5 ms·

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

by m0zg 7y ago

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.

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

by m0zg 7y ago

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

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.