When will you go back to normal?

[SaintsManiac]

If be ok with intermittent vs indefinite closures as it would give at least a little break.

Looks like it was Billioux who said the vaccine thing.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_r...185a957e-7e9b-11ea-933e-8b1e240f29a1.amp.html

 

[LSUmiss]

The problem is that is what the virus is going to do to us anyway whenever we open up. We will open up and one business will be infected, close for awhile reopen. Next week 2 businesses. The original business opens back up but 6 months later, more employees get it and they have to close again. So the virus will do this to us whenever we open back up. Pick your poison. Regardless, it will not be normal.

I’m willing to take my chances with that possibility.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If be ok with intermittent vs indefinite closures as it would give at least a little break.

I wouldn't be ok with intermittent anymore than I would indefinite. The consequences are around with both. It's not about giving people a break, it's about how those breaks will fracture or crush various aspects of our society.

**"You" in the below comments are in the frame of general "You"

You, as a person, may be ok with saying for the next 3 or 4 weeks I limit my outtings to more essential style places, but a business cannot reasonably function under such structure where they would be forced to close for a time, then reopen, furlough their workers or straight up let them go completely.

You, as a person, may be ok with homeschooling your child for several weeks, but our education system is not set up that way (remember all the issues places had about internet access much less parental aid in schooling).

You, as a person, may be ok with not being in close physical contact with your family for a time, but our social construct is not set up that way for us all to do to that up and down. We talk about depression rates and suicidal thoughts and how tough it is for some people vunerable to this or put in a position to do so, take a person who gets that contact and then is told we're taking the rug out from under your for a while..don't worry you'll get it back..then you do the same thing up and down.

To me neither is an acceptable in terms when thinking about how we formulate our processes future thinking (as in this year, next year and the years after that). But that's purely my opinion.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

It will be Coronavirus Whack-a-Mole. Pockets of infection will occur, be tamped down and another will appear. Hopefully not overwhelming health systems as this goes on. I think that was the point of flattening the curve.

 

[SaintsManiac]

I don’t think anyone wants everything shut down indefinitely. I have not seen or heard a single person say this.

 

[Colleen27]

There's been a lot of talks that we would possibly need to do these measures for a much longer time period, some thinking intermittent stay at home orders (which IMO would be disasterous to have a "you can stay open for 3 months, now close for 1 month, open again for say 6 months then closed for another month, etc you get the picture).

Most recently the other day researchers studying the numbers said: ""Intermittent distancing may be required into 2022 unless critical care capacity is increased substantially or a treatment or vaccine becomes available"(advised by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health) "The study acknowledged that prolonged distancing would most likely have profoundly negative economic, social and educational consequences."

My concern is officials, both national and local, will launch onto this viewpoint and run with it. Already that's been seen to be the case where flattening the curve changed in the main goal. Can you imagine the craziness if one day you're allowed to hug your relative and then for the next several weeks you're not for example, or your businesses can be open for several weeks and then closes again. We think the unemployment is a nightmare now I can't imagine how and up and down schedule would look like.

It will be difficult to manage and will require modifications to many of our safety net programs, both for individuals and for businesses, but the only real alternative is just keeping everything closed for the duration. At least opening and closing periodically offers some revenue (at least for businesses without perishable inventory) and some tax revenue for states that are going to be in total crisis for their next budget years, as well as some respite for those struggling with the mental and emotional strain of isolation. And it would give us a chance to see if those doomsday predictions we're all seeing have any actual validity, or if they're just a combination of theory and a general principle that there's no such thing as too much caution. Of course, that assumes our elected officials let data guide their decisions... which I don't think is a given at this point.

Another factor that is complicating this is the effectiveness of the response is who our leaders are listening to. It sounds good, in a press conference, to say that public health officials and only public health officials will shape policy... but in reality, that's not the ideal approach. The entire public health system is built around only one set of values: preventing disease. But this is a situation that has bigger implications than that, the virus isn't the only threat, and saying that people who have no experience with or care for non-medical metrics should be running the show is to say that none of those other factors are going to be considered. Which gets us where we're at right now, shooting not for flattening the curve but eliminating new cases and making big proclamations about closing our economy and our schools potentially for years while we wait for a vaccine. Because public health experts don't think about the fact that public school funding is going to be decimated next year with no money flowing into state governments, or about the fact that millions stand to lose their houses, or that business districts are likely to be ghost towns from one end of the country to the other by the time this is over. They measure success and failure strictly by number of infections, number of hospitalized, number of deaths, but this demands a more holistic approach.

 

[LSUmiss]

I wouldn't be ok with intermittent anymore than I would indefinite. The consequences are around with both. It's not about giving people a break, it's about how those breaks will fracture or crush various aspects of our society.

**"You" in the below comments are in the frame of general "You"

You, as a person, may be ok with saying for the next 3 or 4 weeks I limit my outtings to more essential style places, but a business cannot reasonably function under such structure where they would be forced to close for a time, then reopen, furlough their workers or straight up let them go completely.

You, as a person, may be ok with homeschooling your child for several weeks, but our education system is not set up that way (remember all the issues places had about internet access much less parental aid in schooling).

You, as a person, may be ok with not being in close physical contact with your family for a time, but our social construct is not set up that way for us all to do to that up and down. We talk about depression rates and suicidal thoughts and how tough it is for some people vunerable to this or put in a position to do so, take a person who gets that contact and then is told we're taking the rug out from under your for a while..don't worry you'll get it back..then you do the same thing up and down.

To me neither is an acceptable in terms when thinking about how we formulate our processes future thinking (as in this year, next year and the years after that). But that's purely my opinion.

No I agree intermittent is not ideal for businesses either. But with indefinite shut down we know they can’t operate. At least there is some hope that some might not have to shut down again once open even if some things have to close again.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It will be difficult to manage and will require modifications to many of our safety net programs, both for individuals and for businesses, but the only real alternative is just keeping everything closed for the duration. At least opening and closing periodically offers some revenue (at least for businesses without perishable inventory) and some tax revenue for states that are going to be in total crisis for their next budget years, as well as some respite for those struggling with the mental and emotional strain of isolation. And it would give us a chance to see if those doomsday predictions we're all seeing have any actual validity, or if they're just a combination of theory and a general principle that there's no such thing as too much caution. Of course, that assumes our elected officials let data guide their decisions... which I don't think is a given at this point.

I think if it was seen as open up in a while then have the possibility of a closure down the road it would be different. This idea of up and down closures with social distancing measures for several years is the aspect I'm speaking of. It's like the two extremes--either close for a long long time or do up and down for a long long time. Seems there's no middle ground or tolerance but you're right like you mention in the below comment about public health officials being the guiding point.

Another factor that is complicating this is the effectiveness of the response is who our leaders are listening to. It sounds good, in a press conference, to say that public health officials and only public health officials will shape policy... but in reality, that's not the ideal approach. The entire public health system is built around only one set of values: preventing disease. But this is a situation that has bigger implications than that, the virus isn't the only threat, and saying that people who have no experience with or care for non-medical metrics should be running the show is to say that none of those other factors are going to be considered. Which gets us where we're at right now, shooting not for flattening the curve but eliminating new cases and making big proclamations about closing our economy and our schools potentially for years while we wait for a vaccine. Because public health experts don't think about the fact that public school funding is going to be decimated next year with no money flowing into state governments, or about the fact that millions stand to lose their houses, or that business districts are likely to be ghost towns from one end of the country to the other by the time this is over. They measure success and failure strictly by number of infections, number of hospitalized, number of deaths, but this demands a more holistic approach.

It's already hit the Universities here in terms of education as they've advised they will lose millions in funds, it's already hit the local governments in millions and millions of loss sales tax revenues. In early April it was estimated my County will lose $18-$38million in lost revenue due to sales tax (as businesses are closed and less spending overall) and investment revenue (due to interest rate cuts) and that's just early projections from 2 weeks ago (of which much has already changed since then). The stay at home order for the state extended already to May 3rd and a possiblity of the County's stay at home extended to May 15th.

I agree with all of what you're saying really.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No I agree intermittent is not ideal for businesses either. But with indefinite shut down we know they can’t operate. At least there is some hope that some might not have to shut down again once open even if some things have to close again.

Oh I gotcha, Yes I agree hopefully if something needs to be done in the future, which it totally might, we will at least be able to decide more pointedly what parts to close and what to keep open. It's honestly understandable, at least in the beginning, how hard it must have been to formulate things on the fly but now we can know more information for the future.

 

[b2k1121]

He said we won’t go back to “normal” until there is a vaccine & even talked about school looking different in the fall. Not online but that we may stagger when kids go.

This is correct, the world won't be completely 'normal' until there is a vaccine or treatment. That doesn't mean everything is shut down until then.

 

[choirfarm]

This is correct, the world won't be completely 'normal' until there is a vaccine or treatment. That doesn't mean everything is shut down until then.

I completely agree! We just need a careful, phased rollout of opening business and institutions.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

We are in lockdown for ‘at least’ another three weeks. England has been offered guidelines....

 

[L&Lfan]

As soon as our President and my Governor say I can! Not a second sooner!

 

[Jennasis]

 

[SaintsManiac]

No I agree intermittent is not ideal for businesses either. But with indefinite shut down we know they can’t operate. At least there is some hope that some might not have to shut down again once open even if some things have to close again.

https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2467

 

[RamblingMad]

Looks like NY is shutdown through mid May now.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

View attachment 488381

 

[mi*vida*loca]

NJ schools are now closed until at least May 15. We were due to go back 4/20.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

We are in lockdown for ‘at least’ another three weeks. England has been offered guidelines....
View attachment 488375View attachment 488375

To bring some levity to the situation I am kinda interested at the fact that what is allowed is described as "Moving to a friend's home for several days after arguments at home"..that is a very specific statement to a specific scenario.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

To bring some levity to the situation I am kinda interested at the fact that what is allowed is described as "Moving to a friend's home for several days after arguments at home"..that is a very specific statement to a specific scenario.

I agree.