The Coronavirus

[pbrower2a]

The curve seems to be going from a fast-rising one to a less-slowly rising one on a logarithmic scale in America:

 

if much too late for about 50,000 people who have already died. 

How big is 50,000 people? That's roughly the population of Elkhart, Indiana, the small city about halfway between the Illinois and Indiana state lines on the Indiana Toll Road. Or Battle Creek, Michigan. a/k/a "Cereal City" on heavily-traveled Interstate 94 between Detroit and Chicago. That is 13,000 more people than Monterey, California, the coastal city of California that is essentially the southernmost city in northern California along the coast. It is still short of American combat losses in the Korean and Vietnam wars -- we are getting there. You can possibly pick cities that la4rgely stand alone that really are destinations or are stand-alone cities not having lots of suburbs or suburbs themselves.   

Speaking of the Korean War and the Vietnam War -- at least the Korean War allowed a surviving South Korea to develop as an efficient, prosperous, and democratic society worthy in many ways for America to imitate. It is a possible interpretation of history that American involvement in Vietnam that American attempts to prop up the corrupt, incompetent, but pro-Western regime slowed the fall of 'dominoes' in Southeast Asia. Possible - but controversial. America did get a desirable wave of immigrants when the Republic of Vietnam fell.

OK, there is a limit to Pangloss-like speculations on history. (Doctor Pangloss is the educated, conservative fool in Voltaire's Candide). I may not be enough of an educated fool to see any good from the Plague of 2020. It has been rough on me -- and because I am so isolated as I am, I have no idea how rough it is on others except as cold, statistical measures. 

Hey, hey, Donald Trump! How many geezers did you need to dump!

Yes, I am close to being one of those geezers. If I am lucky enough to avoid COVID-19 I will by default be one of the old bastards before I thought such likely. With lots of old people dying off, "seventy" will no longer be "the new fifty". It will be simply "seventy", and "old". I may have some of the characteristics of the old and wise person to whom younger people look for guidance for having "seen it all"... but I am on the autistic spectrum, so my vision is badly distorted and not fully reliable. 

Hey, hey, Donald Trump! How many geezers did you have to dump!

Much elder wisdom richer and better than mine has been dying off before its time.

[Eric the Green]

California is doing better than other large urban states where the virus first struck. It was the first state to institute a shelter-in-place order. Notice the cases and deaths per 1M people in CA. Rural states, where people are more spread apart, are not having as many cases, and parts of California also benefit from this. But Georgia is vulnerable, and has an irresponsible Republican governor who was not fairly-elected. Washington, which at first had the second-most cases of any state, now ranks 16th.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

click on "yesterday" to see an accurate total up to a single time.

[Warren Dew]

(04-27-2020, 01:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: California is doing better than other large urban states where the virus first struck. It was the first state to institute a shelter-in-place order. Notice the cases and deaths per 1M people in CA. Rural states, where people are more spread apart, are not having as many cases, and parts of California also benefit from this. But Georgia is vulnerable, and has an irresponsible Republican governor who was not fairly-elected. Washington, which at first had the second-most cases of any state, now ranks 16th.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

click on "yesterday" to see an accurate total up to a single time.

There's actually a correlation between earlier lockdowns and higher peak death rates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdown...1587930911

It's too weak a correlation to really support the idea that late lockdowns are better, but it definitely doesn't support the idea that early lockdowns - or lockdowns at all - are better.

In contrast, there was a strong enough correlation between population density and peak death rates to confirm the idea that high population density is bad.  California does not have an especially high population density, though.

We'll see what actually happens in Georgia in a couple weeks.

[Eric the Green]

(04-27-2020, 01:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-27-2020, 01:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: California is doing better than other large urban states where the virus first struck. It was the first state to institute a shelter-in-place order. Notice the cases and deaths per 1M people in CA. Rural states, where people are more spread apart, are not having as many cases, and parts of California also benefit from this. But Georgia is vulnerable, and has an irresponsible Republican governor who was not fairly-elected. Washington, which at first had the second-most cases of any state, now ranks 16th.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

click on "yesterday" to see an accurate total up to a single time.

There's actually a correlation between earlier lockdowns and higher peak death rates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdown...1587930911

It's too weak a correlation to really support the idea that late lockdowns are better, but it definitely doesn't support the idea that early lockdowns - or lockdowns at all - are better.

In contrast, there was a strong enough correlation between population density and peak death rates to confirm the idea that high population density is bad.  California does not have an especially high population density, though.

We'll see what actually happens in Georgia in a couple weeks.

I don't really want to subscribe to the Wall St. Journal, but I would think the cases of Washington and California show that earlier shelter in place orders were effective. I have heard of other reports that confirm this (but I admit, I can't find them in a google search now). Louisiana was hit hard, but its rate and relative rank is declining due to its large amount of testing. All this can be seen in the worldometer stats. The California Metros are fairly dense places, though not as dense as New York City. San Francisco is certainly dense, and San Jose is becoming more dense. The difference between the rate of cases and deaths is certainly stark between California, by far the most populous state, and the other big urban states.

[Eric the Green]

From Daily Kos (I know it's a left-wing rag)

President of just the part of the country that likes him:

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?

7:41 AM - Apr 27, 2020
92.8K people are talking about this


Trump is on the McConnell “blue state bailout” bandwagon, it looks like. What a way to unify the country in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic and economic crisis. He should know about bailouts given his personal financial history, but the truth is the big blue states have been bankrolling the red states for, well, ever. And done so happily, because this is the United States, and for a majority of the country, united is what it’s all about.

[Warren Dew]

Here's another analysis showing similar results:

https://medium.com/@yinonweiss/coronavir...6e7b97649d

[Eric the Green]

Off hand I'd say this article puts too much emphasis on an arbitrary standard of 21 days. It also expects governments to issue orders of 8 different categories, and provides no results for any of them. Shutdowns and shelter-in-place cover and include all of those 8 factors, so that's an easier decision for a government to make.

It's clear that because Sweden didn't shut down, it had more deaths. Similar judgments can be made about Italy, the UK, and the USA. Putting Sweden out 21 days on the graph doesn't change that fact. Of course he put it out there, since Sweden never shut down.

Population density applied to nations and even states is misleading, as I pointed out before. Borders are arbitrary, and analyzing stats by country and state can be misleading, since some parts of a country or state are dense and others are not.

Bay Area counties, where the virus struck first in the nation, are densely populated, and have controlled the virus better than many counties that are also densely populated. Washington was put out 21 days on the graph in this article, but actually Gov. Inslee acted quickly, so I don't know where he got this. As the graph showed, Washington is low on the death chart. As I pointed out, it was the second most infected state at first, because of its location, but now has fallen to 16th place, and it's been there for weeks. That's because of the measures that Inslee and the people of Washington took, as opposed to the poor job by Washington DC for the nation. Maybe it took a while for the state of WA to drop down there, but you can't argue with the fact. WA has stopped new cases better than any other state. Funny games with stats will not deceive the people into letting Trump off the hook.

China is the elephant in the room. It's shutdown worked. It has had few new cases for weeks now. It has a huge population density.

New Zealand, Australia, South Korea are other examples.

Italy has been on a long, belated downward trend since its dramatic shutdown that was too late to stop a severe outbreak in a tourist trap-- tourists that came home on airplanes and flooded into the USA East Coast before any travel restrictions were put on.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-27-2020, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Here's another analysis showing similar results:

https://medium.com/@yinonweiss/coronavir...6e7b97649d

It is easy to see how high population density increases the risk, but these dense areas are also the places where there has been more need to shut down early.  Thus, the more disease, the more and sooner the only cure available is used.  Thus you get “statistics” where the cure is confused with being the cause.  If you think with your wallet, valuing green paper more than grandma, you can convince yourself of what you otherwise would advocate.

[Eric the Green]

Top 20 Counties by Number of Deaths

3,511 deaths
Queens

3,420 deaths
Kings

2,480 deaths
Bronx

1,587 deaths
Nassau

1,580 deaths
Wayne

1,487 deaths
New York

1,313 deaths
Cook

1,070 deaths
Suffolk

1,023 deaths
Essex

955 deaths
Bergen

946 deaths
Westchester

916 deaths
Los Angeles

707 deaths
Fairfield

670 deaths
Middlesex

661 deaths
Hudson

620 deaths
Oakland

579 deaths
Hartford

571 deaths
Union

556 deaths
Richmond

520 deaths
Macomb

472 deaths
Philadelphia

453 deaths
Rockland

442 deaths
Middlesex

429 deaths
New Haven

426 deaths
Passaic


Top 50 Confirmed Cases by County

47,511 confirmed
Queens

40,593 confirmed
Kings

34,711 confirmed
Bronx

34,522 confirmed
Nassau

32,059 confirmed
Suffolk

30,574 confirmed
Cook

27,664 confirmed
Westchester

19,567 confirmed
Los Angeles

19,046 confirmed
New York

15,748 confirmed
Wayne

14,965 confirmed
Bergen

13,708 confirmed
Hudson

12,863 confirmed
Essex

12,648 confirmed
Middlesex

12,566 confirmed
Philadelphia

11,853 confirmed
Union

11,543 confirmed
Suffolk

11,351 confirmed
Miami-Dade

11,275 confirmed
Richmond

11,256 confirmed
Rockland

11,137 confirmed
Passaic

10,642 confirmed
Middlesex

10,529 confirmed
Fairfield

8,106 confirmed
Orange

7,489 confirmed
Essex

6,928 confirmed
Oakland

6,715 confirmed
New Haven

6,342 confirmed
Orleans

6,059 confirmed
Jefferson

5,962 confirmed
Ocean

5,863 confirmed
King

5,671 confirmed
Monmouth

5,628 confirmed
Harris

5,288 confirmed
Norfolk

5,266 confirmed
Providence

5,203 confirmed
Macomb

4,989 confirmed
Hartford

4,987 confirmed
Prince George's

4,976 confirmed
Morris

4,796 confirmed
Marion

4,729 confirmed
Broward

4,572 confirmed
Worcester

4,495 confirmed
Plymouth

3,841 confirmed
District of Columbia

3,733 confirmed
Montgomery

3,665 confirmed
Clark

3,645 confirmed
Montgomery

3,563 confirmed
Riverside

3,359 confirmed
Maricopa

3,355 confirmed
Mercer

[Eric the Green]

Latest COVID-19 projections from Columbia University show mid-May spike if social distancing is relaxed
Darrell Etherington@etherington / 11:02 am PDT • April 22, 2020
https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/22/latest...s-relaxed/
U.S. Cities Continue To Shelter-In-Place As Coronavirus Spread Is Expected To Peak

Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health has released updated projections of when we can expect U.S. case numbers of COVID-19 infections to peak and decline, based on different levels of social distancing measures. The updated projects, which take into account the most recent information, show that with around a 30% decrease in social contact we could be nearing a national peak of new cases for now by the end of April — but that if you decrease social contact by just 20%, the picture changes drastically, with a late peak that extends into mid-May and grows the number of new daily cases to as many as 30,000.

The Columbia projections are used to advise the White House Coronavirus Task Force, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), New York City and many other governments across the U.S. These updated projections also note that while we may hit a peak in the coming days, that also means that hospital and ICU capacity will be at their max in the same period. Again, Columbia researchers note, too, that this info doesn’t take into account local variances in when peaks arrive, and that some areas could have different peaks at different times even with a consistent 30% social contact reduction.

The model developed by the Columbia research team includes transmission and fatality numbers, movement by populations across city and state lines and information like the capacity of emergency field hospitals, all info that was not available when the original modeling was done. You can take a look at the interactive graphs and daily estimates resulting from the model, via Columbia’s website.

This is one of a number of recent updated projections from public health experts, epidemiologists and medical researchers that predict the impact of a relaxation of social distancing measures now could have disastrous consequences in terms of prolonging and worsening the spread of COVID-19, and also on taxing healthcare resources (not to mention front-line workers).

MIT also projected a similar impact from the relaxation of measures currently in place, predicting an “exponential explosion” would result. Meanwhile, some states are already implementing such restriction relaxations, despite consensus from informed experts and researchers indicating it’s too early to begin such rollbacks.

[pbrower2a]

States that relax too early will get spikes. If people think that times are rough now for local economies, then think of how times will be when people avoid whole states because of a dangerous epidemic.

Some of us have the choice between prosperity and life and between action and life. Prosperity means nothing if one is dead.

The best that anyone can hope to do is to outlast this plague.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-27-2020, 10:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: States that relax too early will get spikes. If people think that times are rough now for local economies, then think of how times will be when people avoid whole states  because of a dangerous epidemic.

Some of us have the choice between prosperity and life and between action and life. Prosperity means nothing if one is dead.

The best that anyone can hope to do is to outlast this plague.

But let’s assume Warren is right. The more population dense your people are, the closer together everyone is, the greater the risk. Some states are more at risk than others. If your population density is low enough, the trade of between the most safety and the best economy is very different.

Rachel had one farmer and a dump truck full of potatoes. He had this nice contract with all sorts of restaurants. It just went poof. Thus, he gave away free potatoes which he otherwise would end up destroying. Food banks desperate for potatoes were glad to take them off his hands.

Something similar happened in New York, where many dairy farmers had contracts with the city’s school system. What happens when the schools close? How do you find a way to keep the economy running and get the milk in the right hands? Any hands? How long can the food producers keep running charity before they need someone to step in and grease the operation with some cash?

That doesn’t mean, however, that you can escape risk or avoid it all. I can think of a couple of reasons one might get in trouble in an agricultural state. You might have a job at a meat processing plant. If you don’t go to the meat packing plant, will you be fired?

You might want to go shopping in the big city. You wind up going to a high risk high population area. A question arises about what is essential. Are you shopping for basic groceries, or jewelry? Did you just exclude everybody who produces stuff that isn’t necessary, that is a luxury? Didn’t we just spend a couple of decades ratcheting up the economy by producing luxuries?

Right now, the meat packing plants are one of the more obvious examples of a vital function that has been optimized for a small thus close together assembly line operation. Very efficient. The best way to do things in normal times. How much do you have to change things if a worker takes one animal and goes all the way from killing the beast to packaging the finial product? He is safe, but how efficient is he? How much more space does it take? How much equipment would have to be purchased for each worker? How do you best trade it off between worker safety and worker efficiency?

There ought to be some ground between business as used to be usual and shutting it all down. We may be spending too much effort on one or the other impossible extreme, and not enough on trying to find a middle ground.

[Warren Dew]

(04-27-2020, 07:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health has released updated projections of when we can expect U.S. case numbers of COVID-19 infections to peak and decline, based on different levels of social distancing measures.

Of course, nobody is suggesting relaxing social distancing.  What's being relaxed in places is regulatory shutdowns.

[Warren Dew]

(04-27-2020, 11:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There ought to be some ground between business as used to be usual and shutting it all down.  We may be spending too much effort on one or the other impossible extreme, and not enough on trying to find a middle ground.

So now you're the one valuing green more than grandma.

It's a false dichotomy.  We don't have to look for middle ground.  The statistics say that shutdowns don't do anything.

However, something does do something, something other than shutdowns, as is obvious from how much better the Pacific Rim has done than Europe or the US.  We should be looking for what actually works, instead of taking the Puritan approach of falsely assuming that if it hurts, it must work.

I'd suggest two things.  One is voluntary physical distancing, which the people are doing even in states that had no shut downs.  The second is universal use of masks, which the Pacific Rim did from the start, and in the US is heavily resisted.  Things that offer high effectiveness at low cost.

[pbrower2a]

(04-27-2020, 11:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-27-2020, 10:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: States that relax too early will get spikes. If people think that times are rough now for local economies, then think of how times will be when people avoid whole states  because of a dangerous epidemic.

Some of us have the choice between prosperity and life and between action and life. Prosperity means nothing if one is dead.

The best that anyone can hope to do is to outlast this plague.

But let’s assume Warren is right.  The more population dense your people are, the closer together everyone is, the greater the risk.  Some states are more at risk than others.  If your population density is low enough, the trade of between the most safety and the best economy is very different.

Rachel had one farmer and a dump truck full of potatoes.  He had this nice contract with all sorts of restaurants.  It just went poof.  Thus, he gave away free potatoes which he otherwise would end up destroying.  Food banks desperate for potatoes were glad to take them off his hands.

Restaurants and bars are  "oily rags" for the spread of the 2020 plague.  People cannot eat or drink while wearing masks, Of course I feel sorry for anyone who absorbs a loss, loses a job, or must even give up on a traditional indulgence because of COVID-19. But what can we do? The farmer did the right thing, but it is unfortunate that he didn't get anything for his potatoes and spend probably an ungodly amount of money driving the potatoes to disparate food banks. But what can we do?   

Quote:Something similar happened in New York, where many dairy farmers had contracts with the city’s school system.  What happens when the schools close?  How do you find a way to keep the economy running and get the milk in the right hands?  Any hands?  How long can the food producers keep running charity before they need someone to step in and grease the operation with some cash?

The kids still need milk... it is of course inappropriate to expect any business to operate strictly for charitable purposes. Kocal government should pay for the milk, as it was going to spend the money for it anyway. 

Quote:That doesn’t mean, however, that you can escape risk or avoid it all.  I can think of a couple of reasons one might get in trouble in an agricultural state.  You might have a job at a meat processing plant.  If you don’t go to the meat packing plant, will you be fired?  

Of course. Employees are expected to show loyalty even if the conditions become horrible (including unduly dangerous) or access becomes impossible or fiendishly expensive. Driving to work instead of using a taxi? Ugh, especially in New York City!  

Quote:You might want to go shopping in the big city.  You wind up going to a high risk high population area.  A question arises about what is essential.  Are you shopping for basic groceries, or jewelry?  Did you just exclude everybody who produces stuff that isn’t necessary, that is a luxury?  Didn’t we just spend a couple of decades ratcheting up the economy by producing luxuries?

The point has been to keep people home by ensuring that there are no real places to go. Thus I can think of plenty of stores that I would like to visit. Maybe more establishments will be open if people are obliged to wear masks. On the other hand, just consider how crowded most core cities are on normal days. Social distancing is obviously impossible in Midtown Manhattan.  OK, so we can all shop on line, and I already know of some things I will get from one retailer exclusively on-line when I get my stimulus check. Complete sets of Haydn and Bartok string quartets, among other items. I will also rescue a dog so that I can get some reliable companionship generally denied me lately. (I am in a bad household situation.   
 

Quote:Right now, the meat packing plants are one of the more obvious examples of a vital function that has been optimized for a small thus close together assembly line operation.  Very efficient.  The best way to do things in normal times.  How much do you have to change things if a worker takes one animal and goes all the way from killing the beast to packaging the finial product?  He is safe, but how efficient is he?  How much more space does it take?  How much equipment would have to be purchased for each worker?  How do you best trade it off between worker safety and worker efficiency?

Meat-packing plants are infamously dangerous even in good times. Management of such places fits the classic sweat-shop model well known in Marxist polemics. Now that the Grim Reaper has taken a position in such plants in which people are expected to work even if injured or sick because such is good for keeping costs down... well... Let's also remember that much of America's meat supply ends up in the maws of dogs (which generally do not thrive on vegetarian diets) and cats (obligate predators, no matter how nice those mini-tigers may be to us).  

Quote:There ought to be some ground between business as used to be usual and shutting it all down.  We may be spending too much effort on one or the other impossible extreme, and not enough on trying to find a middle ground.

In good times the choices are not so stark. In Crises, the choices are stark and often so in the extreme. The only people who have all the answers are the ideologues and special interests.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-27-2020, 11:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's a false dichotomy.  We don't have to look for middle ground.  The statistics say that shutdowns don't do anything.

Sure, if your let your ideology trump the statistics. The difference between California and the east is prompt shutdown.

[Eric the Green]

(04-27-2020, 11:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-27-2020, 07:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health has released updated projections of when we can expect U.S. case numbers of COVID-19 infections to peak and decline, based on different levels of social distancing measures.

Of course, nobody is suggesting relaxing social distancing.  What's being relaxed in places is regulatory shutdowns.

The problem is that social distancing is just too tough when people shop, work out, get groomed, get a tattoo, go to a bar or restaurant, etc. It would be nice if we can open up, but it needs to be done carefully. Unfortunately our federal administration under drumpface the gangster has done next-to-nothing to recruit our industries to make the kinds of tests, tracking and protective equipment that we need in order to reopen safely, while other nations seem to have no problem doing this. 

It reveals the exceptional inadequacy of the libertarian-economic and deregulated approach to meeting the nation's needs when they are severe, and the error of not getting relief to those who need it even in spite of an act of congress. 

And this administration and its party also don't recognize that our earth and climate are also in a time of crisis from which it may never recover, unless we make some drastic changes soon.

As I see it, the act of congress which provided enormous funds to help people deal with the crisis, although mishandled by the president, shows the way into a new era of greater-collective responsibility that will restart progress in the 2020s and end the rule of reaganomics.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN reports Drones could help fight coronavirus by air-dropping medical supplies

But do they have plans to avoid intercept of supplies by the federal government?

[Eric the Green]

(04-27-2020, 11:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: However, something does do something, something other than shutdowns, as is obvious from how much better the Pacific Rim has done than Europe or the US.  We should be looking for what actually works, instead of taking the Puritan approach of falsely assuming that if it hurts, it must work.

I'd suggest two things.  One is voluntary physical distancing, which the people are doing even in states that had no shut downs.  The second is universal use of masks, which the Pacific Rim did from the start, and in the US is heavily resisted.  Things that offer high effectiveness at low cost.

It is not that the US is resisting masks, exactly; but that we are being asked to wear them, and yet they are not even being made available. A competent government and society would have had them available in every store and public building for free all over the country. Instead it has been 2 months, and masks are not only not free but not even made available at any store or on amazon, and people are somehow getting masks by making their own in some mysterious way. And almost every state or health authority says we must have tests to better know and track people who are infected before we can start ending the shutdowns. And yet Trump's sycophants get on Meet the Press and talk about how tests still need to be invented and developed, and how well they are working with states already, when in fact they are having to compete with each other and can't get what they need. In other words, our new Nero is talking about swallowing disinfectants while the country gets sicker and sicker. They refuse to provide the means whereby the shutdowns can safely end. The total incompetence of the current administration is on full display, and they ought to pay at the polls, if polls are even allowed.

Obviously, it is exactly the shutdowns which were employed on the west pacific rim which allowed them to control the virus, while the USA, UK and Italy that resisted shutdowns for too long suffered ongoing and deepening sickness.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-27-2020, 11:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-27-2020, 11:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There ought to be some ground between business as used to be usual and shutting it all down.  We may be spending too much effort on one or the other impossible extreme, and not enough on trying to find a middle ground.

So now you're the one valuing green more than grandma.

It's a false dichotomy.  We don't have to look for middle ground.  The statistics say that shutdowns don't do anything.

Extremists seek extreme solutions.  In this case, you can shut down everything or shut down nothing.  What I am saying is that more effort should be put into a safe middle ground.  The objectives of both parties can sometimes be met.

Most of my life I was a software developer working government contracts which were often classified.  The software teams were fairly small, less than the 10 or fewer limit you commonly hear about.  Most often we worked alone on our own piece of the puzzle.  Occasionally the group had a meeting, but there were enough large conference rooms to do distancing.  You would have to have cans of spray cleaner available in the rest rooms.  You might ask people to bring their own lunch.  Sometimes you could work at home without doing more than bringing a few PC sized components home.  Sometimes you couldn’t, as the prototypes were too large or the project too classified.  As the workers were mostly engineers, and used to following the odd security rules, adding a few more extra rules would be no problem.

Another job back in my early college days involved taking newly injected plastic parts out of a molding machine.  Said machine was bigger than a breadbox, (understatement) with only one operator, so we had social distancing whether we wanted it or not.  Only the operator and the supervisor (when something went wrong) touched the machine, usually to turn a valve if parts were over or under filled.  There was one memorable shift when the mold stuck together with a greater strength than the hydraulic press that usually moved half the mold.  The machine eventually tore itself apart.  We decided this was a problem for the day shift.  It would have taken minimal effort to have COVID 19 safety in that plant.  The closest one would have to a problem would be the mid shift break to visit the rest room and cafeteria, and the cafeteria could be replaced with a paper bag.

Another job I worked was cleaning telephone offices and mowing the lawns of such places.  Few places are as free of people as a telephone central office.  It is all automated.  (Can you guess how much battery it takes to drive a town’s phone system though the average hurricane?  Dusting the floor next to the battery, how prudent is it to avoid contacting the ganged batteries?)  Another easy job to get production with isolation.

These are all something where a low level manager, a labor representative, a senior worker, could get together, suggest solutions, and come up with a set of rules which everyone could agree on.  I could see bringing such a set of rules to a local health official and getting blessed to reopen.  It beats promising to test the full population of a meat packaging plant, only to renege on that promise when a large fraction of the managers and supervisors test positive.  Mass murder to gain a few bucks is questionable ethically.

Some places, like the meat packing plants that have been so much on the news, seem to have few good safe affordable policies.  Making those places safe would take a significant effort and considerable expense.  The answer is not to close one’s eyes and murder people.  Neither is it an answer to totally eliminate meat from society’s menu.

But there are more options than the two unacceptable extremes.