We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever.
14:17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.
14:18 "I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you.
14:19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live.
14:20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
14:21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them."
There really are two Americas here: Those still getting a paycheck from government, corporations or universities, and those who are unemployed, or seeing their small businesses suffer due to shutdowns. And the America still getting paid is, so far, not showing a whole lot of sympathy for the America that isn’t.
He tactfully does not include the comfortably retired among the paycheck population. Is this an optimist-pessimist thing, or a rich and poor thing? Or is it nothing?
In my neck of the woods, traffic is up, bars are re-opening as speakeasies, Home Depot is full of customers. In other words, people are fed up. Many states are "opening up," whatever that means, but people are doing it regardless. Some of it is necessity, some of it is a refusal to live in fear, and some of it is people realizing that much of this is pointless.
From my end, I am back in the office today, fishing this weekend, and getting together with friends on Sat. night. No masks - enough of that except for the supermarket which still requires them. Time's up for the extreme stuff.
What are our readers doing this weekend? Quarantining, Soft Quarantining, or doing your best to get back to normal work, recreational, and social life?
The conventionally posed choice between fighting the disease and salvaging our economy is entirely wrong. The choice is not disease vs. economy. The disease is here, and there is nothing governments can do to stop it. (They can, of course, close down access to nursing homes, a mixed blessing if you are elderly.) The real choice is between the disease with a flourishing economy, and the disease with a devastated economy. The disease is a constant.
One of my favorite people to listen to, or read, is Mike Rowe. Lots of good, common sense. I've not always agreed with him, but I'm sure plenty of people don't agree with me all the time. It's all fine, as long as we understand each other's point of view. I completely understand Mike's, and respect it even when I disagree.
Mike's podcast recently told the story of the Staplehurst Train Disaster, in which Charles Dickens played a prominent (and for a long time largely invisible) role. He spun from that to a discussion on safety, and covered his conceptualization of "Safety Third" as a means of managing risk.
On my earlier post today, someone commented safety should always be most important. Here, Mike explains why that's simply not true. There are always other considerations. Read the article or listen to the podcast. Both are excellent.
Experts predict 70-90,000 sucides in the US due to economic disasters, crushed dreams. Hope that is not true, but I no longer believe anything, especially from experts. Wrong about everything thus far.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock provides a good review of the debate between what Sweden has done vs the rest of the world.
There are many reasons, all legitimately different from cultural and societal considerations, why Sweden would be successful with their approach. But that doesn't mean every culture is unable to utilize variations on it to make it work for them. He swung, and missed, on that point.
The primary discussion point is "what is a life worth?"
Whether you like it or not, and I'm just stating a fact, the idea of "one life saved is worth it" simply makes no sense whatsoever. Cuomo is very, very wrong about that...anyone who thinks that way falls short understanding of life.
There is a cost, or a value, to every life. It will vary based on relationships, love, and commonality. However, productivity of each life must also be considered. Losing a farmer and his family, so a farm that feeds 10,000 people goes abandoned, is far more damaging to society than losing the same number of people in a nursing home. Losing 20 doctors treating the virus is more damaging than losing 20 people who build apps. These are just simple facts of life. It's hard to swallow, and it's not something we want to consider, but it is very true.
Nobody wants to see anyone die, and as a country we've directed resources to saving as many as we can through pharma and academic research. In addition, we've implemented social distancing, masks, and a variety of other methods to reduce or limit spread.
In the meantime, we've learned it's not as contagious or deadly as we thought. That doesn't mean it couldn't mutate and become both. But it has not been as damaging as we were originally told, and we have developed more treatments for the symptoms - which, at this point, is the best we can do.
All of this adds up to one thing. Reopening is the only option. Nobody knows enough about the virus to categorically state when we will, or how we will, be 'safe'. But 'safety' is no longer the primary issue we should be considering. Whether we like it or not, we are far past that point. Now we're talking about simple long-term survival.
I like Mish's review. What he failed to do was connect the dots. Lack of knowledge about the virus and how it operates doesn't make us less 'safe'. But preventing us from earning a living, being productive, and living our lives as we see fit, does make us less safe. And less healthy.
How much of a lemming was President Trump? Or the state governors? All of them were, to one degree or another. Thus, we were plunged into the grandest of experiments in authoritarian paternalism, whereby we plebeians — i.e., those without government jobs — are deemed incompetent to judge if it's safe to take a dip in the ocean or a walk in the woods. We can, though, crowd into a Walmart or the local supermarket.
We've been told that we need to "flatten the curve" before we can reopen the country. We were told that we don't want to overwhelm our country's healthcare system.
But I think we've done this. In fact, many hospitals that have geared up for a covid-19 rush are nearly empty and are laying off staff.
But now, suddenly, it's different. Now we're being told that we can't reopen the country until we get widespread testing. And when you ask them how much is widespread, the response is always more than we have now.
Soon it will be we can't reopen the country until everybody gets tested.
Coming up:
We can't reopen the country until there are no new cases
We can't reopen the country until we have an infallible vaccine
We can't reopen the country until Luke Skywalker and his plucky band of rebels destroy the Death Star
We can't reopen the country until Marshall Dillon marries Miss Kitty
We can't reopen the country until Jerry Lewis releases his 'The Day the Clown Cried' movie to the public.
We can't reopen the country until the return of Halley's Comet.
We can't reopen the country until Arthur returns as the rightful king of England
But ultimately it all boils down to: We can't reopen the country until Joe Biden becomes President.
I agree. Scott: "Do you want the f-ing government to decide when you live or die?" Scott is aware the experts are flying in the dark.
Scott's main blind spot is that he has become a wealthy guy with no need to ever work, and seems to assume that everybody has the money to live comfortably for a year or two without income. That's wrong. Good disctinctions between the childrens' table and the adult table.
If you have a Quest Direct center anywhere nearby, all you need to do is to schedule a 10-min appointment online to get a SARS-COVID19 antibody test. Bring a Dr's note and credit card.
Results in 2 or 3 days. Obviously you hope to test positive, because that is the Get Out of Jail Free card. That sinus cold you had in February might have been The Bug.
I am used to working from home. I have done it once a week for close to 6 years, sometimes twice a week, but rarely that often. I was much more productive working from home that often. It helps reset your mind, helps keep you out of office politics, is relaxing and allows you to concentrate.
That said, I've now been working from home for 2 months straight. I'm comfortable doing it, but I will admit the productivity question is an odd one, and I would like to know if others think they are more productive, about the same, or less so.
Here is how I view the situation. I'm about as productive as I was at the office, but I take more time doing the work because I have to. So, by that standard, I'm LESS productive. I find myself working earlier and later, with more breaks than I would have at the office. Most of my daily 'ad-hoc' work shows up at 5pm, as people realize things need to get finished or as the West Coast sends in requests prior to end of day. I don't like to leave my work undone for the day, I prefer an empty email when I shut down. However, this situation is such that I've found myself responding to emails at 11pm, even midnight.
Working from home reduces access to co-workers who may have answers or assist (it takes longer for them to respond), it reduces access to information (the rapidity at which we shifted limited how many files I was able to move to a shared drive), it reduces brainstorming opportunities, it reduces camaraderie (sorry, Zoom meetings 'for fun' are not fun in any way, shape or form).
So I'm curious - how has the lockdown affected those of you who are working from home? More, less or the same in terms of productivity?
Likely not in the long run. "The lockdown has had enormous deleterious medical effects on people," and all it does is to delay the inevitable spread. Dr. B predicts 75,000 suicides due to despair for their futures due to business conditions. Many of our comfortable readers easily forget how many people get paid for work done, and get no routine paychecks in the mail. People with dreams crushed who do not want a government check.
My personal approach to virus phobia was doubles tennis last weekend in the sun and breezes, then cocktail hour on the porch. Call it defiance if you wish, but life is short and we have to live it while we can. My medical advice is to stay young, fit and trim, workout daily, and hope you get the mild or insignificant case as most people do, and get on with life as best you can.
There is no safe option because you cannot get rid of a virus. From Dr. Bhattacharya at Stanford Medical School:
How to Restore a Million Acres of Strip-Mined Land? Bring in the Elk.
