I believe court cases have gone both ways - but I am no expert. I'd see a difference in one particular area. People don't have to drive. To earn the right to drive, they need to pass a test. Driving isn't considered a fundamental activity.
Walking outside, though? I think you'd have to pass a higher bar to restrict that. Especially if you intend to do it for the longer term. Now we do have restrictions on public decency, so I imagine there is precedent for a mask mandate. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure attempts to pass laws against face-coverings (think niqab) have been thrown out and whatever logic was used there could be used to suppress facial-covering laws here.
Only a few more years to go Katy, don't worry.
I mean, there could be a vaccine for high-risk people but it won't have been conclusively studied and the indications I'm seeing suggest something around 50% effectivity.
If people want to continue to focus on the negative, this won't stop them.
And while I hope things like ICAM will continue to improve the effectiveness of our treatments at what point will people accept that we've gotten good enough and let society move on?
Coughing on other people is unacceptable even without a pandemic. I believe it could be considered assault. And while I have consistently supported mask wearing (and even making it mandatory) there is a case that such mandates violate US law and individual rights.
I seem to remember a few old slogans that used to be popular. New Hampshire had this "Live free or die" thing. Maybe some people actually mean it - except instead of focusing on stamp taxes they care more about mandatory business closures. Why fight and curse and condemn? Let them demonstrate that they mean it. Let them get covid and get their green bracelets (if they survive, as the vast majority will). Then, they won't have to wear masks or shut their businesses. They can demonstrate their beliefs through self-exposure.
We can bring individual rights back into the conversation.
As an aside, there are claims that people here are exposing themselves so they can go to isolation hotels (where people aren't isolated from each other) and actually have communal activities. For many it seems life is more than just living.
Speaking of slogans, another slogan I was recently reminded of was: "Question Authority!" I wonder when that became a right-wing idea. I distinctly remember it coming from the liberal side of the spectrum.
I guess it all depends on who "Authority" is. Trump may be many things, but I don't think anybody considers him an "authority" on anything aside from politics and reality TV.
Median hourly wages crossed $30/hour prior the pandemic. Minimum wage is $7.50 (although many states are higher so I'll use $10.00). We get six weeks of work and spending at 35 hours a week from 'green lighting' people. At $10.00/hr (the people most likely to have lost their jobs) that is $2100 in added productivity per person. At median salaries it would be $6300. And that is only looking at direct economic costs, not education inequality etc...
It would cost a lot, but it would be tiny fraction of what our current reality is costing us.
Consider the size of the stimulus packages. Trump was willing to agree to $1.6 TRILLION in stimulus spending. Even 10 billion on bracelets isn't meaningful given the benefits they would provide.
Because tests are imperfect, people infect family members, food still has to be made, medicine delivered etc... and the virus will continue to exist in other places (e.g. Mexico) and immigration or travel - legal or illegal will spread it to the US.
European culture isn't Asian. European people aren't Asian. Asian countries have largely contained the virus in early stages - the rest of the world simply hasn't.
At this point, in many countries, there is no reasonable road to tracking and tracing this. To borrow a phrase, that horse has long since left the barn. We may get some vaccines out early, but they are likely to have limited effectiveness and their long-term safety won't be understood. Instead, with the vaccine studies scheduled to end in 2022 (by which time the vaccines may not longer work), we are looking at an open-ended crippling of society.
But why? Actual death rates shown through serological studies are low (not flu low for the elderly but certainly flu low for the young). Given the long-term effects, I've argued elsewhere that'd we'd be better off just opening up while retaining protections for the elderly.
Look at states NOT hit in the first wave because we are better able to treat now. Take Florida. They estimate 844,000 infected. 15,000 have died. This is 1.8% casualty rate. Texas has 1.6 million infected and 16,700 deaths for a 1% death rate. Or California with 2.2 million infected 16,250 dead for a 0.7% death rate.
Is it bad? Yes. But it is far from the primary cause of death. 2.8 million Americans die in a normal year. Going up to 3.1 or 3.3 is bad - but the long-term side effects might be far worse. Given the effects on the poor, on the mentally ill (25% of youth considered suicide in June), on the crippling of education and thus future opportunity etc.... is this perpetual partial closure really the right path? Here in Israel young people and the religious are clashing with police - given that many are probably already infected why not give them back their freedom and end the violence?
However, rather than just arguing for opening vs. this continued crippling of society, I suggested the above as a middle road. Why not open up for those who are not contagious because they are immune. As that reality is spread, sometimes very quickly, we'll find some of the hardest hit parts of society (e.g. blacks, the poor and the young) getting back on their feet more quickly while still limiting the virus' spread.
We'll be able to see immunity spreading in little green lights on wristbands and with it we'll give a green light for society to go back to normal.
The devices are cheap, probably under $10 each (look on Amazon for smartbands). The basic app could probably be developed for a few million (I'm no expert). The corona testing is happening anyway. Antibody tests are <$50 (Google it and you'll see a rate of $42.13). On a person basis you'd be looking at under $75.
The real cost would be in copying status from testing centers to a database from which the app can draw. In Israel, where I live, this would be pretty simple. We don't have much in the way of privacy laws.
In the US, with HIPAA, you'd probably need the patient to sign off and the testing centers to manually (at first) add an entry to the database. Not a huge cost, but some annoyance getting it coordinated at first.
All in all, to get people back out and at work and protected it is a very reasonable cost.
This does seem to be a trend. But do we just stop life indefinitely because of this? Or do we fundamentally change the way we live - going online and virtual for everything? In my personal case the impact is quite limited. My kids are learning as much as they were before and they are basically self-managing. Plus I work from home so my ability to earn a living is not challenged by them being home. But my situation is unusual.
I actually wrote a short story about a world in which everybody lives remotely to avoid spreading virus.
Latest Comments
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
google "antibody test for covid-19 near me" - a number have been approved.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
I believe court cases have gone both ways - but I am no expert. I'd see a difference in one particular area. People don't have to drive. To earn the right to drive, they need to pass a test. Driving isn't considered a fundamental activity.
Walking outside, though? I think you'd have to pass a higher bar to restrict that. Especially if you intend to do it for the longer term. Now we do have restrictions on public decency, so I imagine there is precedent for a mask mandate. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure attempts to pass laws against face-coverings (think niqab) have been thrown out and whatever logic was used there could be used to suppress facial-covering laws here.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
Only a few more years to go Katy, don't worry. I mean, there could be a vaccine for high-risk people but it won't have been conclusively studied and the indications I'm seeing suggest something around 50% effectivity. If people want to continue to focus on the negative, this won't stop them. And while I hope things like ICAM will continue to improve the effectiveness of our treatments at what point will people accept that we've gotten good enough and let society move on?
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
Coughing on other people is unacceptable even without a pandemic. I believe it could be considered assault. And while I have consistently supported mask wearing (and even making it mandatory) there is a case that such mandates violate US law and individual rights.
I seem to remember a few old slogans that used to be popular. New Hampshire had this "Live free or die" thing. Maybe some people actually mean it - except instead of focusing on stamp taxes they care more about mandatory business closures. Why fight and curse and condemn? Let them demonstrate that they mean it. Let them get covid and get their green bracelets (if they survive, as the vast majority will). Then, they won't have to wear masks or shut their businesses. They can demonstrate their beliefs through self-exposure.
We can bring individual rights back into the conversation.
As an aside, there are claims that people here are exposing themselves so they can go to isolation hotels (where people aren't isolated from each other) and actually have communal activities. For many it seems life is more than just living.
Speaking of slogans, another slogan I was recently reminded of was: "Question Authority!" I wonder when that became a right-wing idea. I distinctly remember it coming from the liberal side of the spectrum.
I guess it all depends on who "Authority" is. Trump may be many things, but I don't think anybody considers him an "authority" on anything aside from politics and reality TV.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
Median hourly wages crossed $30/hour prior the pandemic. Minimum wage is $7.50 (although many states are higher so I'll use $10.00). We get six weeks of work and spending at 35 hours a week from 'green lighting' people. At $10.00/hr (the people most likely to have lost their jobs) that is $2100 in added productivity per person. At median salaries it would be $6300. And that is only looking at direct economic costs, not education inequality etc...
It would cost a lot, but it would be tiny fraction of what our current reality is costing us.
Consider the size of the stimulus packages. Trump was willing to agree to $1.6 TRILLION in stimulus spending. Even 10 billion on bracelets isn't meaningful given the benefits they would provide.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
Because tests are imperfect, people infect family members, food still has to be made, medicine delivered etc... and the virus will continue to exist in other places (e.g. Mexico) and immigration or travel - legal or illegal will spread it to the US.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
European culture isn't Asian. European people aren't Asian. Asian countries have largely contained the virus in early stages - the rest of the world simply hasn't.
At this point, in many countries, there is no reasonable road to tracking and tracing this. To borrow a phrase, that horse has long since left the barn. We may get some vaccines out early, but they are likely to have limited effectiveness and their long-term safety won't be understood. Instead, with the vaccine studies scheduled to end in 2022 (by which time the vaccines may not longer work), we are looking at an open-ended crippling of society.
But why? Actual death rates shown through serological studies are low (not flu low for the elderly but certainly flu low for the young). Given the long-term effects, I've argued elsewhere that'd we'd be better off just opening up while retaining protections for the elderly.
Here's one data source: covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab
Look at states NOT hit in the first wave because we are better able to treat now. Take Florida. They estimate 844,000 infected. 15,000 have died. This is 1.8% casualty rate. Texas has 1.6 million infected and 16,700 deaths for a 1% death rate. Or California with 2.2 million infected 16,250 dead for a 0.7% death rate.
Is it bad? Yes. But it is far from the primary cause of death. 2.8 million Americans die in a normal year. Going up to 3.1 or 3.3 is bad - but the long-term side effects might be far worse. Given the effects on the poor, on the mentally ill (25% of youth considered suicide in June), on the crippling of education and thus future opportunity etc.... is this perpetual partial closure really the right path? Here in Israel young people and the religious are clashing with police - given that many are probably already infected why not give them back their freedom and end the violence?
However, rather than just arguing for opening vs. this continued crippling of society, I suggested the above as a middle road. Why not open up for those who are not contagious because they are immune. As that reality is spread, sometimes very quickly, we'll find some of the hardest hit parts of society (e.g. blacks, the poor and the young) getting back on their feet more quickly while still limiting the virus' spread.
We'll be able to see immunity spreading in little green lights on wristbands and with it we'll give a green light for society to go back to normal.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
It would be like prison - you get visiting hours twice a year.
Opening Up The Economy, Case By Case
The devices are cheap, probably under $10 each (look on Amazon for smartbands). The basic app could probably be developed for a few million (I'm no expert). The corona testing is happening anyway. Antibody tests are <$50 (Google it and you'll see a rate of $42.13). On a person basis you'd be looking at under $75.
The real cost would be in copying status from testing centers to a database from which the app can draw. In Israel, where I live, this would be pretty simple. We don't have much in the way of privacy laws.
In the US, with HIPAA, you'd probably need the patient to sign off and the testing centers to manually (at first) add an entry to the database. Not a huge cost, but some annoyance getting it coordinated at first.
All in all, to get people back out and at work and protected it is a very reasonable cost.
COVID-19 Cases Surge In Israel
This does seem to be a trend. But do we just stop life indefinitely because of this? Or do we fundamentally change the way we live - going online and virtual for everything? In my personal case the impact is quite limited. My kids are learning as much as they were before and they are basically self-managing. Plus I work from home so my ability to earn a living is not challenged by them being home. But my situation is unusual.
I actually wrote a short story about a world in which everybody lives remotely to avoid spreading virus.
medium.com/.../the-cost-of-life-fiction-268cb891e075