7 ms·

States reject Trump talk of restarting U.S. economy early

50 points by hhs 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago
What's "early" and when, in the opinion of Reuters, would it not be too "early"?
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks from now. Meanwhile healthcare officials are all claiming many months, upwards of longer than a year. It's not easy, but we must listen to the experts.
  - hnaccy 7y ago
    We can't afford to shutdown the economy for a year.
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      It likely won't be. But it'll take a few months for it either to be back to business as usual, or a few months for the economy to adjust to the new reality of takeout and greater ecommerce focus.
      - klmadfejno 7y ago
        > a few months for the economy to adjust to the new reality of takeout and greater ecommerce focus I cannot imagine a faster path to massive unemployment and exacerbated wealth inequality
    - spamizbad 7y ago
      You don't. But because the US has no real social safetynet and is reticent to expand unemployment benefits you end up with these kooky binary choices.
    - saeranv 7y ago
      This implies a false binary between shutting down the economy and millions of deaths by not isolating. Look at other countries like Germany, Denmark, and Ireland who are moving to cover wages and providing paid sick leave. Germany is offering companies unlimited loans to prevent them from collapsing. I am not an expert in economics, but it does seem like competent technocrats are finding paths to maintain the economy while maintaining public health, and it's only in the US where you have a president who doesn't have a strong grasp of economics, or the experts to advise him, who only sees an option of trying to force back the old system, despite all the experts (economic and health!) who are advising the exact opposite.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    I apologize for the overtly political comment, as I don't like going there, but this is about Trump's reelection. The economy was going to be the linchpin of his narrative.
  - kansface 7y ago
    Which experts exactly?
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      Dr. Fauci, for instance. He hasn't wavered on the need for social distancing.
      - klmadfejno 7y ago
        Is Dr. Fauci an expert in economics? Can he accurately measure the harm of his suggestions?
      - bdcravens 7y ago
        I suspect he's better at economics than an entrepreneur with multiple failed businesses and four bankruptcies.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      I'm seeing lots of experts talking about the potential deaths if we don't shut down. I'm not seeing a lot of experts giving estimates of the ramifications of economic fallout here. Just politicians worried about their reelection and business people worried about their personal fortune. I'm sure they are out there. But right now they are overshadowed by professional doofs like Larry Ludlow.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Are you seeing experts estimating the number of deaths caused by the economic damage? Because the rate of suicide does tick up when there's economic downturn. I would not be surprised if, at the tail end of this, the downturn causes more deaths in the sub-50 y.o. group due to suicide than due to the virus. Besides, are experts estimating whether or not it will be easier to deal with the epidemic with an economy that functions or the one that's almost totally shut down, causing supply chain disruption and delays worldwide, and (in a month or two) shortages of goods?
  - smallgovt 7y ago
    This isn't just about listening to the experts. Ultimately, we need to make a value judgment between saving lives now vs saving the economy. There's no clear answer when a stronger economy saves future lives.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    > I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks from now On Fox News, he said "by Easter" (2 1/2 weeks from now)
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      I would bet before Easter. Certainly as soon as he can convince enough people that the medical community and epidemiologist are "biased", "hysterical" and issue "fake publications". The best way to see it coming is by monitoring the tone of Sinclair broadcasting and Murdoch's media But there is no possible way to predict it because the policy will almost certainly be changed suddenly by a tweet. If there are enough dates announced with enough ambiguity it will be possible for his lackeys to retroactively claim the date was announced in advanced. Indeed, this is the likely reason there is such confusion now.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      What you're seeing in his messaging now is called "anchoring". It's a common negotiating tactic, literally the oldest trick in the book, which he uses literally in every single case, nearly always successfully. It baffles me that he's been using it for years and people still don't recognize it and think he's just doing this at random. We know the US is a big country, and not all of it is affected equally. Epidemiologically it'll likely behave like 50 smaller countries. We also know that if Trump tried to re-open just those parts of the country where per capita infection rates are very low, public would howl. So what he's doing is proposing a big, unacceptable offer, to then tone it down shortly before the final decision is announced. That way you will all exhale and accept it more easily. So if NY gets much worse, it'll stay shut down. If it levels out, it'll be partially re-opened. If a miracle happens and clinical trials currently underway show efficacy in some drugs, things will be able to be re-opened much further. WA has already leveled off. CA is leveling off as we speak. In other places there's not enough testing to make any conclusions, something that will change this week. You will see this play out exactly as I described it over the next 2 weeks. Bet on it.
- gnulinux 7y ago
  We're WEEKS before the climax. The rate of spread is almost 35% clearly we will not peak until after April. So 15 days (what Trump proposed) is too early, even 15 weeks would be too early.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    You don't know the "rate of spread". We only started mass-testing 5 days ago. What you're seeing now is more accurately called "rate of improvement in testing". WA (the former epicenter) has stabilized the situation and it gets constant (and decreasing) number of daily cases at the moment. So has CA, it looks like. The United States will behave more or less like 50 different states, save for some closely bunched up states on the East Coast. Here's an excellent visualization that shows what I'm talking about: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testing-by-state-chart-of-new-cases/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testi...
    - gnulinux 7y ago
      Until we have different data, this is the data we have. I agree that the rate of increase in confirmed cases probably indicates rate of improvement in testing. But we simply don't know that. You cannot make public health decisions based on hope, assumptions or guesses. You can make public health decisions only based on data, and data indicates we haven't peaked yet. In this case, it's devastating that people in power position have guts to say we can continue business as usual in 15 days.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        > make public health decisions based on hope, assumptions or guesses In the absence of data, which you've acknowledged, that's exactly how decisions are being made now, worldwide. > even 15 weeks would be too early Not if you want to avoid starvation and riots. It's not like there's some magical grocery fairy or "the government" putting stuff on the shelves. People have to work to put stuff there.
        7y ago
- randomfool 7y ago
  Early is the completion of the CDC's 15 day plan which was announced on March 16th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/15-day-pause.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/15-day-p... So around March 30th? I don't know Reuter's opinion of 'too early', but reducing quarantine before the current exponential growth has stopped and before hospitals are not overwhelmed seems like a bad idea.
- codezero 7y ago
  Early, in the article, is a statement about the States rejection of Trump's hinting at loosening social distancing measures, not Reuters' opinion. Though all news is editorial to some extent, choosing to amplify the states' voices here is a choice, and reporting on their resistance to the president is also. You're over thinking this, or trying to start a controversial argument. That violate's HN's rules.
  - sgregnt 7y ago
    I think to make a solid argument one way or another, one needs also to take into account medical and scientific opinion regarding the number of people that are going to die in the longer run because of economy stagnation.
    - codezero 7y ago
      Heads up- I made an edit that may make your comment seem off I originally had just responded "Medical and scientific experts" or something to that extent. Appreciate your comment, it does make a good point. I think the difference is that virus deaths are more predictable than the economy as a whole, so if we know we can move one lever to limit the known damage, the desire to move to a nebulous and often partisan economic approach is a bit concerning for a lot of folks.
tootie 7y ago
Cuomo's briefing today was absolutely scathing. NY State has 25,000 cases and is rising unabated and the federal government is doing next to nothing to support them while publicly seeking to move on from emergency measures. Trump is looking for a >$1T stimulus bill and unlimited Fed bond purchases but thinks that applying the Defense Production Act would be government overreach. People are dying and he only cares about goosing the stock market. EDIT: The briefing on YT -> https://youtu.be/eD1eg3vMO2A https://youtu.be/eD1eg3vMO2A
- everdrive 7y ago
  Link to Cuomo's briefing? [edit] Thanks for the link!
  - tootie 7y ago
    Edited my comment with a link
- marshallant 7y ago
  Easy to criticize on the sideline. There's a line between increasing deaths or a great depression, you must know the answer so please tell us.
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  Would the cases be rising unabated if effective social distancing was being practiced? Not sure if the particulars of the federal government matter at this time/context; i.e. historians point to Americans from both sides of the aisle losing faith in the federal government since Vietnam. It’s been downhill since then.
- downerending 7y ago
  Invoking the DPA might be a lot like calling in a gaggle of executives to "save" a failing software project by individually directing the hour-by-hour work of each programmer. Would it work? Maybe. But there are an awful lot of ifs, and experience suggests that it's often disastrous. Sometimes it's better to just make sure that everyone knows that something is really important, and then let them try to get it done for you.
nixpulvis 7y ago
I want to see hard numbers of monetary and supply relief given to each state by the federal government.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mnm1 7y ago
The president's actions, specifically his lack of action, are a huge part of why the pandemic is so bad in the US. I hope people remember that he is the reason for the late action, the bungled tests, the lack of cdc funding, the lack of preparedness and stockpiles. And ultimately, he is the reason we will have way more deaths that could have been prevented. Even now we don't have the proper testing capability. We don't have masks and the government is still lying about their effectiveness. 60k testing kits is nothing. He's still not doing what he could and should. I'm glad states are no longer listening to this administration. Doing that would kill a lot more people. Trump and his administration can go fuck themselves. And at this point, so can the people who still stand behind this president who is so callous to so many Americans dying. It's almost impossible to imagine a worse response than what has happened. I hope the markets do not recover before the election as, unfortunately, the mass unnecessary suffering and deaths of Americans will likely be forgotten by many voters if they do.
- Izkata 7y ago
  He was acting on this back during the impeachment scandal, while the mainstream media was still calling it "no worse than the flu", creating the task force on Jan 29, and getting called racist for the international travel restrictions days later. It would be worse in the US than it is now if not for his early actions.
  - TMWNN 7y ago
    Heck, read this early February article about the NYC Chinese New Year parade https://www.amny.com/editorial/fear-of-coronavirus-not-at-lunar-new-year-parade-in-chinatown/ https://www.amny.com/editorial/fear-of-coronavirus-not-at-lu... . Every quote is from a politician telling people to attend a giant mass event to fight orange man bad.
  - rat87 7y ago
    He wasn't acting on it, and his lack of actions and untrue statements are part of the reason there are so many stupid conspiracies going around.
eric_b 7y ago
It's easy to say Trump is crazy when you're a privileged tech worker who can work from your nice home office and not worry about money running out or the unemployment line. Meanwhile, in the real world, we can't shut down the global economy for months without dire consequences. Shortages, civil unrest, total anarchy are the next things coming if we keep this shutdown going. If you're not a fan of violent crime, or don't have a lot of guns, I'd recommended considering opening the economy sooner than later. Here is a measured piece by an actual expert. We need to start getting the least vulnerable back to work and school, while keeping the most vulnerable isolated. Eventually we can let everyone out, but we need to keep the gears moving in the meantime. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-covid-19-reality-national-lockdown-is-no-cure/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-co...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- paradox242 7y ago
  I will continue to maintain that Trump's instinct to reopen things is largely selfish in nature, but that does not mean that opening things back up to a certain degree does not make sense for those most economically vulnerable. Right now we are stuck between getting sick and getting those we love sick, or risk losing our livelihood, homes, and a way to support our families. Really not a great place to be, and some balance between the two extremes must be struck. It seems sensible that those least likely to suffer deleterious effects should be allowed to return to work and school and we should try and continue to support those most vulnerable as best we can at the state and federal level. I have also seen suggestions that any direct stimulus funding should have an expiration date so that we can be sure that the money get used immediately, otherwise it does little good. Long term, I really hope that more Americans wake up to the threadbare reality of our healthcare system and social safety net so that systemic shocks like this are better planned for.
  - downerending 7y ago
    The guy is a zillionaire. The idea that he's primarily motivated by the desire to be a double-zillionaire seems like a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think he'd rather continue to be adored by the masses.
smallgovt 7y ago
“If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy, then it’s no contest. No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the cost of human life” - Cuomo Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Is life worth living if you're destitute and living in poverty or emotional turmoil? Won't a strong economy increase the pace at which we develop and produce life saving technologies? At a certain point of economic ruin, I think many people will choose a strong economy over saving lives. The question is more so what the tipping point is. It seems hard to quantify and compare the total impact a strong economy has versus lives saved, but I think it's definitely worth having the conversation. Ultimately, this is a value judgment so there's no objective answer.
- vkou 7y ago
  It's amazing to see how, when faced with the dilemma of "Industrial development, at the cost of have millions of people die", so many people want to follow in the footsteps of the USSR. Continuing with business as usual in an epidemic will condemn millions to an otherwise preventable death. This virus' mortality rate shoots up when health systems are overloaded.
  - solidasparagus 7y ago
    You act like being unable to buy food and pay rent has no human cost.
    - vkou 7y ago
      1. There's a human cost to not industrializing a country, too. The surviving Soviet citizens got to take advantage of things like electricity, running water, universal education, a functioning industrial base. [1] Yet, for some reason, industrializing a country, while causing a famine is condemned as butchery... Yet preserving stock valuations, while causing an epidemic is laudable? 2. Then change the distribution systems. It's an emergency. Treat it like one. [1] And eventually luxuries like radios and private apartments!
    - acdha 7y ago
coder1001 7y ago
It saddens me that even in a crisis like this, people are being political and taking sides!
- tristanb 7y ago
  It's hard not to take a side when you see something to totally and utterly idiotically "managed".
- danharaj 7y ago
  What do you think politics is about?
- wccrawford 7y ago
  Is that because you've picked a side and want people to blindly follow your side? It's not so cut-and-dried as my make it out to be. Not fixing the economy means more people out of work and unable to provide for themselves. That means more death. It doesn't matter which way you choose, if you go all the way that direction, people die who don't have to. The real question here is how to best help the most people. There isn't a simple path to that.
mullingitover 7y ago
Nobody seems to be talking about the elephant in the room: the president's raging conflict of interest. He owns a major equity stake in a business that is being harmed by the public health response to the pandemic, and his actions are what you'd expect from someone who prioritizes that business over the interests of public health. This is exactly why previous presidents have put their assets in a blind trust. We shouldn't have to question whether the White House is more concerned with their personal bottom line than the public interest, but here we are.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Nobody is talking about conflict of interest not because it's an unworthy issue of governance, but because this question has already been tested and America has already answered -- it's okay.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    If it's been tested, it's been tested with a less-than-majority of the populace. It's worth remembering that President Trump was not elected with a majority of the voting populace, let alone the entire US populace.
    - verify_sirrah 7y ago
      I don't think any president has ever been elected by the majority of the voting populace. The highest voter turnout in the past 50 years, as a percentage of VAP, was in 2008 with 58.2% voting. Obama received 52.9% of the votes in that election. That means he actively received the support of only 30% of the voting populace (.582 * .529).
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    This was never up for a public vote, but every other public office and judicial appointment has clear ethical guidelines for conflict of interest. The only reason it was never legislated for the president was because up until now, no president has been willing to brazenly violate ethical norms.
yongjik 7y ago
It seems obvious that we will have depression anyway, even if we "go back to normal" now: when everybody knows someone who died, and when hospitals won't help you because they are already full, people will stop planning for a vacation, and start saving money. So the only realistic choice is (major depression) vs. (major depression + many people dies). There's no way out without economic turmoil now; the ship has sailed a month ago.
tristanb 7y ago
Imagine if a competent leadership partnered with companies to design and deliver test kits for the majority of the population. Just like a 23andme kit. Turns up at your door. Gets turned around. We have an actual idea of hotspots, and can design treatment plans. Making decisions with actual data. As opposed to this unmitigated shitshow. I had to go to the hardware store to get protective gear for my wife, who is a doctor at a hospital with none.
danharaj 7y ago
Neoliberalism is a death cult. Look at its high priests demanding sacrifice to Moloch! The vast majority of economic activity is absolutely useless to maintain essential supplies, infrastructure and services. Very few people have to work to keep society intact while we ride out the pandemic. Recession caused by a drop in activity is easy to fix provided you manage debt obligations in the interim. That can be a delicate dance but it is well within the means of modern capital. All of these problems are ideological. You see people in these threads lately who literally cannot imagine anything possible outside of the status quo and are willing to sacrifice the vulnerable to get it back. If you break the facade that debt obligations are a moral obligation and not a social construct whose relevance in extraordinary circumstances is marginal, a central pillar of free market ideology collapses. At this point I'm not sure if it's a charade being pushed to its absurd extreme or if the ruling class and their sycophants' brains are completely hollowed out by ideological brain worms.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vearwhershuh 7y ago
My Proposal: Set a 3% limit on credit card interest for the next six months. If a credit card company complains, nationalize it. Use the six months to set up a debt-forgiveness plan that works for middle and low income earners. At the end of six months, consider lifting the limit incrementally. Get spending power into the hands of common people and ease the cash-crunch anxiety immediately, without any stupid one time payments that will be too late, won't be large enough to help, and require the entire legislative branch to agree.
verify_sirrah 7y ago
Can somebody link me to where this 15 day shutdown was declared? I can see many articles talking about Trump walking it back but none about it actually being declared or what it entails.
nunez 7y ago
I think Trump is in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't predicament. He _could_ enforce a federal 18-month lockdown and wait for a vaccine to become available (assuming that we _can_ make a vaccine for this within the timelines proposed). As software engineers, we know that we almost always optimize for Big-O, so assuming that the US will be effectively shut down for 18 months is probably the best way to model this, especially since waves of people seem to become symptomatic at different times. I don't have hard data to back this, but I don't think the US could afford to keep millions of people fed and housed for that long, and recovering from that is likely to take WAY longer than us finding a way to control this virus. This could cause us to lose our global hegemony and have dire long-term effects. He _could_ also basically say "yolo" and keep the US running at full force. People's jobs will be protected and society will continue to function...until people start dying en masse because herd infection happens before herd immunity. The stats tell us that people are _more than likely not_ going to die from this, but more people could die if hospitals run out of capacity and protective gear. In either case, we don't know when hospitals will run out of capacity, though we _think_ that this will happen sooner to much sooner if we cover our ears and pretend that things are fine. Also, this is a completely unique situation since we haven't had a large scale pandemic like this before aside from smaller-scale ones like SARS or MERS and the last big one happened in a completely different generation. I have my opinions about our current administration, but I would not want to be Trump right now because this sounds like a vortex of suck.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  It's a textbook wicked problem[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

50 points by hhs 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago

What's "early" and when, in the opinion of Reuters, would it not be too "early"?

nixpulvis 7y ago
I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks from now. Meanwhile healthcare officials are all claiming many months, upwards of longer than a year. It's not easy, but we must listen to the experts.
- hnaccy 7y ago
  We can't afford to shutdown the economy for a year.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    It likely won't be. But it'll take a few months for it either to be back to business as usual, or a few months for the economy to adjust to the new reality of takeout and greater ecommerce focus.
    - klmadfejno 7y ago
      > a few months for the economy to adjust to the new reality of takeout and greater ecommerce focus I cannot imagine a faster path to massive unemployment and exacerbated wealth inequality
  - spamizbad 7y ago
    You don't. But because the US has no real social safetynet and is reticent to expand unemployment benefits you end up with these kooky binary choices.
  - saeranv 7y ago
    This implies a false binary between shutting down the economy and millions of deaths by not isolating. Look at other countries like Germany, Denmark, and Ireland who are moving to cover wages and providing paid sick leave. Germany is offering companies unlimited loans to prevent them from collapsing. I am not an expert in economics, but it does seem like competent technocrats are finding paths to maintain the economy while maintaining public health, and it's only in the US where you have a president who doesn't have a strong grasp of economics, or the experts to advise him, who only sees an option of trying to force back the old system, despite all the experts (economic and health!) who are advising the exact opposite.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  I apologize for the overtly political comment, as I don't like going there, but this is about Trump's reelection. The economy was going to be the linchpin of his narrative.
- kansface 7y ago
  Which experts exactly?
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    Dr. Fauci, for instance. He hasn't wavered on the need for social distancing.
    - klmadfejno 7y ago
      Is Dr. Fauci an expert in economics? Can he accurately measure the harm of his suggestions?
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      I suspect he's better at economics than an entrepreneur with multiple failed businesses and four bankruptcies.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    I'm seeing lots of experts talking about the potential deaths if we don't shut down. I'm not seeing a lot of experts giving estimates of the ramifications of economic fallout here. Just politicians worried about their reelection and business people worried about their personal fortune. I'm sure they are out there. But right now they are overshadowed by professional doofs like Larry Ludlow.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Are you seeing experts estimating the number of deaths caused by the economic damage? Because the rate of suicide does tick up when there's economic downturn. I would not be surprised if, at the tail end of this, the downturn causes more deaths in the sub-50 y.o. group due to suicide than due to the virus. Besides, are experts estimating whether or not it will be easier to deal with the epidemic with an economy that functions or the one that's almost totally shut down, causing supply chain disruption and delays worldwide, and (in a month or two) shortages of goods?
- smallgovt 7y ago
  This isn't just about listening to the experts. Ultimately, we need to make a value judgment between saving lives now vs saving the economy. There's no clear answer when a stronger economy saves future lives.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  > I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks from now On Fox News, he said "by Easter" (2 1/2 weeks from now)
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    I would bet before Easter. Certainly as soon as he can convince enough people that the medical community and epidemiologist are "biased", "hysterical" and issue "fake publications". The best way to see it coming is by monitoring the tone of Sinclair broadcasting and Murdoch's media But there is no possible way to predict it because the policy will almost certainly be changed suddenly by a tweet. If there are enough dates announced with enough ambiguity it will be possible for his lackeys to retroactively claim the date was announced in advanced. Indeed, this is the likely reason there is such confusion now.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    What you're seeing in his messaging now is called "anchoring". It's a common negotiating tactic, literally the oldest trick in the book, which he uses literally in every single case, nearly always successfully. It baffles me that he's been using it for years and people still don't recognize it and think he's just doing this at random. We know the US is a big country, and not all of it is affected equally. Epidemiologically it'll likely behave like 50 smaller countries. We also know that if Trump tried to re-open just those parts of the country where per capita infection rates are very low, public would howl. So what he's doing is proposing a big, unacceptable offer, to then tone it down shortly before the final decision is announced. That way you will all exhale and accept it more easily. So if NY gets much worse, it'll stay shut down. If it levels out, it'll be partially re-opened. If a miracle happens and clinical trials currently underway show efficacy in some drugs, things will be able to be re-opened much further. WA has already leveled off. CA is leveling off as we speak. In other places there's not enough testing to make any conclusions, something that will change this week. You will see this play out exactly as I described it over the next 2 weeks. Bet on it.
gnulinux 7y ago
We're WEEKS before the climax. The rate of spread is almost 35% clearly we will not peak until after April. So 15 days (what Trump proposed) is too early, even 15 weeks would be too early.
- m0zg 7y ago
  You don't know the "rate of spread". We only started mass-testing 5 days ago. What you're seeing now is more accurately called "rate of improvement in testing". WA (the former epicenter) has stabilized the situation and it gets constant (and decreasing) number of daily cases at the moment. So has CA, it looks like. The United States will behave more or less like 50 different states, save for some closely bunched up states on the East Coast. Here's an excellent visualization that shows what I'm talking about: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testing-by-state-chart-of-new-cases/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testi...
  - gnulinux 7y ago
    Until we have different data, this is the data we have. I agree that the rate of increase in confirmed cases probably indicates rate of improvement in testing. But we simply don't know that. You cannot make public health decisions based on hope, assumptions or guesses. You can make public health decisions only based on data, and data indicates we haven't peaked yet. In this case, it's devastating that people in power position have guts to say we can continue business as usual in 15 days.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      > make public health decisions based on hope, assumptions or guesses In the absence of data, which you've acknowledged, that's exactly how decisions are being made now, worldwide. > even 15 weeks would be too early Not if you want to avoid starvation and riots. It's not like there's some magical grocery fairy or "the government" putting stuff on the shelves. People have to work to put stuff there.
      - 7y ago
randomfool 7y ago
Early is the completion of the CDC's 15 day plan which was announced on March 16th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/15-day-pause.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/15-day-p... So around March 30th? I don't know Reuter's opinion of 'too early', but reducing quarantine before the current exponential growth has stopped and before hospitals are not overwhelmed seems like a bad idea.
codezero 7y ago
Early, in the article, is a statement about the States rejection of Trump's hinting at loosening social distancing measures, not Reuters' opinion. Though all news is editorial to some extent, choosing to amplify the states' voices here is a choice, and reporting on their resistance to the president is also. You're over thinking this, or trying to start a controversial argument. That violate's HN's rules.
- sgregnt 7y ago
  I think to make a solid argument one way or another, one needs also to take into account medical and scientific opinion regarding the number of people that are going to die in the longer run because of economy stagnation.
  - codezero 7y ago
    Heads up- I made an edit that may make your comment seem off I originally had just responded "Medical and scientific experts" or something to that extent. Appreciate your comment, it does make a good point. I think the difference is that virus deaths are more predictable than the economy as a whole, so if we know we can move one lever to limit the known damage, the desire to move to a nebulous and often partisan economic approach is a bit concerning for a lot of folks.

tootie 7y ago

Cuomo's briefing today was absolutely scathing. NY State has 25,000 cases and is rising unabated and the federal government is doing next to nothing to support them while publicly seeking to move on from emergency measures. Trump is looking for a >$1T stimulus bill and unlimited Fed bond purchases but thinks that applying the Defense Production Act would be government overreach. People are dying and he only cares about goosing the stock market. EDIT: The briefing on YT -> https://youtu.be/eD1eg3vMO2A https://youtu.be/eD1eg3vMO2A

everdrive 7y ago
Link to Cuomo's briefing? [edit] Thanks for the link!
- tootie 7y ago
  Edited my comment with a link
marshallant 7y ago
Easy to criticize on the sideline. There's a line between increasing deaths or a great depression, you must know the answer so please tell us.
mensetmanusman 7y ago
Would the cases be rising unabated if effective social distancing was being practiced? Not sure if the particulars of the federal government matter at this time/context; i.e. historians point to Americans from both sides of the aisle losing faith in the federal government since Vietnam. It’s been downhill since then.
downerending 7y ago
Invoking the DPA might be a lot like calling in a gaggle of executives to "save" a failing software project by individually directing the hour-by-hour work of each programmer. Would it work? Maybe. But there are an awful lot of ifs, and experience suggests that it's often disastrous. Sometimes it's better to just make sure that everyone knows that something is really important, and then let them try to get it done for you.

nixpulvis 7y ago

I want to see hard numbers of monetary and supply relief given to each state by the federal government.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mnm1 7y ago

The president's actions, specifically his lack of action, are a huge part of why the pandemic is so bad in the US. I hope people remember that he is the reason for the late action, the bungled tests, the lack of cdc funding, the lack of preparedness and stockpiles. And ultimately, he is the reason we will have way more deaths that could have been prevented. Even now we don't have the proper testing capability. We don't have masks and the government is still lying about their effectiveness. 60k testing kits is nothing. He's still not doing what he could and should. I'm glad states are no longer listening to this administration. Doing that would kill a lot more people. Trump and his administration can go fuck themselves. And at this point, so can the people who still stand behind this president who is so callous to so many Americans dying. It's almost impossible to imagine a worse response than what has happened. I hope the markets do not recover before the election as, unfortunately, the mass unnecessary suffering and deaths of Americans will likely be forgotten by many voters if they do.

Izkata 7y ago
He was acting on this back during the impeachment scandal, while the mainstream media was still calling it "no worse than the flu", creating the task force on Jan 29, and getting called racist for the international travel restrictions days later. It would be worse in the US than it is now if not for his early actions.
- TMWNN 7y ago
  Heck, read this early February article about the NYC Chinese New Year parade https://www.amny.com/editorial/fear-of-coronavirus-not-at-lunar-new-year-parade-in-chinatown/ https://www.amny.com/editorial/fear-of-coronavirus-not-at-lu... . Every quote is from a politician telling people to attend a giant mass event to fight orange man bad.
- rat87 7y ago
  He wasn't acting on it, and his lack of actions and untrue statements are part of the reason there are so many stupid conspiracies going around.

eric_b 7y ago

It's easy to say Trump is crazy when you're a privileged tech worker who can work from your nice home office and not worry about money running out or the unemployment line. Meanwhile, in the real world, we can't shut down the global economy for months without dire consequences. Shortages, civil unrest, total anarchy are the next things coming if we keep this shutdown going. If you're not a fan of violent crime, or don't have a lot of guns, I'd recommended considering opening the economy sooner than later. Here is a measured piece by an actual expert. We need to start getting the least vulnerable back to work and school, while keeping the most vulnerable isolated. Eventually we can let everyone out, but we need to keep the gears moving in the meantime. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-covid-19-reality-national-lockdown-is-no-cure/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-co...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
paradox242 7y ago
I will continue to maintain that Trump's instinct to reopen things is largely selfish in nature, but that does not mean that opening things back up to a certain degree does not make sense for those most economically vulnerable. Right now we are stuck between getting sick and getting those we love sick, or risk losing our livelihood, homes, and a way to support our families. Really not a great place to be, and some balance between the two extremes must be struck. It seems sensible that those least likely to suffer deleterious effects should be allowed to return to work and school and we should try and continue to support those most vulnerable as best we can at the state and federal level. I have also seen suggestions that any direct stimulus funding should have an expiration date so that we can be sure that the money get used immediately, otherwise it does little good. Long term, I really hope that more Americans wake up to the threadbare reality of our healthcare system and social safety net so that systemic shocks like this are better planned for.
- downerending 7y ago
  The guy is a zillionaire. The idea that he's primarily motivated by the desire to be a double-zillionaire seems like a bit of a stretch. Personally, I think he'd rather continue to be adored by the masses.

smallgovt 7y ago

“If you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy, then it’s no contest. No American is going to say accelerate the economy at the cost of human life” - Cuomo Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Is life worth living if you're destitute and living in poverty or emotional turmoil? Won't a strong economy increase the pace at which we develop and produce life saving technologies? At a certain point of economic ruin, I think many people will choose a strong economy over saving lives. The question is more so what the tipping point is. It seems hard to quantify and compare the total impact a strong economy has versus lives saved, but I think it's definitely worth having the conversation. Ultimately, this is a value judgment so there's no objective answer.

vkou 7y ago
It's amazing to see how, when faced with the dilemma of "Industrial development, at the cost of have millions of people die", so many people want to follow in the footsteps of the USSR. Continuing with business as usual in an epidemic will condemn millions to an otherwise preventable death. This virus' mortality rate shoots up when health systems are overloaded.
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  You act like being unable to buy food and pay rent has no human cost.
  - vkou 7y ago
    1. There's a human cost to not industrializing a country, too. The surviving Soviet citizens got to take advantage of things like electricity, running water, universal education, a functioning industrial base. [1] Yet, for some reason, industrializing a country, while causing a famine is condemned as butchery... Yet preserving stock valuations, while causing an epidemic is laudable? 2. Then change the distribution systems. It's an emergency. Treat it like one. [1] And eventually luxuries like radios and private apartments!
  - acdha 7y ago

coder1001 7y ago

It saddens me that even in a crisis like this, people are being political and taking sides!

tristanb 7y ago
It's hard not to take a side when you see something to totally and utterly idiotically "managed".
danharaj 7y ago
What do you think politics is about?
wccrawford 7y ago
Is that because you've picked a side and want people to blindly follow your side? It's not so cut-and-dried as my make it out to be. Not fixing the economy means more people out of work and unable to provide for themselves. That means more death. It doesn't matter which way you choose, if you go all the way that direction, people die who don't have to. The real question here is how to best help the most people. There isn't a simple path to that.

mullingitover 7y ago

Nobody seems to be talking about the elephant in the room: the president's raging conflict of interest. He owns a major equity stake in a business that is being harmed by the public health response to the pandemic, and his actions are what you'd expect from someone who prioritizes that business over the interests of public health. This is exactly why previous presidents have put their assets in a blind trust. We shouldn't have to question whether the White House is more concerned with their personal bottom line than the public interest, but here we are.

threatofrain 7y ago
Nobody is talking about conflict of interest not because it's an unworthy issue of governance, but because this question has already been tested and America has already answered -- it's okay.
- falcolas 7y ago
  If it's been tested, it's been tested with a less-than-majority of the populace. It's worth remembering that President Trump was not elected with a majority of the voting populace, let alone the entire US populace.
  - verify_sirrah 7y ago
    I don't think any president has ever been elected by the majority of the voting populace. The highest voter turnout in the past 50 years, as a percentage of VAP, was in 2008 with 58.2% voting. Obama received 52.9% of the votes in that election. That means he actively received the support of only 30% of the voting populace (.582 * .529).
- mullingitover 7y ago
  This was never up for a public vote, but every other public office and judicial appointment has clear ethical guidelines for conflict of interest. The only reason it was never legislated for the president was because up until now, no president has been willing to brazenly violate ethical norms.

yongjik 7y ago

It seems obvious that we will have depression anyway, even if we "go back to normal" now: when everybody knows someone who died, and when hospitals won't help you because they are already full, people will stop planning for a vacation, and start saving money. So the only realistic choice is (major depression) vs. (major depression + many people dies). There's no way out without economic turmoil now; the ship has sailed a month ago.

tristanb 7y ago

Imagine if a competent leadership partnered with companies to design and deliver test kits for the majority of the population. Just like a 23andme kit. Turns up at your door. Gets turned around. We have an actual idea of hotspots, and can design treatment plans. Making decisions with actual data. As opposed to this unmitigated shitshow. I had to go to the hardware store to get protective gear for my wife, who is a doctor at a hospital with none.

danharaj 7y ago

Neoliberalism is a death cult. Look at its high priests demanding sacrifice to Moloch! The vast majority of economic activity is absolutely useless to maintain essential supplies, infrastructure and services. Very few people have to work to keep society intact while we ride out the pandemic. Recession caused by a drop in activity is easy to fix provided you manage debt obligations in the interim. That can be a delicate dance but it is well within the means of modern capital. All of these problems are ideological. You see people in these threads lately who literally cannot imagine anything possible outside of the status quo and are willing to sacrifice the vulnerable to get it back. If you break the facade that debt obligations are a moral obligation and not a social construct whose relevance in extraordinary circumstances is marginal, a central pillar of free market ideology collapses. At this point I'm not sure if it's a charade being pushed to its absurd extreme or if the ruling class and their sycophants' brains are completely hollowed out by ideological brain worms.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vearwhershuh 7y ago

My Proposal: Set a 3% limit on credit card interest for the next six months. If a credit card company complains, nationalize it. Use the six months to set up a debt-forgiveness plan that works for middle and low income earners. At the end of six months, consider lifting the limit incrementally. Get spending power into the hands of common people and ease the cash-crunch anxiety immediately, without any stupid one time payments that will be too late, won't be large enough to help, and require the entire legislative branch to agree.

verify_sirrah 7y ago

Can somebody link me to where this 15 day shutdown was declared? I can see many articles talking about Trump walking it back but none about it actually being declared or what it entails.

nunez 7y ago

I think Trump is in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't predicament. He _could_ enforce a federal 18-month lockdown and wait for a vaccine to become available (assuming that we _can_ make a vaccine for this within the timelines proposed). As software engineers, we know that we almost always optimize for Big-O, so assuming that the US will be effectively shut down for 18 months is probably the best way to model this, especially since waves of people seem to become symptomatic at different times. I don't have hard data to back this, but I don't think the US could afford to keep millions of people fed and housed for that long, and recovering from that is likely to take WAY longer than us finding a way to control this virus. This could cause us to lose our global hegemony and have dire long-term effects. He _could_ also basically say "yolo" and keep the US running at full force. People's jobs will be protected and society will continue to function...until people start dying en masse because herd infection happens before herd immunity. The stats tell us that people are _more than likely not_ going to die from this, but more people could die if hospitals run out of capacity and protective gear. In either case, we don't know when hospitals will run out of capacity, though we _think_ that this will happen sooner to much sooner if we cover our ears and pretend that things are fine. Also, this is a completely unique situation since we haven't had a large scale pandemic like this before aside from smaller-scale ones like SARS or MERS and the last big one happened in a completely different generation. I have my opinions about our current administration, but I would not want to be Trump right now because this sounds like a vortex of suck.

mullingitover 7y ago
It's a textbook wicked problem[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem