obviously flawed because they do not account for people who have not had major symptoms and thus have not been diagnosed. The actual way to stop the spread is to tell elderly folks and people with underlying health conditions to stay at home. Not to keep young people out of their gyms (All bay area gyms are now shutdown). The hospitalization rate for under 45 year olds is very low. By allowing under 45 year olds to get sick and develop immunity, we can actually stop the spread. There is no endgame for social distancing everyone other than waiting for a vaccine (won't happen soon) or hoping the summer stops the transmission rate (not guaranteed). It is selfish to expect the majority of the population to stay away from work and gyms when the risk is extremely low for them. Note that young and old will continue to cross paths in close proximity at grocery stores, the post office and other "essential" locations. It is just wishful thinking that a two week break will lead to a long term fix.
- marnett 7y ago
  There is a lot that remains unknown about the COVID-19 disease. Is it biphasic? Does it leave lung scarring or other chronic ailments? I think you are being very presumptuous as to the type of virus SARS-CoV-2 and disease COVID-19 are. Could you imagine how naive you would sound giving this advice during other unknown viral pandemics? For example the 80s HIV and AIDS crisis. Obviously COVID-19 is nowhere as fatal, but to assume there are zero long term repercussions is a little early as of now. Perhaps slowing down and waiting for more answers as research ramps up is not the worst short term trade off.
- matchbok 7y ago
  Weird how every expert, who all have decades more experience than you, disagree with everything you said. I guess they are all wrong.
Amygaz 7y ago
It's more like it is the only move we have... The opposite extreme would be to let everybody get infected, see >15% of the 65+ population die, which I am sure some economic model might favor. I do hope, but doubt, that this crisis will start changing how our society manages crisis and is pro-active about it, rather than being reactive. I this point I don't care which banner a politician represents. I will only care for the one with a plan for direct accountability at the highest level. Otherwise they're all d-bag.
HRJ7 7y ago
Here's my barroom analysis: Theoretically there are two factors that make this virus dangerous: 1. Experience elsewhere in the world suggests the transmission rate is high under normal social conditions. Say 2:1 or 3:1. If those numbers are accurate, the infection will spread exponentially. Are they accurate? Dunno. 2. Experience elsewhere in the world suggests a high rate of infections require long stays in ICU, with some of those cases dying. What rate and how long and how many? Dunno. But there is some combination of transmission rate and hospital load where the healthcare system gets absolutely gummed up. If that happens, they must deal with the scenario where large numbers of patients who normally would have been treated get triaged to to end of life instead. I assume that would mean all major cities start digging mass graves, because what else do you do with 1000s of unplanned dead bodies all at once? The purpose of the lockdowns is to lower transmission rate below 1:1, where it will essentially fizzle out on its own as long as we remain locked down. Again I've read that experience elsewhere in the world suggests this can be effective. Again, I'm not aware of any especially convincing evidence of this. Given this model, the optimistic outcome is a short lockdown will buy enough time to come up with less harmful interventions. For example, better testing would allow healthy people to return to normal life while keeping transmission rate below 1:1. Or improved treatment would reduce the load on the healthcare system. Or a vaccine. Or maybe the estimated parameters are too high, but we can't know until more testing is done. Less optimistic outcome is lurching along in uncertainty while the economy implodes, followed by the unpopular mass grave scenario.

generalpass 7y ago

> A surprising number of people commenting that this is an overreaction. I suggest reading this[1] and this[2] before you're so hasty to dismiss this. This is absolutely the right move (and if anything should have been done sooner). > Also luckily the comment ranking here seems to mean your peers disagree with you. > [1]: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop.. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop.... > [2]: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ https://www.flattenthecurve.com/ I've noticed these discussions all revolve around problems related to the virus. However, these quarantine measures are also economic in their nature and I'm not seeing even the standard university economics professor trotted out in front of the press to support why this is all going to be okay. If you are concerned about old people, consider that their investments go belly-up, their pensions funds dry up, their house goes negative equity, and they cannot physically work. How bad is for them after this happens? Because this is what is going to happen with the economy shut down.

scurvy 7y ago
Old people are generally in bonds at this point in their life. Bonds have been on a tear lately. Their investments are doing OK.
- generalpass 7y ago
  > Old people are generally in bonds at this point in their life. Bonds have been on a tear lately. Their investments are doing OK. This is assuming no CPI increases from all the money creation, especially if they send the money directly to consumers, likely reducing the Cantillon effects. And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity.
  - scurvy 7y ago
    > And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity. They'll be even higher if/when that happens. They're not in bonds for the interest. They're in bonds for safety and price appreciation.
    - generalpass 7y ago
      > > And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity. > They'll be even higher if/when that happens. They're not in bonds for the interest. They're in bonds for safety and price appreciation. Assuming someone is interested in buying those bonds, since during inflation physical assets (e.g., precious metals) tend to be what buyers prefer.
      - scurvy 7y ago
        That's a retro thinking back to the era of the bond vigilantes. That's gone. There's so much stuatory purchases of t-bills that will outweigh any inflationary pressure from QE4. The demand for t-bills was almost insatiable _before_ this mess. Now, it's even more. T-bills will do just fine despite any outward appearances of inflation. BTW, would rather load up on real estate than "precious" metals. Gold is a relic from a bygone era.
        generalpass 7y ago
        > That's a retro thinking back to the era of the bond vigilantes. That's gone. There's so much stuatory purchases of t-bills that will outweigh any inflationary pressure from QE4. The demand for t-bills was almost insatiable _before_ this mess. Now, it's even more. > T-bills will do just fine despite any outward appearances of inflation. BTW, would rather load up on real estate than "precious" metals. Gold is a relic from a bygone era. It is further back to the inflationary period of the 70s, which is the last period that there was a mass flight from dollars due to the rate of CPI increase. Investopedia[1] states the problem related to T-Bills rather well: > Treasuries also have to compete with inflation, which measures the pace of rising prices in the economy. Even if T-Bills are the most liquid and safest debt security in the market, fewer investors tend to buy them in times when the inflation rate is higher than the T-bill return. For example, if an investor bought a T-Bill with a 2% yield while inflation was at 3%, the investor would have a net loss on the investment when measured in real terms. As a result, T-bill prices tend to fall during inflationary periods as investors sell them and opt for higher-yielding investments. So when the CPI is going up and dollars are being used to bid up the price of physical assets, who is buying T-Bills? [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/treasurybill.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/treasurybill.asp
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  Not the type of bonds that give returns. Anything that's yielding more than 0% real (higher than 2.5% nominal), like high yield bonds (4-5%) are way down, even high yield muni bonds are down 20% or more from their peaks.
  - scurvy 7y ago
    People don't buy bonds for yield any more.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wbronitsky 7y ago
How bad is it for all these "old people" if they are dead? It would be really nice to hear compassion instead of worry about money. How about we keep people alive, then deal with the economy? Something tells me the country that can burn $2T in less than a week will be just fine until this passes. Talking about the long term health of the economy in terms that push people out into unsafe situations, when we have a virus that kills people in 3 weeks, borders on evil. There is one way to solve the virus problem: social isolation. There are infinite ways to solve made up economic problems we foist on ourselves.
- marnett 7y ago
  Small tidbit but the Federal Reserve, which I assume is what you refer to with the statement around $2T, is a private central Bank. It is not public and it is not affiliated with the US Government or what we would typically consider a “government bailout.” --- EDIT: as expanded on below my main intent behind the Federal Reserve <> Government affiliation remark is that the Feds decisioning and repro market fund pumping is not government affiliated.
  - vajrabum 7y ago
    Not affiliated with the federal government? You do know about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 don't you? Member banks are required to buy stock in their district Federal Reserve Bank and keep a certain amount of money on "reserve" at the Fed as set by the Governors. The Fed Board of Governors is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
    - marnett 7y ago
      My larger intent behind the affiliation remark was "The Fed pumps $1.5T into overnight repro markets" is not a Government action and it is not government money - and theoretically all decisioning Fed decisioning is to be 100% apolitical. These outrageous figures that individuals are conflating with "Wall Street Bailouts" are not government affiliated and are not government funds.
  - 7y ago

solidasparagus 7y ago

One perspective is that people are tired of getting the short end of the stick. Yet again the young incur an outsized proportion of the cost while the old reap an outsized proportion of the benefit.

natalyarostova 7y ago
You’ll be old one day, if you’re lucky.
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  I don't think that's a very productive comment. It's true, but it has zero relevance to the fact that people are naturally resistant to being told to make huge sacrifices almost solely for the benefit of another group of people. Particularly at a time when one of the major (pre-coronavirus) world storylines is around the first group of people suffering from the climate decisions made by the older group.
  - giggles_giggles 7y ago
    Every generation inherits a world full of the problems created or only half-solved by the generation before it. It's not unique to our generation and it won't be unique to the next one, unless the young people are the first generation of perfect people capable of living their lives without creating a single new problem for the next generation. The older generation also solved a lot of problems, and gave us great gifts, as did every generation before them, and as we will for the ones that follow us. It's not productive to try to pit the young against the old, and the GP is right to point out that you too will be old one day, if you're lucky, so it's certainly unwise to reform the system so that it discriminates against the very group you should hope to join someday (and sooner than you would imagine, sooner than anyone wishes), especially considering the alternative.
    - solidasparagus 7y ago
      I think my point is more that the pandemic + this sort of government response inherently pits the young vs old. The government has enacted a sweeping lockdown (unprecedented loss of freedom AFAIK^) that overwhelming hurts people of working age for the benefits of high-risk older people. But where is the help for those that now can't pay their rent or buy enough food? That situation inherently breeds resentment at a time where resentment is already a mainstream topic. ^This matters because it shows that the government is capable of taking dramatic action

kordlessagain 7y ago

Alameda County ORDER: http://www.acgov.org/documents/Final-Order-to-Shelter-In-Place.pdf http://www.acgov.org/documents/Final-Order-to-Shelter-In-Pla... I was reading the Contra Costa County order when their site went down.

aftbit 7y ago
Google cache for Contra Costa County order shows it is nearly identical to Alameda County order: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ilhKHPS5DDkJ:https://cchealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-2020.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ilhKHP... When the panic hugs end, the Contra Costa order will be available in one of these two locations: https://www.contracostahealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-2020.pdf https://www.contracostahealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19... https://cchealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-2020.pdf https://cchealth.org/coronavirus/pdf/HO-COVID19-SIP-0316-202...
ddlatham 7y ago
Happy to see some exceptions: 10 a. For the purposes of this Order, individuals may leave their residence only to perform any of the following "Essential Activites." ... iii. To engage in outdoor activity, provided the individuals comply with Social Distancing Requirements as defined in this Section, such as, by way of example and without limitation, walking, hiking, or running

bgorman 7y ago

This is a massive overreaction. We are past the point of containment, yet we are enacting policies based on containment. The virus is here to stay in the US for the next year. It doesn't make any sense to limit social interaction (for young people) for just 2 weeks. If there is no vaccine and the rate of expose gets down, after the "lockdown" is lifted, transmission will simply pick up again. The media and WHO are complicit in spreading hysteria like claiming the mortality rate is 3.4% (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/05/coronavirus-trump-disputes-world-health-organization-death-rate/4961519002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/05/coro...) based on completely faulty numbers. These numbers are obviously flawed because they do not account for people who have not had major symptoms and thus have not been diagnosed. The actual way to stop the spread is to tell elderly folks and people with underlying health conditions to stay at home. Not to keep young people out of their gyms (All bay area gyms are now shutdown). The hospitalization rate for under 45 year olds is very low. By allowing under 45 year olds to get sick and develop immunity, we can actually stop the spread. There is no endgame for social distancing everyone other than waiting for a vaccine (won't happen soon) or hoping the summer stops the transmission rate (not guaranteed). It is selfish to expect the majority of the population to stay away from work and gyms when the risk is extremely low for them. Note that young and old will continue to cross paths in close proximity at grocery stores, the post office and other "essential" locations. It is just wishful thinking that a two week break will lead to a long term fix.

marnett 7y ago
There is a lot that remains unknown about the COVID-19 disease. Is it biphasic? Does it leave lung scarring or other chronic ailments? I think you are being very presumptuous as to the type of virus SARS-CoV-2 and disease COVID-19 are. Could you imagine how naive you would sound giving this advice during other unknown viral pandemics? For example the 80s HIV and AIDS crisis. Obviously COVID-19 is nowhere as fatal, but to assume there are zero long term repercussions is a little early as of now. Perhaps slowing down and waiting for more answers as research ramps up is not the worst short term trade off.
matchbok 7y ago
Weird how every expert, who all have decades more experience than you, disagree with everything you said. I guess they are all wrong.

Amygaz 7y ago

It's more like it is the only move we have... The opposite extreme would be to let everybody get infected, see >15% of the 65+ population die, which I am sure some economic model might favor. I do hope, but doubt, that this crisis will start changing how our society manages crisis and is pro-active about it, rather than being reactive. I this point I don't care which banner a politician represents. I will only care for the one with a plan for direct accountability at the highest level. Otherwise they're all d-bag.

HRJ7 7y ago

Here's my barroom analysis: Theoretically there are two factors that make this virus dangerous: 1. Experience elsewhere in the world suggests the transmission rate is high under normal social conditions. Say 2:1 or 3:1. If those numbers are accurate, the infection will spread exponentially. Are they accurate? Dunno. 2. Experience elsewhere in the world suggests a high rate of infections require long stays in ICU, with some of those cases dying. What rate and how long and how many? Dunno. But there is some combination of transmission rate and hospital load where the healthcare system gets absolutely gummed up. If that happens, they must deal with the scenario where large numbers of patients who normally would have been treated get triaged to to end of life instead. I assume that would mean all major cities start digging mass graves, because what else do you do with 1000s of unplanned dead bodies all at once? The purpose of the lockdowns is to lower transmission rate below 1:1, where it will essentially fizzle out on its own as long as we remain locked down. Again I've read that experience elsewhere in the world suggests this can be effective. Again, I'm not aware of any especially convincing evidence of this. Given this model, the optimistic outcome is a short lockdown will buy enough time to come up with less harmful interventions. For example, better testing would allow healthy people to return to normal life while keeping transmission rate below 1:1. Or improved treatment would reduce the load on the healthcare system. Or a vaccine. Or maybe the estimated parameters are too high, but we can't know until more testing is done. Less optimistic outcome is lurching along in uncertainty while the economy implodes, followed by the unpopular mass grave scenario.