Open By Easter

[TheNomad]

Let's get to it, then.

This whole thing of "America was not meant to be closed" and that ppl will sacrifice by dying to save the Economy.

Start the ball, Cajun.

[Bob Butler 54]

Trump thinks the way to win over the people is to put the economy ahead of the people. I'm not sure it works that way.

[TheNomad]

(03-24-2020, 07:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Trump thinks the way to win over the people is to put the economy ahead of the people.  I'm not sure it works that way.

When considering it in reality (the multi-facetedness) there are arguments for this. 

I always tend to take the most ridiculous or extreme or controversial "side" of a thing first.  I find it leads backward to the most plausible.  Therefore, covering many bases I maybe wouldn't have covered in thought.

On the surface, it seems impossible to watch anyone say that.  Especially not the president.  But when you step back, there are real things to consider.

I mean just briefly what comes to mind, the idea we do become destroyed by this?  That "America" dies because we are so linked to Economy.  What will happen?  We will cease.  We have to look at that fact.  We could turn into a very chaotic place.  Most of where Americans live now are in cities and close quarters.  It's all hinged delicately on Amazon, Google, Apple, our phones, our tech.  So much of it.  Some could be considering, if that's possible, we have to look at it and take that chance so it doesn't happen.  Outcome unknown at this point. No one can predict how many sick or dead.

Could this be our last stand?  And imagine Easter if it passes us by like the Angel over the Hebrews, if we survive, it will be New Passover, the "War President" emerges and captures the next election, boasting more than ever he had a vision and was led by god.

That's one possibility.

Another possibility is we go that way and millions die.  Yet, we still survive as a people. 

Another possibility is we go inside and die anyway.

Too much unknown.

[pbrower2a]

We are going to have a test between places that take the economic hit to stop CORVID-19 and those that take their chances. We are going to see how CORVID-19 acts with respect to extreme heat (India, a country infamously vulnerable to infectious diseases, has its highest temperatures in April before the monsoon season).

If I could script a movie about a disaster, the people who act rashly by putting economic gain and personal hedonism above safety are the ones who get killed and those who foster such are disgraced; the people who take necessary care usually survive. That may not be quite how life works ... but I would do everything to deter any youth from going on any Spring Break this year. (The Governor of Florida has said that he would do nothing to stop the hurricane party... excuse me, the perfect activity for making his state the hub for a CORVID-19 outbreak).

[beechnut79]

(03-24-2020, 11:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We are going to have a test between places that take the economic hit to stop CORVID-19 and those that take their chances. We are going to see how CORVID-19 acts with respect to extreme heat (India, a country infamously vulnerable to infectious diseases, has its highest temperatures in April before the monsoon season).

If I could script a movie about a disaster, the people who act rashly by putting economic gain and personal hedonism above safety are the ones who get killed and those who foster such are disgraced; the people who take necessary care usually survive.  That may not be quite how life works ... but I would do everything to deter any youth from going on any Spring Break this year. (The Governor of Florida has said that he would do nothing to stop the hurricane party... excuse me, the perfect activity for making his state the hub for a CORVID-19 outbreak).

Places known for their heat such as Florida, Texas and Arizona might be the test grounds.Many assume heat will knock out the virus, assuming it will be like the flu which isn’t so apparent during the hot months, which can begin at any time now in those areas.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-25-2020, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Places known for their heat such as Florida, Texas and Arizona might be the test grounds.Many assume heat will knock out the virus, assuming it will be like the flu which isn’t so apparent during the hot months, which can begin at any time now in those areas.

Last night Rachel Maddow put up a smart thermometer map of where in the US showed fevers that were occurring that have not appeared in other years. The thermometers talk to a phone app which reports to the company that makes the thermometer.  Their use of the Internet is putting them before even the CDC in showing the hot spots.

They showed Florida well ahead of New York, California or anywhere else.  In a week or two they will become a hot spot.  If Louisiana's problems were pushed by Mardi Gras, Florida's were pushed by spring break, and the governor's inaction of course.

The heat may well come too late for Florida at least.

[David Horn]

Since the NY Times has opened its paywall for Coronavirus coverage, it may be a good time to review Nicholas Kristoff's "The Best-Case Outcome for the Coronavirus, and the Worst". Something there for optimists and pessimists alike.

[TheNomad]

Does no one see an argument for at least saying hopefully that we will be back by Easter? Of course, yes, it's not within the health parameters and even scary. But can we remain stopped without destroying America as we know it anyway?

Is the Easter argument just 100% wrong or feeble? For me, maybe not Easter, it sounds good, but shouldn't ppl be talking about "when" rather than "if"? 2020 could be our final stand if the economy doesn't come back. At least, final as in "as we know it".

I would love for this crash to decimate America and return us to a thing where we are less "global" than we have been. When we turn on American farms again, start getting food locally again, start relying in the sea for food more, etc.

I think our "civilization" as this fragile should be seen for what it is. Everyone wants to say they want a strong America.... and often, they seem to mean that as how many ships we have and gun factories and bombs. But can't we see this reliance on "money" and economy and buying and tech is making us less strong than ever.

The idea that Americans can't collectively go home for a month and just REST without collapsing the economy really bothers me. If anything, shouldn't this be a wake up that the concept of the Daily Grind is the only thing keeping the flag flown, that is sickening. We have become to where both parents need to work full time to create a life for their children, families don't even get to spend time or LIVE together............... evidenced by families going nuts because they are forced to spend all this time together.

How MFing unnatural is that?

Everything about America has now been shown to be unnatural. We don't cook, we don't get real foods, we don't spend time with family. THAT is what this virus has made clear.

Can we use this to get some of the natural back

[pbrower2a]

It's simply wrong. Easter means much to devout Christians, but it also generally corresponds with the first wave of recreational travel, including the predictable Spring Break. It's also the time in which many snowbirds return from Florida  to places in which the flowers predictably bloom in April.

We need to put much on hold just to prevent mass death.

Good leadership does not sugar-coat sacrifice. Life for many Americans will be boring and lonely, and many seeming opportunities that people take for granted will no longer exist for the duration. Much of what we did with little thought will be impossible or at most be done in coldly analytic ways. I see death as largely similar... and we tend to see deaths rather equally.

The most obvious comparisons can include motor-vehicle deaths and war deaths.  The twelve worst wars for the US alone by deaths have ranged from the ongoing war in Afghanistan (2216 so far) to the American Civil War (estimated 750,000, both Union and Confederate).

12
War in Afghanistan
2001–present
2,216
0.36
294,043,000
0.001% (2010)

11
Spanish–American War
1898
2,246
8.9
62,022,250
0.004% (1890)

10
Philippine–American War
1899–1902
4,196
3.8
72,129,001
0.006% (1900)

9
Iraq War
2003–2011
4,576
2
294,043,000
0.002% (2010)

8
Mexican–American War
1846–48
13,283
29
21,406,000
0.057% (1850)

7
War of 1812
1812–15
15,000
15
8,000,000
0.207% (1810)

6
American Revolutionary War
1775–83
25,000
11
2,500,000
1.00% (1780)

5
Korean War
1950–53
54,246
45
151,325,000
0.036% (1950)

4
Vietnam War
1961–75
58,209
11
179,323,175
0.032% (1970)

3
World War I
1917–18
116,516
279
103,268,000
0.110% (1920)

2
World War II
1941–45
405,399
297
133,402,000
0.307% (1940)

1
American Civil War
1861–65
750,000 (est.)(U.S./Confederate)[86]
520
31,443,000
2.385% (1860)

I can't add a table, so basically we have (using the Vietnam War as an example). 

(Data from Wikipedia)

4  -- ranking of the war

Vietnam War -- name of the war

1961–75 -- time-frame of the war

58,209 -- number of casualties

11 -- deaths per day

179,323,175 -- population of the USA at the time of the last Census before or during the war
0.032% (1970) -- percentage of the population killed

I could compare American wars  for their severity, and the one measure of severity that distinguishes the wars of a Crisis era is the percentage of Americans killed in combat. By the last measure, the American Civil War was worst, followed by the American Revolution, and then the Second Word War as a distant third. All three were Crisis Wars, and Americans showed themselves willing to sacrifice much for a noble end such as recovering freedoms that George III had taken away, preserving the Union and abolishing slavery, and preventing an Axis victory complete with enslavement and genocide. I don't see anything quite like one of those causes on the horizon. Such could be good for a discussion of the war phase of the generational cycle, and I will start a thread on that.

The fourth worst from the last measure was the War of 1812. The War of 1812 had 15,000 combat deaths, which seems slight in contrast to the Vietnam War, but the casualties of the War of 1812 relate to a far-smaller population. 

But I go to the War in Vietnam as a possible comparison for pointlessness of the war, the divisions that the war ripped into American life, and the perception of bungling. At this stage I cannot say what level of death in America will be most comparable to the level of combat deaths that America endured. But death is death unless something inexcusable (negligence, incompetence, contempt, or design, the latter two making the homicide murder) augments its vileness.

....Deaths by contagious disease have no high principle. War might solve a problem. Combat losses by the USA in WWII are smaller than  the Jewish population in the USA in 1940, and Hitler left no doubt about what he would have done to American Jews had he won the war and established a satellite state in America. I don't know what Hitler would have done to American blacks, but between him and a successor to the fascistic 1915 KKK that modeled itself upon the SS... it would not have been pretty. 

Or -- we could discuss motor-vehicle deaths. We don't think of this often, but we lost 36,560 people to motor vehicles in 2018, the last year for which data is available. That is much death, but for the size of the American population that  is one of the lowest numbers per population, lower such numbers mostly coming from a century or more ago when people were much less likely to have automobiles, let alone drive them often. Per million miles traveled? In the last century (1921 on), 2018 was the fifth-lowest per miles driven, the ten lowest numbers for that measure were from the last ten years. Of course we think differently of combat deaths than of vehicle deaths. No mother gets a gold star for losing a son or daughter as the result of a vehicle collision.

But vehicle death rates are down from where they used to be. Vehicle deaths per mile driven were  24.09 per billion miles driven in contrast to 1.13 per billion miles driven in 2018.

    

Would you feel safe in a car like this today on modern highways with all but the youngest drivers well experienced in driving cars, let alone on the awful roads of the early 1920's when most drivers were terribly inexperienced?  Consider the lack of modern safety features. Need I go into detail? It is a good thing that people drove relatively few miles in the early 1920's even at the low speeds that these under-powered "horseless carriages" allowed and when Prohibition was still effective.

The worst years for deaths-per-mile driven were the years from 1921 (not counting those before 1921 for which statistics are unreliable) through 1930 except that '1929' is just out of the range and '1934' somehow slips in, and I am guessing hat because 1934 was the first full year in which Prohibition was not the law of the land the drunk-driving rate had to be astronomical.

So why have traffic deaths abated as a share of the population and the number of miles driven?

1. The cars are better. Collapsible steering columns no longer impale drivers. Seat belts keep people inside the car. in their seats, so that that are less likely to be thrown out of the car or into the windshield. Air bags protect people from hitting the dashboard. Current vehicles are armored in contrast to what they used to be, and vehicle design sacrifices structure in the event of a collision to spare drivers and passengers from the destructive energy of the crash.

2. Child safety seats. Enough said. I would get an equivalent if I had a dog. 

3. Better roads. Much better roads. At first the idea of a good road was a paved one, which simply increased speed. A century ago unbanked curves and 90-degree curves were the norm. Many intersections had no control of right-of-way. Shoulders were narrow-to-non-existent. This is before the limited-access divided highways that offer far safer conditions despite higher speeds.

4. Better drivers. In 2020 a 65-year-old driver typically has almost fifty years of experience driving a car. In 1920 a 65-year-old driver was often a novice. New drivers get formal driver's training in a classroom and see gory videos of people mangled in the consequences of bad driving. Police patrol the highways for speeders and other erratic drivers (one fourth of all speeders are drunk!) Crackdowns upon drunk, drugged, and drowsy driving have resulted in bad drivers losing licenses. 

5. More driving is commuting, especially on freeways, tollways, and similar roads that force conformist driving while removing the usual perils of people turning in from driveways.   

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-25-2020, 07:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Does no one see an argument for at least saying hopefully that we will be back by Easter?

Not me. You have to beat this one down to nearly nothing before releasing the isolation. Even then there will have to be some sort of monitoring to send isolated hot spots back into full isolation. I know of no planning for what happens when they do reach nearly nothing. I would watch the smart thermometers for the occasional outbreak, set up a network of so many people who volunteer to take their temperature with a networked thermometer once a day, and figure out how to isolate hot spots.

But it may be that we have to wait until a vaccination can be developed, and that is at least a year out.

[TheNomad]

(03-25-2020, 09:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-25-2020, 07:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Does no one see an argument for at least saying hopefully that we will be back by Easter?

Not me.  You have to beat this one down to nearly nothing before releasing the isolation.  Even then there will have to be some sort of monitoring to send isolated hot spots back into full isolation.  I know of no planning for what happens when they do reach nearly nothing.  I would watch the smart thermometers for the occasional outbreak, set up a network of so many people who volunteer to take their temperature with a networked thermometer once a day, and figure out how to isolate hot spots.

But it may be that we have to wait until a vaccination can be developed, and that is at least a year out.

On the surface, I agree with you.

What happens if/when our entire way of life comes down because we are so indelibly tied to Economy?

Is there even a chance we return for Business, and a million die, but we still survive as a people?

I think a year of THIS will destroy America.  But I cannot think of an alt that makes sense currently.

I do, however, believe in a "positive" thought at least, that we WILL get through this.  I don't hear anyone taking that route.  I also do not hear anyone realistically addressing IF WE DO NOT "open up" we could be destroyed and what good will all this have done?

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-25-2020, 10:40 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(03-25-2020, 09:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-25-2020, 07:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Does no one see an argument for at least saying hopefully that we will be back by Easter?

Not me.  You have to beat this one down to nearly nothing before releasing the isolation.  Even then there will have to be some sort of monitoring to send isolated hot spots back into full isolation.  I know of no planning for what happens when they do reach nearly nothing.  I would watch the smart thermometers for the occasional outbreak, set up a network of so many people who volunteer to take their temperature with a networked thermometer once a day, and figure out how to isolate hot spots.

But it may be that we have to wait until a vaccination can be developed, and that is at least a year out.

On the surface, I agree with you.

What happens if/when our entire way of life comes down because we are so indelibly tied to Economy?

Is there even a chance we return for Business, and a million die, but we still survive as a people?

I think a year of THIS will destroy America.  But I cannot think of an alt that makes sense currently.

I do, however, believe in a "positive" thought at least, that we WILL get through this.  I don't hear anyone taking that route.  I also do not hear anyone realistically addressing IF WE DO NOT "open up" we could be destroyed and what good will all this have done?

When we start to reach nearly nothing, we will need plans and precautions to keep it there.  This might include thermometer testing before you enter a store or place of work, testing stations in case they do find a temperature, isolation locations so you don’t contaminate your family, a surplus of test kits, protective gear, etc…  I’m sure people could come up with other ideas.  I'm sure we will need them.

But right now the active front is getting near nearly nothing.  There are still enough people trying to live the old normal that it seems silly even to think of the nearly nothing situation.  There are still people doing Mardi Gras and spring break as usual.  There are still states without isolation orders.  As long as full isolation is not in place, we will not need to wonder about the almost nothing situation because case numbers will still be exploding.

A few more weeks or months of the virus will teach us how to perfect isolation and have most respect it, but having Trump saying “economy released by Easter” and similar hasty ‘the virus will not be a problem soon’ things is a problem.  A killing problem.  As long as people are in the Unravelling mode and trying to deny the Crisis, the Crisis will sustain itself.

And keeping the economy going while in isolation might require as much innovation and effort as the medical community is going through.  I am thinking back to my working days, and a lot of stuff in many phases could have been done at home.  But, in my case the hardware guys eventually developed prototypes and needed to do assembly and parts, and the software engineers needed to test on said prototypes.  In some projects, these prototypes were much bigger than a breadbox.  In one project all work was supposed to be done in a Secure Compartmented Information Facility.  Yes, a SCIF.  Remember the one Congress used for the impeachment?  Ours included a couple of room sized faraday cages to keep the bad guys from listening in on what we were doing.  There seems to be limits on what some industries can do.  I for one could not afford to build a faraday cage equipped SCIF at home.

More immune people who have had the virus and are clear will help.  Stick these people in the most exposed positions.

In short, I could see ways of getting through this.  It will require a lot of effort.  The people who scoff and try to escape this effort are currently making it worse.  They seem to be as much of a problem as the virus itself.

[David Horn]

(03-25-2020, 09:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-25-2020, 07:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Does no one see an argument for at least saying hopefully that we will be back by Easter?

Not me.  You have to beat this one down to nearly nothing before releasing the isolation.  Even then there will have to be some sort of monitoring to send isolated hot spots back into full isolation.  I know of no planning for what happens when they do reach nearly nothing.  I would watch the smart thermometers for the occasional outbreak, set up a network of so many people who volunteer to take their temperature with a networked thermometer once a day, and figure out how to isolate hot spots.

But it may be that we have to wait until a vaccination can be developed, and that is at least a year out.

The current thinking seems to be that we will see-saw our way out of this.  It's sad that the economy has to get a boost at the expense of human health, but count on it.  We don't have enough survival cases to create a herd immunity, and it's unlikely we will.  Eventually, there will be a vaccine -- eventually.

Easter is totally out of the question, as you noted.  Independence Day may be a candidate for the first easing, with Labor Day closing things down again.  Of course,, that assumes that the virus is sensitive to heat and humidity.

[Warren Dew]

(03-25-2020, 07:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Does no one see an argument for at least saying hopefully that we will be back by Easter?

Depends on what you mean by "back".

If you mean, completely back to normal, schools reopened, covid was like a passing dream, no, that's not going to happen.  If we take all mitigations off the table, infections will start to rise again.

If you mean, back to work, sure.  South Korea never needed to ban people from working, and Italy shows that blanket lockdowns aren't really all that effective.  I could easily see the work bans lifted, as long as schools stay closed, people with symptoms and exposure are still tested, and the infected and their households are still quarantined.  The general success of Pacific Rim nations suggests that face masks might be part of the solution too.

[Warren Dew]

(03-27-2020, 05:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you mean, completely back to normal, schools reopened, covid was like a passing dream, no, that's not going to happen.

For completeness, I'll present two theories for why things will get back to normal completely.  I don't believe either of them, but they might serve as a good counterbalance to the doomsaying that's rampant.

Both of these theories rely on the fact that all covid epidemics that have risen to a problematic number of cases so far have peaked and gone away with a much lower peak that simple models of the disease would predict.

The first theory, which I saw in an article citing an Israeli scientist, is that the reason the peak is so low is because most people already have preexisting immunity.  By this theory, I guess, most people have gotten immunity from other coronaviruses that cause colds.  The epidemic only rips through the small fraction of people who don't have such immunity.

The second theory is that there are so many more cases than are detected that the visible peaks are just the tip of the iceberg, and instead of affecting only the 1% of the population that are identified to have disease, actually something like 50% of the population gets it, and the 1% are only the most serious cases.

I have reasons I don't believe either of these theories, but they aren't any more ridiculous than some of the doomsaying that's going around.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-27-2020, 05:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I have reasons I don't believe either of these theories, but they aren't any more ridiculous than some of the doomsaying that's going around.

I don’t believe the theories you mentioned, either.  I also don’t believe the worst of the doomsday theories either.  One percent of even the whole world dying won’t destroy civilization.

But is does seem worthy to keep it at that, to keep the spread slow enough that the health care system is not overwhelmed, that all receive the benefit of modern medicine.  Some may be concerned primarily with their precious economy and the ability to profit even from death.  I would as soon that people be put at a higher value than the supposedly almighty dollar.

[pbrower2a]

(03-27-2020, 05:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(03-27-2020, 05:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you mean, completely back to normal, schools reopened, covid was like a passing dream, no, that's not going to happen.

For completeness, I'll present two theories for why things will get back to normal completely.  I don't believe either of them, but they might serve as a good counterbalance to the doomsaying that's rampant.

Both of these theories rely on the fact that all covid epidemics that have risen to a problematic number of cases so far have peaked and gone away with a much lower peak that simple models of the disease would predict.

The first theory, which I saw in an article citing an Israeli scientist, is that the reason the peak is so low is because most people already have preexisting immunity.  By this theory, I guess, most people have gotten immunity from other coronaviruses that cause colds.  The epidemic only rips through the small fraction of people who don't have such immunity.

The second theory is that there are so many more cases than are detected that the visible peaks are just the tip of the iceberg, and instead of affecting only the 1% of the population that are identified to have disease, actually something like 50% of the population gets it, and the 1% are only the most serious cases.

I have reasons I don't believe either of these theories, but they aren't any more ridiculous than some of the doomsaying that's going around.

In no way is this criticism of what you say. There is a bear in the woods, so to speak. 

Nobody knows how nasty COVID-19 is. Note well that people of advantage by world standards (which even includes most poor people in America and First World countries) rarely die of infectious diseases of the respiratory tract. One of the usual signs of underdevelopment in a country is that a significant larger number of people die of such diseases. Maybe such diseases kill people already dying of other causes or the pariahs of society (IV drug users, sex workers, prisoners -- see also HIV/AIDS)... but COVID-19 has killed people here and elsewhere of comparative privilege, including the mayor of a large city in China, an Iranian general, a retired Mafia-ravaging judge in Italy, and Spanish nobility. In America it killed a high-ranking cop, aged 63, in Wayne County (Greater Detroit), Michigan. If an infectious disease can kill such people it is killing people whom one least likely expects to die of such causes. Do I consider myself safe? Hell no!

COVID-19 is comparatively new to the world, so its prognosis is not as well known as might give one some comfort. I know well enough how to avoid HIV/AIDS even if I am no expert on any phase of medicine, but I cannot say the same about COVID-19. We all used to do things that would put us at risk of it, and we do not do the same things now even if we wanted to). We may be over-cautious, but we may be preventing a large number of pointless deaths.

It is not by coincidence that I used the death tolls of current and prior wars as potential analogues of the potential of mass death involving Americans. So far the big news of 2020 has been preparation for the 2020 Presidential election until COVID-19 made that much less pressing. The war that I highlighted was the War in Vietnam, a war that cost nearly 60,000 lives and served no desirable end for American diplomacy or foreign policy. (About the only good that one can find in it is that America got another model minority and some good, inexpensive restaurants). The death toll looks higher already (if it isn't there already, then it will soon be) to the consequences of the 9/11 attack that infuriated Americans across every usual divide.

It took us time to figure out what HIV/AIDS was doing, and protections against it (like not fornicating recklessly, using condoms, refraining from IV drug use -- and very early, testing blood and tissue samples for the virus) were easy to apply. Behavior that spread HIV/AIDS were mostly vices*, anyway. Ways that spread COVID-19 have been very normal behavior, and much of this behavior is denied to us for a considerable time.

...Things will get back to normal, more or less, with some habits changed permanently. The biggest change will be in the failure of some businesses that were already dying, especially in the restaurant and retail business. People obviously recognize the severity
of the situation and the abnormality of the temporary changes demanded of us. People are taking economic hits in stride as one never expected until recently (probably because Americans are ripe for Crisis mode as they were not, let us say in 2001. Getting back to normal? Who does not want that! he big question for many is whether they will survive to see life go back to normal.

Note well: there is no power grab, and so far few conspiracy theories are floating around. If anyone puts blame on anyone then it is for incompetence or neglect, which both can be as harmful as deliberate design in effect. We can trust that as more behaviors are deemed safe, then such behaviors that have been precluded to most of us will again be permitted.    


*Homosexuality is not a vice in itself. Homophobia is.

[pbrower2a]

[Bob Butler 54]

Trump is extending social distancing guidelines to April 30, saying peak deaths could occur in two weeks and puts the US coronavirus death levels at 100,000 or more. That is not quite Happy Talk, far better than releasing everything by Easter (April 12). He is beginning to shift his perspective, but I am not convinced he is going anywhere near fast enough.

[Eric the Green]

(03-29-2020, 11:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Trump is extending social distancing guidelines to April 30, saying peak deaths could occur in two weeks and puts the US coronavirus death levels at 100,000 or more.  That is not quite Happy Talk, far better than releasing everything by Easter (April 12).  He is beginning to shift his perspective, but I am not convinced he is going anywhere near fast enough.

He didn't, already, go fast enough, and right, he isn't now. And he keeps shifting between serious and dangerously silly. I'm sure social distancing will be needed after April 30. The problem with this virus is that is spreads so easily and incubates so slowly that it takes at least a month before social distancing has any effect. Right now the trend lines remain straight up; a peak is nowhere in sight yet, and a peak also won't be the end.

We see it mentioned in our obituaries already. Noted jazz performers and composers in their 80s have died, according to Democracy Now. John Prine is very sick.