If ya’ll remember the mini-drama over traveling to a family funeral in Florida, you’ll be (completely not) surprised to learn that someone who attended tested positive. Wife’s two brothers went, and returned back to NY and PA to their families. One brother lives with her parents.
I wonder if they’ll think I’m a wizard for guaranteeing that someone there would have it. JK it’s just the flu.
And of course all the dumb fucks pozzing each other in the YOLO OFB states are going to travel and reignite new clusters in the places that managed to get things under control.
It’s almost like, stick with me here, this entire pandemic response was supposed to be coordinated at the national level. The entire justification for having a federal government is that some problems are too big for state governments and a global pandemic is basically a poster child for it.
Maybe ‘the Hunger Games’ wasn’t the right model in a system with wide open borders.
Meh - you’re being paranoid. I’m sure that the occasional YOLOer will travel somewhere. But what you’re imagining would require some kind of large-scale coordination where many of the maximum YOLO individuals just decided to travel out of state at the same time. What would cause that? Are large groups of YOLOers just going to temporarily move to new states, establish residency in high-density housing, and then spend sustained amounts of time indoors with other individuals? Seems implausible.
On an entirely unrelated note, this was a fun read:
It also requires doing things that aren’t instantly profitable with at most a 1 year ROI horizon. Not possible in our glorious neoliberal world.
Short term thinking is the Boomer generation’s fatal flaw. I’m convinced that you can track almost every bad decision they make back to their time horizon maxing out at 3-12 months.
Interestingly it’s not attributable to capitalism, because it’s demonstrably trash for capital accumulation. It’s just the culture of the Boomers to only care about the next 3-12 months.
Note: For the cities we are jumping two days, not one, because I am now using the more up to date World o Meters data on those, then the next day I’ll double check to make sure it was accurate.
Orlando is down to 2.5 to 5 days, but my guess is that they did manage to reduce the usage of beds for non-covid, because their available beds went up but obviously my estimates on the number of cases needing hospitalization there keep going up, too. My estimate for Orlando does not including surging capacity, since it’s based on their daily updated capacity. If they surge it by 50%, it buys them another 7-10 days. That seems to be the best case scenario. Their R0 continues to be terrifying at 4.47 on the 14-day measure, 2.7 on the 7-day. Those are both going up, I will continue to believe it’s in between the two, but yikes either way.
Houston gets a 5% bump in hospital beds, but only a 2.5% bump in unused beds, and their available ICU’s and vents go down. The R0 there is now 1.9, which is not good obviously. They were 1.34 a little while ago. At these numbers they will run out of rooms in 6 days. If we give them a bump from ~13,400 total beds to 20,000, and from 2,070 available beds to 12,000 (so we’re giving them the big surge capacity plus reduced non-covid), they make it 16.7 days.
So as you can see, even massive surges at this point are just going to be outmatched by the exponential growth.
State by state… Arizona still in bad shape, they lost like 3/4 of a day off the front end. Given the way this model is working, I’m starting to think the front end is basically when we’re going to see cities and locales break down and the back end is when the whole state would topple. Basically, I’m surmising that the states will be able to surge avail to covid capacity by 50% or more, between surging total capacity and banning elective procedures.
That said, it’s somewhat difficult to figure out because it’s not like Ducey is going to come out one morning and be like, “We are completely, utterly, totally fucked due to my complete, utter, total incompetence.”
There’s not going to be a moment where they are open about being at 100% capacity. They’ll just magically stay at 99% and more and more people will get turned away for “not being sick enough for the hospital.” Then they’ll go home and a lot of them will die.
I base that on what happened in NYC.
Texas is accelerating, they’re catching up to Florida in that regard.
Bad shift for Montana. Oregon decreases the R0 and takes a step back in the right direction. South Carolina gets a nice shift in R0 and buys some time… but their hospital capacity website still not looking good.
Texas rolling back a tiny amount of their re-opening. NO MORE RAFTING!
LMFAO. It’s not the system… it’s astrology !!!1!
Lol… Dude needs to check in with UP Yours Strategies.
I remember discussions here about how if we weren’t being “crazy” in our precautions, we weren’t doing enough. As usual, we were right… If anything, the crazy part was that we weren’t doing enough to avoid virus risk.
Just a small ember!
I sense a great RUSTLING in the Force
University of Georgia has decided that it will have in-person classes until Thanksgiving break and then do remote after that. Seems weird.
It’s a dark mirror of the summer-will-stop-the-outbreak theory…
This is pretty common. It’s what my school is doing, too.
It’s actually not terrible logic. The amount of traveling that happens over Thanksgiving break introduces a huge amount of transmission risk. So if you move online for the last week or two (for us it’s only a week, plus final exams), you prevent a great deal of risk with a minimal loss of teaching effectiveness.
[spoiler: we’re going to be fully online by October, regardless of the best laid plans, because USA#1 seems destined for continued exponential growth]
edit: Oh, I’m @Nononocantsleep, I’m so smart, my pony is so fast. Whatever.
I going to go ahead and say that at least part of the reason colleges are taking this approach is related to money/income.
Scorching hot take.
Meh, that was dickish. Sorry.
I think the problem here is similar to something Warren Buffett has said: You can only be as good as your dumbest competitor. If schools could coordinate (this would potentially be illegal behavior) their decision and commit to going online only, then all schools could focus on offering the best online material possible, and none would have any more or less competitive advantage than they already had. But when one school (presumably out of financial stress) decides to YOLO it up and go in person, other schools face much greater pressure to follow suit.
Like, suppose you’re in the airline industry and you know for a fact that you can’t operate at less than $200 average revenue per ticket. If everyone else in the industry behaves rationally, life is fine. But if a single airline is somehow willing/able to price at $5/ticket, you face the choice to either lower your prices in response or to not sell tickets at all, both of which are suicidal. (See also retailers facing Amazon.com for the many years that they were able to operate at a loss without any adverse capital market effects.)
Bahaha. Seems like we have at least a handful of professors here. I agree re: your October hypothesis, if not earlier. I have to imagine that a ton of schools are going to cancel in-person classes after six more weeks of exponential growth, and that puts additional pressure on the remaining holdouts to cut liability.
Great opportunity to pozz your whole family for the holidays!
