Covid-19 #21 - The Darkness Before the Dawn

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How do we define a lot, because there are also a lot of people who think this is a hoax and/or refuse to alter their behaviors. Just look at Chat's office. And the shitty thing is it only takes a few people to screw over a lot of people. 

A national lockdown should have happened and is probably the only way to stem what's going on right now. It will still be a while until enough people have been vaccinated, and who knows how bad things will be by then.

Agree that it only takes a few. The reality is that a national lockdown cannot happen, even more so for the period of time necessary to contain this. So, sadly, a lot of people will die needlessly because we are basically beyond hope on containment. I realize that this is fatalistic but I think it is demonstrably true. 

[The Anti-Targ]

You can't have a mandatory lockdown, but you could do things to make it easier for people to voluntarily isolate: Pass a law that allows people not to go into work if they feel unsafe without the risk of being fired, and set a decent standard for what qualifies as a COVID-safe workplace; pay people 80% of their normal income to stay at home if they can't work for their employer at home; make a business liable to prosecution, and damages, if a person becomes infected in that place of business. Apply a $100 COVID-tax per person to all commercial activities that cause people to breach 6ft social distancing.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

38 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You can't have a mandatory lockdown, but you could do things to make it easier for people to voluntarily isolate: Pass a law that allows people not to go into work if they feel unsafe without the risk of being fired, and set a decent standard for what qualifies as a COVID-safe workplace; pay people 80% of their normal income to stay at home if they can't work for their employer at home; make a business liable to prosecution, and damages, if a person becomes infected in that place of business. Apply a $100 COVID-tax per person to all commercial activities that cause people to breach 6ft social distancing.

I think the first two are more possible, but there will in real life be exceptions for "essential workers" that will basically turn the first suggestion into a cipher.  In the United States, as righteous as it is, the 80% of salary stay at home pay is not possible politically even if the Georgia races both go blue.  I personally strongly oppose making businesses liable if someone becomes infected in that place of business (particularly if you are suggesting a strict liability standard - this would functionally close the economy, even pharmacies and groceries, in their entirety).   I have LOTS of reasons for this, and happy to discuss in a separate response (I also oppose a liability shield btw).  But also think there is zero chance that either a liability shield or an explicit liability standard actually goes through, even if Georgia goes blue (oh, it won't).  My views on taxes to influence public behavior are open and notorious on this board, but I think that the last is neither good tax policy nor good social policy (particularly because there is no magic to six feet).

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Agree that it only takes a few. The reality is that a national lockdown cannot happen, even more so for the period of time necessary to contain this. So, sadly, a lot of people will die needlessly because we are basically beyond hope on containment. I realize that this is fatalistic but I think it is demonstrably true. 

I don’t think it’s fatalistic. It’s realistic, and people have to accept what’s actually happening if we ever hope to contain the spread of the virus. Otherwise it will snowball. We got close to 4,000 deaths yesterday and it’s only going to get worst after Christmas and New Year’s.

 

I’m not totally convinced though that a national lockdown can’t happen. You’d just have to have a prep period beforehand.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think it’s fatalistic. It’s realistic, and people have to accept what’s actually happening if we ever hope to contain the spread of the virus. Otherwise it will snowball. We got close to 4,000 deaths yesterday and it’s only going to get worst after Christmas and New Year’s.

 

I’m not totally convinced though that a national lockdown can’t happen. You’d just have to have a prep period beforehand.

Who knew you'd be the optimist between us.  I don't think there is the political will for a national lockdown.  I also think the federal authority to impose it is tenuous (I've missed several months on the board - I'm confident that there is a board position on this that I am out of step with).  I think several states would immediately take any attempt to the Supreme Court AND WOULD WIN, and win quickly, and possibly win 9-0, but certainly win 6-3.

[Mudguard]

Theoretically, I think a nationwide lockdown is possible, if the federal government and states all get on the same page, but practically, it's obviously not happening.   Idiots are in charge all over the place.  Only the vaccine can save us.  Death toll is going to exceed 500,000 in the US. 

Trump and many Republicans are going to blame Biden and the Democrats for every single death that that happens after he takes office, claiming he botched the vaccine rollout and other nonsense.  Probably will misleadingly claim that as many people died of COVID-19 in Biden's first 3 months or so than Trump's entire presidency.  What's sad is that at least 40% of the county will believe this and blame Biden and the Democrats.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

21 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Theoretically, I think a nationwide lockdown is possible, if the federal government and states all get on the same page, but practically, it's obviously not happening.   Idiots are in charge all over the place.  Only the vaccine can save us.  Death toll is going to exceed 500,000 in the US. 

Trump and many Republicans are going to blame Biden and the Democrats for every single death that that happens after he takes office, claiming he botched the vaccine rollout and other nonsense.  Probably will misleadingly claim that as many people died of COVID-19 in Biden's first 3 months or so than Trump's entire presidency.  What's sad is that at least 40% of the county will believe this and blame Biden and the Democrats.

Idiots are in charge all over the place.  And not even the vaccine can SAVE us, but it will make our lives better.  I'm thinking we're looking at a cool million.  Which is really hard to fathom, but here we are.  

And I 100% agree with your second paragraph.  

[The Anti-Targ]

31 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think the first two are more possible, but there will in real life be exceptions for "essential workers" that will basically turn the first suggestion into a cipher.  In the United States, as righteous as it is, the 80% of salary stay at home pay is not possible politically even if the Georgia races both go blue.  I personally strongly oppose making businesses liable if someone becomes infected in that place of business (particularly if you are suggesting a strict liability standard - this would functionally close the economy, even pharmacies and groceries, in their entirety).   I have LOTS of reasons for this, and happy to discuss in a separate response (I also oppose a liability shield btw).  But also think there is zero chance that either a liability shield or an explicit liability standard actually goes through, even if Georgia goes blue (oh, it won't).  My views on taxes to influence public behavior are open and notorious on this board, but I think that the last is neither good tax policy nor good social policy (particularly because there is no magic to six feet).

That doesn't tell me anything, since I have never read you views, so I don't know if you are notoriously in favour or notoriously opposed.

6-feet doesn't have to be magic, it does reduce risk, and it only needs to be enough so as to make high risk behavior impractical, either due to expense or logistics. If you can't mandate behavior you have to incentivise it either by reward or by cost. Do nothing except plead to people's better natures is always an option, but that isn't going well, basically anywhere.

 

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Who knew you'd be the optimist between us.  I don't think there is the political will for a national lockdown.  I also think the federal authority to impose it is tenuous (I've missed several months on the board - I'm confident that there is a board position on this that I am out of step with).  I think several states would immediately take any attempt to the Supreme Court AND WOULD WIN, and win quickly, and possibly win 9-0, but certainly win 6-3.

Oh I think we’re both overall pretty pessimistic about the situation, and I agree the will to do a true lockdown doesn’t exist, but why do you think the courts would kill it? I’m envisioning activating emergency powers and declaring martial law.

 

[Prince of the North]

Marshall Law?  Is that Judge Dredd's boo? 

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Tywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Marshall Law?  Is that Judge Dredd's boo? 

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Lol, I had the Marshall Plan on my mind. I've really got to figure out why my grammar checker barely works.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That doesn't tell me anything, since I have never read you views, so I don't know if you are notoriously in favour or notoriously opposed.

6-feet doesn't have to be magic, it does reduce risk, and it only needs to be enough so as to make high risk behavior impractical, either due to expense or logistics. If you can't mandate behavior you have to incentivise it either by reward or by cost. Do nothing except plead to people's better natures is always an option, but that isn't going well, basically anywhere.

 

Notoriously opposed.  Short answer is that using tax law to try to directly further social policy through "market" means is a failed dream of neo-liberalism.  

Longer and slightly more thoughtful answer is that in my view, taxes should raise revenue while being as behavior-neutral as possible (it is why progressive rates are important because it takes into account that for the wealthy marginal dollars are less valuable and thus less likely to change behavior). If you don't want people to be within 6 feet of each other, say that they can't be within six feet of each other.  Don't put an arbitrary fine on the behavior.  What you are doing in that case is functionally putting liquidated damages on an activity that you want to discourage.  All this will do is put a burden on the least likely to be able to afford it.  Those wealthy enough (to whom the marginal dollars are not meaningful) will simply avoid the rule, and you have taken all the teeth out of it because you have put a relatively low penalty on non-compliance.

The particular "tax" (it's really a fine) you are talking about is particular fraught and would be particularly bad policy for a number of reasons:

• Why only "commercial activity"?  Non-commercial activity, including volunteerism, religious observance, and basic socialization, and even education (though less so, apparently) also drive infection rates.  Thus, the rule is arbitrary and that will lead to non-compliance.  A straight prohibition on public activities of all kinds is a bright line rule that is easy to enforce and is understandable.
• What is "commercial activity"?  Does this include grocery stores?  Pharmacies? Factories producing the glass vials for vaccine?  Nursing homes?  Restaurants?  I'm sure you can come up with a list of exceptions, but the longer the list of exceptions, again, the less likely it looks like a rule that should be followed and rather than a "suggestion" (with potentially a monetary penalty).  I posit (as someone who struggles with the mind-numbing rules around what constitutes an "active trade or business" on the regular) that this will not be an easy thing to define, and "I know it when I see it" doesn't cut mustard for a rule of general application.
• What are the externalities of the rule?  Will anyone be harmed by the tax/fine?  Will people lose jobs?  Will this unduly burden the poor?  People of color?
• How will the tax/fine be enforced?  Who will collect?  Will it be collected/enforced fairly across all activities and all groups?  I suspect again, that a rule like this would be a "voluntary" tax like the estate tax.  

Anyhow, hope that gives you an idea of why I think something like this would be both ineffective and counterproductive.

[BigFatCoward]

5 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, so many health care workers declined the vaccine that my cousin, who is a physical therapist who works with recovered / long haul patients, was able to get one, TODAY.

That is how many “front line medical workers” are opting out...

I would not wish to be treated by someone who was that dumb. What are the reasons that you are aware of? 

[Raja]

Meanwhile in the UK, we're all trying to get the vaccine asap

edit: did a quick google search and didn't come across articles of hcws from Minnesota declining the vaccine. Happy to be provided a link though!

[ljkeane]

I spoke to someone I know who's had the vaccine yesterday (he works in a hospital). That's a first for me, although I suppose some other people I know who work in hospitals might have had it too, hopefully that starts to pick up pretty quickly.

[Tywin et al.]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I would not wish to be treated by someone who was that dumb. What are the reasons that you are aware of? 

Um, for starters a lot of the hospitals here are run by idiots? I've seen exactly zero accountability at the facility I work at. Just yesterday I walked by an office in which two leaders were cheek to cheek looking over a third persons shoulder because they couldn't understand what he was trying to explain to them on his computer. I literally could of thrown a large hula hoop over the three of them. One wasn't wearing a mask.

Would you trust these people?

[Inkdaub]

I read something about that.  Can't find the first article but I did find two others semi-related.

This one is about fears of side effects, allergic reactions and the speed the vaccine was developed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-17/fears-prompt-some-medical-workers-to-balk-at-getting-the-vaccine

Here is a statement discussing refusal until further verification of the vaccine.

https://www.aft.org/press-release/healthcare-workers-refuse-receive-or-administer-covid-19-vaccine-without

Seems to be mostly outliers, though.

[Fragile Bird]

I did see a report out of a New Jersey hospital on their vaccination preps, on CNN, where quite a few workers said they did not want the vaccine yet. I posted it here in the thread, I’ll go back and find the percentage. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

59 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

It’s not a news article, it’s personal anecdote. 

My cousin is on a priority list as a physical therapist, a type of health care worker. But she wasn’t expecting to be asked if she wanted her jab for another couple months, and the reason she was given as to why it was available now is as I stated.

Yeah, have heard similar things:  my stepmom is an ICU nurse in CT, her hospit had four workers fail to show for their covid appointments.  She's not on a covid unit right now so wasn't supposed to be in the first round of vaccinations, but when the others didn't show up she was able to get one so it wouldn't be wasted.  This was Wednesday.

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, Raja said:

Meanwhile in the UK, we're all trying to get the vaccine asap

edit: did a quick google search and didn't come across articles of hcws from Minnesota declining the vaccine. Happy to be provided a link though!

Actually, just search health workers who don’t want the vaccine. There’s an NPR story out of a Houston hospital where the head says almost half the nurses don’t want the vaccine. Almost all of it is political, they don’t trust Trump and the speed with which the vaccine was approved. And for others it’s because they are black and know the history of black people being used as guinea pigs.