What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (5 Viewers)

ATF Says U.S. Gun Retailers Can Offer Curbside Service During Quarantine

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced on Friday that federally licensed firearms businesses could carry out transactions through drive-up windows and temporary booths in their parking lots or other parts of their property. Those transactions include verifying customer identity, completing paperwork, accepting payment and delivering firearms and ammunition.

"An FFL may carry out the requested activities through a drive-up or walk-up window or doorway where the customer is on the licensee's property on the exterior of the brick and mortar structure at the address listed on the license," the guidance states.

"An FFL may also carry out the requested activities from a temporary table or booth located in a parking lot or other exterior location on the licensee's property at the address listed on the license, but any such activities must occur in a location where the licensee has the authority to permit ATF's entry for inspection purposes," it continued.
Click to expand...

 
Mr Anonymous said:
I think my favorite (ok, least favorite) notion in all this is that despite shutting down just 3 days apart, those 72 hours must be the reason why California has this well under control compared to New York despite California having twice the population. There's no way it could have been that the outbreak struck California well before it was on everyone's radar. Despite now having shut down for over 3 weeks, New York has more new cases in what, the last 3 days, than California has over the entirety of this spread? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
I remember reading studies that said that for every 24 hours of waiting to lock down, the impact would increase by 40%. So a wait of 3 days would result in 1 x 140% X 140% X 140%, which is 2.74. So yes, waiting 3 days could have resulted in 174% increase in imapct. 

Also comparing state numbers to state numbers doesn't really reflect what happened to NY given NY's problem is concentrated in NYC. While California does have good public transportation systems in SF and LA, nothing compares to NYC's public transportation system, which is apparently where this virus had one huge party. There's really no good comparison to compare the virus's impact on NYC at all. 

 
Mr Anonymous said:
No, you and others continue to operate within two extremes. Free for all doesn't work and neither does blanket shut down. Both have horrible (though different) and unacceptable consequences.
Click to expand...
well, yeah.  if the data isn't reliable, the thing to ask is, "what if I'm wrong?"  That inevitibly leads to considering worst case.  

ETA: please don't assign me as operating under extremes.  We talked about this yesterday.  I want a surgical response as well, I just want the decision on how and why to be data-driven.  We are far from being in a position to do so at this point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
We didn't shut it all down.

We only shut down non-essentials.

I'm open to hearing where the line should be moved, but given how many businesses that qualify as being "essential" can be laughed at, I think the line has already been drawn pretty liberally to keep a lot open that isn't really essential. The line I wouldn't cross is that so much is open that the hospitals get overwhelmed. I think Ohio could open up so more without that happening. But Michigan, for example, already has six times as many deaths as Ohio with around the same amount of population. They probably shouldn't open up anything more, and maybe should get more strict and close some. 
Click to expand...
Need to figure out a way to get the medical industry back up and rolling.  The fact that we are closing down hospitals and doctors offices is not good for our long term health.  

 
moleculo said:
The risk of opening things up too early and with insufficient measures means hundreds of thousands of people die (if not millions).  The risk of opening up too late is an incrementally worse economy.

if you don't trust the data, the appropriate response is the conservative one - assume it's actually worse than reported, and keep everything locked down longer.
Click to expand...
My sliding scale (based on healthcare resources) idea needs to get to Fauci and the president. Someone run it up the flagpole! :lol:  

 
Doug B said:
Short version: way, way too many ancillary staff are needed to pull games off even without spectators. The leagues alone can't get no-crowd games off the ground -- even if owners, team officials, coaches, and players are all working together as one.

The SI article is a short, quick, and worthwhile read.
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that. I’m expressing a little skepticism that they wouldn’t find a solution all the necessary parties involved believe is workable (even if doctors and others disagree) if both the players and owners are unified and pushing hard to get some revenue coming in the door. Presumably the ancillary staff are in the same boat, if not more desperate. The relevant authorities could always prevent it based on the unavoidable risks discussed in the article. But I wonder if there will be enough public pressure in late May/June/July to support that kind of move if the growth rate of the virus slows down. 

 
moleculo said:
well, yeah.  if the data isn't reliable, the thing to ask is, "what if I'm wrong?"  That inevitibly leads to considering worst case.  

ETA: please don't assign me as operating under extremes.  We talked about this yesterday.  I want a surgical response as well, I just want the decision on how and why to be data-driven.  We are far from being in a position to do so at this point.
Click to expand...
And now that the data can't be trusted, it's time for those surgical responses you and I are both in favor of.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
I think my favorite (ok, least favorite) notion in all this is that despite shutting down just 3 days apart, those 72 hours must be the reason why California has this well under control compared to New York despite California having twice the population. There's no way it could have been that the outbreak struck California well before it was on everyone's radar. Despite now having shut down for over 3 weeks, New York has more new cases in what, the last 3 days, than California has over the entirety of this spread? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
If this theory of yours is correct, wouldn't have the virus spread to NY as well in November/December and now NY would see this "under control" like CA?

 
the moops said:
If this theory of yours is correct, wouldn't have the virus spread to NY as well in November/December and now NY would see this "under control" like CA?
Click to expand...
No clue, yet another question we don't have an answer for. Since it's becoming obvious that not even tests are the answer, we sure as heck can't rely on them to steer us out of an equally crippling shut down.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
I think my favorite (ok, least favorite) notion in all this is that despite shutting down just 3 days apart, those 72 hours must be the reason why California has this well under control compared to New York despite California having twice the population. There's no way it could have been that the outbreak struck California well before it was on everyone's radar. Despite now having shut down for over 3 weeks, New York has more new cases in what, the last 3 days, than California has over the entirety of this spread? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
NY state was 9 days behind San Francisco and most of Northern California, which had 7 of the most populous counties on lockdown.  By the time California had gone full "stay at home" most of the cities and counties already had orders in place.

NY has also tested 4 times more people than the entire state of California, so you would expect them to have significantly more cases.   

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
There does need to be a better plan than "shut it all down" in some places, those with less density and low infection rates. There is even a blueprint for what it needs to be. Will we do it? For some reason we don't seem to agree that testing, surveillance, isolation, masks and social distancing in concert are viable In the US. Why is that? 
Click to expand...
Because we don't have viable testing or resources?  Where are you getting the tests and masks?

 
Mr Anonymous said:
The data we have is becoming more and more useless by the minute but yes let's lean on it even more heavily.
Click to expand...
nope.  all you have to do is estimate the uncertainty (if you care about that), or use the data to evaluate general trends.  The data we have is fine for that.  Nothing changes if the reported NY fatalities are 800 vs 775.  does it make a difference it the real (unknowable) answer was actually 885?  or 900?  There are still inferences that can be made that are extremely sound and helpful.

Generally speaking, if you see reported cases increasing day by day, that means you can infer that the virus continues to spread. Likewise, you could be able to tell if the numbers are stable or decreasing.  Exact numbers aren't really necessary, as long as the errors aren't so significant that they obscure the trends. Further, someone skilled in the art could do a reasonable job of estimating the errors and helping guide the decisions. 

Errors in measuring isn't unique to the US, it's not unique to this pandemic, and it's not unique to any study in the history of science.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Why is that though? Ramping this up to scale should be US priority #1. Doesn't seem to be the case though. That's confusing to me. That's why I'm asking the questions.
Click to expand...
Because we made a conscious decision not to prepare.   We also rely on China to manufacture for us.   When 80% of its production shut down for 2 months, we pay the price.

 
moleculo said:
well, yeah.  if the data isn't reliable, the thing to ask is, "what if I'm wrong?"  That inevitibly leads to considering worst case.  

ETA: please don't assign me as operating under extremes.  We talked about this yesterday.  I want a surgical response as well, I just want the decision on how and why to be data-driven.  We are far from being in a position to do so at this point.
Click to expand...
Sorry for butting in.  I don't disagree at all with your statement.  However, the world is at least three months into this situation and it seems like we haven't learned much of anything.  Its seems to still all be a big guess.

  • Drugs show promise, but we really don't know if they work.
  • Masks don't work until they do, or don't.  Maybe to protect you, maybe others.
  • Contact with contaminated surfaces spreads the virus, or maybe not.
  • It only seriously affects older or  immuno-suppressed, until it doesn't.
  • We need to slow the spread to avoid over-running hospitals.  We have.  Now what?
  • On, and on, and on.
We cannot stop this virus.  We're going to have to live with it in some fashion for some time.  Easing restrictions while monitoring hospital capacity seems to me to be the only way through this.

 
We are STILL in the "we don't know what we don't know" portion of this whole thing which gets that much more mind boggling every single day.  This is where we're stuck.  I know one thing for certain, I don't care what the government says.  We will make decisions for our family as a family and based on what we think is correct.  If my Governor thinks it's ok to open schools, my kids aren't going back to school.  They will have to come to my house and arrest me.  They aren't going back to school this year.  We will continue to rotate between my wife and I going out once a week to the store.  That's all we're doing until we are shown reliable evidence that things are indeed improving.

 
shader said:
I have no idea what's going on in China.  But I have noticed that their numbers are slowly going up again (very slowly).  Even publicly, they haven't eradicated this thing.  And who knows what's really going on.  
Click to expand...
They claim most of the new cases are coming in from Russia. Which is weird because Russia claims to have this under control (only +2558 new cases today)

 
Mr Anonymous said:
No clue, yet another question we don't have an answer for. Since it's becoming obvious that not even tests are the answer, we sure as heck can't rely on them to steer us out of an equally crippling shut down.
Click to expand...
It's far more obvious to me that your California theory is wrong.

 
Blick said:
We cannot stop this virus.  We're going to have to live with it in some fashion for some time.  Easing restrictions while monitoring hospital capacity seems to me to be the only way through this.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree. Regional approach, not everywhere is NYC. Diagnostic testing, antibody testing, masks, social distancing, isolation for positive cases, contact tracing. We have to do mitigation on a wide variety of fronts. Not just shut it all down everywhere for indeterminable amounts of time. Although being on widespread lockdown through May to keep hospitals from becoming overwhelmed is what we need to do, unfortunately. Meanwhile getting the other things up to scale needs to happen like yesterday, and we're being slow and complacent with this. "Testing testing testing" is like lip service already from the response teams. Enough talk.

 
TheMagus said:
I have a question and apologies if this is already talked about; the thread is huge. Did you guys do Easter stuff for your kids yesterday? We told our 4 year old that the Easter Bunny couldn't come this year because of the virus. We are in the Philly area and following all the protocols (stay at home) and did not deem going out to the store to buy Easter candy and dollar toys a necessity. My wife tried to order some things on Amazon but due to their prioritization, the delivery dates were way after Easter and she gave up. We haven't been able to schedule an instacart delivery in weeks and we are living off of what we have in the pantry. We also didn't dye eggs because they are a scarce commodity and we only have about a dozen and a half left and didn't want to "waste" them. My daughter completely understood until we got on her online Pre-K class this morning and all the kids were talking about their Easter baskets and how one family went to South Jersey for an Easter egg hunt (WTF????????????). Instant tears but we are getting through it and my wife is now thinking of going to CVS to buy her some candy. I'm just a bit gobsmacked because I am wondering if we are the only weirdos holed up in our house and everyone else is out there living like normal. 
Click to expand...
I got the stuff for my daughters a couple weeks ago with my regular Walmart curbside pick up order. We did regular Easter stuff in the house and the backyard is just my family. They seem to have a great time.

With everything going on right now the key to almost everything is to pre-plan much more thoughtfully than you usually have to.

 
moleculo said:
becasue a doctor in NY stated that they treat people for COVID who show symptoms but tested negative, @Mr Anonymous seems to be under the assumption that anyone displaying COVID symptom is added to the ***official*** tally.  Therefore,  all analysis is usless and we can open up non-essential stores if we all wear masks.
Click to expand...
These tests producing false negatives are all over the news. It's not one doctor in NY.   :rolleyes:

Let's all begin round 20 of false assertions. This is so fun and productive.

 
Dak Prescott hosts 30 person Pandemic Party

Despite seemingly the entire world taking turns at attacking Ruby Gobert for his reckless mocking of the coronavirus, not all athletes have learned to be careful during quarantine. According to TMZ, Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott hosted a 30-person birthday party for a close friend, and the event was also attended by his teammate, running back Ezekiel Elliott.
Click to expand...

 
Nugget said:
I vote for Romer's plan - we need to ramp up testing production ASAP.  22M tests a day until we get a vaccine.  Let's go.
Click to expand...
The country we wake up to when that day arrives will be a sight to behold. Let's hope they manufacture tests that work while we're at it.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
I think my favorite (ok, least favorite) notion in all this is that despite shutting down just 3 days apart, those 72 hours must be the reason why California has this well under control compared to New York despite California having twice the population. There's no way it could have been that the outbreak struck California well before it was on everyone's radar. Despite now having shut down for over 3 weeks, New York has more new cases in what, the last 3 days, than California has over the entirety of this spread? It doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
population density + mass transit + a little bad luck is enough for me

alternatively,

maybe California was exposed to it 6 months ago and it spread invisibly because the media wasn't there to spread disinformation about ICUs being over-run with flu-induced ARDS patients

 
Not sure if this is a precursor to US restrictions (likely not based on the unpredictability of Trump) but here in France just announced that quarantine will remain in place until at least May 11. 

Edit: Sounds like same strict quarantine with no loosening of rules until May 11. Will ramp up testing over the next month and then begin to open schools and allow non-essentials to go back to work at that time. No major gatherings or festivals/events until mid-July.

If following a similar line, as France is a couple of weeks ahead on the virus timeline, that would put US at end of May. Not predicting anything, just comparing timelines.

Edit 2: While being in quarantine sucks, especially with super tight restrictions here, I completely agree with this decision from France. It's better to be safe here, to continue to organize a plan, ensure there are enough tests performed and available for when the economy opens, and not rush by a few weeks. No one will stay angry if we do too much for just a short while too long but it will certainly be remembered and upset people if not enough was done and things were opened too quickly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blick said:
Sorry for butting in.  I don't disagree at all with your statement.  However, the world is at least three months into this situation and it seems like we haven't learned much of anything.  Its seems to still all be a big guess.

  • Drugs show promise, but we really don't know if they work.
  • Masks don't work until they do, or don't.  Maybe to protect you, maybe others.
  • Contact with contaminated surfaces spreads the virus, or maybe not.
  • It only seriously affects older or  immuno-suppressed, until it doesn't.
  • We need to slow the spread to avoid over-running hospitals.  We have.  Now what?
  • On, and on, and on.
We cannot stop this virus.  We're going to have to live with it in some fashion for some time.  Easing restrictions while monitoring hospital capacity seems to me to be the only way through this.
Click to expand...
The lack of a plan is the most discouraging aspect. I get that everybody is kind of feeling around in the dark, but there has to be a plan at some point, especially when goals are achieved. The early projections were huge numbers and now revised down. What does that mean going forward? Does flattening the curve mean anything positive or not? Does not overwhelming the hospitals mean anything? At some point, giving everyone a Tyvek suit and respirator has to be more viable and less expensive than waiting an unknown number of years for a vaccine to return to old "normal".  If this is our new normal for a while, I refuse to believe we can't figure out how to operate in it better than now. Like preparing a trip into space, you account for the environment and make plans to operate and live in it. A some point, there has to be actionable plans for different scenarios. The "waiting for a vaccine" is the worst plan so far IMO. 

 
Soulfly3 said:
wife's french news talks about this guy steadily, and the hydroxychloroquine remedy originated out of france as well (i believe, could be wrong), and been discussed for several weeks (before we got it over here)

basically, nothing. they dont know. it's one of several dozen potential "cures"
Click to expand...
I did not care for the ham-fisted introduction, but I really hope its successful

 
Mr. Ham said:
I understand the role of the Fed. Let me untangle my conflation. There is no compensating for loss of GDP on a mass scale through artificial means. Businesses must be up and running and generating revenue, and debt must be manageable. 

The levers of propping up the economy are an investment mechanism capitalizing enterprise through swings. When a combination of rates and monetary policy fail to do so, we are in trouble. When debt spirals beyond income needed to service it, we are in trouble. Individuals at scale fail, banks fail, and there is a tsunami effect that the Fed cannot remedy. 

Separately, our treasury will be negatively affected through mass tax losses at a time when servicing our national debt becomes crippling. If our deficit continues to climb, our income is down, and the interest on national debt is enormous, we will see a weakening of our credit rating and likely a period of very high inflation.

None of this is good for the health of the economy and ability for people to re-establish the small and medium businesses responsible for a great deal of spending, which is ultimately the gas in our economic engine. I disagree that Wall Street won’t react to erosion of small and medium sized business, other than businesses that cater directly to them. Lost income means a retraction is consumer confidence and spending.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything that you are saying.

But the stock market reflects the value of stocks, not the economy. 

The economy is tanking for all the reasons you explained above, but the vast majority of that pain is going to be felt by small businesses. Why? I could go into great detail as to why corporations are far better positioned to survive the pain than small businesses are, but I don't even think that should be necessary. It should be obvious why. I'm not saying corporations won't feel pain, I"m just saying they are better positioned to survive. And that's the goal of every business right now. Who is going to survive. And money is placing their bets where survival is going to occur... the stock market. 

When it's to the point where bad news doesn't cause stocks to go down that means all the bad news is already factored into the stock price. And when good news begins to arrive, that's when stock prices will begin to move again. And for those that survive there will be a lot of good news? Why? Because small business assets will be at fire sale prices. The survivors (again, the stock market companies), will become an even bigger part of our economy than they were before. "Too big to fail" now will become "even too bigger to fail" tomorrow. Small businesses will become an even lesser part of future, if that shrinkage wasn't already happening bad enough already.

Again, I'm not saying this a 'bull market" analysis. None of this makes me happy. The growth of corporatism is terrible in my opinion. While there are benefits we've experienced in the first 150 years of it, those benefits are shrinking every decade and the costs of it are being experienced more and more as time goes on. It's bad. Nothing good in my opinion. Again, I'm not here promoting it. I am simply observing it. 

The stock market probably hasn't hit it's bottom in this crisis yet IMHO, but it's possible that it has, and may even be likely that it has. Much of the bad news people expect probably to the end of this year is already factored in. It would probably take news of World War III to make it take another serious hit at this point. And again, those who survive are looking at HUGE gains when the pandemic is over given they've eliminated so much competition, and can buy assets at fire sale prices. It is not a bad bet at all right now to just buy stocks that you think will be positioned well for post-pandemic growth, and wait it out. Which is what a lot of people are doing right now. 

 
ericttspikes said:
The lack of a plan is the most discouraging aspect. I get that everybody is kind of feeling around in the dark, but there has to be a plan at some point, especially when goals are achieved. The early projections were huge numbers and now revised down. What does that mean going forward? Does flattening the curve mean anything positive or not? Does not overwhelming the hospitals mean anything? At some point, giving everyone a Tyvek suit and respirator has to be more viable and less expensive than waiting an unknown number of years for a vaccine to return to old "normal".  If this is our new normal for a while, I refuse to believe we can't figure out how to operate in it better than now. Like preparing a trip into space, you account for the environment and make plans to operate and live in it. A some point, there has to be actionable plans for different scenarios. The "waiting for a vaccine" is the worst plan so far IMO. 
Click to expand...
I think everyone can agree that a plan is needed.  But who is going to step up to the plate and create one?  You really have to feel for all the decision makers involved.  It's easy to get on a message board and claim that everyone is doing everything wrong...

But it's much more difficult to make a decision that could lead to a 2nd wave and many deaths.  I think people are scared out of their minds to open it back up, and for good reason.

 
ericttspikes said:
The lack of a plan is the most discouraging aspect. I get that everybody is kind of feeling around in the dark, but there has to be a plan at some point, especially when goals are achieved. The early projections were huge numbers and now revised down. What does that mean going forward? Does flattening the curve mean anything positive or not? Does not overwhelming the hospitals mean anything? At some point, giving everyone a Tyvek suit and respirator has to be more viable and less expensive than waiting an unknown number of years for a vaccine to return to old "normal".  If this is our new normal for a while, I refuse to believe we can't figure out how to operate in it better than now. Like preparing a trip into space, you account for the environment and make plans to operate and live in it. A some point, there has to be actionable plans for different scenarios. The "waiting for a vaccine" is the worst plan so far IMO. 
Click to expand...
My understanding is that we get past the peak, relax some restrictions, experience another (hopefully lower) peak, rinse and repeat.  At some point the peaks are within our health care system's ability to respond and we "renormalize."

 
Some Florida beaches may open soon. 

LINK

"One such scenario could allow residents to use the shoreline for walking and jogging, but not allow crowds to congregate in beach chairs or under canopies. Another could allow private condominium pools to open, but would prohibit people from gathering on pool decks."

 
ericttspikes said:
The lack of a plan is the most discouraging aspect. I get that everybody is kind of feeling around in the dark, but there has to be a plan at some point, especially when goals are achieved. The early projections were huge numbers and now revised down. What does that mean going forward? Does flattening the curve mean anything positive or not? Does not overwhelming the hospitals mean anything? At some point, giving everyone a Tyvek suit and respirator has to be more viable and less expensive than waiting an unknown number of years for a vaccine to return to old "normal".  If this is our new normal for a while, I refuse to believe we can't figure out how to operate in it better than now. Like preparing a trip into space, you account for the environment and make plans to operate and live in it. A some point, there has to be actionable plans for different scenarios. The "waiting for a vaccine" is the worst plan so far IMO. 
Click to expand...
"In my opinion" it seems like we're getting closer to a gradual lift of restrictions, especially anywhere social distancing and mask usage are easily accomplished.

There's no reason a small quilting store should remain closed if everyone is masked up and plays nice (distancing).  There's no reason I shouldn't be able to purchase a car if we're all wearing masks and gloves.

Bars....not so much.  Restaurants could move to a temporary 'reservations only' policy and limit the number of patrons (if it made business sense to do so).

It can be done, but there's new rules in the game that people are going to have to get comfortable with.  Would everyone in a casino be down with wearing a mask (besides card counters)?

If we make it a temporary rule that you have to wear a mask, what happens to those that can't afford it?  What do we legally consider a mask?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Coronavirus prevention
Replies
4
Views
333
JaxBill
JaxBill
nirad3
COVID-19 / CoronaVirus - terms/phrases
Replies
35
Views
633
Galileo
Galileo
Joe Bryant
Scared to ask but don't have anywhere else - Clay Travis Article?
2
Replies
71
Views
3K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top