dynato

To be fair, you never trusted the numbers to begin with, despite input from medical professionals in this forum and validation from our president.

Thanks for the quick save! I updated my post

The average major city shut down when their county reached just 25 REPORTED cases. If we followed the same lead, this would leave 95% of counties in ND open for business still. Grand forks county is still only at 21 cases. I'd implement limited social distancing measures, perhaps facemasks, for the time being. If exponential growth of the virus happens because our community cannot adhere to social distancing and facemasks, then I would implement more strict measures. What Burgum has shown, is that he would rather take the hit for shutting down the economy vs take the hit for "unnecessary" deaths.

"As of 2016, upper-income families had 7.4 times as much wealth as middle-income families and 75 times as much wealth as lower-income families." https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

All I can say is that it is unrealistic for food processing plants. 50% production cuts means expired food and cutting the workforce. The supply chain likely gets hurt. Extra cleaning means new wages they need to reallocate that are not being offset by production. The likely scenario was a shutdown either way.

It is not a leap, stop being so entitled. If someone is making 175k a year, they are likely to have a significantly higher wealth than someone who is making 48k a year. Over time, they are more likely to have exponentially higher wealth than someone who makes 48k a year. To argue otherwise would mean they spend their earned money very, very poorly.

Thank you for explaining it clearly

The points you suggested are unrealistic for a plant to implement and still continue to operate and fulfill the needs of the american people. Also consider that our government can barely supply the necessary PPE to our healthcare system. Additionally, the american population is stubborn and wants to go to work, regardless of if they are sick with a flu like virus.

Typically the bottom line of today's main st impacts wall street, right? The bottom line is 22M unemployed without a great plan for opening up and getting them back to work. My worry looking forward is the same 22M and counting jobs not returning when the economy is opened back up.

Do you need help defining the difference between the two and the impact income typically has on the ability to accumulate wealth? Especially in relation to income that is 360% larger than the average grand forks household? This is the harsh reality that I do not understand.

Median household income in grand forks is $48,000/year. Median household income for the entire USA is $61,000/year. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html Yeah, I would place 175K a year as wealthy. If you are living paycheck to paycheck off that kind of money it is kind of pathetic.

The DOW having its best week in decades despite 16M unemployment last week should have been telling. 22M out of work and the market is still up today. This is what I would be mad about if I were you. Big business not flinching and showing it has no need for the 22M unemployed.

As Keikla mentioned in a post prior, there has been no major adjustments to the way deaths have been documented by medical professionals. Suspicion of a flu death has always lead to a cause of death being labeled as the flu, without there being a test. The CDC has had guidelines for decades about how to count deaths. This is from the handbook of death registration provided by the CDC in 2003. (Page 23) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf Can you imagine that the coronavirus is so bad that the CDC had to alter its virus reporting procedures specifically to account for all extra deaths being seen? Do you have any idea why the CDC needed to give states and medical professionals updated guidance on COVID? https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/ It is because an 800% increase of people dying at home in NYC is probable cause for documenting COVID more so than standard flu. It is also because the guidance on including nursing homes deaths was poor. Nursing homes and long term care facilities are getting wiped out. Some states included this data, some didn't. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html Each of these things were not widely experienced with H1N1 like they are for coronavirus.

Lobby your governors. They obviously think COVID is a larger threat to our way of life than your inability to get a haircut. You need to be able to reasonably tell them why they are wrong and how they fix it for them to make a change that benefits you.

According to the CDC, 90% of adults hospitalized for COVID had an underlying health condition. This is data for the entirety of march. I couldn't find info on deaths broken down into healthy vs underlying health conditions. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/04/15/coronavirus-risk-90-patients-had-underlying-conditions/2962721001/ As for perspective, about half of all american adults have at least one underlying health condition. https://nationalhealthcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AboutChronicDisease.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5876976/

This is New York City specific data, not New York state as a whole. I could not find information on prior mortality rates after 2016, or broken down for specifically the 45 and under age bracket. However, it still allowed for the closest 1 to 1 comparison on mortality rates for the entire age grouping of 65 and under.

This was suggested a while ago, but it was laughed at as being unrealistic to quarantine 1/3 of the USA population until an unknown date. Softball answer is that using data from January and February deflates your numbers significantly considering there was only single digit cases. Based on the past month of full data, Covid is the #1 killer of residents in NYC by about 25%. Total Deaths under 65 occur at a rate of 190 per 100,000 in 2016. Deaths from COVID under 65 occur at a rate of 72 per 100,000 in 2020. #2 is Malignant Neoplasms at 57.5 #3 is heart disease at 40.0 Page 17 is the reference. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2016sum.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#download This does not include hospitalization rates, which are another monster for covid.

The larger threat is obviously not the younger generation dying. The threat is the younger age brackets transmitting the virus to the vulnerable population that don't have great odds of survival. Below are the current odds in NYC, from the starting point of identifying a positive case, as of April 14th 2020: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#download That is 1 in 25 for ages 45-64.1 in 9 for ages 65-74, and 1 in 4 for ages 75+. Not very good odds right now.

$100B is quoted as being equal to roughly one month of total U.S. hospital operating revenue, which is how the administration chose the number. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200409.207680/full/

As part of the first trillion dollar stimulus, $100B has at least been set aside for these hospital systems and their loss of revenue. One concern is that these funds are considered first come first serve, not necessarily appropriated. I am curious to know if a similar fund will be set up for doctors and nurses that have been impacted beyond their typical call of duty. Insane hours, elevated risk, insufficient supplies, displaced from their living situation or isolation themselves from family.

Worth noting, nationwide, IHME projected total deaths increased by 13% from 60k to 68k. Most of the increases are in states with major cities/urban areas that are currently being impacted.

This is why I said the assumptions for the model must be clearly stated. I listed the two main models and their main assumptions yesterday. The models must also be updated frequently as new information/stats are documented to remain even close to valid. The IHME model, is the national model, is the one referenced above. This model, is the one projecting 60k national deaths, that a lot of you have referenced. As you can see, they assume that there will be no new COVID deaths nation wide after June 1st. To me, this is too bold of an assumption to use in terms of final death count.

Sure the confidence interval is huge, much like any model. Looks like after May 1st, there are zero new fatalities in New York and Corona is wiped off the face of the earth. Do you find this at all realistic?

To understand the models, you need to take into consideration their assumptions used to make them, and their confidence intervals. His assumption, extending current social measures and sheltering being extended for four years, is a tough one to agree with. The IHME model assumes a swift drop off in death toll, rather than a slow decline from the peak. They also assume that 40/50 states will have single digit daily deaths after mid May. The U of M model, used by Walz, assumes a plateau at the peak, while additional deaths slowly tailor off to a lower plateau.

It is worth noting that the governor's model, is actually a team of PhD. infectious diseases professors from the U of MN twin cities. One member of that team is Michael Osterholm. Models become invalid after two days without continuous updates of the developing situation. Take the IHME model, which is where the 60k deaths is being pulled from. They estimate that peak NY deaths will happen on April 15th, and that they will have half the deaths of April 15th, just two days afterwards on April 17th. Their model assumes a sharp decrease in daily deaths after the peak has been reached. Their model assumes that there is not going to be a plateau at the peak and a slow trail-off reduction in deaths.