2020 Fall North American rumour thread

Zod

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

You can try.  South Korea is containing it by doing blanket testing and isolating clusters where it's spread out.

I think my argument still stands.  It seems like between developing, testing, and production the earliest we would see a Vaccine is 2021.   I think with government borrowing heavily to pay everyone to stay at home they can buy a few months.

That means something's going to give.   People won't be able to afford to stay at home that long.

Jim Tressel

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

At this point everyone knows this. And I mean everyone. It is a given . The argument is know if/how big crowds will happen without a vaccine as the vaccine will not be here by fall.
One possibility is lots of regular testing and seroloical testing as well. Patient goes to doctor not feeling well in a few months. Gets test. If positive, get better treatments and goes home to rest for 2 weeks. If negative gets serological test. If positive, patient is in the clear and can go do anything. If negative, patient can take their chances and do what they want. Doctors wont be as slammed. By then we may also know a good estimate of the percentage effected and their may be a herd immunity to stop bigger outbreaks. 

kaw753

Poncier said:

kaw753 said:

RobZ said:

If we can get through this thing by summer with the economy intact, I feel the days of 5,000-20,000 people gathering for ANY single event are over for a while.  I think people will need a few years before they feel comfortable again being packed in tightly with large crowds.  Maybe this fall's college football/NFL season (if it goes off)  could be a good gauge of how folks and the arenas respond.

. My guess is that the NFL pres-season played in empty stadiums is test #1 in opening things back up.

That won't be much of a barometer, pre-season games usually have lots of empty seats, can't give those tickets away. 

My hometown Ottawa Senators see no issue starting the season with empty arenas.

Heyo... I am here all week!

on2legs

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

You can try.  South Korea is containing it by doing blanket testing and isolating clusters where it's spread out.

I think my argument still stands.  It seems like between developing, testing, and production the earliest we would see a Vaccine is 2021.   I think with government borrowing heavily to pay everyone to stay at home they can buy a few months.

That means something's going to give.   People won't be able to afford to stay at home that long.

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.  People will definitely be going back to work.  It’s a given. The quarantine will last 2-3 months at most and hopefully we will be on the backside of the curve by then.  The hope is that the healthcare system will be able to keep up with the situation as a result of the quarantine. But people will go back to work and people will still get sick until there is a vaccine.  

on2legs

Jim Tressel said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

At this point everyone knows this. And I mean everyone. It is a given . The argument is know if/how big crowds will happen without a vaccine as the vaccine will not be here by fall.
One possibility is lots of regular testing and seroloical testing as well. Patient goes to doctor not feeling well in a few months. Gets test. If positive, get better treatments and goes home to rest for 2 weeks. If negative gets serological test. If positive, patient is in the clear and can go do anything. If negative, patient can take their chances and do what they want. Doctors wont be as slammed. By then we may also know a good estimate of the percentage effected and their may be a herd immunity to stop bigger outbreaks. 

I said all that in my earlier posts.  

Zod

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

You can try.  South Korea is containing it by doing blanket testing and isolating clusters where it's spread out.

I think my argument still stands.  It seems like between developing, testing, and production the earliest we would see a Vaccine is 2021.   I think with government borrowing heavily to pay everyone to stay at home they can buy a few months.

That means something's going to give.   People won't be able to afford to stay at home that long.

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.  People will definitely be going back to work.  It’s a given. The quarantine will last 2-3 months at most and hopefully we will be on the backside of the curve by then.  The hope is that the healthcare system will be able to keep up with the situation as a result of the quarantine. But people will go back to work and people will still get sick until there is a vaccine.  

I also think you're missing what I'm saying.   The slowing it down approach is only to give our medical people fighting chance at keeping up with all the sick people.    The negative with the slow it down approach is the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't catch it and doesn't get immune to it.   The odds of there being zero people with it in 2 to 3 months is pretty slim.   People become the equivalent of a forest after a 2 year drought.  It only takes a spark.   If they let us go back to work and resume our lives in 2 - 3 months time, it would start spreading again, putting a big toll on the health care systems, and pretty much accomplishing nothing.   All we did was delay disaster on the health care system.

I'm basically arguing that without enough people being immune it to we can't go back to work.   Slowing it down prevents enough people from getting immune.  Therefore if they want to control the spread so health care can keep up, they can't let us go back to work in 2-3 months.  It'd start all over again.  This becomes a catch 22, because if we all stay at home we all go broke.    In the end all me have done is delayed the inevitable

Celticskemba8

kaw753 said:

Poncier said:

kaw753 said:

RobZ said:

If we can get through this thing by summer with the economy intact, I feel the days of 5,000-20,000 people gathering for ANY single event are over for a while.  I think people will need a few years before they feel comfortable again being packed in tightly with large crowds.  Maybe this fall's college football/NFL season (if it goes off)  could be a good gauge of how folks and the arenas respond.

. My guess is that the NFL pres-season played in empty stadiums is test #1 in opening things back up.

That won't be much of a barometer, pre-season games usually have lots of empty seats, can't give those tickets away. 

My hometown Ottawa Senators see no issue starting the season with empty arenas.

Heyo... I am here all week!

Hahaha great joke! But, some high draft picks coming your guys way!

The foo fighters rescheduled all their spring dates for the fall. A lot of bands have already done their rescheduling for fall or 2021. Have to think PJ announce at least the spring rescheduled dates soon. (Whether they happen or not is the q that remains)

on2legs

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

You can try.  South Korea is containing it by doing blanket testing and isolating clusters where it's spread out.

I think my argument still stands.  It seems like between developing, testing, and production the earliest we would see a Vaccine is 2021.   I think with government borrowing heavily to pay everyone to stay at home they can buy a few months.

That means something's going to give.   People won't be able to afford to stay at home that long.

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.  People will definitely be going back to work.  It’s a given. The quarantine will last 2-3 months at most and hopefully we will be on the backside of the curve by then.  The hope is that the healthcare system will be able to keep up with the situation as a result of the quarantine. But people will go back to work and people will still get sick until there is a vaccine.  

I also think you're missing what I'm saying.   The slowing it down approach is only to give our medical people fighting chance at keeping up with all the sick people.    The negative with the slow it down approach is the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't catch it and doesn't get immune to it.   The odds of there being zero people with it in 2 to 3 months is pretty slim.   People become the equivalent of a forest after a 2 year drought.  It only takes a spark.   If they let us go back to work and resume our lives in 2 - 3 months time, it would start spreading again, putting a big toll on the health care systems, and pretty much accomplishing nothing.   All we did was delay disaster on the health care system.

I'm basically arguing that without enough people being immune it to we can't go back to work.   Slowing it down prevents enough people from getting immune.  Therefore if they want to control the spread so health care can keep up, they can't let us go back to work in 2-3 months.  It'd start all over again.  This becomes a catch 22, because if we all stay at home we all go broke.    In the end all me have done is delayed the inevitable

I’m cool with disagreeing.  Stay well. 

Zod

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

on2legs said:

Zod said:

Am I the only one who doubts the world's ability to stay in their home for as long as the two previous posts are suggesting?  I don't think the world (at least North America) can do it?  Everything will go bankrupt.  The government can't afford to pay everyone to stay at home for more than a couple months?  Once that ends... I feel like there would be civil unrest.

I’m in agreement.  I don’t think the lockdown in the US will last more than 2 months. 3 at the most.  That’s not saying the virus will be gone by then.  We will still have people get sick after the lockdown is over but the threat of hospitals being overwhelmed should hopefully diminish after the lockdown.  So the people who do get sick can be treated without overwhelming the Healthcare system.  I say all of this hopefully. 

I think this is the problem.  If lockdowns work then the overwhelming majority isn't immune.  If anyone still has it when lockdowns end then it'll be like a tinderbox and flare up again.   I suppose I'm pessimistic but if it lasts longer than a few months I see public opinion changing to let's pull the band-aid.

People will definitely have it when the lockdown ends. The lockdown is not about eradication - it’s about slowing the rate of infection to the point where the healthcare system can manage it. 

I get that part.  I'm saying the spread needs to be really slow for health care to keep up.  I think the rate at which they can keep up would take years for enough of the population to be immune to keep it from spreading.  I think you need something like 70 to 80 percent of the public to be immune to something to keep it from spreading quickly.    Thus the lockdown can't end in a few months, because if it did, it would spread rampantly. 

This creates an economic problem.   Right now the governments are doing bailouts of 10 to 15% of their annual GDP.  2 trillion in the US, 85b in Canada, etc...   How long's that going to last for?  A few months at best?   Even the bailouts don't cover everything.    The governments are funding these massive bailouts at the same time their tax base is going to shrivel up.  Government might not be able to fund much more than this.    Small businesses are going struggle hard, big business might follow.   Lots of people will stop being able to pay their rent, mortgages etc....

Our civilization isn't mean for everyone to stay at home for a year or two.    That's why I give it a few months, and people will want to risk going back to normal.  If they don't, then there's not going to be much left to go to.    The "slow it down" approach saves lives, but it creates many other problems.

It's why I feel like this short window is really the only chance to contain it.  More than slow it down.. Figure it out and contain it.  If it doesn't get contained in a couple months there's going to be civil unrest.  People would rather take their chances with the virus then lose their homes and go broke.

You can't contain it without a vaccine.  The quarantine will hopefully slow it down enough to make healthcare manageable and buy us time while a vaccine is developed.

You can try.  South Korea is containing it by doing blanket testing and isolating clusters where it's spread out.

I think my argument still stands.  It seems like between developing, testing, and production the earliest we would see a Vaccine is 2021.   I think with government borrowing heavily to pay everyone to stay at home they can buy a few months.

That means something's going to give.   People won't be able to afford to stay at home that long.

I think you’re missing what I’m saying.  People will definitely be going back to work.  It’s a given. The quarantine will last 2-3 months at most and hopefully we will be on the backside of the curve by then.  The hope is that the healthcare system will be able to keep up with the situation as a result of the quarantine. But people will go back to work and people will still get sick until there is a vaccine.  

I also think you're missing what I'm saying.   The slowing it down approach is only to give our medical people fighting chance at keeping up with all the sick people.    The negative with the slow it down approach is the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't catch it and doesn't get immune to it.   The odds of there being zero people with it in 2 to 3 months is pretty slim.   People become the equivalent of a forest after a 2 year drought.  It only takes a spark.   If they let us go back to work and resume our lives in 2 - 3 months time, it would start spreading again, putting a big toll on the health care systems, and pretty much accomplishing nothing.   All we did was delay disaster on the health care system.

I'm basically arguing that without enough people being immune it to we can't go back to work.   Slowing it down prevents enough people from getting immune.  Therefore if they want to control the spread so health care can keep up, they can't let us go back to work in 2-3 months.  It'd start all over again.  This becomes a catch 22, because if we all stay at home we all go broke.    In the end all me have done is delayed the inevitable

I’m cool with disagreeing.  Stay well. 

I guess. If I can read our arguments right.  We both think we'll have to go back to work in a few months.  We both think the virus would still be out there.  We both think people would get sick.  We arguing on what level of spread it would have at that time?

primussucks

My point is with the vaccine not likely coming until 2021 is that if we open things back up again this summer it is basically a guarantee that a few short months later we will be right back in the situation we are currently in.

Zod

primussucks said:

My point is with the vaccine not likely coming until 2021 is that if we open things back up again this summer it is basically a guarantee that a few short months later we will be right back in the situation we are currently in.

That's how I feel.   It'll be a tough decision in the summer if the situation hasn't changed.  Keep everything closed and everyone goes broke or lift restrictions and hope for the best.  Neither situation is conductive to mass gatherings  

PJNB

primussucks said:

My point is with the vaccine not likely coming until 2021 is that if we open things back up again this summer it is basically a guarantee that a few short months later we will be right back in the situation we are currently in.

And if we do not open back up we be under an economical collapse that none of our generation has ever seen. I think we need to balance both with opening things back up when we are ready and closing in areas that need it when clusters start forming again. Where this puts sports, concerts and school for 2020 and early 2021 I have no clue. 

RatherStarved

It will remain a catch-22 until there is a treatment.  Lots of clinical trials are ongoing.  It just takes one to be successful.  Hopefully that will happen soon to bridge the gap to the vaccine.

Melzombie

I know we are not China, but they are slowly opening businesses after a 2 month lock down. People are still apprehensive about going out in public and they are doing TSA style health screenings before they enter a event, bar, etc.
I can see venues doing this when the finally end the ban of events. screening people before entering.. if you show signs, you can't enter the venue. Anyone else think that they will do something like this? 

Zod

kst said:

It will remain a catch-22 until there is a treatment.  Lots of clinical trials are ongoing.  It just takes one to be successful.  Hopefully that will happen soon to bridge the gap to the vaccine.

I am hopeful that maybe we have some kind good luck event.  Early development of a Vaccine.  Lockdowns work better than expected. 

I read one article yesterday saying that Big Tobacco was working on a vaccine.   If big Tobacco saves the planet I'm going to laugh my ass off.. haha  

RatherStarved

If tobacco saves the planet I might even take up smoking!

primussucks

PJNB said:

primussucks said:

My point is with the vaccine not likely coming until 2021 is that if we open things back up again this summer it is basically a guarantee that a few short months later we will be right back in the situation we are currently in.

And if we do not open back up we be under an economical collapse that none of our generation has ever seen. I think we need to balance both with opening things back up when we are ready and closing in areas that need it when clusters start forming again. Where this puts sports, concerts and school for 2020 and early 2021 I have no clue. 

Completely agree!  Unfortunately this is the reality we are facing!

Lerxst1992

Melzombie said:

I know we are not China, but they are slowly opening businesses after a 2 month lock down. People are still apprehensive about going out in public and they are doing TSA style health screenings before they enter a event, bar, etc.
I can see venues doing this when the finally end the ban of events. screening people before entering.. if you show signs, you can't enter the venue. Anyone else think that they will do something like this? 

They going to stick a thermometer in my rump? Won’t do anything to stop a reemergence, as this virus spread due to its significant asymptomatic and highly contagious nature.

So we pile up by the hundreds outside venues coughing on each other waiting to enter to solve nothing. With the exception of my next Pearl Jam show, because their tickets used to be so difficult to get, no thank you. And very likely no thank you to Pearl Jam as well, so get the f5 machine rolling again. No games no concerts no restaurants, good luck to you economy.

Lerxst1992

primussucks said:

PJNB said:

primussucks said:

My point is with the vaccine not likely coming until 2021 is that if we open things back up again this summer it is basically a guarantee that a few short months later we will be right back in the situation we are currently in.

And if we do not open back up we be under an economical collapse that none of our generation has ever seen. I think we need to balance both with opening things back up when we are ready and closing in areas that need it when clusters start forming again. Where this puts sports, concerts and school for 2020 and early 2021 I have no clue. 

Completely agree!  Unfortunately this is the reality we are facing!

The economy has already changed on a fundamental level

If we rush back into public too soon, we could increase the damage to the economy, by scaring people more than they are scared now, by forcing them back into crowded public spaces. If that leads to a new outbreak, goodbye economy and goodbye any trust in our leadership. That might be the action that shakes some of the 40% off of the trump base.  At least we have security now by staying isolated if we choose.

Many industries may not be back until we have a treatment. Professional sports, restaurants, airlines, theater, nightclubs, amusement parks, etc.

Zod

Lerxst1992 said:

primussucks said:

PJNB said:

primussucks said:

My point is with the vaccine not likely coming until 2021 is that if we open things back up again this summer it is basically a guarantee that a few short months later we will be right back in the situation we are currently in.

And if we do not open back up we be under an economical collapse that none of our generation has ever seen. I think we need to balance both with opening things back up when we are ready and closing in areas that need it when clusters start forming again. Where this puts sports, concerts and school for 2020 and early 2021 I have no clue. 

Completely agree!  Unfortunately this is the reality we are facing!

The economy has already changed on a fundamental level

If we rush back into public too soon, we could increase the damage to the economy, by scaring people more than they are scared now, by forcing them back into crowded public spaces. If that leads to a new outbreak, goodbye economy and goodbye any trust in our leadership. That might be the action that shakes some of the 40% off of the trump base.  At least we have security now by staying isolated if we choose.

Many industries may not be back until we have a treatment. Professional sports, restaurants, airlines, theater, nightclubs, amusement parks, etc.

Many of those industries won't be able to hold out that long