One-third of New York’s small businesses may be gone forever(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
One-third of New York’s small businesses may be gone forever
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/nyregion/nyc-small-businesses-closing-coronavirus.html
481 comments
I'd rather not contract COVID-19 and die as a result of an outing to a restaurant or a bar. I'm fine with what Cuomo and DeBlasio are doing.
Me too which is why I don't go out to a bar or restaurant. In my opinion people at bars and restaurants are okay with the possibility that they will be infected. For me personally it's not worth the risk, I can cook and have drinks at home.
Which is a fine solution if they can guarantee they won't infect others. But they can't, so society should pay the cost for their night out.
Then nobody in society should ever drive a car, since you can't guarantee you won't injure others.
Society understands the concept of acceptable risk. We need to get past the absolutist hysteria and treat discussions of Covid in that manner too.
Society understands the concept of acceptable risk. We need to get past the absolutist hysteria and treat discussions of Covid in that manner too.
Licensing, driving tests, insurance requirements, vehicle safety standards, traffic rules, fines, DUI tests - all of them exist for this very reason. It's bizarre that in America you can have a positive COVID test and visible symptoms and still go about your life infecting others with zero repercussions.
Comparing auto fatalities to covid is a flawed argument.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/24/your-anal...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/24/your-anal...
The only known vaccine is surviving covid. If the young had all been infected by April, things would be quite different now...
Good news! The chance of death is less than 1%, which is neglible.
Except it's not negligible, at all. Let's say, for argument's sake, the chance of death is 0.8%. Say coronavirus can't be contained, and 100,000,000 Americans contract it - not unthinkable.
In that scenario, a "chance of death less than 1%" would kill 800,000 Americans - an unfathomable number. That level of death would plunge the US into far worse than the Great Depression.
In that scenario, a "chance of death less than 1%" would kill 800,000 Americans - an unfathomable number. That level of death would plunge the US into far worse than the Great Depression.
You got that backwards. 800,000 Americans sounds like a huge number, but it's only 0.24%. It's dwarved by the number of deaths that happen every year -- 2,813,503 (0.86%) in 2017.[1]
Absolute numbers aren't relevant, or do you believe Andorra isn't affected by COVID?
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Absolute numbers aren't relevant, or do you believe Andorra isn't affected by COVID?
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Citation needed for “That level of death would plunge the US into far worse than the Great Depression.” 3 million Americans die every year. The risk of COVID-19 is also highly stratified by age, so looking at a single number like 0.8% lacks important context; the median age of death from COVID-19 is above life expectancy. Your 800,000 number (which is up for debate) also doesn’t take into account what part of that would be mortality displacement (likely a considerable part of it).
3 million Americans die every year in a normal healthcare system. Throw 2 million additional deaths (one of the early worst case scenarios) - hell, even 800k deaths - into a totally maxed out healthcare system, and you seriously think things are going to be all peachy?
Then don't go to a restaurant or bar. Down here in Texas we opened in May and left it up to the individual to make the health choice. I'm active and going to the gym daily and bars during the weekend, but I have friends who won't go outside and haven't dined in a restaurant since March.
Given the disaster that has been south Texas healthcare for the last week or two, that hardly seems like a ringing endorsement.
It’s not all about personal choice. Everyone is impacted by the decisions we make.
How many healthcare personnel have to die so people can go to the bar?
It’s not all about personal choice. Everyone is impacted by the decisions we make.
How many healthcare personnel have to die so people can go to the bar?
Great, now apply that logic to automobiles in general.
I think more people understand the situation with COVID than some realize, that it's a trainwreck from top to bottom and a lot of the decisions being made are far more political than they should be, as evidenced by the sheer amount of hypocrisy surrounding the supposed safety of protesting for left wing causes vs anything else. Even if you're totally right, the optics of this hypocrisy have created a permanent and un-mendable fracture where a large chunk of the country is never going to believe anything Coumo or De Belasio say about COVID.
I think more people understand the situation with COVID than some realize, that it's a trainwreck from top to bottom and a lot of the decisions being made are far more political than they should be, as evidenced by the sheer amount of hypocrisy surrounding the supposed safety of protesting for left wing causes vs anything else. Even if you're totally right, the optics of this hypocrisy have created a permanent and un-mendable fracture where a large chunk of the country is never going to believe anything Coumo or De Belasio say about COVID.
> Great, now apply that logic to automobiles in general.
Do automobile accidents experience exponential growth? If so, I guarantee they'd get the exact same treatment.
Or guess what else with your auto example. Drinking and driving. You don't get free reign to do so because society shouldn't have to pay your costs for you.
Do automobile accidents experience exponential growth? If so, I guarantee they'd get the exact same treatment.
Or guess what else with your auto example. Drinking and driving. You don't get free reign to do so because society shouldn't have to pay your costs for you.
> experience exponential growth?
Exponential growth of the spread isn't the same thing as exponential growth of mortality rates. By now we know that virtually no children are affected by it at all. The most vulnerable are 60+ with preexisting health conditions. The very same kind of people Governor Coumo and a few other governors in the country put at risk by forcing COVID19 positive patients into nursing homes.
They've pushed the disease on the most vulnerable while making the least vulnerable afraid of their own shadow, literally, so they stay home and afraid and unable to work in many cases.
Exponential growth of the spread isn't the same thing as exponential growth of mortality rates. By now we know that virtually no children are affected by it at all. The most vulnerable are 60+ with preexisting health conditions. The very same kind of people Governor Coumo and a few other governors in the country put at risk by forcing COVID19 positive patients into nursing homes.
They've pushed the disease on the most vulnerable while making the least vulnerable afraid of their own shadow, literally, so they stay home and afraid and unable to work in many cases.
I think you may be missing something fairly fundamental about the math.
If you're seeing exponential spread, and a fixed portion of people die from it (whatever portion you'd prefer to define), that means you also have exponential growth of mortality from it .
Maybe that's the issue here.
If you're seeing exponential spread, and a fixed portion of people die from it (whatever portion you'd prefer to define), that means you also have exponential growth of mortality from it .
Maybe that's the issue here.
There seems like a difference in utility between automobiles and getting drunk in pubs. I can't quite put my finger on it though.
A lot of psychological literature shows that one of the most important factors in a long, healthy, happy life is being part of close-knit social fabric, so it may be that "getting drunk in pubs" has the greater utility.
> the sheer amount of hypocrisy surrounding the supposed safety of protesting for left wing causes vs anything else
Even if these protests have been have been relatively safe, I worry about a publication bias with those findings (publishing that the protests spread covid would be politically risky) and, more importantly, the lack of criticism essentially gave people permission to go have their own gatherings.
Even if these protests have been have been relatively safe, I worry about a publication bias with those findings (publishing that the protests spread covid would be politically risky) and, more importantly, the lack of criticism essentially gave people permission to go have their own gatherings.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with Cuomo or De Blasio -- merely addressing the philosophical issue around the framing:
The issue with that framing is that it's really not a personal choice issue because one's choices in this instance are not sufficiently isolated from the rest of the system. Many choices are, but this is not. If one exercises one's personal choice incorrectly, the entire system suffers.
One might say, everything in life is a risk and everything we do affects someone else. Well yes, but not everything in life is has huge downside risk and exponential spread. This is a different class of risk.
(that said, I think there are ways to lower the probability of spread at a bar (spaced outdoor seating) and at a gym (masks + distancing). Excessive alcohol consumption is a risk for noncompliant behavior though.)
The issue with that framing is that it's really not a personal choice issue because one's choices in this instance are not sufficiently isolated from the rest of the system. Many choices are, but this is not. If one exercises one's personal choice incorrectly, the entire system suffers.
One might say, everything in life is a risk and everything we do affects someone else. Well yes, but not everything in life is has huge downside risk and exponential spread. This is a different class of risk.
(that said, I think there are ways to lower the probability of spread at a bar (spaced outdoor seating) and at a gym (masks + distancing). Excessive alcohol consumption is a risk for noncompliant behavior though.)
New York City is probably way past the point where this kind of exponential spread risk is something to be worrying about, and imposing these kind of measures now seems like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and run halfway across the country. The antibody testing figures I've seen give an infection rate higher than Stockholm, infection epicenter of no-lockdown open-resturants land. I've heard it said that NYC was already past their peak before lockdown, and given what happened in Sweden I can quite believe it.
> I've heard it said that NYC was already past their peak before lockdown
They weren't passed their actual hospitalization peak, death peak, or (unless something caused a longer delay between infection and either of those outcomes than seen elsewhere) the infection peak when they started locking down.
They weren't passed their actual hospitalization peak, death peak, or (unless something caused a longer delay between infection and either of those outcomes than seen elsewhere) the infection peak when they started locking down.
You know infections occur outside of gyms and restaurants and bars, right? Places like grocery stores, homes, doctors offices, places people HAVE to go. You get infected at a gym, infect someone at the grocery store, and they infect their parent at home, and that parent dies. Good job! You made a great health choice for them.
Oh yeah, sure, Texas opened in May. How's that working out? Spoiler alert: Texas is now an absolute disaster zone. Sometimes leaving health choices that affect other people up to individuals is a really terrible idea, as evidenced by the disgraceful state that your state is currently in.
I've been living my life pretty much as before Covid here in Texas and have not experienced this disaster zone you are referencing. The state of TX has experienced around 6,878 deaths out of 28.9 million Texans. I'll take my chances with those odds.
That's a pretty disingenuous way to frame things. The state of TX has experienced 7,341 deaths out of 454,364 confirmed cases - so far.
Besides a 1.61% death rate being nothing to sneeze at (and it's probably actually higher than that), you have absolutely no idea how many of those 28.9 million Texans will ultimately contract COVID - nor will you always personally know if you're an asymptomatic carrier, responsible for infecting more of your fellow citizens.
To each their own, but I would not want to take my chances with the actual odds you face in TX today. And I wouldn't take those chances with other people's lives. It's not just about you.
Besides a 1.61% death rate being nothing to sneeze at (and it's probably actually higher than that), you have absolutely no idea how many of those 28.9 million Texans will ultimately contract COVID - nor will you always personally know if you're an asymptomatic carrier, responsible for infecting more of your fellow citizens.
To each their own, but I would not want to take my chances with the actual odds you face in TX today. And I wouldn't take those chances with other people's lives. It's not just about you.
> Besides a 1.61% death rate being nothing to sneeze at (and it's probably actually higher than that)
No, it's way lower than that. Deaths are probably undercounted, but nowhere near as much as infections are.
No, it's way lower than that. Deaths are probably undercounted, but nowhere near as much as infections are.
Go to a hospital and see for yourself. You don't know when you will need access to a hospital bed; if there are none available for whatever you need it for, will you be happy with the odds then? Also the deaths are likely highly undercounted. Also most of the people who will die in the next month are just getting sick. 145,000 people in the US were alive April 1 who are dead now from Covid; I wonder how many of them thought the odds were fine on April 1.
In 1918 August most of the people who died in 1918 from the Spanish Flu were still alive.
In 1918 August most of the people who died in 1918 from the Spanish Flu were still alive.
The numbers coming out of texas and other places in the south do not look good, but if you look at the raw data it is true that on a per-population basis, NY/NJ deaths per X are much worse (as of today)
[deleted]
Yeah, how is that working out for you (Texas), not well....
220 deaths in my 2million+ county is nothing. Society would of carried on perfectly fine.
The economic depression screwed us over way more.
The economic depression screwed us over way more.
The problem with your line of thinking is you're failing to consider what would have happened if society did not shut down.
Even with a conservative 1.6% death rate, if only a million people in your county contracted COVID, you could still expect 16,000 people to die.
That kind of death rate would tank the economy far worse than a temporary shutdown.
Even with a conservative 1.6% death rate, if only a million people in your county contracted COVID, you could still expect 16,000 people to die.
That kind of death rate would tank the economy far worse than a temporary shutdown.
>That kind of death rate would tank the economy far worse than a temporary shutdown.
That's completely false. Most of those deaths would be people who aren't working anyway (retirees). The 1918 flu killed way more people, but the economic impact was far less, because there were no lockdowns. Sweden had almost 6000 deaths, but its economy is still doing way better than most countries in Europe (France, Italy, England..).
That's completely false. Most of those deaths would be people who aren't working anyway (retirees). The 1918 flu killed way more people, but the economic impact was far less, because there were no lockdowns. Sweden had almost 6000 deaths, but its economy is still doing way better than most countries in Europe (France, Italy, England..).
No, it's absolutely not false at all. You seriously don't think that retirees contribute to the economy? Beyond that, a large portion of those deaths would be retirees, but a significant portion would be younger people (20s-60s). As more people get sick, more people stop going to work. Stop going out. The downwind effect is massive.
1.6% death rate is not conservative or based in reality. The CDC's best estimate for the IFR, currently, is 0.65% (almost 3x less.) As a population average, even 0.65% doesn't paint an accurate picture. We know deaths are disproportionally in the elderly and those with serious pre-existing conditions.
A better plan would be to do what was possible to protect at-risk populations, but not make the Faustian bargain we did to destroy the economy.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
A better plan would be to do what was possible to protect at-risk populations, but not make the Faustian bargain we did to destroy the economy.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
This is heartbreaking.
New York was the epicenter of the outbreak in the US. The situation has improved, but we aren't out of the woods yet, so I think it's correct to be cautious.
My impression from walking around outside is that everyone has optimized for malicious compliance with the rules that do exist, and we don't really appear to be taking the threat seriously anymore. Everyone has gotten masks with exhaust vents, so they can comply with the mask regulations without actually protecting anyone from their disease. Restaurants, stores, and parks are packed. People are basically done caring, and since they won't take steps to slow the spread of the disease themselves, some regulation is required to prevent super-spreading incidents. (Regarding the food rule, I think the idea is simply to reduce the number of people that can dine at a certain place per day. If someone that works there is sick, that limits the number of people they infect.)
My impression from walking around outside is that everyone has optimized for malicious compliance with the rules that do exist, and we don't really appear to be taking the threat seriously anymore. Everyone has gotten masks with exhaust vents, so they can comply with the mask regulations without actually protecting anyone from their disease. Restaurants, stores, and parks are packed. People are basically done caring, and since they won't take steps to slow the spread of the disease themselves, some regulation is required to prevent super-spreading incidents. (Regarding the food rule, I think the idea is simply to reduce the number of people that can dine at a certain place per day. If someone that works there is sick, that limits the number of people they infect.)
> New York was the epicenter of the outbreak in the US. The situation has improved, but we aren't out of the woods yet, so I think it's correct to be cautious.
New York was the epicenter specifically because both DeBlasio and Cuomo ignored public health officials at nearly every turn, refused to start preparing for the pandemic until the first case had already hit, and even then spent more of their time bickering with each other in a weird power struggle instead of trying to contain the pandemic quickly.
Multiple independent studies have shown that Cuomo's refusal to shut down the city when DeBlasio requested it was responsible for over half of NY deaths to date - and even that's not considering the fact that DeBlasio made the request rather late (the city's public health department was advocating it far earlier).
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/0...
https://www.propublica.org/article/two-coasts-one-virus-how-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing...
New York was the epicenter specifically because both DeBlasio and Cuomo ignored public health officials at nearly every turn, refused to start preparing for the pandemic until the first case had already hit, and even then spent more of their time bickering with each other in a weird power struggle instead of trying to contain the pandemic quickly.
Multiple independent studies have shown that Cuomo's refusal to shut down the city when DeBlasio requested it was responsible for over half of NY deaths to date - and even that's not considering the fact that DeBlasio made the request rather late (the city's public health department was advocating it far earlier).
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/0...
https://www.propublica.org/article/two-coasts-one-virus-how-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing...
It was already circulating in the city before the bumbling began.
Meanwhile, DeBlasio was encouraging people to see movies while SF Mayor Breed was actually prepared [0]
City Council chair of the Health Committee was encouraging Chinese New Year's crowds [1]
[0] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/de-Blasio-London-Bree...
[1] https://twitter.com/marklevinenyc/status/1226566648729133056
City Council chair of the Health Committee was encouraging Chinese New Year's crowds [1]
[0] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/de-Blasio-London-Bree...
[1] https://twitter.com/marklevinenyc/status/1226566648729133056
I'm not really debating whether the problem was handled correctly. That is in the past, what matters is what we do now and in the future.
Are case rates low enough for people to safely crowd into bars on Friday night? If they are, then we should let people do that. If they aren't, then we shouldn't.
Are case rates low enough for people to safely crowd into bars on Friday night? If they are, then we should let people do that. If they aren't, then we shouldn't.
> Are case rates low enough for people to safely crowd into bars on Friday night?
Why are you bringing up a strawman? Nobody in this thread suggested that.
Why are you bringing up a strawman? Nobody in this thread suggested that.
That was intended to be a direct reply to your original concern about businesses being fined for not serving the right kind of food. I think you're saying that it's arbitrary and capricious, but I'm saying it makes sense in terms of reducing the number of people that go into bars without closing them completely.
Maybe my personal experience is wrong, but bars are pretty crowded in New York City, and I think reducing the crowding can have a large impact in slowing the spread of coronavirus.
Maybe my personal experience is wrong, but bars are pretty crowded in New York City, and I think reducing the crowding can have a large impact in slowing the spread of coronavirus.
> I'm saying it makes sense in terms of reducing the number of people that go into bars without closing them completely. Maybe my personal experience is wrong, but bars are pretty crowded in New York City
Where are bars crowded indoors in New York City?
Where are bars crowded indoors in New York City?
During the pandemic? No idea. I am staying home except for my weekly grocery shopping trip. Before the pandemic? Everywhere? I never found a non-crowded bar, anyway, but I am willing to believe that they exist.
I'm confused, because earlier you implied that you had direct knowledge of overcrowding recently (during the pandemic), and particularly indoors.
> My impression from walking around outside is that... we don't really appear to be taking the threat seriously anymore. Everyone has gotten masks with exhaust vents, so they can comply with the mask regulations without actually protecting anyone from their disease. Restaurants, stores, and parks are packed. People are basically done caring.
> Are case rates low enough for people to safely crowd into bars on Friday night?
> Maybe my personal experience is wrong, but bars are pretty crowded in New York City
But now you're saying that you don't have direct observation of any of this during the pandemic.
> During the pandemic? No idea. I am staying home except for my weekly grocery shopping trip.
> My impression from walking around outside is that... we don't really appear to be taking the threat seriously anymore. Everyone has gotten masks with exhaust vents, so they can comply with the mask regulations without actually protecting anyone from their disease. Restaurants, stores, and parks are packed. People are basically done caring.
> Are case rates low enough for people to safely crowd into bars on Friday night?
> Maybe my personal experience is wrong, but bars are pretty crowded in New York City
But now you're saying that you don't have direct observation of any of this during the pandemic.
> During the pandemic? No idea. I am staying home except for my weekly grocery shopping trip.
I don't have any direct observation of bars.
I stopped going outside because it's so crowded and people appear so uninterested in doing anything to help others. During the phase when masks were a new thing, everyone was well-behaved and it didn't bother me as much. People have gotten bored with the rules, so I now minimize the time spent outside. Maybe that's dumb, because there is no risk of outdoor transmission. I'm not going to bet my life on it.
Maybe everyone else reached the same conclusion as me, and bars are totally abandoned on Friday night. But I doubt it. People are just living their normal lives right now, and don't have COVID-19 because they're lucky, not because they took any steps to reduce the spread.
The thing that really gets me are the respirators with exhaust ports. Those are great if you are using a table saw all day. But they do nothing to prevent you from giving me your respiratory disease, which is kind of the point of masks right now.
I stopped going outside because it's so crowded and people appear so uninterested in doing anything to help others. During the phase when masks were a new thing, everyone was well-behaved and it didn't bother me as much. People have gotten bored with the rules, so I now minimize the time spent outside. Maybe that's dumb, because there is no risk of outdoor transmission. I'm not going to bet my life on it.
Maybe everyone else reached the same conclusion as me, and bars are totally abandoned on Friday night. But I doubt it. People are just living their normal lives right now, and don't have COVID-19 because they're lucky, not because they took any steps to reduce the spread.
The thing that really gets me are the respirators with exhaust ports. Those are great if you are using a table saw all day. But they do nothing to prevent you from giving me your respiratory disease, which is kind of the point of masks right now.
It's impossible to make rent in the city while at 50 percent capacity. The reckless and inconsiderate patrons are back already, the rest will not be going back to bars and restaurants any time soon, meaning probably two years. How many of these businesses would make it two years under normal conditions? 80% of nyc restaurants fail within 5 years. [1]
Nonetheless, I have seen two new restaurants open up in my area - both focusing on take-away with some outdoor seating. When businesses are being forced to adapt to a public health risk, I consider that a positive.
However I 100% agree with the need for better use of public outdoor space, the crippling of open/summer streets programs makes no sense.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-restaurants-fail-ra...
Nonetheless, I have seen two new restaurants open up in my area - both focusing on take-away with some outdoor seating. When businesses are being forced to adapt to a public health risk, I consider that a positive.
However I 100% agree with the need for better use of public outdoor space, the crippling of open/summer streets programs makes no sense.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-restaurants-fail-ra...
I don't think it's "reckless and inconsiderate" for people to frequent outdoor restaurants/bars now. NYC has had outdoor dining open for 6 weeks, with low and stable COVID infection rates throughout. A scientific consensus that COVID spreads the most indoors is emerging. Aside from allowing people to enjoy their leisure (with social and mental benefits), we support local businesses and their workers. Is it great that people are even working with the virus around? No, of course not. But with government aid not coming at all, the next best thing to do is to make sure the restaurants have enough money to pay staff and other expenses.
The real "reckless and inconsiderate" people are the politicians who are trying to impose austerity, cut benefit checks, and let businesses fail without a care. The elites are presiding over a 30% annualized decline in GDP without a care - mindboggling.
The real "reckless and inconsiderate" people are the politicians who are trying to impose austerity, cut benefit checks, and let businesses fail without a care. The elites are presiding over a 30% annualized decline in GDP without a care - mindboggling.
> The elites are presiding over a 30% annualized decline in GDP without a care - mindboggling.
It's only mindboggling if you expect them to care about the entire GDP and not just their personal slices of the pie.
It's only mindboggling if you expect them to care about the entire GDP and not just their personal slices of the pie.
The workers still have to be indoors. Do you not care about their well being? How many bar and restaurant workers get health insurance from their employer?
I care very much about their wellbeing, which is why it’s so important they are able to go back to work.
NY is a Medicaid Expansion state. The bar and restaurant workers likely qualify for free (under 133% FPL) or substantially subsidized ACA plans.
Right now, the mask-wearing hand-washing under 40-year-old restaurant worker in NYC, with a positivity rating of 1% (the noise floor) are probably more at risk from dying due to lightening strike in their lifetime (1 in 180k) than of COVID.
NY is a Medicaid Expansion state. The bar and restaurant workers likely qualify for free (under 133% FPL) or substantially subsidized ACA plans.
Right now, the mask-wearing hand-washing under 40-year-old restaurant worker in NYC, with a positivity rating of 1% (the noise floor) are probably more at risk from dying due to lightening strike in their lifetime (1 in 180k) than of COVID.
I absolutely do. I try to wear a mask as much as possible, though it can't be 100% when dining. Some 30% of NYC renters haven't paid rent since March and may face eviction. If I can help restaurant staff do that, that's a help. And plus, infection rates are low and stable in NY.
In an ideal world, we all go to sleep until a vaccine arrives, but we live in a world far from ideal.
In an ideal world, we all go to sleep until a vaccine arrives, but we live in a world far from ideal.
Perhaps the government should broker some temporary rent-per-customer or rent-per-$ sales as a way to help both landlords and small businesses.
Sure DeBlasio and Cuomo 100% bungled the response in March especially, but you have a lot wrong here.
The city has been massively transformed to allow outdoor dining. Easily 1000's of restaurants and bars now have outdoor dining in what would usually be street parking spaces. Manhattan and Brooklyn especially. I've seen less of this in the Bronx, but most restaurants stayed open doing takeout anyway.
NYC gave direct cash grants to businesses with <10 employees. I know business owners got the money. Those grants were approved and funded before Care Act / PPP was passed. Once PPP opened there was no point in NYC trying to compete, the city can't print money.
Other states were able to give more direct financial assistance to businesses because they didn't have to spend so much on actual COVID response. Remember NY received a tiny amount of federal funding relative to population and actual pandemic impact, because of who was in control of the funding formula.
The city has been massively transformed to allow outdoor dining. Easily 1000's of restaurants and bars now have outdoor dining in what would usually be street parking spaces. Manhattan and Brooklyn especially. I've seen less of this in the Bronx, but most restaurants stayed open doing takeout anyway.
NYC gave direct cash grants to businesses with <10 employees. I know business owners got the money. Those grants were approved and funded before Care Act / PPP was passed. Once PPP opened there was no point in NYC trying to compete, the city can't print money.
Other states were able to give more direct financial assistance to businesses because they didn't have to spend so much on actual COVID response. Remember NY received a tiny amount of federal funding relative to population and actual pandemic impact, because of who was in control of the funding formula.
> Sure DeBlasio and Cuomo 100% bungled the response in March especially
Okay, so we agree on that.
> The city has been massively transformed to allow outdoor dining. Easily 1000's of restaurants and bars now have outdoor dining in what would usually be street parking spaces.
As journalists have documented extensively, New York's expansion of street space is incredibly paltry compared to what other cities in the US have done. No, it's not zero, but it's clearly not enough (per the article), and it's not even keeping pace with what other cities are doing.
> NYC gave direct cash grants to businesses with <10 employees. I know business owners got the money. Those grants were approved and funded before Care Act / PPP was passed. Once PPP opened there was no point in NYC trying to compete, the city can't print money.
Yes, there is a a point to the city (and the state) providing direct aid to local businesses on top of the federal assistance. And there absolutely is a point to the city and state targeting funds to essential industries that are hit particularly hard - which is what plenty of other jurisdictions have already done.
> Other states were able to give more direct financial assistance to businesses because they didn't have to spend so much on actual COVID response. Remember NY received a tiny amount of federal funding relative to population and actual pandemic impact, because of who was in control of the funding formula.
First of all, New York wouldn't have needed to spend as much on COVID response if Cuomo and DeBlasio had actually done their jobs in January or February. But more importantly: the limiting factor here isn't money. As I outlined in my post, the state is actually spending money in ways which are directly harmful to small businesses, with no justifiable public health gain.
DeBlasio and Cuomo could literally just base their policies on what other cities and countries have done with success, and that would already be miles ahead of what they've decided to do instead. The problem isn't that they can't. The problem is that they've genuinely expressed zero desire to.
Okay, so we agree on that.
> The city has been massively transformed to allow outdoor dining. Easily 1000's of restaurants and bars now have outdoor dining in what would usually be street parking spaces.
As journalists have documented extensively, New York's expansion of street space is incredibly paltry compared to what other cities in the US have done. No, it's not zero, but it's clearly not enough (per the article), and it's not even keeping pace with what other cities are doing.
> NYC gave direct cash grants to businesses with <10 employees. I know business owners got the money. Those grants were approved and funded before Care Act / PPP was passed. Once PPP opened there was no point in NYC trying to compete, the city can't print money.
Yes, there is a a point to the city (and the state) providing direct aid to local businesses on top of the federal assistance. And there absolutely is a point to the city and state targeting funds to essential industries that are hit particularly hard - which is what plenty of other jurisdictions have already done.
> Other states were able to give more direct financial assistance to businesses because they didn't have to spend so much on actual COVID response. Remember NY received a tiny amount of federal funding relative to population and actual pandemic impact, because of who was in control of the funding formula.
First of all, New York wouldn't have needed to spend as much on COVID response if Cuomo and DeBlasio had actually done their jobs in January or February. But more importantly: the limiting factor here isn't money. As I outlined in my post, the state is actually spending money in ways which are directly harmful to small businesses, with no justifiable public health gain.
DeBlasio and Cuomo could literally just base their policies on what other cities and countries have done with success, and that would already be miles ahead of what they've decided to do instead. The problem isn't that they can't. The problem is that they've genuinely expressed zero desire to.
Outdoor dining is a bandaid fix that does not work for all restaurants. Several of the restaurants in my neighborhood that actually have decent sidewalk space are probably serving 50% of what indoor dining would have been. Even with saving money by not employing as many people for solely dining, you have increased costs through constructing bespoke outdoor dining spaces and additional cleaning.
>"The city has been massively transformed to allow outdoor dining."
Massively? The city has simply allowed restaurants to put tables out in the street and share the street with passing cars. You have people eating out in the road while surrounded by gridlock traffic, exhaust fumes and all the accompanying horn honking. It's a total shit show.
Additionally the Open Streets initiative been implemented in such a haphazard patchwork manner it could hardly be viewed as anything remotely transformative. This is a pretty spot on overview:
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/07/07/op-ed-open-streets-is...
Massively? The city has simply allowed restaurants to put tables out in the street and share the street with passing cars. You have people eating out in the road while surrounded by gridlock traffic, exhaust fumes and all the accompanying horn honking. It's a total shit show.
Additionally the Open Streets initiative been implemented in such a haphazard patchwork manner it could hardly be viewed as anything remotely transformative. This is a pretty spot on overview:
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/07/07/op-ed-open-streets-is...
On top of their horrible response, the media seems to be giving Cuomo a pass, which i dont understand.
[deleted]
> It's so disheartening to see both Cuomo and DeBlasio's absolutely pathetic response to the pandemic
Grinding this axe kills your credibility.
New York sits at the bottom of the per-capita Covid charts in the US.
Were mistakes made at the beginning? Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, data was scarce. And we had terrible shortages of PPE and no viable tests. And shutting down a school district like New York's takes a lot of time. And we had "liberal hoax" coming from the White House instead of a unified national response.
If you want to grind axes about bad pandemic response, pick on those states that refused to learn the lessons of New York and then passed New York in per capita cases 3 months later. After we had PPE. After we had tests. etc.
And, New York actually might be able to open schools without a disaster occurring. Other states? Not so much.
Grinding this axe kills your credibility.
New York sits at the bottom of the per-capita Covid charts in the US.
Were mistakes made at the beginning? Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, data was scarce. And we had terrible shortages of PPE and no viable tests. And shutting down a school district like New York's takes a lot of time. And we had "liberal hoax" coming from the White House instead of a unified national response.
If you want to grind axes about bad pandemic response, pick on those states that refused to learn the lessons of New York and then passed New York in per capita cases 3 months later. After we had PPE. After we had tests. etc.
And, New York actually might be able to open schools without a disaster occurring. Other states? Not so much.
> New York sits at the bottom of the per-capita Covid charts in the US.
If New York were counted as its own country, it would have the highest per-capita COVID-19 death toll in the entire world. And yes, that's because Cuomo and DeBlasio refused to listen to their own public health departments and refused to learn the lessons of other countries that had been hit earlier[0].
> Were mistakes made at the beginning? Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, data was scarce.
There was copious data - both from other countries and from other US cities - that indicated that New York needed to issue a shelter-in-place order at least a week before Cuomo agreed to. Even San Francisco had already shut down before Cuomo agreed to shut down NYC[1], despite San Francisco having fewer per-capita cases at the time. And even then, Cuomo waffled on whether to shut down the public schools.
There's plenty of evidence that Cuomo and DeBlasio ignored the scientific evidence that they had at the time, so you can't chalk up the high death toll to a lack of data.
> And shutting down a school district like New York's takes a lot of time.
It doesn't. Once Cuomo finally agreed to do it, it happened immediately. Where do you get the idea that it "takes time"?
[0] https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/0...
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/two-coasts-one-virus-how-...
If New York were counted as its own country, it would have the highest per-capita COVID-19 death toll in the entire world. And yes, that's because Cuomo and DeBlasio refused to listen to their own public health departments and refused to learn the lessons of other countries that had been hit earlier[0].
> Were mistakes made at the beginning? Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, data was scarce.
There was copious data - both from other countries and from other US cities - that indicated that New York needed to issue a shelter-in-place order at least a week before Cuomo agreed to. Even San Francisco had already shut down before Cuomo agreed to shut down NYC[1], despite San Francisco having fewer per-capita cases at the time. And even then, Cuomo waffled on whether to shut down the public schools.
There's plenty of evidence that Cuomo and DeBlasio ignored the scientific evidence that they had at the time, so you can't chalk up the high death toll to a lack of data.
> And shutting down a school district like New York's takes a lot of time.
It doesn't. Once Cuomo finally agreed to do it, it happened immediately. Where do you get the idea that it "takes time"?
[0] https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/0...
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/two-coasts-one-virus-how-...
You are simply wrong according to data.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Belgium, Spain, Peru, Ital, Sweden, and Chile are all above the US --so certainly above New York. France, Brazil, the Netherlands and Ireland come up right behind in the same class as New York.
If you persist spreading misinformation, I will start flagging you.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Belgium, Spain, Peru, Ital, Sweden, and Chile are all above the US --so certainly above New York. France, Brazil, the Netherlands and Ireland come up right behind in the same class as New York.
If you persist spreading misinformation, I will start flagging you.
[deleted]
> You are simply wrong according to data. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
>
> Belgium, Spain, Peru, Ital, Sweden, and Chile are all above the US --so certainly above New York. France, Brazil, the Netherlands and Ireland come up right behind in the same class as New York.
>
> If you persist spreading misinformation, I will start flagging you.
I said:
> If New York were counted as its own country, it would have the highest per-capita COVID-19 death toll in the entire world.
According to the source you cite (worldometers), the per-capita death toll for Belgium is 849 per 1M. That's the second-highest in the entire world, after San Marino (1,238).
By contrast, according to the same site you linked[0], the per-capita death toll for New York is 1,686 per 1M. That's twice as high as Belgium, and higher even than San Marino.
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
I said:
> If New York were counted as its own country, it would have the highest per-capita COVID-19 death toll in the entire world.
According to the source you cite (worldometers), the per-capita death toll for Belgium is 849 per 1M. That's the second-highest in the entire world, after San Marino (1,238).
By contrast, according to the same site you linked[0], the per-capita death toll for New York is 1,686 per 1M. That's twice as high as Belgium, and higher even than San Marino.
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
> “ Nearly every other city has taken major steps to make it easier for people to spend time outdoors, for restaurants and bars to serve patrons outdoors, assistance programs for local small businesses, and so forth.”
Horrible. Just horrible. Making it easy to gather is a bad thing, that will prolong the pandemic and lead to far more deaths and worse total economic outcomes.
I think De Blasio and Cuomo have done really a great job in NY, and wish they’d go even further to mandate masks and reduce outdoor dining basically through the rest of 2020.
Horrible. Just horrible. Making it easy to gather is a bad thing, that will prolong the pandemic and lead to far more deaths and worse total economic outcomes.
I think De Blasio and Cuomo have done really a great job in NY, and wish they’d go even further to mandate masks and reduce outdoor dining basically through the rest of 2020.
This is why S&P stocks are rising. Consumers will still need to buy, but the pandemic will drive massive consolidation to large firms that can weather the financial strain.
Apparently, if you separate the 5 biggest tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon) the rest of S&P 495 is down about 11 percent Year-to-Date [1].
[1]: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4363542-big-5-twilight-zone
[1]: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4363542-big-5-twilight-zone
Thank you, that's an excellent fact that rarely gets mentioned in the news or in comments.
Yeah no kidding. Was completely oblivious to this. Although I knew Amazon and Apple's stock had shot into the stratosphere somehow (Amazon I totally get, Apple not so much)
Apple might be skyrocketing b/c
1. it's post-covid revenues weren't significantly impacted 2. it's a blue chip stock in an era where safe securities like bonds yield nothing (there's no where else to put money) 3. fund managers don't want to miss out on the up-swing momentum, however irrational it may be
1. it's post-covid revenues weren't significantly impacted 2. it's a blue chip stock in an era where safe securities like bonds yield nothing (there's no where else to put money) 3. fund managers don't want to miss out on the up-swing momentum, however irrational it may be
Yup. I'm honestly impressed that Apple's services revenue is now 50% of iPhone revenue [1].
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/apple-aapl-earnings-q3-2020....
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/apple-aapl-earnings-q3-2020....
Presumably all those investors whining about large cash balances are singing a slightly different tune now.
The Russell 3000 has recovered to above its January 2 level.
There’s many reasons the S&P is rising, you can’t say it’s from this without evidence.
Large companies have easier access to debt. And in a low rate environment, solid returns from debt are pretty much guaranteed.
more people buying than selling?
more machines buying that selling. but will sell at a millisecond notice.
S&P is rising because the fed won’t let the market fail. We will let everything else in this country turn to shit, but the fed will prop up the market no matter what.
The US stock market has become essentially a Ponzi scheme at best, and an outright scam at worst.
The US stock market has become essentially a Ponzi scheme at best, and an outright scam at worst.
Is there any proven mechanism to put a segment of society "on-pause" for while? Each business entity submits a hibernation plan to central authority, funds provided and liabilities put on hold by decree. What do governments do historically during sieges and plagues?
Are we doomed to live through these boom-bust cycles over and over again?
Are we doomed to live through these boom-bust cycles over and over again?
Most businesses while closed could have very minimal costs.
Let's take a restaurant. Few people dining, so minimal labor costs, reduced deliveries, so minimal cost of goods/foods. But they still have enormous rent costs.
My guess is that 90% of businesses could have gone on outside, easily weathered this storm, and picked right back up where they left off if we had simply paused rent payments. This would have meant property owners wouldve been short money to pay mortgages, so we simply hold off on mortgage payments. Banks can weather that without issue, or receive govt loans to tide them over and structure of the economy is ready to pick up where it left off.
A similar solution in residential housing could've also worked well.
Let's take a restaurant. Few people dining, so minimal labor costs, reduced deliveries, so minimal cost of goods/foods. But they still have enormous rent costs.
My guess is that 90% of businesses could have gone on outside, easily weathered this storm, and picked right back up where they left off if we had simply paused rent payments. This would have meant property owners wouldve been short money to pay mortgages, so we simply hold off on mortgage payments. Banks can weather that without issue, or receive govt loans to tide them over and structure of the economy is ready to pick up where it left off.
A similar solution in residential housing could've also worked well.
So you need to understand how the commercial real estate world works to know you can’t just “hold off on mortgage payments” for very long. Most loans backed by CRE are securitized. So they are packaged into bonds. These bonds are not just banks, they are funds. Funds that hold and generate monthly payments for millions of American’s pensions/retirement/etc. This isn’t just rich old landlords won’t get their money, it is a large number of Americans, the money will stop. Bonds will simply default from lack of loan payments. Yes, the Gov can keep it afloat for a short period, but we’re talking trillions of dollars. This is the giant elephant in the room right now that the “Main Street’ is unaware of. It could potentially be very nasty. What happens if 50 million+ Americans stopped receiving/had cut significantly their pension/retirement payments? CRE is a top asset class, one of the biggest.
Sounds like what you're saying is that those bonds and investments carried unrealised or unrepoeted risk.
That's the lenders' (and regulators') responsibility.
Fixed-income investors are still granted emergency income. Their previous lifestyles may no longer be sustainable, but they'll be able to afford food, clothing, shelter, and other true necessities.
That's the lenders' (and regulators') responsibility.
Fixed-income investors are still granted emergency income. Their previous lifestyles may no longer be sustainable, but they'll be able to afford food, clothing, shelter, and other true necessities.
I would look at this as being more of a black swan event. No investor can factor those in because they are unknown by definition.
This isn't about lifestyle. If CRE crashes, this is 2008 all over again and probably an order of magnitude worse. Commercial real estate has been a very active asset class over the past decade and it's huge.
This isn't about lifestyle. If CRE crashes, this is 2008 all over again and probably an order of magnitude worse. Commercial real estate has been a very active asset class over the past decade and it's huge.
"Global Catastrophic Risk Survey", 2008 [pdf]
http://www.global-catastrophic-risks.com/docs/2008-1.pdf
Includes discussion of a "biggest natural pandemic".
Posted to HN, if not discussed, on Oct 2, 2016.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12623582
The question of GCR has been raised numerous other times on HN, though admittedly more recently of late:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Infectious disease features prominantly among discussions of GCR:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120912020526/http://gcrinstitu...
Even software executives have suggested concern, this example from 5 years ago:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI
As has the US military, from 2017:
https://www.darpa.mil/program/pandemic-prevention-platform
Economic impacts of pandemic have seen significant scholarly treatment, here looking at 1990-2018:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=1990&as_yhi=2018&q...
Less black swan than head-buried ostrich, it might appear.
http://www.global-catastrophic-risks.com/docs/2008-1.pdf
Includes discussion of a "biggest natural pandemic".
Posted to HN, if not discussed, on Oct 2, 2016.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12623582
The question of GCR has been raised numerous other times on HN, though admittedly more recently of late:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Infectious disease features prominantly among discussions of GCR:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120912020526/http://gcrinstitu...
Even software executives have suggested concern, this example from 5 years ago:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI
As has the US military, from 2017:
https://www.darpa.mil/program/pandemic-prevention-platform
Economic impacts of pandemic have seen significant scholarly treatment, here looking at 1990-2018:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=1990&as_yhi=2018&q...
Less black swan than head-buried ostrich, it might appear.
s/unrepoeted/unreported/
No disrespect to poets.
No disrespect to poets.
It sounds like the main issue you're addressing is that mortgages need to keep getting paid. New York City suspended mortgage payments however, so how were they able to do that without causing all the problems you're describing?
So the way these Deals are structured, you have "people in charge" of each deal, in simple terms. They also monitor all of these properties (Asset Managers) all the time. Right now they are basically marking them as "COVID" Forbearance. But that has been going on for some time now, and we are at risk of the bonds starting to default. I expect the Gov. to step in soon on this even more, but that will only buy a small amount of time. What needs to happen is to get tenants paying. It is a very complicated system that was never designed to handle something like this.
Except, of course, that tenants are not paying because the economy is being shut down in response to COVID. The better solution would be for the government to take over some fraction of the loans, large enough to prevent contagion but small enough to avoid zombie businesses. Not an easy balance to strike but probably the only way to see this through to the end of the crisis.
And how convenient it is, that a system that's designed to benefit the wealthiest, is also rigged to sink everybody else with it, if it's brought down. And so, for a while now, whenever anybody tries to enact some reforms that'd make it more equitable, they're defeated by appeals to retirement security. That's one nasty hack of democracy.
Commercial bonds carry risks (even very unusual but not unprecedented risks such as a global pandemic). Maybe the bondholders should have thought about this?
They have. Demand for US Treasury Bonds and other safe haven assets increased as capital holders seek to de-risk.
I wouldn’t worry too much about that, our whole political system is run by old people and they’ll throw everybody else into a giant blender before they let return on investment drop for the elderly and wealthy.
Cut pensions then. Right now the working are paying full price to the retired. Everyone should get a haircut.
Ok I'll bite on the terms of someone bought into the way things are: pensions are just deferred compensation; by cutting them you would effectively be unilaterally tearing up a contract that both sides agreed to. In addition: pensions are paid for when the work is done, not after the fact.
Pensions are earned when the work is done. They are paid in the future. It's easy to imagine a pension scheme that overpays to the point where the work becomes uneconomical but because the costs are delayed and/or borne by someone else it exists anyway.
Whether it is representative of the average scheme I have no idea. Anecdotally, my grandfather received a 100% of wage pension from the government after 10 years of service started in his mid 30's (Australia). The expected value of that would far exceed any self contribution scheme, even with tax advantages.
Whether it is representative of the average scheme I have no idea. Anecdotally, my grandfather received a 100% of wage pension from the government after 10 years of service started in his mid 30's (Australia). The expected value of that would far exceed any self contribution scheme, even with tax advantages.
Well yes, if people can't pay their rent, then that's tearing up a contract as well. Contracts aren't going to hold either way. Giving pensions a haircut is just a more equitable way to rebalance.
Can't get blood from a stone. If the money isn't there then pensioners are going to take a haircut. That isn't right or fair, it's just reality.
This is why defined benefit pension plans are just too risky for most people. We should shift all retirement plans to defined contribution with individual named accounts. Those are much safer.
This is why defined benefit pension plans are just too risky for most people. We should shift all retirement plans to defined contribution with individual named accounts. Those are much safer.
> My guess is that 90% of businesses could have gone on outside, easily weathered this storm, and picked right back up where they left off if we had simply paused rent payment
You can't go home again, though. Meaning that the world pre-Covid is gone and it's not something we can return to. We will always need dentists and daycares and so on, but much of the retail was already on its way out. And then if Covid marks a shift to WFH then lots of restaurants that depended on office workers are no longer viable. The world is changing and creative destruction, while painful, is needed.
You can't go home again, though. Meaning that the world pre-Covid is gone and it's not something we can return to. We will always need dentists and daycares and so on, but much of the retail was already on its way out. And then if Covid marks a shift to WFH then lots of restaurants that depended on office workers are no longer viable. The world is changing and creative destruction, while painful, is needed.
If millions are evicted and there are no jobs for them to find, and there's no safety net from the government (the one group that can print money), the destruction won't probably creative, unfortunately.
This is where things can get dangerous for the US, there is no safety net that guarantees people $1000 a month so that they don't starve or have to sleep on the street.
> Banks can weather that without issue
citation definitely needed on that. I don't think the banking system is set up to see Billions of dollars in monthly revenue disappear every night. This could take ALL of the slack out of the system and would almost certainly prompt a run on the banks
Messing with the banking system to this extent is one of few conceivable ways you could see the USA have a total economic collapse
citation definitely needed on that. I don't think the banking system is set up to see Billions of dollars in monthly revenue disappear every night. This could take ALL of the slack out of the system and would almost certainly prompt a run on the banks
Messing with the banking system to this extent is one of few conceivable ways you could see the USA have a total economic collapse
Yes. See my comment in this same reply thread. It isn't the banks. It is the funds who invested in these AAA bonds backed by a very diverse CRE portfolio. Who owns these funds? Avg. Americans. Pensions/retirement/etc. They are already close to the breaking point with the forbearance. The fed/Fannie/Freddie will need to step up next, but that won't last long either.
So what is a layperson to do ? Should I take out the money now while it is still there?
There's no real way to hedge against a crisis - almost by definition, everything goes down in a crisis. But as Buffet says, be greedy when others are fearful; if anything now is the time to spend what you put aside in good times, and make the cheap but risky investments that other people don't dare to. (E.g. I just booked a holiday for next year at a huge discount, which is good for me and good for the economy - I get a good deal, the airline and the hotel get a chance to stave off bankruptcy. Of course I'm taking the risk of the airline or the hotel going bankrupt)
Stop worrying and let it ride. Don't listen to anonymous people on the internet that tell you the sky is falling. Stock up on pasta and canned goods if it makes you feel better, but you don't have to worry, everything will almost certainly be fine.
We're not at that point yet.
Once it's clear to everyone that we're there, it's too late though.
True, so just make sure you're one of the first few to panic.
Germany is doing it. You can get money to pay for the restaurant.
What you cant do :pay your own rent!
More people than you think are unable to... Because, well, most people spent there money instead of saving..
But if you look at like this : resturant barely passing bye (or freelancers or whatever) go out of business.
The rest can weather the storm with the help of the government.
What you cant do :pay your own rent!
More people than you think are unable to... Because, well, most people spent there money instead of saving..
But if you look at like this : resturant barely passing bye (or freelancers or whatever) go out of business.
The rest can weather the storm with the help of the government.
What happens if/when the lender of last resort (i.e. central banks) goes down?
They wont go down. Everyone and his dogs know that things need to keep running until the pandemic finds an end.
When the end comes (for example a vaccine) yes, than things can get worse. And i suspect America will be hit really hard.
Why? All those small businesses will be gone.
Germany: the healthy ones will just reopen there doors.
When the end comes (for example a vaccine) yes, than things can get worse. And i suspect America will be hit really hard.
Why? All those small businesses will be gone.
Germany: the healthy ones will just reopen there doors.
A Central Bank cannot go down, as long as its on good terms with the FED or ECB.
What happens if the scorekeepers run out of numbers?
Central banks are the originators of money, itself a socially and legally recognised measure and transactor of debts. There is no resource constraint on supply.
Trust may fall, inflation may occur, there may be too much money chasing too few goods and services. But it's largely axiomatic that a central bank cannot run out of money.
Regionally, some preferred currency may emerge, but given that a pandemic is literally everywhere, there are no regional banks which are entirely unaffected by the situation. (Some may be to a greater or lesser extent, and regional trust shifts might occur.)
But addressing your hypothetical; that's definitionally impossible:
A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages the currency and monetary policy of a state or formal monetary union,[1] and oversees their commercial banking system. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base in a financial crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
Central banks are the originators of money, itself a socially and legally recognised measure and transactor of debts. There is no resource constraint on supply.
Trust may fall, inflation may occur, there may be too much money chasing too few goods and services. But it's largely axiomatic that a central bank cannot run out of money.
Regionally, some preferred currency may emerge, but given that a pandemic is literally everywhere, there are no regional banks which are entirely unaffected by the situation. (Some may be to a greater or lesser extent, and regional trust shifts might occur.)
But addressing your hypothetical; that's definitionally impossible:
A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages the currency and monetary policy of a state or formal monetary union,[1] and oversees their commercial banking system. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base in a financial crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
I'm aware, perhaps I should've been more clear. By "go down", I meant a loss of confidence in the nation's currency/debt.
We'll see some inflation. Savers will be worse off in real terms; retired people will have a worse time of things over the next few decades. But it's hard to imagine it getting completely out of control: there's no alternative, and no actual shortage of real goods, unless the pandemic reaches the point where it's actually limiting production of things like food, clothing and so on.
Actually you need to provide citation for the idea that messing with the banking system would cause a total economic collapse.
Also, a bank run is probably the earliest, and most completely solved problem of financial problems. In the US with FDIC insurance, and the fact that the Fed has stepped in to bail banks out time and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe there would be a bank run.
Also, banks saw trillions of dollars of revenue disappear in the 2008 financial crisis. The disappearance of revenue wasn’t the issue. The suddenness with which it happened and the unexpected impact of non banking financial institutions was what caused damage.
Suddenness wouldn’t be an issue because it would have been something mandated by the government. And the non banking institutions are smaller, better understood and would have been far less of a problem this time.
Also, a bank run is probably the earliest, and most completely solved problem of financial problems. In the US with FDIC insurance, and the fact that the Fed has stepped in to bail banks out time and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe there would be a bank run.
Also, banks saw trillions of dollars of revenue disappear in the 2008 financial crisis. The disappearance of revenue wasn’t the issue. The suddenness with which it happened and the unexpected impact of non banking financial institutions was what caused damage.
Suddenness wouldn’t be an issue because it would have been something mandated by the government. And the non banking institutions are smaller, better understood and would have been far less of a problem this time.
Hey friend, you need to do your own research before demanding citations. You've made quite a few wrong or misinformed claims yourself. Much of what you're saying requires citation are just the basic assumptions that the current market economy runs on.
>But they still have enormous rent costs
This here is one of the most important things anyone who wants to open a restaurant needs to consider. With Restaurants location is incredibly important and being in a great location carries significant costs.
Unless you own your space, you will have a difficult time making it a in the Restaurant business. you have to sell a lot of food to pay 5k-15k of rent every month leaving little in profit and savings.
The Restaurant business is brutal, even if your semi successful.
This here is one of the most important things anyone who wants to open a restaurant needs to consider. With Restaurants location is incredibly important and being in a great location carries significant costs.
Unless you own your space, you will have a difficult time making it a in the Restaurant business. you have to sell a lot of food to pay 5k-15k of rent every month leaving little in profit and savings.
The Restaurant business is brutal, even if your semi successful.
Its difficult.
The times had an interesting article at the beginning of Covid about a restaurant closing.
A closure ripples through the economy. Salaries/ suppliers and rent. Crazy high rents are going to be a casualty of this virus I suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/magazine/closing-prune-re...
I though paying everyone unemployed $600 dollars in unemployment while not a perfect system, was pretty good as that money was going right back into the economy, keeping it from collapsing completely.
A closure ripples through the economy. Salaries/ suppliers and rent. Crazy high rents are going to be a casualty of this virus I suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/magazine/closing-prune-re...
I though paying everyone unemployed $600 dollars in unemployment while not a perfect system, was pretty good as that money was going right back into the economy, keeping it from collapsing completely.
We can't expect property owners to pause rent payments without the government pausing property tax payments.
All those mortgages are wrapped into bonds. No mortgage payment, bonds can't pay. It's a default. Or haircut.
Those bonds in turn are people's retirement income. It doesn't just end at a bank.
Those bonds in turn are people's retirement income. It doesn't just end at a bank.
Then the Federal Reserve buys MBS (mortgage backed securities). Or we bail out banks again. So eventually we all end up paying the corner store's rent through taxes and inflation?
> Most businesses while closed could have very minimal costs.
For me, my mortgage on the property is my biggest expense and my bank offered my no forebearance. So, no, most couldn't have minimal costs unless you can address lease/mortgage payments.
Edit: If you disagree that mortgage/lease is the biggest expense for many businesses and doesn't need to be addressed, I'm really interested in your point of view. I may be using anecdotal evidence for me that doesn't translate to other businesses.
For me, my mortgage on the property is my biggest expense and my bank offered my no forebearance. So, no, most couldn't have minimal costs unless you can address lease/mortgage payments.
Edit: If you disagree that mortgage/lease is the biggest expense for many businesses and doesn't need to be addressed, I'm really interested in your point of view. I may be using anecdotal evidence for me that doesn't translate to other businesses.
Banks can’t weather it that easily. They’re levered up at least 10 to 1, in many cases more. If they’re levered 10 to 1 and expecting 5% mortgage payment, in one year half their equity is wiped out, and in two years they’re insolvent. It gets worse... if the value of the mortgages goes down by 10% because people become worse credits, they become insolvent. This is why the govt is propping them up. (Same is she and solution in 2008)
TBTF.
Risk is ultimately assumed by states / CBs.
Risk is ultimately assumed by states / CBs.
Its not all mortgages though.
What do you tell the property owner who paid off mortgage, and uses the rent as primary income? Should the govt pay these people? I suppose they could get the banks to loan the money interest free...
What do you tell the property owner who paid off mortgage, and uses the rent as primary income? Should the govt pay these people? I suppose they could get the banks to loan the money interest free...
What's the alternative? Evict the tenant, no rent money, it's not like you're getting another tenant until the economy recovers...
There are still plenty of employed people, and a landlord would rather offer a big discount to someone who can pay rent than continue to deal with a tenant who is unable to do so.
> a landlord would rather offer a big discount to someone who can pay rent than continue to deal with a tenant who is unable to do so
No they wouldn't, because of rent control. Once they accept a lower rent, they're stuck with it for the long haul. In most cases, rent control makes you significantly better off going without rent for long periods of time than lowering rent.
No they wouldn't, because of rent control. Once they accept a lower rent, they're stuck with it for the long haul. In most cases, rent control makes you significantly better off going without rent for long periods of time than lowering rent.
It takes time to get a new restaurant off the ground. It's not an overnight fix.
"get a job, landlord" or "apply for unemployment"
but really there should be some minimum UBI so that nobody starves or lives on the streets.
but really there should be some minimum UBI so that nobody starves or lives on the streets.
They're not gonna be getting rent if businesses close anyway so telling to them to get stuffed because rentier capitalists are lower in the hierarchy of business to preserve doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
maybe people shouldn't be able to make a living out awating rent? this is pure 'rent-seeking', I understand the appeal tho...
wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to do anything at all for a living but wait for my tenants to pay up?
wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to do anything at all for a living but wait for my tenants to pay up?
"maybe people shouldn't be able to make a living out awating rent?"
It's not exactly free money -- landlords do have to deal with the maintenance of the property, fixing/replacing broken appliances, and so forth. Before a landlord goes bankrupt they will cut back on maintenance that is not absolutely essential (something I lived through in my younger years, seeing benches fall apart, trash not being removed, and weeds taking over the front and back yards of the building), and eventually would not be able to pay for maintenance that actually is essential (good luck getting your plumbing fixed when your landlord cannot pay the plumber). There is also the matter of cascading bankruptcies when large numbers of landlords are not being paid, resulting in their loans no longer paying (likely dinging retirement accounts and pension funds).
The fact is that a major shake-up in how we organize housing e.g. getting rid of rent-seeking landlords would be difficult in normal times. Doing such a thing during a deepening economic crisis would make everything worse for everyone, including people not directly involved.
It's not exactly free money -- landlords do have to deal with the maintenance of the property, fixing/replacing broken appliances, and so forth. Before a landlord goes bankrupt they will cut back on maintenance that is not absolutely essential (something I lived through in my younger years, seeing benches fall apart, trash not being removed, and weeds taking over the front and back yards of the building), and eventually would not be able to pay for maintenance that actually is essential (good luck getting your plumbing fixed when your landlord cannot pay the plumber). There is also the matter of cascading bankruptcies when large numbers of landlords are not being paid, resulting in their loans no longer paying (likely dinging retirement accounts and pension funds).
The fact is that a major shake-up in how we organize housing e.g. getting rid of rent-seeking landlords would be difficult in normal times. Doing such a thing during a deepening economic crisis would make everything worse for everyone, including people not directly involved.
Sure, but are they doing $1k+ worth of maintenance work a month per unit? Certainly not. Many landlords probably spend more time sending out bills than they do on maintaining the property.
> Sure, but are they doing $1k+ worth of maintenance work a month per unit?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In a market with units for sale and for rent, prices tend to reach an equilibrium. The only difference is that rent includes a premium for the relative ease with which one can move.
Another way of looking at it is that traditionally it was considered reasonable for annual rent to be 1/20th of the purchase price of a property. Likewise, 5% annual maintenance was considered reasonable. Unsurprisingly … 1/20th == 5%.
> Many landlords probably spend more time sending out bills than they do on maintaining the property.
That was certainly not my experience when renting. My most recent apartment had multiple full-time employees maintaining it and had an annual improvements budget. I won't claim that it had all the amenities I would have liked, but the landlord was definitely not just letting the cash roll in.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In a market with units for sale and for rent, prices tend to reach an equilibrium. The only difference is that rent includes a premium for the relative ease with which one can move.
Another way of looking at it is that traditionally it was considered reasonable for annual rent to be 1/20th of the purchase price of a property. Likewise, 5% annual maintenance was considered reasonable. Unsurprisingly … 1/20th == 5%.
> Many landlords probably spend more time sending out bills than they do on maintaining the property.
That was certainly not my experience when renting. My most recent apartment had multiple full-time employees maintaining it and had an annual improvements budget. I won't claim that it had all the amenities I would have liked, but the landlord was definitely not just letting the cash roll in.
I doubt many landlords are making $1k+ in profits each month. Most of the rent is paying for the mortgage, property taxes, and other fees (all of which you would have to pay if you owned your own home). A landlord also needs to set aside money to cover costs on properties that are vacant (and even a landlord who only rents a single property will still face occasional vacancy in the best of times) or whose tenants are not paying rent. Then there are all the other things, like maintenance, insurance, and so forth. Whatever is left over after all that is the landlord's profit.
“Rent-seeking” does not mean “collects rent”. It’s a specific term that describes someone who inserts themselves into economic transactions without providing value.
The classic example is someone who puts a chain across a path and then charges to move the chain out of the way.
WRT landlords, you can still describe some of their behavior as “rent-seeking” if they are perpetuating a social or political environment where they get greater returns for doing nothing (e.g. NIMBY/BANANA)
The classic example is someone who puts a chain across a path and then charges to move the chain out of the way.
WRT landlords, you can still describe some of their behavior as “rent-seeking” if they are perpetuating a social or political environment where they get greater returns for doing nothing (e.g. NIMBY/BANANA)
No, collecting rent is not “rent seeking”.
Rent seeking is collecting “rents” (which is different than rent for a home) from either a public good (like land) or through lobbying for legal changes that prevent competition and increase earnings.
A house built on a piece of land is an improvement and doesn’t fall under “rent seeking”.
You could make the argument that the land the house is on is rent seeking, sure, but that would mean only a part of the income would be considered rent seeking.
Rent seeking is collecting “rents” (which is different than rent for a home) from either a public good (like land) or through lobbying for legal changes that prevent competition and increase earnings.
A house built on a piece of land is an improvement and doesn’t fall under “rent seeking”.
You could make the argument that the land the house is on is rent seeking, sure, but that would mean only a part of the income would be considered rent seeking.
Once the property is paid off everything over property tax and maintenance is rent seeking though, right?
I would say no, as the owner is still profiting based on the value offered (the home for rent). I wouldn't think that whether it's financed or not would change that.
So the rent seeking would remain constant. If the home+land is value at $500k, but the land is worth $200k, then 40% of the income could be regarded as "rent seeking".
So the rent seeking would remain constant. If the home+land is value at $500k, but the land is worth $200k, then 40% of the income could be regarded as "rent seeking".
But really they're profiting off of their ability to control access to that property with the backing of the state.
Obviously, someone has to hold the bag, but who?
You cannot just expect everybody to receive their guaranteed returns on investment as if nothing happened.
But who and how much -- that is a very tough decision.
But who and how much -- that is a very tough decision.
The result would be an even greater lack of housing supply and vastly worse quality (including disaster safety and hygene), as without renting only immediate capital is available for assets which currently take decades to generate funding to build.
Going with trailers as middle class residencies would also be more wasteful as they are built to last and outright depricate in value to "have to pay to get rid of even with salvage rights" levels.
The whole point of money is that it is fungible so it would just go elsewhere. Not a very good outcome. Imperative "shoulds" don't mean a thing in emergent systems and problem solving. Parents should love and nurture their children but we still have child abuse unfortunately.
The whole point of money is that it is fungible so it would just go elsewhere. Not a very good outcome. Imperative "shoulds" don't mean a thing in emergent systems and problem solving. Parents should love and nurture their children but we still have child abuse unfortunately.
They can live off unemployment like everyone else. And guess what, mortgage payments were already suspended in NY. Yup, they fucked over renters just like that.
Pausing does awful things to employment for people who can't survive on some minimal part-time hours that are possibly unpredictable as well, making it hard to work additional jobs to keep income stable.
> so minimal labor costs
That seems to apply only in places with minimal protection. In most of the EU they're simply employees so all the standard rules about firing would apply.
That seems to apply only in places with minimal protection. In most of the EU they're simply employees so all the standard rules about firing would apply.
No, no proven mechanism.
There are an infinity of answers why, mine:
There is no "pause" when it comes to financial relationships.
One org's liability is another one's asset. Your rent payment goes to your building owner's mortgage, the payments from which are received by an SPV, which is an asset in the fixed income portion of your investment portfolio, which is itself an asset in which you have shares, the value of which determines the value to you.
So like the proverbial butterfly, you not paying your rent hits you on the other side.
These are all contractual relationships, usually private, and bespoke. There are legal consequences to you not paying your rent. Consequences to your owner not paying his mortgage. Consequences to the absence of delivery to the SPV. Consequences so the SPV not returning its contractual interest rate. Consequences to loss in value of your shares. All of these consequences are encoded into myriad unique contracts- your lease agreement, the mortgage agreement, etc.
There fundamentally is no standardization across these agreements. There is no central registry of all of these relationships and dependencies.
There can't be, operationally, as they change in real time, and there can't be theoretically, as maintaining one would violate so many principles of privacy and autonomy and freedom and so forth.
Finally, we also live in a world where flows are dependent on work, of various kinds- underpaid and -valued work often performed by women and POC, overpaid and overvalued often performed by high status white men. All, nevertheless, work.
When work stops, but flows must continue, what do we do?
There are an infinity of answers why, mine:
There is no "pause" when it comes to financial relationships.
One org's liability is another one's asset. Your rent payment goes to your building owner's mortgage, the payments from which are received by an SPV, which is an asset in the fixed income portion of your investment portfolio, which is itself an asset in which you have shares, the value of which determines the value to you.
So like the proverbial butterfly, you not paying your rent hits you on the other side.
These are all contractual relationships, usually private, and bespoke. There are legal consequences to you not paying your rent. Consequences to your owner not paying his mortgage. Consequences to the absence of delivery to the SPV. Consequences so the SPV not returning its contractual interest rate. Consequences to loss in value of your shares. All of these consequences are encoded into myriad unique contracts- your lease agreement, the mortgage agreement, etc.
There fundamentally is no standardization across these agreements. There is no central registry of all of these relationships and dependencies.
There can't be, operationally, as they change in real time, and there can't be theoretically, as maintaining one would violate so many principles of privacy and autonomy and freedom and so forth.
Finally, we also live in a world where flows are dependent on work, of various kinds- underpaid and -valued work often performed by women and POC, overpaid and overvalued often performed by high status white men. All, nevertheless, work.
When work stops, but flows must continue, what do we do?
>When work stops, but flows must continue, what do we do?
Pay people to keep these flows going, like all other countries did?
Pay people to keep these flows going, like all other countries did?
Yeah. Other countries have had success with putting the cash in at the leaves of the dependency graph (ie the businesses) with the requirement to continue payroll. Then the rest of the relationships already exist, so the cash flows through.
Or we can destroy our economy. I suspect there will be a short delay between widespread rent payment failures and contamination of the banks. By then, we're all gonna be on the ride for the duration.
Not feeling so optimistic today.
Or we can destroy our economy. I suspect there will be a short delay between widespread rent payment failures and contamination of the banks. By then, we're all gonna be on the ride for the duration.
Not feeling so optimistic today.
There's no free lunch. The government money has to come from somewhere too. Otherwise, inflation.
We can eat some inflation, and it's worth remembering that the developed world has trouble with underinflation these days, so adding inflation isn't a negative in the short term.
Still waiting for the inflation from the last crisis.... You 100% sure it's coming?
I think you might be misunderstanding the parent's point. The inflation is already here! Indeed, inflation is how the economy is managed. As much as inflation sucks, economists would way rather have that as a problem than deflation.
The US has its “exorbitant privilege” - a pretty thick buffer of seignorage profits it can extract without running into hyperinflation.
This buffer is substantial, but finite.
This buffer is substantial, but finite.
I think it's hilarious your comment was downvoted. Plainly it's finite. Otherwise, we'd just live on printed money forever and nobody would have to work anymore. What could go wrong?!
Inflation would distribute the losses along the entire chain. That doesn't sound so bad right now.
And for that reason, it's the most regressive form of taxation.
Continuing to pay people in a way completely disconnected from the (lack of) work they’re performing is also a very reliable way to “destroy the economy”.
If you don’t want to destroy the economy, the trick is to not throw a giant wrench into it by prohibiting people from working.
If you don’t want to destroy the economy, the trick is to not throw a giant wrench into it by prohibiting people from working.
[deleted]
I agree, 1000%.
Exactly. Covering wages would have been a great investment -- preserving countless businesses that would be irreplaceable, or infeasible to start again. As life resumed, the businesses would be right there, immediately ready to go, serve their markets, pay their workers, pay their taxes, pay their landlords, preserve the equity of their owners, and resume community roles. Instead they're gone forever -- because such an approach is seen by a substantial cohort of Americans as an undeserved handout and moral hazard.
> What do governments do historically during sieges and plagues?
Collapse? Militarise?
Trying to think of examples in what one would recognise as the modern era, outside of the obvious wholesale destruction of WW2. It looks like the war itself was bad for small business in the US: https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqr...
> The total number of business enterprises in operation in the United States has declined from a peak of nearly 3.4 million in 1941 to the present [1945] low point of perhaps 2.8 million. Certain persons have seen in this decline an alarming tendency toward concentration of economic power in the hands of large corporations, accompanied by a continuous freezing out of small enterprises.
Collapse? Militarise?
Trying to think of examples in what one would recognise as the modern era, outside of the obvious wholesale destruction of WW2. It looks like the war itself was bad for small business in the US: https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqr...
> The total number of business enterprises in operation in the United States has declined from a peak of nearly 3.4 million in 1941 to the present [1945] low point of perhaps 2.8 million. Certain persons have seen in this decline an alarming tendency toward concentration of economic power in the hands of large corporations, accompanied by a continuous freezing out of small enterprises.
"Are we doomed to live through these boom-bust cycles over and over again?"
Yes, for a few reasons:
1. The probability of a catastrophic event is low but non-trivial, so every so often society has to deal with some form of destruction on a scale that is larger than what the economy can absorb. In the ancient world the threshold was lower because economies were smaller, but even the largest economies today still have limits that will be exceeded periodically.
2. Debt is a necessary part of the economy, but we are generally bad at determining how much debt we should carry, and so we periodically overshoot. The result of overshooting is a financial crisis, in which many bad debts and unsustainable businesses will be destroyed (resulting in undershooting the optimal debt level, and thus allowing the cycle to start again). Ray Dalio wrote a free book about the debt cycle that is worth reading.
Yes, for a few reasons:
1. The probability of a catastrophic event is low but non-trivial, so every so often society has to deal with some form of destruction on a scale that is larger than what the economy can absorb. In the ancient world the threshold was lower because economies were smaller, but even the largest economies today still have limits that will be exceeded periodically.
2. Debt is a necessary part of the economy, but we are generally bad at determining how much debt we should carry, and so we periodically overshoot. The result of overshooting is a financial crisis, in which many bad debts and unsustainable businesses will be destroyed (resulting in undershooting the optimal debt level, and thus allowing the cycle to start again). Ray Dalio wrote a free book about the debt cycle that is worth reading.
The problem is that people can’t hibernate. All of the employees, all along the chain, need to eat.
There is no shortage of food at the moment. Just pay people to stay home.
Right, so the government needs to cover the costs. That's what the Paycheck Protection Program was trying to do, but it wasn't expansive enough and now it has run out.
Some companies collected those loans and still didn't pay employees. I've seen this unfold personally too and it has really shaken my respect for American businessmen...
Every business owner is a cute mom-n-pop, just makin' ends meet, we're a family here, don't think of me as your boss type of boss during a bull market. When the chips are down, less so.
If the loans weren't used to cover payroll, then they'll have to pay the money back to the government.
And, they may have decided that covering e.g. rent was actually more important, since unfortunately without a location there's no business either. As I said, the program was not expansive enough.
And, they may have decided that covering e.g. rent was actually more important, since unfortunately without a location there's no business either. As I said, the program was not expansive enough.
In theory that's correct, but in reality the law isn't being enforced. There is a huge amount of fraud.
What makes you say that?
You can do that, but then the system's not really in hibernation; you've just replaced it with a temporary UBI. There's no reason to expect the transition back to a normal market economy to be particularly smooth.
A rocky transition from a temporary UBI to normalcy is better than thousands upon thousands of small businesses permanently closing across the country.
My point is, I'd expect a transition from temporary UBI to normalcy to also involve a lot of small business closures.
> Just pay people to stay home.
With what money?
With what money?
The Fed Money Printer (TM) has been running on overdrive for awhile now.
There's always money if they want to spend it. For what they pumped into the markets earlier this year, they could have given $7.5k to every American adult (or $4.5k to every single person inc children)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/03/12/fed-inje...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/03/12/fed-inje...
The repo market is not a direct cash infusion. It’s essentially the Fed propping up the price of US T-Bills (a good thing).
Bottom-left quadrant of this. https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1789676-money-printer-go-brr...
until what?
> What do governments do historically during sieges and plagues?
Completely disrupt the working of society to gather resources for either combat the problem or run away and have a comfortable life elsewhere.
History is not a good guide here. If you insist on using it as a standard, we are doing really, really well on this crisis. We are much better discussing what can improve than what we did wrong.
Completely disrupt the working of society to gather resources for either combat the problem or run away and have a comfortable life elsewhere.
History is not a good guide here. If you insist on using it as a standard, we are doing really, really well on this crisis. We are much better discussing what can improve than what we did wrong.
Are we doomed to live through these boom-bust cycles over and over again?
Historically people starved and tried to make ends meet as best they could. But if you were to ask the Kulaks (basically besieged by their gov), you’ll notice that starvation was a big part.
Are we doomed to cycles during (our lifetimes)? No, it could be all downhill for centuries. (Which I think has been the case when empires collapse, be they Roman, Dynastic Chinese, from the steppes, Mayan, etc.
Are we doomed to cycles during (our lifetimes)? No, it could be all downhill for centuries. (Which I think has been the case when empires collapse, be they Roman, Dynastic Chinese, from the steppes, Mayan, etc.
Debt jubilees were used in circumstances like this.
I think that was most typical when the party declaring the debt jubilee was the lender itself (e.g. the government), or when the lenders were despised by society (e.g. Jews in mediæval Europe).
A debt jubilee would not fly so well now when all of our pensions, retirements and endowments are tied up as … someone else's debt.
A debt jubilee would not fly so well now when all of our pensions, retirements and endowments are tied up as … someone else's debt.
Given how many households are deep in debt in US, do you think that cancelling others' indirect debt to them would leave them in the red?
My bank (Wells Fargo) actually voluntarily suspended payments for 3 months. In times like WWII, the private sector pitched in to help with the coordination of the government on the various levels.
In my country (Malaysia), the loan moratorium was ~6 months by government decree, as was electricity & broadband bills. I reckon this was only possible since government-controled funds are the largest shareholders of the companies involved.
It's still not enough. I'm thinking service providers all need a new "bare essentials" tier, whereby delinquent customers can keep the service relationship on minimalist when they are desperate.
This is preferable to cutting the service and restarting later with bad credit.
It's still not enough. I'm thinking service providers all need a new "bare essentials" tier, whereby delinquent customers can keep the service relationship on minimalist when they are desperate.
This is preferable to cutting the service and restarting later with bad credit.
It's not that easy... it will have to be supported somehow. It still costs $ just to exist. Economies are like living organisms. You can't just stop breathing. This is why covid could trigger a worldwide depression/recession.
Infectivity rate will INCREASE up until 50% and will only slow at 70% when herd immunity kicks in... things will be getting WORSE not better.
Infectivity rate will INCREASE up until 50% and will only slow at 70% when herd immunity kicks in... things will be getting WORSE not better.
I am pretty sure that is a plot element in ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
We’re going to see a lot of those plot elements in the near future.
Yes. Cancel rent and ensure everyone regardless of employment gets some mini-UBI for essentials.
Any effort to preserve employment is stupid. People don't need to work, they need to eat and live under a roof.
Small business don't need to exist, either. We might want them too, in which case we should cancel commercial rent too. Or, we might give up on small business (https://www.thebellows.org/the-double-horseshoe-theory/), and instead increase the public spaces in the city so the fabric of society and adapt.
Any effort to preserve employment is stupid. People don't need to work, they need to eat and live under a roof.
Small business don't need to exist, either. We might want them too, in which case we should cancel commercial rent too. Or, we might give up on small business (https://www.thebellows.org/the-double-horseshoe-theory/), and instead increase the public spaces in the city so the fabric of society and adapt.
>Small business don't need to exist, either.
Nah, you know what doesn't need to exist? Giant multinational corporations beholden to nobody that do whatever they want with impunity around the world, polluting, crushing local economies, lobbying governments, tracking the population like cattle and selling their data for pennies to the highest bidder.
Man the world sure would be better if they didn't exist.
Small businesses though, they're the backbone of just about every small to midsize community around the world.
Nah, you know what doesn't need to exist? Giant multinational corporations beholden to nobody that do whatever they want with impunity around the world, polluting, crushing local economies, lobbying governments, tracking the population like cattle and selling their data for pennies to the highest bidder.
Man the world sure would be better if they didn't exist.
Small businesses though, they're the backbone of just about every small to midsize community around the world.
>Nah, you know what doesn't need to exist? Giant multinational corporations beholden to nobody that do whatever they want with impunity around the world, polluting, crushing local economies, lobbying governments, tracking the population like cattle and selling their data for pennies to the highest bidder.
Giant corporations generally pay better and invest more into their workforce than small business, that's why developed economies, with high levels of organisation, rely on larger firms.
The romanticism of small-business is extremely misplaced. Small business is unproductive, precarious, and as can be seen in this pandemic fragile to external shocks, offering virtually no security to their workforce.
Large firms, ideally with high levels of unionisation (see France or Denmark), can absorb these shocks because unlike small business they're not scraping by from one month to the next. And they very much are accountable to society at large, that's why they need to hire lobbyists in the first place, because they're usually subject to regulation. It's small business that is effectively unmanagable.
Giant corporations generally pay better and invest more into their workforce than small business, that's why developed economies, with high levels of organisation, rely on larger firms.
The romanticism of small-business is extremely misplaced. Small business is unproductive, precarious, and as can be seen in this pandemic fragile to external shocks, offering virtually no security to their workforce.
Large firms, ideally with high levels of unionisation (see France or Denmark), can absorb these shocks because unlike small business they're not scraping by from one month to the next. And they very much are accountable to society at large, that's why they need to hire lobbyists in the first place, because they're usually subject to regulation. It's small business that is effectively unmanagable.
>Giant corporations generally pay better and invest more into their workforce than small business, that's why developed economies, with high levels of organisation, rely on larger firms.
In my experience, this is entirely not true. The only places i've ever gotten fair wages, been treated like a valuable employee, received regular raises were businesses with between 10-20 employees.
>The romanticism of small-business is extremely misplaced. Small business is unproductive, precarious, and as can be seen in this pandemic fragile to external shocks, offering virtually no security to their workforce
The last place I worked before my current job had a workforce of 13-15 people at any given time. We were extremely organized and productive. We brought in anywhere from $30000-$50000/day for that company. The company's assets were well into the millions from the bank statements I seen.
Our customers included people and businesses even hundreds of km away because of the quality of our work. Our work wasn't cheap either, even compared to our competitors, yet we regularly had so much business, we needed to turn down contracts and still constantly made money.
All of my coworkers had been there for over a decade before I left. They all supported families and lived good lives off that job. We all genuinely cared about the success of that business and wanted everything we did there to reflect well on it.
I have never felt that when working for any corporation other than when I'm forced to at mandatory 'pep meetings' or 'team building' bullshit they force you to participate in.
In my experience, this is entirely not true. The only places i've ever gotten fair wages, been treated like a valuable employee, received regular raises were businesses with between 10-20 employees.
>The romanticism of small-business is extremely misplaced. Small business is unproductive, precarious, and as can be seen in this pandemic fragile to external shocks, offering virtually no security to their workforce
The last place I worked before my current job had a workforce of 13-15 people at any given time. We were extremely organized and productive. We brought in anywhere from $30000-$50000/day for that company. The company's assets were well into the millions from the bank statements I seen.
Our customers included people and businesses even hundreds of km away because of the quality of our work. Our work wasn't cheap either, even compared to our competitors, yet we regularly had so much business, we needed to turn down contracts and still constantly made money.
All of my coworkers had been there for over a decade before I left. They all supported families and lived good lives off that job. We all genuinely cared about the success of that business and wanted everything we did there to reflect well on it.
I have never felt that when working for any corporation other than when I'm forced to at mandatory 'pep meetings' or 'team building' bullshit they force you to participate in.
it obviously depends on the firm in question. Of course there are smaller firms who are extremely successful and pay great wages, but in general large firms can leverage economies of scale and access to capital that small business does not have.
Your average salary at Google for the same sort of experience is higher than at a small startup, Volkswagen pays you better than most other companies in the region, working at a large Japanese multinational pays better than working at a small local company and so on, in particular if you include benefits like pensions and training and the investments those companies make in their workforce. Which is why they tend to attract a lot of talent. There's also an important aspect of specialisation, which tends to occur in large firms more than in small firms and boosts overall productivity. The firm size - wage gap is very well documented
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/07/16/why-do-lar...
Your average salary at Google for the same sort of experience is higher than at a small startup, Volkswagen pays you better than most other companies in the region, working at a large Japanese multinational pays better than working at a small local company and so on, in particular if you include benefits like pensions and training and the investments those companies make in their workforce. Which is why they tend to attract a lot of talent. There's also an important aspect of specialisation, which tends to occur in large firms more than in small firms and boosts overall productivity. The firm size - wage gap is very well documented
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/07/16/why-do-lar...
We have to distinguished between intrinsic aspects of large vs small institutions, and the terrible quarterly report jerk-off that is large for-profit companies in practice.
We should, for example, have giant software co-ops since it's fundamentally not a capital-intensive field.
We should, for example, have giant software co-ops since it's fundamentally not a capital-intensive field.
Large firms also have the money and the indirect influence ("we create jobs!!!") to throw around when more regulations are on the table. And if they're large enough, you start getting negative effects from market dominance abuse.
And small businesses don't have to be run in a way that makes them fragile to external shops. There's no reason why they can't form federations specifically for that purpose - operating independently, but sharing the downturn risks across the entire pool.
And small businesses don't have to be run in a way that makes them fragile to external shops. There's no reason why they can't form federations specifically for that purpose - operating independently, but sharing the downturn risks across the entire pool.
And many large businesses started out as small businesses. They literally owe their existence to the small business they started out as.
Hey, I'm with you that small business is much preferable to chaebol hell. But, I am also worried how much small business is still possible given modern technology and economies of scale.
(But I am also aware that the fact that large business gets so much more government assistance, directly, or via financial markets and fractional reserve banking, means it is hard to tell what is really going on.)
What I'm getting at is it may be that under capitalism consolidation is inevitable to a degree that small businesses would have to be completely propped up, in which we may consider other interventions such as workers on board or co-op requirements, UBI, etc.
Basically, if no outcome one likes is "natural" (please excuse the capitalist realism), then one should look at the full spectrum of "unnatural" solutions, as opposed to just the status-quo-adjacent "let's just attract and subsidize immigrants to work 3x hard as the rest of us so we can instagram in their restaurants and bodegas".
(But I am also aware that the fact that large business gets so much more government assistance, directly, or via financial markets and fractional reserve banking, means it is hard to tell what is really going on.)
What I'm getting at is it may be that under capitalism consolidation is inevitable to a degree that small businesses would have to be completely propped up, in which we may consider other interventions such as workers on board or co-op requirements, UBI, etc.
Basically, if no outcome one likes is "natural" (please excuse the capitalist realism), then one should look at the full spectrum of "unnatural" solutions, as opposed to just the status-quo-adjacent "let's just attract and subsidize immigrants to work 3x hard as the rest of us so we can instagram in their restaurants and bodegas".
>> But, I am also worried how much small business is still possible given modern technology and economies of scale.
This is the opposite - the more modern technology, the more likely it is that small businesses can succeed. Barriers to entry are massively reduced on many fronts.
This is the opposite - the more modern technology, the more likely it is that small businesses can succeed. Barriers to entry are massively reduced on many fronts.
"Barriers to entry" are far from being the only barriers to a business been sustainable.
Large businesses are the engines that drive the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses.
Countries have tried preventing big businesses before, and favoring small ones. It never worked out very well.
Countries have tried preventing big businesses before, and favoring small ones. It never worked out very well.
"...engines that drive the economy."
What metric are you using?
Young small to medium sized businesses account for most of the job growth.
Mature large businesses are better at rent seeking, tax avoidance, and wallowing in governmental largess.
What metric are you using?
Young small to medium sized businesses account for most of the job growth.
Mature large businesses are better at rent seeking, tax avoidance, and wallowing in governmental largess.
> Young small to medium sized businesses account for most of the job growth.
Sure, but that isn't what is driving the economy. Look instead at the number of jobs, and contribution to the GDP. Look what happens to an area when big business leaves it.
Sure, but that isn't what is driving the economy. Look instead at the number of jobs, and contribution to the GDP. Look what happens to an area when big business leaves it.
This is what Lenin said about financial capitalism and monopoly. Every boom-bust cycle, endemic to capitalism, results in further consolidation. The free market / small producer capitalism that everyone says they like died around the 1880s-1890s when large firms began to dominate. Everything said in favor of that form since then has been essentially nostalgia for a lost time that wasn't even that good to begin with.
If the trust busters don't come back, we will see essentially a kind of feudalist economy develop around a few extraordinarily powerful companies as every ladder is pulled up behind them and smaller institutions are "creatively destroyed".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage...
If the trust busters don't come back, we will see essentially a kind of feudalist economy develop around a few extraordinarily powerful companies as every ladder is pulled up behind them and smaller institutions are "creatively destroyed".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage...
This shouldn't be down-voted. Just because you don't like something Lenin did doesn't mean all his observations are wrong.
I recently found https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-100-issue-5/all-i-rea... which was a great read. Eugene V Debs had a similar conclusion about consolidation being inevitable, but thought that that was a good thing.
And to be clear, whether competition is possible / what's the right trade-off between efficiency and robustness, is really important to grapple with. If we don't know how to e.g. break up Google, proposals like having workers on boards become dramatically more essential.
I recently found https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-100-issue-5/all-i-rea... which was a great read. Eugene V Debs had a similar conclusion about consolidation being inevitable, but thought that that was a good thing.
And to be clear, whether competition is possible / what's the right trade-off between efficiency and robustness, is really important to grapple with. If we don't know how to e.g. break up Google, proposals like having workers on boards become dramatically more essential.
> This shouldn't be down-voted. Just because you don't like something Lenin did doesn't mean all his observations are wrong.
He is probably being downvoted for saying that consolidation will lead to feudalism. That is a ridiculous idea that deserves a downvote!
He is probably being downvoted for saying that consolidation will lead to feudalism. That is a ridiculous idea that deserves a downvote!
He said a "feudalist economy" which seems an apt description for an economy run by a handful of companies.
baggy_trough(2)
Many small businesses have signed personal guarantees on their commercial leases, meaning that landlords will come after them even after they've closed.
Restaurants for example will often have 5-10 year lease terms.
Restaurants for example will often have 5-10 year lease terms.
>> Many small businesses have signed personal guarantees on their commercial leases, meaning that landlords will come after them even after they've closed.
Yep. Just signed a 7 year lease and personally guaranteed it. More things few people are talking about when advocating for lockdowns.
Yep. Just signed a 7 year lease and personally guaranteed it. More things few people are talking about when advocating for lockdowns.
Personal bankruptcy is only on your credit report for 7 years, versus being on the hook for sums you could never afford to repay. You'll be eligible for credit right away after the discharge (because you can't go BK again for 8 years), and eligible for a low down payment FHA mortgage (3-5% down) after two years (from discharge date).
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. Bankruptcy is a tool to encourage efficient risk-taking and solving otherwise tricky collective action problems for creditors.
There's an unfortunate stigma about bankruptcy in the U.S. which leads to _far_ fewer people/businesses filing bankruptcy than should be.
No one is better off limping along under unsustainable debt, not businesses and not individuals. We need to get rid of this stigma and let people use the tools we put in place to solve these problems.
There's an unfortunate stigma about bankruptcy in the U.S. which leads to _far_ fewer people/businesses filing bankruptcy than should be.
No one is better off limping along under unsustainable debt, not businesses and not individuals. We need to get rid of this stigma and let people use the tools we put in place to solve these problems.
Sure, but the business owner probably also lost his/her house in the process.
Just because it's not permanent, doesn't mean bankruptcy is an easy option.
Just because it's not permanent, doesn't mean bankruptcy is an easy option.
During bankruptcy, all of your property will be placed in a bankruptcy estate. If you want to keep your home, you can usually exempt it from the estate and will continue to be liable for the mortgage as long as you make payments. If you don’t have enough equity in the property to secure junior liens on the property, such as a home equity loan, those will be stripped away and you’ll only be liable moving forward for the senior lien (primary mortgage).
There’s a lot of nuance, and it’s hard to generalize, but the system is designed to provide some relief in a reasonable manner.
There’s a lot of nuance, and it’s hard to generalize, but the system is designed to provide some relief in a reasonable manner.
I don't know what it's like in the USA, but Australian banks simply don't lend to small businesses without taking security over (usually) real estate. This inevitably means a senior mortgage over the principal's primary residence.
That being said, Australian banks are notoriously tight-fisted for any non-property investment, so perhaps things are more amenable in the USA.
That being said, Australian banks are notoriously tight-fisted for any non-property investment, so perhaps things are more amenable in the USA.
US credit flows like water, despite our generous bankruptcy laws.
furthermore, it seems that it should be easier to obtain credit if you have no debt than if you have more debt than collateral, and obviously no ability to pay it.
Not if the reason you have no debt is that you had the courts erase it all.
Force majure?
In Russia the government set up a process to have people freed from contracts during the pandemic, using this legal concept.
This is where having a hippy friend who doesn't believe in money is really useful.
The trick is to get them sober, washed and suited up for the meeting where you sign.
And be very, very nice to them the next few years when they ask you for a favor.
The trick is to get them sober, washed and suited up for the meeting where you sign.
And be very, very nice to them the next few years when they ask you for a favor.
What percent of small businesses fail every year?
To understand the damage, you have to know how what the baseline closure rate is. I am not sure what the rate is in the restaurant industry, but it seems extremely high even in regular times.
To understand the damage, you have to know how what the baseline closure rate is. I am not sure what the rate is in the restaurant industry, but it seems extremely high even in regular times.
This is the businesses that made it. The vast majority fail. The fact that one-third of a very small percentage are newly failing is significant.
> The fact that one-third of a very small percentage are newly failing is significant.
Completely reasonable. But how significant?
Is 1/3 50% more than usual?
Is it 3x as many as usual?
Is it an order of magnitude more?
Completely reasonable. But how significant?
Is 1/3 50% more than usual?
Is it 3x as many as usual?
Is it an order of magnitude more?
>>Between early March and early May, roughly 110,000 small businesses nationwide shut down, according to researchers at Harvard.
I tracked down the paper[1] they referenced and Table 5 was an eye opener. While "only" 110K small businesses were estimated to have shut down out of 30M[2] small businesses nationwide (0.37%), the really grim survey results are summarized in Table 5 of the paper titled "Reported Likelihood of Remaining Open by Industry and Hypothetical Crisis Duration". The restaurant/bar/catering category surveyed back in late March believed their chance of survival would only be 0.15 if the shutdowns lasted through to December.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w26989.pdf
[2] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2314...
I tracked down the paper[1] they referenced and Table 5 was an eye opener. While "only" 110K small businesses were estimated to have shut down out of 30M[2] small businesses nationwide (0.37%), the really grim survey results are summarized in Table 5 of the paper titled "Reported Likelihood of Remaining Open by Industry and Hypothetical Crisis Duration". The restaurant/bar/catering category surveyed back in late March believed their chance of survival would only be 0.15 if the shutdowns lasted through to December.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w26989.pdf
[2] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2314...
It seems strikingly brazen for the landlords to start asking for full rent in this market. Even before covid, vacant storefronts were sitting on the market for months or years due to retail and banking moving online[1]. Good luck finding someone who wants to start a new restaurant in the next 9 months or so. Even if they think they can force the current tenant into bankruptcy and collect, there won't be much to collect after taking away the tenant's only income stream.
It all just feels very short-sighted.
[1] see, e.g., from 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/06/nyregion/nyc-...
It all just feels very short-sighted.
[1] see, e.g., from 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/06/nyregion/nyc-...
It’s all absurdly shortsighted and instead of throwing helicopter cash around the Fed should have sat all major banks and asset managers around and said “we’ll support your principal but you agree to a moratorium on coupon payments on MBS” and then force these to be passed on to landlords and then on to tenants. Everyone gets (mostly) what they want.
What you’re missing is that this chain represents a social hierarchy that has to be preserved above and beyond any material arrangement. Bankers > borrowers > tenants.
You can bailout the upper echelons of the first two, but anything further calls into question the whole validity of the arrangement. That is forbidden.
You can bailout the upper echelons of the first two, but anything further calls into question the whole validity of the arrangement. That is forbidden.
>Even if they think they can force the current tenant into bankruptcy and collect, there won't be much to collect after taking away the tenant's only income stream.
A lot of landlords have no choice. They themselves are businesses, often leveraged to the hilt, with not a whole lot of room to offer grace.
And yes, I realize there are massive REITs behind some of these properties, that have large earnings and reap huge windfalls for shareholders. That doesn't mean they're equipped to receive no income for months during a pandemic. It's sort of the way our economy works: right on the edge at all times.
A lot of landlords have no choice. They themselves are businesses, often leveraged to the hilt, with not a whole lot of room to offer grace.
And yes, I realize there are massive REITs behind some of these properties, that have large earnings and reap huge windfalls for shareholders. That doesn't mean they're equipped to receive no income for months during a pandemic. It's sort of the way our economy works: right on the edge at all times.
I agree with all that, but surely if they don't have any wiggle room to offer grace they don't have wiggle room to let the property be vacant for 6+ months, by which time there will inevitably be a glut of supply on the market.
I'm almost sickened pointing this out, but legally speaking, a large part of the 6+ months would be the responsibility of the tenant they sued. It could get ugly for the small business owner.
True generally regarding tenant responsibility if new tenant can't be found, but good luck recovering anything at all from a tenant who was evicted because they couldn't pay rent.
It seems to me that any landlord who understood the economic situation would work with tenants to keep them on paying something, even if they couldn't afford full rent. I expect landlords will end up better economically in the end that way.
It seems to me that any landlord who understood the economic situation would work with tenants to keep them on paying something, even if they couldn't afford full rent. I expect landlords will end up better economically in the end that way.
It should shake out that way, but sometimes there are places where the gears don't quite mesh. For example they might have loans secured on the property as x * monthly rent, and so if they rent it out cheaper then they have to post additional collateral which would be more than a few month's rent.
Keeping a tenant at 80% rent is still better than having no tenant at 100% rent. If business are having a few quarters of negative profitability, why can't the same happen to commercial real estate?
Rent control. It makes more sense to keep the place vacant than to reduce the base rent, which could take decades to make up.
I'm not familiar with how rent control works. If they lowered prices due to the pandemic would they really have to keep them that low indefinitely?
Rent control in most places means you cannot increase the rent more than x% per year, where x is fairly low. If the rent is decreasing, you are not allowed to put it back to the original level if the difference is larger than x, so you need to do x% per year for several years just to revert to previous levels.
That seems like a seriously perverse incentive if kicking people out and leaving the building vacant becomes more economically prudent in the long run
Depending on how they do it and the location for many areas temporary "discounts" do not effect the "base rent" but in many areas discounts are considered altering the "base rent" and would basically permanently ruin any chance of making money on a piece of property. Can't even sell it if you get stuck with a low base rent as normally rent control forces the rate to pass between owner with very few exceptions meaning no one would buy the land off you.
Has there been any consideration by state/city governments to temporarily lift these restrictions until the pandemic is over so long as prices don't exceed the prepandemic price once we return to normalcy?
Again, I'm uniformed on this issue as I live in an area that doesn't practice rent control. Happy to hear if this is a bad idea for some reason I'm not thinking of.
Again, I'm uniformed on this issue as I live in an area that doesn't practice rent control. Happy to hear if this is a bad idea for some reason I'm not thinking of.
> Has there been any consideration by state/city governments to temporarily lift these restrictions until the pandemic is over so long as prices don't exceed the prepandemic price once we return to normalcy?
Can't you imagine the headlines? 'Sweetheart deal for politicially-connected landlords allows rent-control evasion for the next year!'
Can't you imagine the headlines? 'Sweetheart deal for politicially-connected landlords allows rent-control evasion for the next year!'
I thought the whole point of rent-control was to keep prices from going up? In this instance they would be going down.
How could you spin that as a good thing for landlords? Ignoring blatantly false news, that is.
How could you spin that as a good thing for landlords? Ignoring blatantly false news, that is.
The idea was to allow prices to quickly return to their current level after going down, in what would normally be a violation of rent-control policies. That would easily be spun as allowing landlords to raise rent more quickly than they normally could.
Rent control. It makes more sense to keep the place vacant than to reduce the base rent, which could take decades to make up.
Huh?
Does NYC have rent control for businesses? I doubt it. That's for apartments.
Huh?
Does NYC have rent control for businesses? I doubt it. That's for apartments.
Lowering rates drops resale value. That's why discounts are tacked on so that the official rate remains inflated.
I mean, many of these guys can't handle 4 months of no cash flow. 100% rent or 80% rent, they're going under anyway. You might as well get what you can out of them.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you run my proposed scenario on a hypothetical rent of $10k a month then it becomes "which is greater 80% of 10 or 100% of 0" do you want $8,000 or $0".
"You might as well get what you can out of them." might mean lowering rents.
"You might as well get what you can out of them." might mean lowering rents.
I think that's the difference. I'm saying they're going out of business anyway and you're going to have to line up with the other creditors. The question is whether you get $8000 for 4 months and zero after or $10000 for 4 months and zero after. You lower your rent and you don't get more because your tenant is going to die anyway. It's a no-brainer.
I have a friend who started a bar in the past 2 years and his landlord reduced his rent to 0 during the peak of the pandemic. He's still afloat.
He also said that if his landlord had charged him his full rent or would want the full rent paid back he'd go under.
He also said that if his landlord had charged him his full rent or would want the full rent paid back he'd go under.
Sure, if I made it sound like I meant "There is no instance where it makes sense to not eat your customer alive" then that is not correct. I am certain these cases exist.
I'm excited for your world. The world where we get what we can out of people already struggling. Sounds like a nice world.
I can't speak for NYC, but in Sydney commercial properties are typically valued at a fixed multiple of the rent.
This matters because if they change the rent, any loan they've taken out now gets revalued, which could put them underwater. So in that case 80% is much worse than empty but at 100%.
This is why you'll see landlords giving a month's free rent, making rebates etc, while technically still charging 'full price'.
This matters because if they change the rent, any loan they've taken out now gets revalued, which could put them underwater. So in that case 80% is much worse than empty but at 100%.
This is why you'll see landlords giving a month's free rent, making rebates etc, while technically still charging 'full price'.
Allow me to shed a single tear for the landlords who took an over leverage position and are expecting the taxpayer to bail them out on the threat of a mass eviction crisis.
If only someone could have told those poor poor landlords the dangers of over leveraged investments. The TSLA short guys should get on this grift; bail outs for idiots or the public gets it.
If only someone could have told those poor poor landlords the dangers of over leveraged investments. The TSLA short guys should get on this grift; bail outs for idiots or the public gets it.
I suspect sometimes people just have trouble acknowledging the real value of a building. It certainly happens with a lot of home owners.
In good times you sometimes see landlords dramatically raise the rent on tenants, have the space empty, and then continue to stay empty for months.
In good times you sometimes see landlords dramatically raise the rent on tenants, have the space empty, and then continue to stay empty for months.
Would it shock you that the main reason that space is vacant in New York or California is due to tax policy, state and federal?
If it doesn't make sense it makes dollars.
If it doesn't make sense it makes dollars.
Yes, it would shock me. Care to explain?
There are lots of ways to come up with an answer.
Any tax deduction that can be realized by a non-person entity can be securitized.
"If you are a real estate professional, you can deduct any amount of rental losses, regardless of your income."
Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT) pass taxes onto owners.
Occasionally you pay no capital gains on selling property.
Occasionally you pay no tax on income used to pay off debt financed property.
If you are a huge investor you can buy and sell properties. Normally you would pay tax like anyone else at that scale, or you can sell shares in your REIT where a lot of the value is tied up in the fact that the small-time share buyers can realize tax benefits you can't. So you securitized tax benefits.
In some places, like California, the tax bill on your real estate is frozen some 30-40 fucking years ago as long as ownership doesn't change outside of family dynasties. So whereas you'd have to rent it in any other part of the civilized world, here you can just wait until grandma dies and inherit the house. It sits vacant.
Some people create family dynasties by marriage. Although it's a stretch to call that, strictly speaking, a tax dodge.
We don't tax vacant properties, which could encourage their use productively.
Anyway let me put this another way. Would it shock you that I know a lot of people here in San Francisco with 2 or 3 houses owner-occupied by a total of 5 people because (1) they have just lived here forever, (2) their kids have moved out, and (3) the taxes are frozen in the early 90s? And you wonder why there's vacancy. 3 houses for 5 people!
Any tax deduction that can be realized by a non-person entity can be securitized.
"If you are a real estate professional, you can deduct any amount of rental losses, regardless of your income."
Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT) pass taxes onto owners.
Occasionally you pay no capital gains on selling property.
Occasionally you pay no tax on income used to pay off debt financed property.
If you are a huge investor you can buy and sell properties. Normally you would pay tax like anyone else at that scale, or you can sell shares in your REIT where a lot of the value is tied up in the fact that the small-time share buyers can realize tax benefits you can't. So you securitized tax benefits.
In some places, like California, the tax bill on your real estate is frozen some 30-40 fucking years ago as long as ownership doesn't change outside of family dynasties. So whereas you'd have to rent it in any other part of the civilized world, here you can just wait until grandma dies and inherit the house. It sits vacant.
Some people create family dynasties by marriage. Although it's a stretch to call that, strictly speaking, a tax dodge.
We don't tax vacant properties, which could encourage their use productively.
Anyway let me put this another way. Would it shock you that I know a lot of people here in San Francisco with 2 or 3 houses owner-occupied by a total of 5 people because (1) they have just lived here forever, (2) their kids have moved out, and (3) the taxes are frozen in the early 90s? And you wonder why there's vacancy. 3 houses for 5 people!
Thanks for this, I hadn't thought about securitizing tax benefits.
But in the SF case if you have 5 people living in 3 houses, say, as 2 / 2 / 1, and this are single-family houses, I don't think you have vacancies. "Occupants per square foot" isn't a measure of vacancy except when it's zero.
But in the SF case if you have 5 people living in 3 houses, say, as 2 / 2 / 1, and this are single-family houses, I don't think you have vacancies. "Occupants per square foot" isn't a measure of vacancy except when it's zero.
See another answer to the parent. Also, there are ways that large owners can claim vacancies as losses from a tax perspective.
This isn't really tax policy, though- yes, there are tax rules around this, but it's not like the IRS woke up one day and was like-
You know what's unfair? Large property owners feeling the pain from potential lessees not fully appreciating the value they're getting for the price. Merely setting a price is a legitimate business risk, and large owners deserve to be recognized for that risk and for their losses.
That isn't what happened.
This isn't really tax policy, though- yes, there are tax rules around this, but it's not like the IRS woke up one day and was like-
You know what's unfair? Large property owners feeling the pain from potential lessees not fully appreciating the value they're getting for the price. Merely setting a price is a legitimate business risk, and large owners deserve to be recognized for that risk and for their losses.
That isn't what happened.
It's not tax policy. It's finance. Real estate is about cash flow, not tax.
A property owner can finance a real property based on the actual or putative rental market value, using the leasable property as collateral. An empty space can theoretically rent for top dollar if a national chain rents the space, but a leased space must be valued at the actual lease value. Consequently, many developers choose to keep spaces vacant unless they are actually able to lease them at or close to the lease value assumed in their financing arrangements.
A property owner can finance a real property based on the actual or putative rental market value, using the leasable property as collateral. An empty space can theoretically rent for top dollar if a national chain rents the space, but a leased space must be valued at the actual lease value. Consequently, many developers choose to keep spaces vacant unless they are actually able to lease them at or close to the lease value assumed in their financing arrangements.
The margins on the financial instruments that affect real estate are generally slim enough that a couple percent here or there as a result of tax is the deciding factor.
In case there's some motive for picking NY or CA, what about all of the empty space in Houston? Why would the rents go up, along with vacancy?
I haven't gone counting, but I've been unnerved by how many storefronts, warehouses, lots, and human houses remained empty after what the narrative would like us to believe is a protracted economic expansion.
(Serious question. It's obvious enough that the owners perceive them to be of more value empty than full.)
I haven't gone counting, but I've been unnerved by how many storefronts, warehouses, lots, and human houses remained empty after what the narrative would like us to believe is a protracted economic expansion.
(Serious question. It's obvious enough that the owners perceive them to be of more value empty than full.)
Commercial landlords require huge down payments and want small business owners to sign using their own name. Any experienced commercial landlord has been burned plenty of times trying sue a "Grapes vape shop LLC". Gets! Worse! The largest asset these small business owners own is: their house -- and NOW they have no LLC protection.
Yes this exactly. The commercial real estate people I know aren't worried much (at least at the moment). Most of these small business leases are personally guaranteed.
It's not easy to break a commercial lease. Better to drain down the tenant while you can instead of reducing rent and then they die when other contractual obligations drain them down. You likely won't be keeping the tenant alive by letting them stay on reduced rent.
This might actually be a good thing in the long run. Real estate prices in NYC were insane before the pandemic, landlords would purposefully keep property off the market and toss out long established businesses on hopes of scoring a payday from a new renter. Now we are in a situation where it is just impossible to pack enough people into a space to earn a profit at $3700 per square foot. No doubt it will cause some people a lot of pain up front but eventually it might be possible for small businesses and families to be in Manhattan again.
> “It’s the most frustrating situation because it’s not about passion anymore or the work you put in or the hours you put in,” he said. “It’s all about the mitigating circumstances that are out of your control.”
this is generally true about business. if the regulatory environment, the marketing is good, or the loan office is good (etc), you get lucky. if a celebrity likes your yoghurt. etc.
hard work is the other side of this, but the role of luck is huge.
anyway, looks like we're headed into the first real bust in a long long time.
this is generally true about business. if the regulatory environment, the marketing is good, or the loan office is good (etc), you get lucky. if a celebrity likes your yoghurt. etc.
hard work is the other side of this, but the role of luck is huge.
anyway, looks like we're headed into the first real bust in a long long time.
Another source of some sobering figures was the NYC Hospitality Alliance which just published their July Rent Report. 83% of respondents did not pay their full rent in July and 37% of respondents reported they paid no rent.[1]
[1] https://thenycalliance.org/assets/documents/informationitems...
[1] https://thenycalliance.org/assets/documents/informationitems...
"may" is an antagonym: may means the same as may not.
Although I understand the rationale, lumping vague probability words like "may", "could", "might" as antagonyms (auto-antonyms) doesn't seem valid.
Whether you use "may" or "may not" would indicate the leanings of your null hypothesis / default assumption.
Whether you use "may" or "may not" would indicate the leanings of your null hypothesis / default assumption.
It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home. We don’t have exact numbers on how effective masks are, but when everyone is wearing them, evidence suggests “very effective.” Anecdotal examples - a man with a dry cough, that was later diagnosed to be COVID, wore a mask on the long flight from Wuhan to Toronto, had extended/close contact with 25 people, but he was wearing a mask, and none of them contracted it from him [1]. 2 hairdressers in Missouri had COVID, but they and their clients all wore masks, they had extended close contact with 140 people and none of them got COVID [2]. We know masks are most effective when the infected person wears them, and we know that asymptomatic spreaders are common, so really we just need everyone wearing masks for all close personal interactions.
We could keep the economy decently open AND keep COVID cases down dramatically with a simple law to mandate masks 100% of the time when outside your own home. In plenty of professions people are wearing masks all day long now, it’s uncomfortable at first, but you get used to it. Crazy that this isn’t being strongly considered.
[1] https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410 [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/17/masks-sal...
We could keep the economy decently open AND keep COVID cases down dramatically with a simple law to mandate masks 100% of the time when outside your own home. In plenty of professions people are wearing masks all day long now, it’s uncomfortable at first, but you get used to it. Crazy that this isn’t being strongly considered.
[1] https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410 [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/17/masks-sal...
just make masks 100% mandatory
As a counter-argument thought experiment to try and understand how some people might feel that way, imagine this situation:
We've got an epidemic of terrorist shootings in the US. Some law enforcement experts suggest that not only should open carry be legalized everywhere in the US, but that carrying a gun should be mandatory while in public. It's the only way to stop the shootings.
I'm not going to suggest that this is in any way a 100% equivalent argument, far from it. But it might help you get a feel for why some folks are opposed to mandatory masks, even if they seem entirely sensible.
We've got an epidemic of terrorist shootings in the US. Some law enforcement experts suggest that not only should open carry be legalized everywhere in the US, but that carrying a gun should be mandatory while in public. It's the only way to stop the shootings.
I'm not going to suggest that this is in any way a 100% equivalent argument, far from it. But it might help you get a feel for why some folks are opposed to mandatory masks, even if they seem entirely sensible.
I just point out that the government already mandates we wear clothing in public and a mask is basically just a shirt for your face.
Not wearing a mask during covid == indecent exposure in my book.
Not wearing a mask during covid == indecent exposure in my book.
If that is your argument then I would counter that I do not believe the government should have any say on the clothing you wear. Though I would not be comfortable with going naked, we should not pay any consideration to religious feelings, be they Muslim or Christian - and that is all US clothing regulations are based on.
Being uncomfortable having to explain to a child what a dick is because they saw one hanging out while walking to the bus is not something I should be forced to give a shit about. Taking simple steps to prevent spreading an infections disease is.
Being uncomfortable having to explain to a child what a dick is because they saw one hanging out while walking to the bus is not something I should be forced to give a shit about. Taking simple steps to prevent spreading an infections disease is.
That’s great, but my point was it’s already illegal and no one complains about that on the regular. In my view the two viewpoints are identical, so those who argue against masks should get out there and argue against clothing too if they were truly consistent.
I think if I spit on your face is illegal (probably assault) so we could apply the existing laws, if someone without a mask gets close to you while speaking existing laws could be apply because is basically spiting germs on you.
I am wondering if this would be accepted by a judge and no new laws will be required.
I am wondering if this would be accepted by a judge and no new laws will be required.
Masks cannot end someone's life either on purpose or accidentally.
A better example is seat belts or government issued ID, which are already currently mandatory.
A better example is seat belts or government issued ID, which are already currently mandatory.
I would respectfully disagree that things which are currently mandatory are better examples. We're talking about making new rules in response to a newly emerging phenomena. A change to the status quo, as it were.
Asserting that a change to the status quo is the same as the existing status quo that you already "bought in to" 5-50 years ago (for most of us) is in a lot of ways not the same at all.
Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could.
I'm not saying that these people's reaction is entirely rational. But if you want to try and understand them a bit better I think my very, very loose analogy might help you. If you don't want to understand them feel free to ignore entirely!
Asserting that a change to the status quo is the same as the existing status quo that you already "bought in to" 5-50 years ago (for most of us) is in a lot of ways not the same at all.
Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could.
I'm not saying that these people's reaction is entirely rational. But if you want to try and understand them a bit better I think my very, very loose analogy might help you. If you don't want to understand them feel free to ignore entirely!
> Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could.
Not driving (or being the passenger in a car) is all but impossible in the vast majority of the US. In fact, it’s almost equal to saying “just don’t go to any public places” in response to your gun requirement hypothetical.
Not driving (or being the passenger in a car) is all but impossible in the vast majority of the US. In fact, it’s almost equal to saying “just don’t go to any public places” in response to your gun requirement hypothetical.
It seems like you shifted your argument there.
> A change to the status quo, as it were.
You didn't thought things through. If you're talking about a global pandemic then quite obviously you aren't talking about a scenario where the state of things already changed radically.
Moreover, I fail to see how keeping things as they are can be passed as a rational argument against something. You're actually arguing that things should not change because otherwise things would change, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
You didn't thought things through. If you're talking about a global pandemic then quite obviously you aren't talking about a scenario where the state of things already changed radically.
Moreover, I fail to see how keeping things as they are can be passed as a rational argument against something. You're actually arguing that things should not change because otherwise things would change, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
> You didn't thought things through. If you're talking about a global pandemic then quite obviously you aren't talking about a scenario where the state of things already changed radically.
I agree that the state of the world has changed radically. What we're debating is how the law should change. The world will get over C19 in another year or two. We're still stuck with a PATRIOT Act from 2001. That's 19 years ago now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
> Moreover, I fail to see how keeping things as they are can be passed as a rational argument against something. You're actually arguing that things should not change because otherwise things would change, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
I was attempting to suggest that there's a difference between "things which already are a given and have been for a long time" vs "new things which we're going to decide are a thing newly, right now".
Yes seatbelts are essentially mandatory (if you drive) and have been so for the last 30-50 years depending on state. But I think it's not entirely fair to compare new mandates/requirements/laws to existing ones. The existing ones have had a chance for their long-term implications to play out. The new ones would be new. We don't know all the long-term implications of the new thing. It's probably impossible to know what the long term implications would be.
What I don't see (sadly) is anyone saying "hey lets make masks mandatory until expiration on Jan1 2021 with possible 6mo extensions after that". So people who are worried about government overreach have every reason to be worried! The pandemic is very, very unlikely to last forever. The laws that get passed are very, very unlikely to ever be repealed. PATRIOT Act was a temporary measure until we "got" the terrorists. It's nearly 20 years later. It only took a decade in Afghanistan to bankrupt the USSR. We're going on two decades. These concerns may not be entirely foolish.
I agree that the state of the world has changed radically. What we're debating is how the law should change. The world will get over C19 in another year or two. We're still stuck with a PATRIOT Act from 2001. That's 19 years ago now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
> Moreover, I fail to see how keeping things as they are can be passed as a rational argument against something. You're actually arguing that things should not change because otherwise things would change, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
I was attempting to suggest that there's a difference between "things which already are a given and have been for a long time" vs "new things which we're going to decide are a thing newly, right now".
Yes seatbelts are essentially mandatory (if you drive) and have been so for the last 30-50 years depending on state. But I think it's not entirely fair to compare new mandates/requirements/laws to existing ones. The existing ones have had a chance for their long-term implications to play out. The new ones would be new. We don't know all the long-term implications of the new thing. It's probably impossible to know what the long term implications would be.
What I don't see (sadly) is anyone saying "hey lets make masks mandatory until expiration on Jan1 2021 with possible 6mo extensions after that". So people who are worried about government overreach have every reason to be worried! The pandemic is very, very unlikely to last forever. The laws that get passed are very, very unlikely to ever be repealed. PATRIOT Act was a temporary measure until we "got" the terrorists. It's nearly 20 years later. It only took a decade in Afghanistan to bankrupt the USSR. We're going on two decades. These concerns may not be entirely foolish.
Government issued ID's are not mandatory nor is seatbelt use on any private property.
and mask use on private property wouldn't be mandatory either
Most businesses are on private property.
It seems you're entirely oblivious to the fundament difference between discussing property ownership and whether a space is opened to the public.
Don’t assume ignorance on my part. Words have meaning, and I think the distinction is important. There is a fundamental difference between regulating public spaces and private businesses, and we should treat that with the seriousness it’s due.
For what it’s worth, I think a mask order is reasonable.
For what it’s worth, I think a mask order is reasonable.
Assumptions not required. Spaces open to the public does not equal Public spaces. Public spaces are necessarily spaces open to the public but spaces open to the public are not necessarily public spaces.
Also, think of a man as underwear for your face. You can strut around your house naked all you want, but you can't walk down the street that way, and I'm fairly certain the grocery store can't unilaterally decide to be a nudist friendly operation either. If the Venn diagram of places where you can be legally naked and places you can not wear a mask were basically the same, the original commenter' version of "everywhere" would be sufficiently met.
Also, think of a man as underwear for your face. You can strut around your house naked all you want, but you can't walk down the street that way, and I'm fairly certain the grocery store can't unilaterally decide to be a nudist friendly operation either. If the Venn diagram of places where you can be legally naked and places you can not wear a mask were basically the same, the original commenter' version of "everywhere" would be sufficiently met.
But need a public license to operate which could be revoked unilaterally by a government
> Government issued ID's are not mandatory
Perhaps not in the US, but it's mandated in pretty much across all western society.
And the US's refusal to adopt a standard ID system also leads to pseudo-ID schemes and proxies such as social security numbers and driver's license.
> nor is seatbelt use on any private property.
That's a great example.because no one is requiring anyone to wear facemasks while they are in their own home. The key take should be that the goal of these measures is to mitigate the risk that a specific threat poses to the public. You are required to wear a seatbelt while driving in public roads because the risk of being involved in a traffic accident is relatively high. You are required to wear a face mask in public because the risk of transmitting the virus is relatively high. Once you cease to be in public then the risk you pose to others is negligible.
Perhaps not in the US, but it's mandated in pretty much across all western society.
And the US's refusal to adopt a standard ID system also leads to pseudo-ID schemes and proxies such as social security numbers and driver's license.
> nor is seatbelt use on any private property.
That's a great example.because no one is requiring anyone to wear facemasks while they are in their own home. The key take should be that the goal of these measures is to mitigate the risk that a specific threat poses to the public. You are required to wear a seatbelt while driving in public roads because the risk of being involved in a traffic accident is relatively high. You are required to wear a face mask in public because the risk of transmitting the virus is relatively high. Once you cease to be in public then the risk you pose to others is negligible.
> And the US's refusal to adopt a standard ID system
We do have a standardized ID system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act
We do have a standardized ID system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act
It's not in the UK, we have a serious political taboo against what's seen as a "papers please" kind of authoritarianism. Tony Blair tried to introduce mandatory ID cards and even with his massive majority it was politically impossible.
The ironic thing is that despite this widespread attitude, we have genuinely scary levels of mass surveillance.
The ironic thing is that despite this widespread attitude, we have genuinely scary levels of mass surveillance.
Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. And in most jurisdictions you can’t pull someone over if the only reason is because you think they aren’t wearing a seatbelt. In MA, for example, it can only be added on top of another infraction.
So even a common sense policy which saves many lives from a public health perspective has some clear limits to when and how we enforce it as part of the overall social contract.
Particularly with regard potentially discriminatory police actions which can be non-uniformly enforced, think for example homeless people who might not have access to a clean mask being targeted.
Making up a new kind of law which can be used to fine/arrest literally anyone just for walking down the street “the wrong way” is a big deal.
So even a common sense policy which saves many lives from a public health perspective has some clear limits to when and how we enforce it as part of the overall social contract.
Particularly with regard potentially discriminatory police actions which can be non-uniformly enforced, think for example homeless people who might not have access to a clean mask being targeted.
Making up a new kind of law which can be used to fine/arrest literally anyone just for walking down the street “the wrong way” is a big deal.
> Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation.
So... that's because public transportation vehicles, like busses, are big. When you smash your small car into a big bus, the bus is fine, and you're a pancake.
On a train, were it to derail, your seatbelt won't help you.
Nothing nefarious going on here.
So... that's because public transportation vehicles, like busses, are big. When you smash your small car into a big bus, the bus is fine, and you're a pancake.
On a train, were it to derail, your seatbelt won't help you.
Nothing nefarious going on here.
I agree completely! The point is the policy is not blanket, but modulated based on the particulars of the situation. I expect that we would need equally nuanced (if not much more-so) policy for mask wearing.
> Seat belts are mandatory, but (...)
I fail to see how any of the examples you pointed out have any relevance to the subject.
The point was that there are plenty of examples of behavior that's deemed mandatory in order to uphold the common good. Wearing face masks during a pandemic fits the bill. You don't negate this by cherry-picking unrelated examples that aren't covered. I mean, not requiring seatbelts on public busses is just as acceptable as not requiring facemasks while staying within private property and for the same reasons: the negligible risk that's presented to both the public and the individual.
I fail to see how any of the examples you pointed out have any relevance to the subject.
The point was that there are plenty of examples of behavior that's deemed mandatory in order to uphold the common good. Wearing face masks during a pandemic fits the bill. You don't negate this by cherry-picking unrelated examples that aren't covered. I mean, not requiring seatbelts on public busses is just as acceptable as not requiring facemasks while staying within private property and for the same reasons: the negligible risk that's presented to both the public and the individual.
Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy.
We know that both policies obtain a public health benefit. Both policies are also not “blanket policies” but rather should be carefully tailored based on expected benefits changing depending on circumstances. For seat-belts it’s mainly the type of vehicle, but then remember there’s also variables like child seats which vary depending on age, height, and weight and it can get complicated. For masks it’s even more dynamic. E.g. it can’t be expressed simply as “everyone wear masks”.
Both also have, or need to have, limits on how strictly they are enforced, even if that means imperfect compliance.
The reason we (culturally) accept this trade-off is because the enforcement is accomplished through a form of sanctioned violence by the State, and that sanctioned State violence carries a cost / public health risk of its own!
After all this is said and done, recall it’s not a binary switch. Mask wearing is a continuum for each addition interrupted transmission. By the time we’re done with all this, how much have we moved the needle?
Lastly, keep in mind focusing on implementing one policy comes at the cost of having the time and political capital to implement some other policy. Politicians which claim they can “walk and chew gum” at the same time are generally over-estimating their own capabilities.
We know that both policies obtain a public health benefit. Both policies are also not “blanket policies” but rather should be carefully tailored based on expected benefits changing depending on circumstances. For seat-belts it’s mainly the type of vehicle, but then remember there’s also variables like child seats which vary depending on age, height, and weight and it can get complicated. For masks it’s even more dynamic. E.g. it can’t be expressed simply as “everyone wear masks”.
Both also have, or need to have, limits on how strictly they are enforced, even if that means imperfect compliance.
The reason we (culturally) accept this trade-off is because the enforcement is accomplished through a form of sanctioned violence by the State, and that sanctioned State violence carries a cost / public health risk of its own!
After all this is said and done, recall it’s not a binary switch. Mask wearing is a continuum for each addition interrupted transmission. By the time we’re done with all this, how much have we moved the needle?
Lastly, keep in mind focusing on implementing one policy comes at the cost of having the time and political capital to implement some other policy. Politicians which claim they can “walk and chew gum” at the same time are generally over-estimating their own capabilities.
> Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy.
If you're really interested in framing the problem that way then in the very least include in your analysis the social cost of dealing with thousands of deaths that otherwise could be easily avoided if everyone just wore their facemasks in public.
So far the US alone experienced over 150k deaths by covid19. What's the social cost of that?
If you're really interested in framing the problem that way then in the very least include in your analysis the social cost of dealing with thousands of deaths that otherwise could be easily avoided if everyone just wore their facemasks in public.
So far the US alone experienced over 150k deaths by covid19. What's the social cost of that?
Would those deaths actually be avoided, or just delayed?
Death can never actually be avoided. Everyone eventually dies. All health care simply delays death.
Masks are just one part of a multi-pronged approach to reducing transmission which includes testing, contact tracing, maintaining physical distance, practicing good hygiene, as well as quarantining after travel, maintaining consistent limited social groups, staying outdoors, avoiding large group functions even with distancing, and going even further than all of that for high risk individuals or during surges if ICU capacity is stretched, to implement shutdowns and lockdowns, until ultimately, herd immunity is reached naturally or through vaccination.
All together it still hasn’t stopped COVID in its tracks, and with tens of millions of active cases, there’s no scientific basis for expecting that it would.
Short answer; it’s possible some percentage of them would be delayed.
I think it makes people feel better to have something to blame, particular when it sounds just so simple.
All together it still hasn’t stopped COVID in its tracks, and with tens of millions of active cases, there’s no scientific basis for expecting that it would.
Short answer; it’s possible some percentage of them would be delayed.
I think it makes people feel better to have something to blame, particular when it sounds just so simple.
Car insurance is mandatory, and is more analogous to masks (liability limitation).
Technically speaking, car insurance is not mandatory in the US; two states do not require it.
Maybe that makes it a great analogy -- it's a state-by-state patchwork just like mask laws :)
Maybe that makes it a great analogy -- it's a state-by-state patchwork just like mask laws :)
Unfortunately masks can end someone's life:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-crash-passed-wearing-n95-ma...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-crash-passed-wearing-n95-ma...
Ya, you can die from swallowing a toothpick too. Passing out from a mask is either a fluke, or a separate, serious underlying issue.
N95 masks? That's a pretty rigorous level of filtration. It's not a cloth mask. If someone isn't taking it off if they aren't getting enough oxygen it could lead to this kind of problem.
Rare? Sure. But so is a COVID death of a healthy young person.
Rare? Sure. But so is a COVID death of a healthy young person.
Seat belt laws should not be on the books. Yes you should wear it, but the government should not be allowed to make rules that only protect you - so many other draconian rules would disappear if they could only outlaw things that show clear danger to third-parties.
And I wear my seatbelt always when driving, though not necessarily if I am backing into a spot.
And I wear my seatbelt always when driving, though not necessarily if I am backing into a spot.
Ok, but if you don't wear a seatbelt and get into an accident and fly out the window onto the pavement, are you going to expect all the government services, police, firemen, public hospitals to eat the cost of your accident that will likely be much more severe due to your lack of seatbelt?
If they are actually experts, and this is an actual epidemic with an equivalent death potential, then sure! Give me the gun. What's the problem?
Is the equivalent to a cloth mask a BB gun?
Is the equivalent to a cloth mask a BB gun?
I think you're talking about a zombie apocalypse type situation, in which case yes if there are zombies roaming the streets trying to eat everyone's brains it might be wise for every sane person to carry a shotgun in public.
[deleted]
There’s a difference between admitting other people know more than you and giving up entirely on the use of your own rational faculties. Blindly trusting that masks work, in the face of (at best) low predictive power and (at worst) outright contradictory evidence, is an example of the latter.
My rational faculties tell me that masks sure as heck work equally well or better than no masks. Also that there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one (ego damage doesn’t count — this is real life, not a game). Put those together and it’s my personal responsibility to wear a mask until the evidence tells us it’s of zero value. (Maybe it’s not clear: masks are to protect other people from you, not vice versa.)
The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security where they are less observant of social distancing because they are overconfident in the protective power of the mask.
I'm not aware of any study that confirms or debunks this but from a neutral point of view I would say it's at least plausible.
For the record, I wear a mask.
I'm not aware of any study that confirms or debunks this but from a neutral point of view I would say it's at least plausible.
For the record, I wear a mask.
> The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security
That line of reasoning makes no sense because it leaves out the fact that the conclusion is drawn from the comparison between a) wearing a mask in public and b) stay locked down indoors while avoiding all social interaction.
The conclusion was never drawn from a comparison between a) wearing a facemask in public, and b) not wearing a facemask in public.
Additionally, during the onset of the covid19 pandemic there were indeed some health officials that argued against mass adoption of facemasks and other personal protection equipment such as latex gloves. However, their rationale was that this would increase demand so radically that it could jeopardize their availability to frontline workers.
That line of reasoning makes no sense because it leaves out the fact that the conclusion is drawn from the comparison between a) wearing a mask in public and b) stay locked down indoors while avoiding all social interaction.
The conclusion was never drawn from a comparison between a) wearing a facemask in public, and b) not wearing a facemask in public.
Additionally, during the onset of the covid19 pandemic there were indeed some health officials that argued against mass adoption of facemasks and other personal protection equipment such as latex gloves. However, their rationale was that this would increase demand so radically that it could jeopardize their availability to frontline workers.
> The conclusion was never drawn from a comparison between a) wearing a facemask in public, and b) not wearing a facemask in public.
Well, in fact, that's exactly what the conclusion was drawn from. If you're in public and not wearing a mask during a pandemic then the logical thing to do is to keep a lot of distance between yourself and others. There's a non-trivial amount of people who believe that masks are providing much more protection than they actually are and this misunderstanding could have an impact on people's behavior in public spaces.
Well, in fact, that's exactly what the conclusion was drawn from. If you're in public and not wearing a mask during a pandemic then the logical thing to do is to keep a lot of distance between yourself and others. There's a non-trivial amount of people who believe that masks are providing much more protection than they actually are and this misunderstanding could have an impact on people's behavior in public spaces.
> there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one
The eternal refrain of economically innumerate people who can’t multiply.
The eternal refrain of economically innumerate people who can’t multiply.
There is evidence that wearing masks spreads disease?
It is easy enough to imagine several ways it could do so: making it less likely for people to socially distance, making it more likely that people spread the disease (or for that matter other diseases) by increased touching etc.
> Blindly trusting that masks work, in the face of (at best) low predictive power and (at worst) outright contradictory evidence
Care to point out where you got your denialist news from? Because your personal beliefs fly in the face of any reason or evidence.
Care to point out where you got your denialist news from? Because your personal beliefs fly in the face of any reason or evidence.
[deleted]
What about my right to use tiktok? We give up rights all the time.
If they create a law based on a real necessity, I don’t think you can call it a liberty violation. For example a law states you cannot carry grenades.
Often, the problem for menis not that I don’t trust what others know, but that things like these get to be imposed without educating the public what it is necessary, the evidence etc.
Okay I will let you in on the secret, but for the love of God keep your mouth closed.
The disease is as you suspected drastically overblown, although not entirely fake. Bill Gates is absolutely using it to spread his vaccines and the masks do very little.
The masks are there for us to counteract facial Bill Gates facial surveillance, not to stop the disease. That is highly hush-hush though so wear your mask but don't tell anyone.
Mum told me lying was wrong, but if it works?
The disease is as you suspected drastically overblown, although not entirely fake. Bill Gates is absolutely using it to spread his vaccines and the masks do very little.
The masks are there for us to counteract facial Bill Gates facial surveillance, not to stop the disease. That is highly hush-hush though so wear your mask but don't tell anyone.
Mum told me lying was wrong, but if it works?
> a simple law to mandate masks 100% of the time when outside your own home.
Far too many people see that as one stop before Nazi Germany for that to happen.
Edit: I am not one of them, lol.
Far too many people see that as one stop before Nazi Germany for that to happen.
Edit: I am not one of them, lol.
Where would you rank 'employees must wash their hands before returning to work' signs in restaurant bathrooms on your road to Naziism?
I do not view it that way. I wash my hands and wear a mask.
I do know people who object to those handwashing mandates though. Knew a guy who occasionally wiped his hand on the sign in protest of it.
I do know people who object to those handwashing mandates though. Knew a guy who occasionally wiped his hand on the sign in protest of it.
Those are the sort of selfish people who are dragging America down.
I agree they should, but a lot of these small businesses are restaurants and bars where you have to remove your mask to put food and drinks into your mouth.
Those two studies you cite aren't strong scientific evidence. There is no control group, so we don't know what would have happened if they had not been wearing masks. Also the sample size is quite small (n=2 across the two studies).
I've seen some studies that have good controls on influenza, in particular there is a college dorm study that compared no intervention vs. masks vs. hand washing: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2010/01/masks-pl... . This specific study doesn't give strong evidence that masks stop influenza spread.
Also, the individual rights argument is pretty strong. If mask wearing is already at 70% without any government mandate, I'd want really strong evidence and strong reasons to justify government intervention just to push that number a little higher.
I've seen some studies that have good controls on influenza, in particular there is a college dorm study that compared no intervention vs. masks vs. hand washing: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2010/01/masks-pl... . This specific study doesn't give strong evidence that masks stop influenza spread.
Also, the individual rights argument is pretty strong. If mask wearing is already at 70% without any government mandate, I'd want really strong evidence and strong reasons to justify government intervention just to push that number a little higher.
Wearing pants would be higher than 70% without government mandate -- does that mean that a law that you must have your junk covered an impingement on individual rights?
Of course. So is having to wear a mask.
A mask is justified in the short term, the fact that you don't want to see my junk rates no higher than me not wanting to see your sportsball t-shirt. Unfortunately one of them is illegal and it isn't the sportsball t-shirt.
A mask is justified in the short term, the fact that you don't want to see my junk rates no higher than me not wanting to see your sportsball t-shirt. Unfortunately one of them is illegal and it isn't the sportsball t-shirt.
The individual rights argument is not pretty strong. Here’s a partial list of things I did today for the sake of my neighbors/community that are also government mandated:
- Wore a shirt
- Turned on my headlights and used my turn signals
- Held on to my empty coffee cup until I got to a trash can when I could have just dropped it on the ground
- Kept my dog on a leash and picked up his poop
- Parked in a parking spot instead of conveniently stopping my car in the middle of traffic directly in front of the grocery store door
I’m sure there are plenty others. Being a member of society comes with a lot of privileges and a handful of obligations but it only works if we all do our part. No freeloaders, right?
Edit: An extra word
- Wore a shirt
- Turned on my headlights and used my turn signals
- Held on to my empty coffee cup until I got to a trash can when I could have just dropped it on the ground
- Kept my dog on a leash and picked up his poop
- Parked in a parking spot instead of conveniently stopping my car in the middle of traffic directly in front of the grocery store door
I’m sure there are plenty others. Being a member of society comes with a lot of privileges and a handful of obligations but it only works if we all do our part. No freeloaders, right?
Edit: An extra word
These are objective concessions. Most of these concessions took tens (or thousands) of years to become objective.
> - Wore on a shirt
Where do you live where this is government mandated?
Where do you live where this is government mandated?
I’m a woman so my nipples are criminalized in most of the United States.
That's terrible. I'm glad that this is not the case here in Canada. It does make no sense whatsoever for it to be like this in the US. I agree with your other examples, but this one is clearly unjust and should change.
In many parts of the U.S., it's not actually illegal for women to be topless, they just don't. It is often a requirement for a liquor license, however. For example, where I live in Austin, Texas, state law does not prohibit a woman being topless, and Texas is not generally among the most liberal of states.
Proactively mitigating the abuses that would emerge from a state that doesn't need to encourage more low paying jobs that have a very high rate of sex trafficking? At least the Bud Light at the strip club isn't $12 like that place I went in Las Vegas.
Just wanted to add that it's legal for women to be topless in NYC. There's even a celebration day for it at the end of August.
It's legal statewide and specifically because it would be unfair for men to have the exclusive privilege.
[deleted]
If you’re a woman this might be considered indecent exposure in many parts of the US unless you’re at a beach or in a resort town.
In stores pretty much anywhere.
That's not government mandated.
But the anti-maskers insist on having the right to not wear a mask in stores as well when the business has clearly marked masks are required and staff ask them to leave.
If the anti-maskers respected the rights of others around them as much as they insist on others respecting their rights, this would be nearly a non-issue.
If the anti-maskers respected the rights of others around them as much as they insist on others respecting their rights, this would be nearly a non-issue.
I had assumed it was state laws for ostensible health reasons. But it turns out to have sort of an interesting history and, as you say, apparently isn't legally mandated in any state according to this article: https://people.howstuffworks.com/where-did-shirt-shoes-requi...
[deleted]
In the case of masks, you have a big change in human tradition. There are very few societies that have ever required all people to wear masks all the time. I can't think of any examples. A small handful of modern societies require it for specific subgroups, but that's it.
Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of masks, I want to see very strong evidence that masks are very necessary, and other approaches wouldn't have similar or better results with lower change to human tradition. So far, I haven't seen that at all. The scientific evidence that masks are effective or necessary is weak. Alternate approaches (eg. wearing a mask if you're symptomatic, staying at home if you're symptomatic) may be just as effective.
The examples you cite have roots in human tradition, and have been established for many years, mostly with strong evidence.
Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of masks, I want to see very strong evidence that masks are very necessary, and other approaches wouldn't have similar or better results with lower change to human tradition. So far, I haven't seen that at all. The scientific evidence that masks are effective or necessary is weak. Alternate approaches (eg. wearing a mask if you're symptomatic, staying at home if you're symptomatic) may be just as effective.
The examples you cite have roots in human tradition, and have been established for many years, mostly with strong evidence.
What harm will befall people who see my breasts and what strong scientific evidence can you provide to substantiate that theoretical harm?
Usually the root of the argument boils down to your exposed breasts will titillate men and cause them to act out of the lust in their heart. If you dig, you’ll often find statement to that effect made by the legislators or lobbyists responsible for laws against exposure of breasts.
It contrasts with professed love of freedom, but humans are always creatures of paradox.
It contrasts with professed love of freedom, but humans are always creatures of paradox.
Then we should also ban advertising, because it causes people to act out of envy in their heart.
To be honest that topic people can debate. Men are allowed to walk around without a shirt. Women breastfeed in public pretty frequently.
There is however a long history and tradition of humans wearing clothing to cover their genitals. Even very primitive societies have this norm, and it has pretty obvious reasons behind it.
There is however a long history and tradition of humans wearing clothing to cover their genitals. Even very primitive societies have this norm, and it has pretty obvious reasons behind it.
[deleted]
Doesn't have to be "scientificaly substantiated" harm.
Killing someone is not a scientifically substantiated harm either. Of course we harm the other person's health (that's objective), but that in itself is only bad in the sense that "life is good" and "we should respect life / not kill". And that is not a scientific argument but a moral one. The universe doesn't care either way.
Killing someone is not a scientifically substantiated harm either. Of course we harm the other person's health (that's objective), but that in itself is only bad in the sense that "life is good" and "we should respect life / not kill". And that is not a scientific argument but a moral one. The universe doesn't care either way.
What does "scientifically substantiated" mean to you?
The same thing anybody would understand by the term. Did something gave you a different impression?
That there's a scientific proof that harm is being done by an action.
But harm is a moral term, and science is not about moral judgements. It can help inform them, but the guidelines for what is "harm" or "good" come from morality ultimately.
E.g. what is "good for society" is based on a value judgement / decision by said society based on its goals, what it wants to conserve or change, etc.
Science can tell you that X technique is more productive for example. But whether "more productivity" is desired is a matter of social values/priorities, not a scientific matter.
That there's a scientific proof that harm is being done by an action.
But harm is a moral term, and science is not about moral judgements. It can help inform them, but the guidelines for what is "harm" or "good" come from morality ultimately.
E.g. what is "good for society" is based on a value judgement / decision by said society based on its goals, what it wants to conserve or change, etc.
Science can tell you that X technique is more productive for example. But whether "more productivity" is desired is a matter of social values/priorities, not a scientific matter.
In the case of seatbelts, you have a big change in human tradition. There are very few societies that have ever required all people to wear seatbelts all the time. I can't think of any examples. A small handful of modern societies require it for specific subgroups, but that's it.
Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of seatbelts, I want to see very strong evidence that seatbelts are very necessary, and other approaches wouldn't have similar or better results with lower change to human tradition. So far, I haven't seen that at all. The scientific evidence that seatbelts are effective or necessary is weak. Alternate approaches (eg. improved driver training) may be just as effective.
The examples you cite have roots in human tradition, and have been established for many years, mostly with strong evidence.
You still have freedom loving individuals in places like New Hampshire who embrace beltless freedom, or even more stupidly riding motorcycles without helmets.
At least in those cases, that “freedom” usually kills only them when things go wrong.
At least in those cases, that “freedom” usually kills only them when things go wrong.
Well, seatbelts aren't the be-all, end-all, either... And people have indeed complained about them when they were mandated. So, it's not like "one could say the same thing about seatbelts, so look how absurd it is". Someone else might easily reply "my life, my choice" about wearing one (same as for drinking, smoking, over-eating, etc).
But even so, we can consider seatbelts as a necessary wearable/accessory for car use, which is also a recent development (cars and driving). Masks are different in that they affect people going on about doing things people did for millenia without requiring a mask.
But even so, we can consider seatbelts as a necessary wearable/accessory for car use, which is also a recent development (cars and driving). Masks are different in that they affect people going on about doing things people did for millenia without requiring a mask.
United States, 1918.
Instead of projecting arrogant puffery, why don’t you think about the potential consequences of prioritizing your comfort and self aggrandizement to people whose lives are put in danger.
I have a neighbor who unknowingly was infected early on and likely infected several of her elderly clients, most of whom are now dead. She is devastated... think about how you will feel if you did the same thing, without the innocence of being ignorant.
Instead of projecting arrogant puffery, why don’t you think about the potential consequences of prioritizing your comfort and self aggrandizement to people whose lives are put in danger.
I have a neighbor who unknowingly was infected early on and likely infected several of her elderly clients, most of whom are now dead. She is devastated... think about how you will feel if you did the same thing, without the innocence of being ignorant.
>- Wore a shirt
I still insist you wear chaps on top of pants or your short trousers. Pants are fashion, chaps protect.
I still insist you wear chaps on top of pants or your short trousers. Pants are fashion, chaps protect.
>I'd want really strong evidence and strong reasons to justify government intervention just to push that number a little higher.
Why?
Look I know we've all heard the Friedman quip about temporary government programs, but that refers to normal situations. It's one thing when a program might drop off the political radar and outlast its mandate by decades, but in the case of COVID-19, there is absolutely no way on Earth, at all, that people could just forget that it happened. If the COVID-19 pandemic were a war, it would already rank among the 50 deadliest ever.
Our rights are not devalued in the long term by rapid action in a pandemic which, by the best available estimates, could kill over a million Americans if left to run unchecked. They are not devalued in the long term because it is always going to be easy for people to know whether we are experiencing this kind of emergency. The loudest deniers on Facebook are not representative of the population: most Americans do recognize the threat, despite one of the largest disinformation campaigns in human history.
So what if there's a small chance we might be too strict about masks? It's not a large injustice, and it's not a slippery slope.
Why?
Look I know we've all heard the Friedman quip about temporary government programs, but that refers to normal situations. It's one thing when a program might drop off the political radar and outlast its mandate by decades, but in the case of COVID-19, there is absolutely no way on Earth, at all, that people could just forget that it happened. If the COVID-19 pandemic were a war, it would already rank among the 50 deadliest ever.
Our rights are not devalued in the long term by rapid action in a pandemic which, by the best available estimates, could kill over a million Americans if left to run unchecked. They are not devalued in the long term because it is always going to be easy for people to know whether we are experiencing this kind of emergency. The loudest deniers on Facebook are not representative of the population: most Americans do recognize the threat, despite one of the largest disinformation campaigns in human history.
So what if there's a small chance we might be too strict about masks? It's not a large injustice, and it's not a slippery slope.
> So what if there's a small chance we might be too strict about masks? It's not a large injustice, and it's not a slippery slope.
It very strongly depends on exactly how the mask requirement legislation works. If it's "all persons in a public in the state of California must wear a face covering until December 31, 2020. Failure to do so will result in a fine of no more than $150", that's probably fine. People will still complain, somewhat justifiably, that this legislation is safety theater rather than an actually useful law, but in the grand scheme of things it just wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, if it's "any person who knowingly performs an action which endangers the health or well-being of others is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or 5 years in prison", we now have yet another law that most people are arguably in violation of at least some of the time, which allows bad actors in government to impose enormous pressure to comply with unreasonable or illegal demands under threat of large fines or jail time.
I personally worry quite a bit that something more like the second will be passed, and will be very selectively enforced.
It very strongly depends on exactly how the mask requirement legislation works. If it's "all persons in a public in the state of California must wear a face covering until December 31, 2020. Failure to do so will result in a fine of no more than $150", that's probably fine. People will still complain, somewhat justifiably, that this legislation is safety theater rather than an actually useful law, but in the grand scheme of things it just wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, if it's "any person who knowingly performs an action which endangers the health or well-being of others is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or 5 years in prison", we now have yet another law that most people are arguably in violation of at least some of the time, which allows bad actors in government to impose enormous pressure to comply with unreasonable or illegal demands under threat of large fines or jail time.
I personally worry quite a bit that something more like the second will be passed, and will be very selectively enforced.
The state of New Mexico currently mandates the use of masks while in public with the penalty of a small fine (I forget the exact amount, but it’s only a couple hundred dollars). So in practice, the former is what is already being done. And yes, people do still complain, but as far as I can tell almost everyone complies.
If we’re having this much trouble sorting out individual egos and absolutist ideologies with masks, where the choice is so simple and risk-free, we are REALLY going to be in the soup when vaccines start to come out.
Sorry, but this doesn't sound like "no strong evidence":
Without adjustments for other variables, the two intervention groups had about a 10% reduction in overall ILI incidence over the 6 weeks compared with the control group, but this was not statistically significant.
However, when the researchers analyzed the ILI rates for each week of the study and adjusted for other variables (age, sex, ethnicity, baseline hand washing practices, sleep quality, alcohol use, flu vaccination), they found that the FMHH group had significantly lower rates than the controls in weeks 4, 5, and 6 (35%, 44%, and 51%, respectively).
The adjusted rates for the mask-only group also were lower than those of the control group in weeks 4, 5, and 6, with reductions ranging from 28% to 42%, but this did not meet the authors' significance criterion of P<.025.
The authors say several factors may explain why a significant reduction in ILI was found only during the second half of the intervention period. One is that recruitment of students continued through the first 2 weeks of the intervention, increasing the sample size by 11%. Also, the proportion of FMHH participants who wore their masks more than the average 3.5 hours a day increased in the later weeks of the study, and confirmed flu cases on campus peaked in weeks 4 and 5.
Without adjustments for other variables, the two intervention groups had about a 10% reduction in overall ILI incidence over the 6 weeks compared with the control group, but this was not statistically significant.
However, when the researchers analyzed the ILI rates for each week of the study and adjusted for other variables (age, sex, ethnicity, baseline hand washing practices, sleep quality, alcohol use, flu vaccination), they found that the FMHH group had significantly lower rates than the controls in weeks 4, 5, and 6 (35%, 44%, and 51%, respectively).
The adjusted rates for the mask-only group also were lower than those of the control group in weeks 4, 5, and 6, with reductions ranging from 28% to 42%, but this did not meet the authors' significance criterion of P<.025.
The authors say several factors may explain why a significant reduction in ILI was found only during the second half of the intervention period. One is that recruitment of students continued through the first 2 weeks of the intervention, increasing the sample size by 11%. Also, the proportion of FMHH participants who wore their masks more than the average 3.5 hours a day increased in the later weeks of the study, and confirmed flu cases on campus peaked in weeks 4 and 5.
Well, it depends on what you think is "strong" evidence. A 10% reduction doesn't seem very compelling, and when you introduce the more advanced statistical analysis, that hurts the case in my eyes. There are probably less disruptive ways to get a 10% reduction.
I found that study from this meta study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/ which reviews a lot of these studies for influenza. Note, however, that most of the studies only look at if the masks protect the individual, not whether masks stop the spread of influenza, but the evidence seems pretty inconclusive.
I found that study from this meta study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/ which reviews a lot of these studies for influenza. Note, however, that most of the studies only look at if the masks protect the individual, not whether masks stop the spread of influenza, but the evidence seems pretty inconclusive.
I agree that 10% reduction is not much in normal situation but not when ICU are at capacity or economy is shut down.
Results from weeks 4, 5 and 6 are interesting. Another study could see if this can be reproduced.
Results from weeks 4, 5 and 6 are interesting. Another study could see if this can be reproduced.
> There is no control group, so we don't kno
It is unethical to have a study with a control group which involves a live virus.
There is enough evidence that masks are effective that they should be required until it's proven they are ineffective or the virus risk is reduced.
It is unethical to have a study with a control group which involves a live virus.
There is enough evidence that masks are effective that they should be required until it's proven they are ineffective or the virus risk is reduced.
There are doctors, experts and even whole nations that disagree with you that there is evidence masks are effective.
This is the problem with arguments like this. It inevitably turns into a fight over who gets to pick the evidence and experts, as there is always reasoned disagreement.
Heck, China is an existence proof that mask wearing doesn't stop the virus in any meaningful way. Sample size, a billion. Checkmate. Are we done?
This is the problem with arguments like this. It inevitably turns into a fight over who gets to pick the evidence and experts, as there is always reasoned disagreement.
Heck, China is an existence proof that mask wearing doesn't stop the virus in any meaningful way. Sample size, a billion. Checkmate. Are we done?
Where is this evidence? Is this evidence for n95 masks, or the cotton nonsense most people wear?
This is such an asinine comment. What’s the need for any law, since ~70% will comply anyways? And this of all cases? Where a few rogue “super spreaders” can give it to thousands of people?
>What’s the need for any law, since ~70% will comply anyways?
Codifying morals is done for the purpose of having cheaper and fairer enforcement.
Codifying morals is done for the purpose of having cheaper and fairer enforcement.
The individual rights argument is based on community norms so if it's 70% already it becomes weaker, not stronger.
> There is no control group
There's no ethical way to do a control in a study of infectious diseases. You'd have to mandate that some study participants not wear masks, when your hypothesis is clearly they the masks will keep some of them from getting sick or dying.
You're asking for far too much here. Masks are known to stop disease spread from (literally) centuries of use. We don't have to throw all that intuition out with covid, even though the numbers may change.
And again: why should we have to prove this technique via completely impractical research constraints when it is very likely that it helps, in a situation of dire urgency.
There's no ethical way to do a control in a study of infectious diseases. You'd have to mandate that some study participants not wear masks, when your hypothesis is clearly they the masks will keep some of them from getting sick or dying.
You're asking for far too much here. Masks are known to stop disease spread from (literally) centuries of use. We don't have to throw all that intuition out with covid, even though the numbers may change.
And again: why should we have to prove this technique via completely impractical research constraints when it is very likely that it helps, in a situation of dire urgency.
You need to take into account culture and mentality. Making people wear masks 100% of the time might work in a country like Japan where people are disciplined and conforming but will not work in many other places where the attitude is a bit more lax.
The best way for those place is to give people mask off time in non critical places so they will be more likely to wear them in the critical places. For example, there is no point pressuring people to wear a mask while walking in quiet street where they can easily keep distance or hardly pass by other people, but you should force them to wear it when in a shop or a crowded main street.
The best way for those place is to give people mask off time in non critical places so they will be more likely to wear them in the critical places. For example, there is no point pressuring people to wear a mask while walking in quiet street where they can easily keep distance or hardly pass by other people, but you should force them to wear it when in a shop or a crowded main street.
They have a strong social conformity rate in Japan and their numbers are rising too. Masks are just kind of effective.
Japan, a country of 126 million people, had fewer cases yesterday than Georgia, a population of 10 M people. Masks work. Nothing is 100% effective.
Would you characterize Australia as a disciplined, conformist society? I'm in Melbourne, where masks are currently mandatory, and most are complying. In practice, you see people sipping from coffees while walking down the street, then putting the mask on as they pass people.
Compared to US, absolutely. I'm in Washington State, and we do have a mask mandate here - but if you go into more conservative areas, it appears to be routinely ignored. I've seen a gas station diner where 90% weren't wearing masks.
For another point of reference - in Australia, do you have police officers who openly refuse to enforce such laws? Because it's pretty common in small towns hereabouts.
For another point of reference - in Australia, do you have police officers who openly refuse to enforce such laws? Because it's pretty common in small towns hereabouts.
> It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home.
It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference).
> man with a dry cough, that was later diagnosed to be COVID, wore a mask on the long flight from Wuhan to Toronto, had extended/close contact with 25 people, but he was wearing a mask, and none of them contracted it from him [1]
I'm nitpicking here, but by itself it doesn't sound as a strong argument in favour of masks. If I understand correctly, without any containment measures, the propagation rate (R0) of the virus is around 3. Which means that a sick person is going to contaminate on average 3 other people. I suppose the average person can have quite a lot of interactions (starting with their family, colleagues) during the time they are contagious. So even without mask, it's not obvious the guy in the plane would have infected anyone else.
That being said, I agree with you that masks should be mandatory (in closed spaces).
It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference).
> man with a dry cough, that was later diagnosed to be COVID, wore a mask on the long flight from Wuhan to Toronto, had extended/close contact with 25 people, but he was wearing a mask, and none of them contracted it from him [1]
I'm nitpicking here, but by itself it doesn't sound as a strong argument in favour of masks. If I understand correctly, without any containment measures, the propagation rate (R0) of the virus is around 3. Which means that a sick person is going to contaminate on average 3 other people. I suppose the average person can have quite a lot of interactions (starting with their family, colleagues) during the time they are contagious. So even without mask, it's not obvious the guy in the plane would have infected anyone else.
That being said, I agree with you that masks should be mandatory (in closed spaces).
Outside in low density areas appears to be fairly safe, but it's a behavioral problem, and if masks are mandated and normalized, this thing'll be over in a jiffy and we can meet down at the pub for a pint.
R0 is an ensemble average, not a useful metric for any given person. It's likely that transmission is wildly variable, and that superspreading events are major contributors to transmission. Basically, households slowly pass the disease between each other, and occasionally one person manages to get a shitload of people outside their household sick. Masks appear to be extremely effective at stopping the superspreading events, which has a huge effect on R0.
R0 is an ensemble average, not a useful metric for any given person. It's likely that transmission is wildly variable, and that superspreading events are major contributors to transmission. Basically, households slowly pass the disease between each other, and occasionally one person manages to get a shitload of people outside their household sick. Masks appear to be extremely effective at stopping the superspreading events, which has a huge effect on R0.
> It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference).
I agree with this. 100% mandatory outside of your home would mean I would have to wear a mask while running, which seems unnecessary when I see a grand total of 1 or 2 people on my entire run (and cross the street to keep plenty of distances between us).
This is one danger of applying a solution for 100% of everyone, everywhere without taking into account any nuances.
That said, mandating masks indoors + outdoors when you can't maintain 6 feet of distance seems like a no brainer. Perhaps in higher density areas it could be worth requiring them 100% of the time, even outdoors, but I'd like to see the data first.
I agree with this. 100% mandatory outside of your home would mean I would have to wear a mask while running, which seems unnecessary when I see a grand total of 1 or 2 people on my entire run (and cross the street to keep plenty of distances between us).
This is one danger of applying a solution for 100% of everyone, everywhere without taking into account any nuances.
That said, mandating masks indoors + outdoors when you can't maintain 6 feet of distance seems like a no brainer. Perhaps in higher density areas it could be worth requiring them 100% of the time, even outdoors, but I'd like to see the data first.
I generally agree, and I personally don't wear a mask outside when I walk in my neighborhood for this exact reason (very low density, plenty of space).
With that said, it appears that if there is any gray area in the rules then the general population is almost sure to abuse them. In this case, I think it's better to err on the side of caution and make it 100% mandatory so there is absolutely no gray area.
With that said, it appears that if there is any gray area in the rules then the general population is almost sure to abuse them. In this case, I think it's better to err on the side of caution and make it 100% mandatory so there is absolutely no gray area.
I mentioned this in another comment already, but this is what’s being done in New Mexico.
The mask order was extended to, basically, “wear a mask if you’re outside your house”. This includes exercising outside. Personally, I find that part a bit excessive; however, my understanding is that it’s meant to counter exactly what you pointed out: as long as there are any exceptions, some people will reason their way out of compliance. A 100% mandate is just easier and simpler to follow.
I now wear a mask when walking in my neighborhood after I noticed other people wearing masks too. Chalk it up to peer pressure I guess, but to me it’s a very small price to pay if it helps enforce mask-wearing in other contexts.
The mask order was extended to, basically, “wear a mask if you’re outside your house”. This includes exercising outside. Personally, I find that part a bit excessive; however, my understanding is that it’s meant to counter exactly what you pointed out: as long as there are any exceptions, some people will reason their way out of compliance. A 100% mandate is just easier and simpler to follow.
I now wear a mask when walking in my neighborhood after I noticed other people wearing masks too. Chalk it up to peer pressure I guess, but to me it’s a very small price to pay if it helps enforce mask-wearing in other contexts.
One of the problems with "masks should be required" is that it lacks nuance. Around where I live--exurbs of a major NE US city--they're required and pretty much universally used in stores as far as I can see. However, outside, it's very mixed and personally it seems pretty reasonable. But I'm sure to some people it seems as if people aren't being reasonable.
Certainly I'm not wearing by myself in the woods. But perhaps that's seen poor practice by some. No idea what things look like in the city. Perhaps I'd find it uncomfortable.
Certainly I'm not wearing by myself in the woods. But perhaps that's seen poor practice by some. No idea what things look like in the city. Perhaps I'd find it uncomfortable.
The lack of nuance is a feature and not a bug. It takes the decision out of the individual's hands since people can have any number of reasons ranging from valid to incomprehensible for why their specific activity doesn't require a mask. We have already tried leaving it up to individuals for the last 4+ months and that clearly hasn't worked. The choices going forward appear to either be to put stronger precautions in place until there is a vaccine or continue to let tens or hundreds of thousands of more people die unnecessarily so we can be slightly more comfortable while outside our homes.
Well, where I live which is about as blue as it gets in the US, people are being good at wearing masks inside based on what I've seen--essentially universal. And they may have masks for walking around in close contact outside but they're not required or generally worn when people are, for example, sitting down and eating outside or walking separated by some distance.
My understanding is that is pretty much the situation even for places where that are relatively enforcing masking in the US.
My understanding is that is pretty much the situation even for places where that are relatively enforcing masking in the US.
Strongly agree.
Public health policy and individualised medicine are, or at least can be, vastly different things.
If you tell everyone they must wear a mast at all times, some people still will not.
If you tell everyone a more complex set of rules than masks at all times when out of your usual place of residence then people will fabricate all types of fictions that exempt themselves from the rues.
Public health policy and individualised medicine are, or at least can be, vastly different things.
If you tell everyone they must wear a mast at all times, some people still will not.
If you tell everyone a more complex set of rules than masks at all times when out of your usual place of residence then people will fabricate all types of fictions that exempt themselves from the rues.
At this point, I don't care about the effectiveness. It is a sign of respect for those of us who have lost family and friends as a result of this global pandemic with what will amount to millions dead over the next 1-2 years. It is a very visible sign that shows that you care about yourself and the people around you.
I'm very, very pro-mask; I'm optimistic that getting people to wear them could drop R0 << 1 and bring an end to this. That said, it seems unethical to me to mandate (read: enforce with fine/imprisonment) it for the purpose of ... what sounds like virtue signaling?
Better idea, use positive reinforcement. Walmart, et al raise prices 15%. Mask wearers get 15% off. Everyone else pays full-price.
Sorry, illegal due to the ADA since some people can't wear masks.
Like who?
False. If a store makes accomodations, then you cannot use the ADA defense. Currently >95% of stores (maybe higher) have curbside pickup, so this excuse is dead in the water.
Wouldn't have to mandate it, if people would just do it...
They have to mandate N95 masks indoors if it is indeed aerosol-based superspreader events.
That is magical thinking. SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic in the worldwide human population. Wearing masks in public for a few months won't change that reality.
The scales fall from tetrometal's eyes .... yes, a huge amount of the discussion around masks is pure virtue signalling.
That's why there's this huge focus on masks stopping the spread by pre-symptomatic people, which is a highly dubious and never-before tried idea, for which basically no reliable evidence exists (masks pre-COVID being intended to stop you getting sick, not other people), and which is an absolutely pure form of virtue signalling. It's literally a highly visible sign that someone is suffering discomfort for someone else's health, except, that only works if you believe it's actually true.
Look at the Nordics. In Sweden there's no mask requirement because the epidemic is disappearing. In Norway they pointed out that given the tiny number of infected people, even if you assume masks work perfectly, 200,000 people would need to wear a mask constantly to stop one new infection. And this is a virus with an IFR of about 0.1% so you end up needing millions of people to wear masks constantly to stop just a single death, almost certainly of a person very close to the end of their life anyway.
The numbers just don't work, at all, once the epidemic has faded away. And as Sweden and other places shows it can fade away without any mask requirements.
That's why there's this huge focus on masks stopping the spread by pre-symptomatic people, which is a highly dubious and never-before tried idea, for which basically no reliable evidence exists (masks pre-COVID being intended to stop you getting sick, not other people), and which is an absolutely pure form of virtue signalling. It's literally a highly visible sign that someone is suffering discomfort for someone else's health, except, that only works if you believe it's actually true.
Look at the Nordics. In Sweden there's no mask requirement because the epidemic is disappearing. In Norway they pointed out that given the tiny number of infected people, even if you assume masks work perfectly, 200,000 people would need to wear a mask constantly to stop one new infection. And this is a virus with an IFR of about 0.1% so you end up needing millions of people to wear masks constantly to stop just a single death, almost certainly of a person very close to the end of their life anyway.
The numbers just don't work, at all, once the epidemic has faded away. And as Sweden and other places shows it can fade away without any mask requirements.
Masks are less important, if people socially distance and practice good hygiene.
If you don't give the virus a chance to spread, it cannot spread.
The problem is that in the US and elsewhere, people cannot seem to follow the social distancing and hygiene, so you need to find a way to physically distance people with masks and other protections.
To say that masks do not work, is untrue. There is a reason why doctors and others wear masks in their own professions.
By the way, when you say it is disappearing, that doesn't mean let the guard down. Look at what is happening in Vietnam. 100 days clean and they let their guard down and look at what is happening now.
If you don't give the virus a chance to spread, it cannot spread.
The problem is that in the US and elsewhere, people cannot seem to follow the social distancing and hygiene, so you need to find a way to physically distance people with masks and other protections.
To say that masks do not work, is untrue. There is a reason why doctors and others wear masks in their own professions.
By the way, when you say it is disappearing, that doesn't mean let the guard down. Look at what is happening in Vietnam. 100 days clean and they let their guard down and look at what is happening now.
Sweden has far and away the highest death rate of the Nordics, over 11 times that of Norway. I really don't think the data supports your point. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I don't even bother getting into death rate discussions any more because it is pointless.
You read the Survivors Groups on FB [0] and the real problem people aren't understanding is that this isn't quick death we need to worry about, it is the long term health effects that will lead to a lifetime of medical issues.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/groups/COVID19survivorcorps/
You read the Survivors Groups on FB [0] and the real problem people aren't understanding is that this isn't quick death we need to worry about, it is the long term health effects that will lead to a lifetime of medical issues.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/groups/COVID19survivorcorps/
Norway indeed basically hasn't had COVID. Perhaps they will when they have fully finished releasing their lockdown, or perhaps COVID is more like seasonal flu, which does hit some countries and not others for unexplained reasons every year.
However, the point stands. Sweden has not had particularly bad outcomes, being as it is in the middle of the pack, and with most deaths being in care homes where Sweden has many other severe problems, e.g. many staff who can't speak Swedish. In fact in one care home they ended up in a spot where none of the staff spoke Swedish causing problems for a resident who couldn't communicate with them to get food! So given Sweden's dependency on immigrant labour for care homes it's maybe not a surprise they've had problems protecting those homes. For the general population however, COVID has not been a problem.
However, the point stands. Sweden has not had particularly bad outcomes, being as it is in the middle of the pack, and with most deaths being in care homes where Sweden has many other severe problems, e.g. many staff who can't speak Swedish. In fact in one care home they ended up in a spot where none of the staff spoke Swedish causing problems for a resident who couldn't communicate with them to get food! So given Sweden's dependency on immigrant labour for care homes it's maybe not a surprise they've had problems protecting those homes. For the general population however, COVID has not been a problem.
Yeah, well I don't actually care about theater versus what's effective.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as theater. This isn't a play or performance, it is a global pandemic and people, including myself, are losing loved ones.
[deleted]
why are you reluctant?
> It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference).
It gets weird because there are many non-closed spaces which are very crowded. Imagine a concert, or the boardwalk.
It gets weird because there are many non-closed spaces which are very crowded. Imagine a concert, or the boardwalk.
> We could keep the economy decently open AND keep COVID cases down dramatically with a simple law to mandate masks 100% of the time
We could already keep the economy open with little ill effect. At this point, if you’re still concerned about the health effects of covid, you should either support wearing masks 100% of the time anyway (e.g. for influenza prevention) or you’re a statistically illiterate hysteric.
We could already keep the economy open with little ill effect. At this point, if you’re still concerned about the health effects of covid, you should either support wearing masks 100% of the time anyway (e.g. for influenza prevention) or you’re a statistically illiterate hysteric.
Tell that to people who have died or are permanently disabled because of covid. What an idiotic, false, and asshole thing to say.
That's because the evidence all points to indoor transmission via airborne particles. There was an article here earlier today wherein it was pointed out that being outside there is a very small chance of getting infected. It's being indoors with poor air circulation that where the infections happen.
Because I shouldn't have to wear a mask when I am riding my bike alone in the woods, or when I am walking my dog. It is uncomfortable, and outside transmission is rare so it is not that beneficial. We have to find a balance between saving lives, and taking away comfort and freedoms, just like we do with things like cars.
No cop is going to be hiding behind a tree while you are alone in the woods. When you are walking your dog, you are passing by numerous people on a sidewalk? If so, wear a mask. If not, no copper is going to be hiding in the bushes running a mask check. We can have the same balance we have with cars. Most people vaguely obey something close to the speed limit and sometimes people who are way over or just unlucky get nabbed and it happens often enough that (again), most people obey closely enough. Mask usage doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than florida, texas, and southern california (LA county and surrounding) are doing it. That's not a high hurdle.
Most people haven't got the message yet that governments are acting irrationally. If governments mandate a mask law, then everyone becomes a cop. The other dog walker you see on the path, who is terrified of what they think is a disease that has killed 7% of the population[1], will report you and because it's the law you'll be punished even though it makes no sense.
Look, we're in an environment where rationality has disappeared. Now is not the time to be radically changing human interaction, possibly forever, on the basis of atrociously poor statistics and data handling.
[1] https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kekstcnc_research_covid-...
Look, we're in an environment where rationality has disappeared. Now is not the time to be radically changing human interaction, possibly forever, on the basis of atrociously poor statistics and data handling.
[1] https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kekstcnc_research_covid-...
" The other dog walker you see on the path, who is terrified of what they think is a disease that has killed 7% of the population[1], will report you and because it's the law you'll be punished even though it makes no sense."
Sorry but this is utter nonsense. The authorities don't have time to track down every citizen-reported non-mask wearer. You are imagining a deep-state dystopia that simply does not exist.
Sorry but this is utter nonsense. The authorities don't have time to track down every citizen-reported non-mask wearer. You are imagining a deep-state dystopia that simply does not exist.
Is it really ?
How far removed is that from angry mob that will cancel you in situ ?
Yes it is really nonsense. No law enforcement is going to issue a fine on some informant's say so. When you drive over the speed limit, do people "report" you? No. As far as "cancel." Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you are a public figure, I would posit there is no such thing.
Masks have been mandatory where I'm at since March, along with full lockdown for months, and the virus is still making it's rounds. The president here is a laughing stock because he recently stated that everyone is going to get it no matter what, so be prepared -- so everyone is asking what was the point of having the shutdown then. We know lots of people that have COVID now or have had it and they are all fine (except for one elderly lady that passed). Getting sick is pretty normal here. Mass hysteria is not.
My main question is: For how long?
First, presume COVID will never be completely eliminated. (Certainly it will never cease to be detected by widespread RT-PCR testing with a 1-2% FP rate).
If you won’t grant me that, presume that equally deadly (to certain demographics) diseases will always exist.
Do we never get to go around outside without a mask on again?
Some cultures think that’s the right choice. Some do not. There are valid arguments on both sides, so I think it’s not appropriate to belittle either perspective.
Being required by law to wear a mask whenever you are out in public (and not eating?) is a major cultural shift. It’s reasonable that people will have different readiness to enact, e.g. a Federal law with major financial or criminal penalties involved.
My ancillary point would be that COVID is not the same level of risk in all places and at all times. So, e.g. a Federal mask policy with a $1,000 fine that applies in FL and MA all the same, where MA cases are basically at the noise floor of the test right now, is not justifiable. Or, likewise, a single policy which applies to nursery schools and nursing homes.
Particularly for large heterogenous countries, there is a huge benefit to local and regional government being able to set appropriately strict policies for their own jurisdictions.
There is also absolutely the need to be dynamic in your level of response. Look at Melbourne for example. You can’t lock down as hard as they will be doing indefinitely. Perhaps you can do it for a short time in response to an acute event. That’s just an extreme example in the overall scale of phased response protocols. Legally mandated masking is just somewhere further down that spectrum.
First, presume COVID will never be completely eliminated. (Certainly it will never cease to be detected by widespread RT-PCR testing with a 1-2% FP rate).
If you won’t grant me that, presume that equally deadly (to certain demographics) diseases will always exist.
Do we never get to go around outside without a mask on again?
Some cultures think that’s the right choice. Some do not. There are valid arguments on both sides, so I think it’s not appropriate to belittle either perspective.
Being required by law to wear a mask whenever you are out in public (and not eating?) is a major cultural shift. It’s reasonable that people will have different readiness to enact, e.g. a Federal law with major financial or criminal penalties involved.
My ancillary point would be that COVID is not the same level of risk in all places and at all times. So, e.g. a Federal mask policy with a $1,000 fine that applies in FL and MA all the same, where MA cases are basically at the noise floor of the test right now, is not justifiable. Or, likewise, a single policy which applies to nursery schools and nursing homes.
Particularly for large heterogenous countries, there is a huge benefit to local and regional government being able to set appropriately strict policies for their own jurisdictions.
There is also absolutely the need to be dynamic in your level of response. Look at Melbourne for example. You can’t lock down as hard as they will be doing indefinitely. Perhaps you can do it for a short time in response to an acute event. That’s just an extreme example in the overall scale of phased response protocols. Legally mandated masking is just somewhere further down that spectrum.
These have been some of my main concerns in the beginning. What is the exit strategy? Nobody can tell you. Back in March, I get a phone alert ordering me to start inside.
For how long? What criteria must be met for this order to no longer be in effect?
There was no mention of that. It was neither time limited, nor data limited (e.g., automatically goes out of effect when infection rates drop below x per million).
Furthermore, this was an executive order by our governor, not passed by the legislator, which make it all the more unpalatable.
Yes, covid is deadly. More deadly than the flu. But the flu is also deadly. We take none of these precautions for the flu. How much more deadly than the flu must a virus be for all of this to be justified.
For how long? What criteria must be met for this order to no longer be in effect?
There was no mention of that. It was neither time limited, nor data limited (e.g., automatically goes out of effect when infection rates drop below x per million).
Furthermore, this was an executive order by our governor, not passed by the legislator, which make it all the more unpalatable.
Yes, covid is deadly. More deadly than the flu. But the flu is also deadly. We take none of these precautions for the flu. How much more deadly than the flu must a virus be for all of this to be justified.
Worth noting there have been multiple flu strains throughout modern history which have been more deadly than COVID has been so far.
Aside from 1918 Spanish Flu there was also the 1958 Asian flu which killed ~2 million.
COVID is also less deadly than even an average flu for about half of people who get it, but many times more deadly than the average flu in about a quarter of cases.
The bottom line is unless you have a set of sustainable measures which can keep R below 1, then you’re back to just bending the curve to keep hospital capacity available.
Realistically I think that locations that have a very low herd immunity percentage cannot be successful in keeping R below 1 without intensive shutdown and lockdown measures, which of course must be sustained indefinitely.
However once a certain level of herd immunity is reached in a community, a more sustainable set of measures can be enough, in concert with the innate benefits of herd immunity, to keep R below 1. I believe this explains the current dichotomy we see in places like NY and MA versus FL and CA.
It’s not a question of “MA does better wearing masks than CA” it’s a matter of masks plus MA’s herd immunity keeps MA below 1 while masks with the lower herd immunity in CA keeps them above 1.
You don’t have to be much above or below that R=1, after 30 days the results compound either way.
Aside from 1918 Spanish Flu there was also the 1958 Asian flu which killed ~2 million.
COVID is also less deadly than even an average flu for about half of people who get it, but many times more deadly than the average flu in about a quarter of cases.
The bottom line is unless you have a set of sustainable measures which can keep R below 1, then you’re back to just bending the curve to keep hospital capacity available.
Realistically I think that locations that have a very low herd immunity percentage cannot be successful in keeping R below 1 without intensive shutdown and lockdown measures, which of course must be sustained indefinitely.
However once a certain level of herd immunity is reached in a community, a more sustainable set of measures can be enough, in concert with the innate benefits of herd immunity, to keep R below 1. I believe this explains the current dichotomy we see in places like NY and MA versus FL and CA.
It’s not a question of “MA does better wearing masks than CA” it’s a matter of masks plus MA’s herd immunity keeps MA below 1 while masks with the lower herd immunity in CA keeps them above 1.
You don’t have to be much above or below that R=1, after 30 days the results compound either way.
I like the idea of not supporting laws you're not willing to enforce by gun.
I think people should be encouraged to wear masks, but not strictly mandated.
I think people should be encouraged to wear masks, but not strictly mandated.
> I like the idea of not supporting laws you're not willing to enforce by gun.
That's a really low bar.
For example, I think shoplifting should be illegal. 99.9% of the time no guns will need to be involved. But if someone is sufficiently willing to escalate, it becomes a matter of letting them steal whatever they want from stores, whenever they want, or enforcing it with a gun. You could fine them, but someone with that attitude would just ignore the fine. So yes, I'm willing to enforce shoplifting with a gun, as a last resort.
But if shoplifting is my point of comparison... I think right now that not wearing a mask is worse than shoplifting. So yes, let's enforce it. Try extremely hard to keep guns out of it, but don't just give up on making it a rule at all.
- On the other hand, -
all of the above is assuming that someone would go to ridiculously escalated and brandishing measures to fight the law. If we assume they won't do that, the situation is completely different. No guns would be necessary to enforce either of those laws, so just enforce them with safe measures. There's no need for your rule of thumb in that case.
That's a really low bar.
For example, I think shoplifting should be illegal. 99.9% of the time no guns will need to be involved. But if someone is sufficiently willing to escalate, it becomes a matter of letting them steal whatever they want from stores, whenever they want, or enforcing it with a gun. You could fine them, but someone with that attitude would just ignore the fine. So yes, I'm willing to enforce shoplifting with a gun, as a last resort.
But if shoplifting is my point of comparison... I think right now that not wearing a mask is worse than shoplifting. So yes, let's enforce it. Try extremely hard to keep guns out of it, but don't just give up on making it a rule at all.
- On the other hand, -
all of the above is assuming that someone would go to ridiculously escalated and brandishing measures to fight the law. If we assume they won't do that, the situation is completely different. No guns would be necessary to enforce either of those laws, so just enforce them with safe measures. There's no need for your rule of thumb in that case.
>I like the idea of not supporting laws you're not willing to enforce by gun.
Speaking of which, this whole covid thing with the masks, the travel bans, etc. is really a great illustration of the differences between legal, enforceable and politically palatable. Of course nobody is learning these lessons because we're all busy arguing about masks.
Speaking of which, this whole covid thing with the masks, the travel bans, etc. is really a great illustration of the differences between legal, enforceable and politically palatable. Of course nobody is learning these lessons because we're all busy arguing about masks.
[deleted]
>It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home.
We can just reopen reopen right now. Yes covid spread easily but we already know that majority of covid cases its either asymptomatic or only mild symptom.
At this point lockdown create more problem than it solves.
We can just reopen reopen right now. Yes covid spread easily but we already know that majority of covid cases its either asymptomatic or only mild symptom.
At this point lockdown create more problem than it solves.
Japan has pretty much 100% mask coverage, but the number of cases is still rising rapidly.
To be fair, not nearly as fast as the US, but masks are not a panacea.
To be fair, not nearly as fast as the US, but masks are not a panacea.
They don't need to be perfect, you just need to find an acceptable combination of measures that push the replication rate low enough.
No one is saying masks are perfect. But Worldometers shows Covid-19 deaths at 480 per 1 million in the US and 8 per 1 million in Japan. New cases in Japan are but a tiny fraction of the United States.
That ship has sailed.
When COVID was politicized, that chance died.
When COVID was politicized, that chance died.
The way I see it, every law we pass is, roughly, choosing a tradeoff between liberty, safety, and economic productivity. We don't allow people to drive as fast as they like. On the interstate, we limit that to say 75 mph. That leads to more deaths than if it were 25 mph. Collectively, we have decided that 75 mph lies near some optimum. Certainly, some view it as too fast, some view it as too slow. Not everybody has the same risk tolerance.
It's no different with masks.
It's no different with masks.
For an example of what people are doing in this space: Melbourne, Australia (where I live) just did this.
Kinda sorta. They want any face covering. Stick a handkerchief or bandanna over it. Or a faceshield - my pet hate as they stop immediate droplets but do nothing for aerosols.
For details: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-covid-19
Kinda sorta. They want any face covering. Stick a handkerchief or bandanna over it. Or a faceshield - my pet hate as they stop immediate droplets but do nothing for aerosols.
For details: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-covid-19
> a man with a dry cough
Anecdotally, this could have been the reason the other 25 didn't contract the disease, and not really the mask.
Anecdotally, this could have been the reason the other 25 didn't contract the disease, and not really the mask.
I don't think so. A dry cough does not mean like bone dry. It means no mucus coming up from the deep lungs. Plenty of droplets are produced by dry cough.
Asymptomatic-like. I understand.
It's insane to me that people want to make such large-scale changes to people's behaviour based on some anecdotes.
Are you American by chance? This is also anecdotal, but on the internet I'm seeing wearing a masks considered "such large-scale changes to people behaviour" mostly from American commenters. In Asia they just do it, in Europe we just do it (and I live in maybe the most government-hostile country in Europe).
> in Europe we just do it
Maybe in some European countries. The Dutch public health authorities are very skeptical about the usefulness of masks and continue to resist a mask requirement except in places where distancing is impossible (like public transport).
Maybe in some European countries. The Dutch public health authorities are very skeptical about the usefulness of masks and continue to resist a mask requirement except in places where distancing is impossible (like public transport).
Mandating face coverings for everyone who leaves their house is a large-scale change. No, I am not American. I'm also now not really European, so that should tell you where I am ;)
Edit: I decided to clarify why I think it is a large-scale change. I cannot think of any other action we are actively obliged to do by law, except for possibly covering gentials, when leaving our own house/property. Introducing any such obligitory action is, in my opinion, a large-scale change in mandated behaviour.
Edit: I decided to clarify why I think it is a large-scale change. I cannot think of any other action we are actively obliged to do by law, except for possibly covering gentials, when leaving our own house/property. Introducing any such obligitory action is, in my opinion, a large-scale change in mandated behaviour.
> No, I am not American. I'm also now not really European, so that should tell you where I am ;)
i am probably missing something obvious but no, there are plenty of places that are not america or Europe.
i am probably missing something obvious but no, there are plenty of places that are not america or Europe.
> I'm also now not really European
It was a light-hearted comment about a country that was part of Europe and now isn't.
It was a light-hearted comment about a country that was part of Europe and now isn't.
Tell me you mean EU, or enlighten me which country is no longer part of Europe?
Where in Europe we do it? Most of the countries agree the evidence is rather weak, I wouldn't do such broad generalizations about Europe. No masks in Finland where in at, neither in Estonia or Latvia that I visited.
> It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home.
How do you intend to enforce this mandatory order?
How do you intend to enforce this mandatory order?
We may only be halfway, one third or less into this pandemic.
I really hope that
1) the early vaccines will work
2) other mitigation strategies (masks, social distancing, quick tests at scale etc) will succeed in keeping R under 1 and small businesses above breakeven in case we're in for another 1-2 years of covid flare ups
If the above don't work, we could be looking at mass unemployment, unbearable private and government debt, and more civil unrest
I really hope that
1) the early vaccines will work
2) other mitigation strategies (masks, social distancing, quick tests at scale etc) will succeed in keeping R under 1 and small businesses above breakeven in case we're in for another 1-2 years of covid flare ups
If the above don't work, we could be looking at mass unemployment, unbearable private and government debt, and more civil unrest
>If the above don't work, we could be looking at mass unemployment, unbearable private and government debt, and more civil unrest
Given the fact that there's never been a successful coronavirus vaccine, and that there's a huge portion of the American population that regards mask-wearing and hand-washing to be tyrannical affronts to civil liberties, I think we all know how things are going to play out.
Given the fact that there's never been a successful coronavirus vaccine, and that there's a huge portion of the American population that regards mask-wearing and hand-washing to be tyrannical affronts to civil liberties, I think we all know how things are going to play out.
[deleted]
What do you all think is going to happen when climate change hits? This little crisis is all just a rehearsal for the real thing, you know.
> "She asked her landlord for a break on her $6,000 a month rent, but he refused. Ms. Dillon said she decided in early April to close down."
Commercial evictions have been stopped in New York since March. It seems like a lot of people underestimate their bargaining power in a pandemic. Who else is the landlord going to rent to anyway?
Commercial evictions have been stopped in New York since March. It seems like a lot of people underestimate their bargaining power in a pandemic. Who else is the landlord going to rent to anyway?
Nearly every other city has taken major steps to make it easier for people to spend time outdoors, for restaurants and bars to serve patrons outdoors, assistance programs for local small businesses, and so forth. By contrast, DeBlasio has been chipping away at Open Streets, cancelled Summer Streets, and both he and Cuomo have been actively impeding restaurants and bars from adapting to serve food and alcohol outdoors.
They've insisted that bars cannot serve alcohol without serving "real food" (nachos doesn't count), which is a huge blow to bars which don't have a full kitchen. Even for restaurants and bars which do, though, they've been incredibly aggressive with issuing citations. Many have complained that, if a server clears the empty dinner plates before patrons are finished with their drinks, state inspectors will cite them because "there's no food", even though the bill shows that they were charged for dinner. Others have complained that the city has cited them for "violations", but unlike the health inspectors, doesn't actually provide a list of the offenses that need to be corrected.
In addition, they've provided ~zero financial assistance for small businesses - particularly bars and restaurants, which are hit the hardest. That's in stark contrast to other cities in the US and elsewhere, which have given direct cash assistance to help them weather the crisis.
It's a disaster all around, and neither the governor nor the mayor have shown any interest in taking meaningful steps to support the state's largest economy. (Cuomo has done a better job at framing his actions to the press, but when you actually look at what he's done, he's done a really awful job).