One-Third of U.S. Museums May Not Survive the Year, Survey Finds(npr.org)
npr.org
One-Third of U.S. Museums May Not Survive the Year, Survey Finds
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/22/894049653/one-third-of-u-s-museums-may-not-survive-the-year-survey-finds
155 comments
What a mediocre thought from a great mind. Generally we accept our own mortality even if we fear it, but we fear much more for our children. Most people are altruistic, and the fear of the end of the human species and most life on Earth (ie, fear of the atomic age) is much greater than that of dying of disease or accident.
Since it's not worth a separate comment - every single museum in the US could be kept afloat during COVID by a single rich person. Unless they want confiscatorily high tax rates in the future they should step up now.
Since it's not worth a separate comment - every single museum in the US could be kept afloat during COVID by a single rich person. Unless they want confiscatorily high tax rates in the future they should step up now.
> but we fear much more for our children
People did back then too, so I'm not sure what's mediocre about it.
We've had to live with situations outside of our hands for a long time. Our ability to alter the impact of adverse events isn't really driven by the magnitude of said events (e.g. family vs tribe vs city vs nation vs world).
No matter the age, you just have to accept that you might encounter very unhappy events.
People did back then too, so I'm not sure what's mediocre about it.
We've had to live with situations outside of our hands for a long time. Our ability to alter the impact of adverse events isn't really driven by the magnitude of said events (e.g. family vs tribe vs city vs nation vs world).
No matter the age, you just have to accept that you might encounter very unhappy events.
Thought both are out of my hands and would result in my death, I fear a 100km diameter asteroid strike much more than being murdered.
"fear of the atomic age" is proxy for "fear of a thermonuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union" for a generation of people. It's not comparable to COVID-19 and it's not comparable to the other concerns he listed, and for someone so deeply rooted in moral and ethical philosophy as C.S. Lewis I'm surprised.
Anyway, it's off topic, this is my last word on it.
"fear of the atomic age" is proxy for "fear of a thermonuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union" for a generation of people. It's not comparable to COVID-19 and it's not comparable to the other concerns he listed, and for someone so deeply rooted in moral and ethical philosophy as C.S. Lewis I'm surprised.
Anyway, it's off topic, this is my last word on it.
In 1948 thermonuclear weapons did not yet exist.
The bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were about 1000 times as powerful as the largest conventional bombs. Thermonuclear weapons came about in the 1950s. The thermonuclear bombs the USA and USSR had in 1958 were about 1000 times as powerful as the 1945 bombs. It was the development of thermonuclear bombs that made nuclear weaponry the swords of civilizational extinction.
C.S. Lewis was writing about weapons 1000 times less powerful than you're thinking of. He was also writing when the number of nuclear weapons that had been stockpiled was much smaller.
The bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were about 1000 times as powerful as the largest conventional bombs. Thermonuclear weapons came about in the 1950s. The thermonuclear bombs the USA and USSR had in 1958 were about 1000 times as powerful as the 1945 bombs. It was the development of thermonuclear bombs that made nuclear weaponry the swords of civilizational extinction.
C.S. Lewis was writing about weapons 1000 times less powerful than you're thinking of. He was also writing when the number of nuclear weapons that had been stockpiled was much smaller.
Or, he had the foresight to realize that (as we have learned by our own experience) the atomic age did not lead to the end of the human species. If anything, if we had more fully embraced the atomic age and gotten off of fossil fuels in the mid-1900s by creating many more nuclear power plants, we may have been able to avert the current climate crisis that is this generations version of the dreaded atomic age.
Thankfully they didn't before safety and technology improved, else we'd all be living next to 1950/60s reactors. Now that electric cars are viable, it's a good time to take a fresh look.
> Unless they want confiscatorily high tax rates in the future they should step up now.
This sounds like a threat. The government is not going to pay for their spending with higher taxes. They are going to inflate it away.
This sounds like a threat. The government is not going to pay for their spending with higher taxes. They are going to inflate it away.
Of course now we have an understanding of how the plague works and if we could stop the growth of cancer as easily as we can COVID we might inadvertently cause the closure of some museums for that as well.
My wife works at our local science museum. It's very tough for them, even in good times a lot of museums scramble for funding. They were able to reopen for a few days and then shut down again. They did PPE loans so all of the employees still have jobs for now, but its hard to know what will happen in the next few months, and will they be able to generate enough revenue. They do summer camp programs and have been switching those to virtual but I'm not sure how much revenue that will generate. Additionally they are kind of scrambling now to get more online content. In addition to donations, memberships and admission they have gotten some grant money in the past as well. Maybe when there is some clarity about when and how they can operate they might get some more donation money from local companies or philanthropists but I think the issue is how do the hang onto their staff. I think they were hoping the PPE loan could get them through but now its not so clear that was the best choice for them.
The headline is misleading. This quote tells the actual story:
"In a survey released Wednesday of 760 museum directors, 33% of them said there was either a "significant risk" of closing permanently by next fall or that they didn't know if their institutions would survive."
It still shows a high level of uncertainty, but 1/3rd of museums are not saying they may be shutting down in 2020, as the headline would imply. They do have short runways, but note the discrepancy between 33% saying they aren't sure if they will make it a year, yet 87% saying they do not have a year of runway. 44% therefore have short runways yet do not doubt incoming funding.
What we should do is help the funding return to the other 33% in the next 6-12 months.
"In a survey released Wednesday of 760 museum directors, 33% of them said there was either a "significant risk" of closing permanently by next fall or that they didn't know if their institutions would survive."
It still shows a high level of uncertainty, but 1/3rd of museums are not saying they may be shutting down in 2020, as the headline would imply. They do have short runways, but note the discrepancy between 33% saying they aren't sure if they will make it a year, yet 87% saying they do not have a year of runway. 44% therefore have short runways yet do not doubt incoming funding.
What we should do is help the funding return to the other 33% in the next 6-12 months.
I don't see how the headline is misleading.
"One-third of U.S. Museums May Not Survive the Year"
vs your version: 1/3 of museums are at "significant risk of closing permanently" within 12 months.
“May not survive the year” can be read as either “may close before the end of this calendar year,” or “may close within 12 months.” Unless it’s January 1, those are quite different statements. English sucks sometimes.
Edit: inserted the word “calendar” to clarify a little.
Edit: inserted the word “calendar” to clarify a little.
That reminds me: maybe I should renew some memberships early, or up my contributions.
More fallout from the ineptness of our government I presume. Its forecasts like this that start to mount as we continue the downward trend. Truly a pandemic in every sense.
And here I am working to open a new science museum with no funding whatsoever... I'm currently living in a tent outside
Maybe I'm enough of a cheapskate to survive!
Maybe I'm enough of a cheapskate to survive!
Where?
I just bought a 220,000 sqft building in Pine Bluff Arkansas.
The website is Serendipic.org
I'm currently just funding everything myself.
The website is Serendipic.org
I'm currently just funding everything myself.
I guess the silver lining here is that the "employees" are already generally unpaid.
The cruel exception is in military museums where all the military funded museums are paid somewhat decent wages but of course these wages pale in comparison to the military intelligence trainers getting paid $650k+ / year mostly tax-free due to being overseas.
The NBLS statistics for museum workers is highly skewed for federally funded museums and those with long career tenures which makes it look like they're paid nearly as much as most other white collar workers but this doesn't mean there's actually jobs in the field. And this was all pre-COVID.
OPM has been desperately trying to get people to retire earlier by offering huge lump sums but with healthcare the way it is, people are not retiring which puts a drag on a strapped public sector in headcount and requisitions, but the implication to me is that when museum persons are retiring nowadays in public sector they're being replaced with cheaper contractors or simply not being filled in at all. I'm familiar with entire libraries being shut down after a single librarian retired.
The NBLS statistics for museum workers is highly skewed for federally funded museums and those with long career tenures which makes it look like they're paid nearly as much as most other white collar workers but this doesn't mean there's actually jobs in the field. And this was all pre-COVID.
OPM has been desperately trying to get people to retire earlier by offering huge lump sums but with healthcare the way it is, people are not retiring which puts a drag on a strapped public sector in headcount and requisitions, but the implication to me is that when museum persons are retiring nowadays in public sector they're being replaced with cheaper contractors or simply not being filled in at all. I'm familiar with entire libraries being shut down after a single librarian retired.
Museums do tend to have many volunteers, but I'm not sure how this is a silver lining. For one, larger museums employ a fair number of people, from educators to scientists to tradespeople to curators. In fact, many of them are already out of a job. Even museums with large endowments quickly started to lay off workers [0]. I would also argue that to volunteer in a museum is a rich cultural experience -- often a chance for people to engage with a discipline they are passionate about. They may not have been paid, but they are surely missing this connection with the people, places, and objects they love.
[0]: https://hyperallergic.com/551571/moma-educator-contracts/
[0]: https://hyperallergic.com/551571/moma-educator-contracts/
Museum Museum
What percentage of restaurants might not survive?
What other types of establishments are likely to have a high percentage not surviving?
What other types of establishments are likely to have a high percentage not surviving?
Something like 20% of restaurants that were open in February are now permanently closed. It might be even a little more than that — I don’t have the data right in front of me. Extend that timeline to next fall, as in the article, and probably almost all the non-chain restaurants would be done for.
Edit: it’s worse than I thought. Data from Yelp suggest about half of restaurants may be permanently closed. I have no idea how that breaks down into national and regional chains vs independently owned restaurants, however.
See https://www.eater.com/2020/6/26/21304219/over-50-percent-of-...
Edit: it’s worse than I thought. Data from Yelp suggest about half of restaurants may be permanently closed. I have no idea how that breaks down into national and regional chains vs independently owned restaurants, however.
See https://www.eater.com/2020/6/26/21304219/over-50-percent-of-...
Museum directors all agree that anyone who sells museum holdings to meet operating expenses is blacklisted from future visiting collections. Let them sell some of their holdings and all will be well. Many of them are sitting on a vast inventory of items that are never seen by anyone.
The purpose of a museum is to share knowledge, and selling objects into private collection is a direct violation of that mission. They might as well set the stuff on fire; the effect would be the same.
Edit to add: it's a myth that objects not currently on public display are "never seen by anyone." Some get seen by the public when used or loaned out for temporary, traveling, or themed exhibits. The rest are generally made available to researchers with interest in that field.
Edit to add: it's a myth that objects not currently on public display are "never seen by anyone." Some get seen by the public when used or loaned out for temporary, traveling, or themed exhibits. The rest are generally made available to researchers with interest in that field.
Malcolm Gladwell touches on this beautifully in the most recent season of Revisionist History:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dragon-psychology-101/...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dragon-psychology-101/...
Came here to say this. Malcolm Gladwell laid this out in a recent Podcast (although I didn't know about the blacklisting thing). http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/42-dragon-psychology-...
Doesn’t that only specifically apply to art museums?
[deleted]
skee0083(2)
I'm puzzled by today's news on the vaccine. They were saying they would not make it available until it was proven "safe and effective". They said the vaccine may not be effective.
But my understanding is the previous trials demonstrated it was safe. If it turns out to be ineffective, at least no harm is done. So why not make it available? If it works, and is even only partially effective, it would be a big help.
I recall they said the vaccine would be considered "ineffective" if it worked something like less than 50% of the time. But wouldn't a 25% effective vaccine be a vast improvement over nothing?
But my understanding is the previous trials demonstrated it was safe. If it turns out to be ineffective, at least no harm is done. So why not make it available? If it works, and is even only partially effective, it would be a big help.
I recall they said the vaccine would be considered "ineffective" if it worked something like less than 50% of the time. But wouldn't a 25% effective vaccine be a vast improvement over nothing?
Something may seem safe when you give to 20 people and less safe when you give it to 20’000 or 20’000’000 people. If it has 1% chance of severe complications that will probably by missed in the phase 1 study.
Also, some harmful effects take time to show up.
Set that possibility against the predictable deaths of 100,000+ people due to waiting.
The bulk of deaths in the US were due to forcing sick into nursing homes. That mistake is unlikely to be made again. Risk of death has thus been significantly reduced and still on the downswing.
We're losing a thousand a day.
You may be forgetting the massive cost of ramping up vaccine production to immunize 7 billion people.
Even at 25% effectivity, with so many other vaccines in the works it would be a huge waste to go with one that is barely effective when there’s another one that might work at 100%. Obviously the decision must be made eventually, but this is why they don’t rush it out.
Even at 25% effectivity, with so many other vaccines in the works it would be a huge waste to go with one that is barely effective when there’s another one that might work at 100%. Obviously the decision must be made eventually, but this is why they don’t rush it out.
The news also reported that they were going to manufacture the vaccine before the trials were complete so there isn't a delay following approval.
So it will be a sunk cost anyway.
(The government is paying for it. Frankly, that's cheap as dirt compared to the economic damage from months more waiting for it to be produced.)
So it will be a sunk cost anyway.
(The government is paying for it. Frankly, that's cheap as dirt compared to the economic damage from months more waiting for it to be produced.)
That sunk cost isn't as big as it would be if we actually administered it. There are lots of things we don't have to pay for - shipping, storing, and physically administering it. not to mention that if it doesn't work, some people will act as if it is - further spreading the risk of getting disease. And on top of it all, anyone against vaccines has a real world example to draw dire things from (and lie about, obviously, but still).
Simply having a sunk cost isn't a good enough reason to actually administer it.
Simply having a sunk cost isn't a good enough reason to actually administer it.
Even if it is only 10% effective the lives saved will be a plenty good enough reason.
So long as it is the best thing we have at that point - yes, definitely. Hopefully, we'll handle it honestly and stuff.
No vaccine, no medicine really, is 100% safe. A very small percentage of people do have serious adverse reactions to them, potentially deadly. Distributing an ineffective vaccine causes harm to that population for no reason.
> for no reason
It is for the very real chance of preventing 100,000+ additional deaths.
It is for the very real chance of preventing 100,000+ additional deaths.
This is exactly why I created: https://randomdailyart.com
To bring art to people who can't go see it in person. I haven't been able to visit any museums or art galleries in the past few months. I would really like to.
To bring art to people who can't go see it in person. I haven't been able to visit any museums or art galleries in the past few months. I would really like to.
Just end the shutdown, its never a good strategy in the first place, its doing more harm than good.
It's done phenomenal good in all the countries that have done it properly, and have nearly gotten rid of this thing. I can't believe, after all the available data all over the world, that anyone still thinks "no lockdown" is reasonable.
Country level analysis published in The Lancet with this conclusion: “full lockdowns and widespread testing were not associated with reduced COVID-19 mortality.”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
If you're going to lie by misquoting and quoting out of context, citing a source probably isn't the best strategy. Here's the full quote. My emphasis on the part you left out because it didn't support the claim you were trying to make:
> Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.
> Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.
Also, herd immunity has completely left the public discussion. Every country that has successfully avoided wide spread infection has merely delayed the inevitable unless a successful vaccine becomes available soon. Everyone is guessing. 10 years from now we'll know who made the best decisions but it won't be because anyone was smarter, it'll be because they guessed luckily.
I don't think it left the discussion, it's just that it's an other grey area. We still don't seem to know for sure how long the immunity lasts. Infecting a big chunk of your population for merely a few months of herd immunity might not be worth it.
I think a more difficult question is what happens if there's no herd immunity AND no vaccine. Will we be able to live like this forever? I suspect not, so how long will we try? A year? Three years? These are rhetorical questions, I hope we don't have to find out.
We don't have herd immunity to ebola, MERS, SARS, AIDS, etc., yet those are still diseases whose incidence is still pretty small, globally speaking.
It's not true that herd immunity is the only endgame. Reducing the size of the disease reservoir, in combination with testing and tracing, is a very effective tactic that has worked against many communicable diseases.
The only acceptable way to get herd immunity is via a vaccine. Reaching for herd immunity without a vaccine is just another way of saying let's allow most of the vulnerable people die; whoever is left at the end will have herd immunity. Yay for them.
It's like saying the solution to war deaths is to fight a huge war to its conclusion. Whoever is left at the end won't be getting shot at anymore--problem solved!
It's not true that herd immunity is the only endgame. Reducing the size of the disease reservoir, in combination with testing and tracing, is a very effective tactic that has worked against many communicable diseases.
The only acceptable way to get herd immunity is via a vaccine. Reaching for herd immunity without a vaccine is just another way of saying let's allow most of the vulnerable people die; whoever is left at the end will have herd immunity. Yay for them.
It's like saying the solution to war deaths is to fight a huge war to its conclusion. Whoever is left at the end won't be getting shot at anymore--problem solved!
Some of the studies now are showing benefits of herd immunity with as little as 30% of the locals having had it. Young healthy people who have extremely low risk can provide herd immunity for at risk populations so they don't die.
But let's imagine none of that's true. Can you talk about how diseases of despair and deaths indirectly caused by economic troubles play into your analysis? How long do you believe the benefits of lockdowns will outweigh the costs? Do you believe the answer is forever?
But let's imagine none of that's true. Can you talk about how diseases of despair and deaths indirectly caused by economic troubles play into your analysis? How long do you believe the benefits of lockdowns will outweigh the costs? Do you believe the answer is forever?
Young people do not have extremely low risk:
"Close to one third of young adults are medically vulnerable to severe COVID-19 illness."
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30338-4/full...
Even if they did, during uncontrolled spread there is no way to limit infections to a specific subset of the population.
The U.S. has not yet locked down. If it had done so earlier this year, we would see much lower incidences of COVID-19 today--and a rebounding economy--as we see across much of Asia and Europe. Our nationally undisciplined approach has extended the impact of the pandemic far longer than it should have. Continued application of this approach will continue to extend the impact on the U.S. people and economy.
Lockdowns pay off very quickly if they are taken seriously; most people with COVID-19 stop being infectious within 14 days of the onset of symptoms.
"Close to one third of young adults are medically vulnerable to severe COVID-19 illness."
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30338-4/full...
Even if they did, during uncontrolled spread there is no way to limit infections to a specific subset of the population.
The U.S. has not yet locked down. If it had done so earlier this year, we would see much lower incidences of COVID-19 today--and a rebounding economy--as we see across much of Asia and Europe. Our nationally undisciplined approach has extended the impact of the pandemic far longer than it should have. Continued application of this approach will continue to extend the impact on the U.S. people and economy.
Lockdowns pay off very quickly if they are taken seriously; most people with COVID-19 stop being infectious within 14 days of the onset of symptoms.
I'm not interested or even particularly disagreeing with any of your comments on the past.
People with high risk can and already are behaving differently than people with low risk. That's why the death count is steadily dropping even while the case count is increasing, because young people are returning to normal behaviors while at risk people are being more careful.
In a world with wide spread virus in India, Brazil, the United States, Russia and Mexico it's simply not going away any time soon. Do you believe that these countries can successfully be quarantined from the rest of the world for the next year? What about 3 years? Or is it your position that all of these countries have the political and infrastructure capability of doing complete lockdowns?
People with high risk can and already are behaving differently than people with low risk. That's why the death count is steadily dropping even while the case count is increasing, because young people are returning to normal behaviors while at risk people are being more careful.
In a world with wide spread virus in India, Brazil, the United States, Russia and Mexico it's simply not going away any time soon. Do you believe that these countries can successfully be quarantined from the rest of the world for the next year? What about 3 years? Or is it your position that all of these countries have the political and infrastructure capability of doing complete lockdowns?
The problem with the lockdown is that they don't want to share data between countries so that we can get a vaccine sooner to end the shutdown sooner.
I would say that’s more a problem of xenophobia, with a touch of profiteering than a problem with the lockdowns per se.
Here’s the biggest problem I see with the lockdowns.
The lack of Interdisciplinary Approach in Policy Making: Doctors fail to realize deaths can happen outside of hospitals in poverty and dysfunctional families. Virologists fail to realize that economy equals life, not just money. People need to consider as many aspects as possible when it comes to policy making: economy, psychology, social science, history, communication, statistics, and more.
The lack of Interdisciplinary Approach in Policy Making: Doctors fail to realize deaths can happen outside of hospitals in poverty and dysfunctional families. Virologists fail to realize that economy equals life, not just money. People need to consider as many aspects as possible when it comes to policy making: economy, psychology, social science, history, communication, statistics, and more.
As you may have noticed, many states have attempted to end the shutdown, and then quickly reinstated it when death tolls increased dramatically.
From what I understand from the latest news reports, the primary way to stop the spread is with masks. So if we can reopen but with masks, that may be effective enough.
Masks allow people to do chores and errands and the like but it is still recommended for people not to be indoors with other people for extended periods of time or to not keep space from others.
(Not to mention that many people either refuse to wear masks or don’t wear masks properly covering nose and mouth).
(Not to mention that many people either refuse to wear masks or don’t wear masks properly covering nose and mouth).
[deleted]
The case raise dramatically but not the death tolls.
Death tolls require some time to go up.
If you lift lockdown, lots of people get infects. It takes a few days, maybe a week to show symptoms bad enough to go to a doctor for testing. This is the point in time when cases begin to go up. Imagine if you lifted the lockdown for a day and went back.
One to two weeks after that, people will get more seriously ill, requiring hospitalization. Initially this can be treated easy at a (presumably) low-load hospital with no issue, the death toll is low.
One more week and you have the majority of cases in the hospital, this is where most people will die. A month after you lifted the lockdown.
Now imagine not locking down after that one day. After 1 month, you're at the peak of Day 1 infections, the next day the peak of day 2 infections etc. It compounds fast and can overwhelm a hospital.
Once a hospital is unable to care for all patients properly, triage will be applied. People with good recovery chances will receive treatment, those who are risk groups will not.
That's when your death toll will explode very suddenly.
If you lift lockdown, lots of people get infects. It takes a few days, maybe a week to show symptoms bad enough to go to a doctor for testing. This is the point in time when cases begin to go up. Imagine if you lifted the lockdown for a day and went back.
One to two weeks after that, people will get more seriously ill, requiring hospitalization. Initially this can be treated easy at a (presumably) low-load hospital with no issue, the death toll is low.
One more week and you have the majority of cases in the hospital, this is where most people will die. A month after you lifted the lockdown.
Now imagine not locking down after that one day. After 1 month, you're at the peak of Day 1 infections, the next day the peak of day 2 infections etc. It compounds fast and can overwhelm a hospital.
Once a hospital is unable to care for all patients properly, triage will be applied. People with good recovery chances will receive treatment, those who are risk groups will not.
That's when your death toll will explode very suddenly.
Of course, the death require some time to show up, some time in 2 weeks, some time in 70 years...
Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus, its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then.
Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus, its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then.
> Hospital are frequently overwhelmed even before this particular virus
Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems. It's true that the US is particularly vulnerable to things like this because the structure of the healthcare system leaves very little slack capacity, but healthcare systems at, say, the county level are not routinely exceeding all available ICU, ventilator, etc., capacity (because of the insurance-network based way that hospital preferences are often driven, rather than intelligent capacity-and-location-based distribution, it's probably more common that individual hospitals hit capacity when the local system as a whole is in fine shape, though.)
> its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then
Even if the premise was true, which as noted it's not, this argument overlooks that if capacity exhaustion wasn't driven by a particular easily communicable disease, a shutdown wouldn't do anything to manage it.
The shutdown is not due to the healthcare system situation alone, but the combination of situation and the contribution of COVID-19 to the situation.
Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems. It's true that the US is particularly vulnerable to things like this because the structure of the healthcare system leaves very little slack capacity, but healthcare systems at, say, the county level are not routinely exceeding all available ICU, ventilator, etc., capacity (because of the insurance-network based way that hospital preferences are often driven, rather than intelligent capacity-and-location-based distribution, it's probably more common that individual hospitals hit capacity when the local system as a whole is in fine shape, though.)
> its not new and yet we didn't require shutdown back then
Even if the premise was true, which as noted it's not, this argument overlooks that if capacity exhaustion wasn't driven by a particular easily communicable disease, a shutdown wouldn't do anything to manage it.
The shutdown is not due to the healthcare system situation alone, but the combination of situation and the contribution of COVID-19 to the situation.
>Not on the level of local, or even less statewide, hospital systems
In 2018 :
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
In 2018 :
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
That the only example you can find is the worst US flu season in recent history with about double the impact on most measures of a typical year pretty much disproves your “frequeently” claim all by itself.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
Given the nature of seasonal flu, it's quite likely that by the time that was noticed, the impact lag time of any control measures would have made them pointless, but maybe there is an argument that control measures would also have been warranted in 2017-2018. But, in any case, health systems in the US being overwhelmed, at the local community—at least urban and suburban, the rural situation can be worse because of the impact of variations when small numbers are involved—is not, contrary to your claim, a frequent occurrence.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
Given the nature of seasonal flu, it's quite likely that by the time that was noticed, the impact lag time of any control measures would have made them pointless, but maybe there is an argument that control measures would also have been warranted in 2017-2018. But, in any case, health systems in the US being overwhelmed, at the local community—at least urban and suburban, the rural situation can be worse because of the impact of variations when small numbers are involved—is not, contrary to your claim, a frequent occurrence.
Well, most direct deaths show fairly fast after the patient has died. There are some indirect damages that might kill someone 70 years on but we don't know that yet.
The issue isn't how long it takes "for death to show up", it's that patients who are infected don't drop dead on the spot. They develop symptoms, go to a doctor, get bad enough to be forced in to a hospital, treatment stops helping until eventually the succumb to the condition. That can take a while, especially if doctors are fighting for the patients life.
And yes, sometimes hospitals can be overwhelmed by single events, though in the US this seems to be an issue of lack of social healthcare than anything, but generally there isn't a single disease that puts hospitals into a state of triage (that is until Covid when hospitals in various places in the world did have to triage)
The issue isn't how long it takes "for death to show up", it's that patients who are infected don't drop dead on the spot. They develop symptoms, go to a doctor, get bad enough to be forced in to a hospital, treatment stops helping until eventually the succumb to the condition. That can take a while, especially if doctors are fighting for the patients life.
And yes, sometimes hospitals can be overwhelmed by single events, though in the US this seems to be an issue of lack of social healthcare than anything, but generally there isn't a single disease that puts hospitals into a state of triage (that is until Covid when hospitals in various places in the world did have to triage)
Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage.
And in regard with hospital overwhelmed, its nothing new, this is from 2018, hospital have to setup triage tents:
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
And in regard with hospital overwhelmed, its nothing new, this is from 2018, hospital have to setup triage tents:
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
Triage tents don't fall from the sky. They require extensive planning and logistics.
And sometimes you build them and they go unused as has been done during this very pandemic because luckily predictions were wrong.[0]
[0] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/29/ma...
And sometimes you build them and they go unused as has been done during this very pandemic because luckily predictions were wrong.[0]
[0] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/29/ma...
Um yes, i didn't argue that it shows up magically.
Triage tent != Triage.
A triage tent is used to sort patients between codes, ie emergencies and non-emergencies when space inside the hospital is unavailable.
Actual triage means when the hospital itself rejects patients because they do not have the resources to treat everyone anymore. From what it reads in the article, the hospitals weren't unable to treat patients on that level yet.
>Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage.
And we don't know what Covid-19 brings but that isn't even the point so I'm wondering why you brought it up anyway.
A triage tent is used to sort patients between codes, ie emergencies and non-emergencies when space inside the hospital is unavailable.
Actual triage means when the hospital itself rejects patients because they do not have the resources to treat everyone anymore. From what it reads in the article, the hospitals weren't unable to treat patients on that level yet.
>Yes, all disease could have delayed death/long lasting permanent damage.
And we don't know what Covid-19 brings but that isn't even the point so I'm wondering why you brought it up anyway.
I'm responding to the hospital being overwhelmed, not specifically about the tent.
My point is at the current situation the hospital is no more overwhelmed then what has happened in the past.
>And we don't know what Covid-19 brings
Yes but we can learn from previous similar virus in the past and decision to lockdown should not be taken lightly. Unless this virus has death rate of ebola then there should not be lockdown.
My point is at the current situation the hospital is no more overwhelmed then what has happened in the past.
>And we don't know what Covid-19 brings
Yes but we can learn from previous similar virus in the past and decision to lockdown should not be taken lightly. Unless this virus has death rate of ebola then there should not be lockdown.
Well, the standard influence virus that causes the flu isn't that similar, it's from a different family of viruses. The only similar virus that has some medical history is SARS.
Flip between the "cases" and "deaths" chart. It's become obvious that Texas and Florida now starting to suffer in deaths for the surge in cases last month. It would appear to take more than 2 weeks, but it's clearly there.
https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+19+cases
https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+coid+19+cases
https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+covid+19+cases
https://www.google.com/search?q=florida+coid+19+cases
even with the uptick the us death rate overall is still very low ~0.04%, where majority the cases are the old people. Inline with what has been estimated by most research publication.
That feels a bit like moving the goal post - you asked where the deaths were, and based upon the graph they are coming.
When you say a stat like that you need to caveat it - is that 0.04% of the total population? Case fatality? Infection fatality?
It's also not looking forward - today's total values aren't particularly useful when we can obviously see that the situation has been continually evolving.
When you say a stat like that you need to caveat it - is that 0.04% of the total population? Case fatality? Infection fatality?
It's also not looking forward - today's total values aren't particularly useful when we can obviously see that the situation has been continually evolving.
0.04% of the total population 145k out of 340 million. We can also see from Sweeden that the death rate are declining and that without lockdown.
The U.S. has already tallied 145K deaths. It's not clear what % of the population has been infected but it's surely much less than 100%. So clearly 0.04% can't be the correct overall death rate.
But that number is nonsensical in determining what actions we should take - it only has some questionable value if we look at it after the whole thing is over and the virus is long gone. Not everyone in America has been exposed to this virus, and many of those who have been exposed haven't run the full course of the disease. It's as useful as saying that in August of last year no one was infected and so it clearly would never kill anyone.
ok the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%. Which is low. yes the number are changing but it quickly converging as times goes. Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.
But the stats are converging upwards, and it's dishonest to throw an unrelated number out there like it's a useful fact. In May they suggested a 0.4% IFR [1] so conditions and fatality estimates have gotten worse. That's an extra million citizens dead if everyone gets it.
> Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.
Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estima... <- can't find the original source due to the link being updated on the CDC site.
> Lockdown is not free, its not without harm.
Do you believe this gives you lee-way to diminish and share bad facts to bolster your claim?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estima... <- can't find the original source due to the link being updated on the CDC site.
> the current cdc best estimate of ifr 0.65%
Do you have a CDC page giving that number please?
Do you have a CDC page giving that number please?
> The case raise dramatically but not the death tolls.
Death toll is a trailing indicator (IIRC, it tends to be about 10 days from infection to symptom onset in symptomatic cases, a little bit longer to hospitalization, a few more days to death where it occurs, and that's getting longer because of better care protocols with more experience, so the degree to which death is a trailing indicator is increasing), we've gotten better at managing serious cases (which is better for ventilator capacity since we are using less per case, but worse for overall hospital capacity, IIRC, because we're using more bed-days per hospitalization.)
The fact that cases over time are skewing younger also depresses the death rate but that's somewhat misleading as to impact, because seriously ill younger people are less likely to die but also more likely to have long hospitalization and post-hopsitalization convalescence, and that's only considering immediate consequences and not the increasing array of significant delayed health consequences that are being identified.
Death toll is a trailing indicator (IIRC, it tends to be about 10 days from infection to symptom onset in symptomatic cases, a little bit longer to hospitalization, a few more days to death where it occurs, and that's getting longer because of better care protocols with more experience, so the degree to which death is a trailing indicator is increasing), we've gotten better at managing serious cases (which is better for ventilator capacity since we are using less per case, but worse for overall hospital capacity, IIRC, because we're using more bed-days per hospitalization.)
The fact that cases over time are skewing younger also depresses the death rate but that's somewhat misleading as to impact, because seriously ill younger people are less likely to die but also more likely to have long hospitalization and post-hopsitalization convalescence, and that's only considering immediate consequences and not the increasing array of significant delayed health consequences that are being identified.
I was watching case raise 40-30% a few weeks ago and now deaths are also up 30-40%. Seems like it tracks for me
Provide sources if you can.
Which is in itself kind of a problem. What's the endgame here - what are all these lockdowns helping to push us towards? We can't just lock down forever, it's fundamentally unsustainable and the damage compounds over time, and it doesn't look like there's a way out that doesn't involve a large death toll. Nor is there much prospect of salvation from (say) vaccination or treatment any time soon.
> What's the endgame here
To slow the spread so that our medical facilities have the capacity to handle the sick, and we don't have to let people die due to lack of healthcare resources.
To slow the spread so that our medical facilities have the capacity to handle the sick, and we don't have to let people die due to lack of healthcare resources.
With a lockdown you slow down the infection. This has a few goals at the same time.
First, you lessen the load of the healthcare system. If a lot of people get sick at the same time, hospitals would be swamped and more people would die because care is impossible.
Second, you can bring the disease from an exponential growth to sub-exponential, potentially containing it mostly (this is what happened for example in Germany, where tracking individual infections is now possible again).
Third, you buy yourself time until a vaccine is available. Even if no vaccine is going to appear in the near future, as long as you slow it down long enough (1-2 years) from reaching saturation in the population, that's lives saved.
First, you lessen the load of the healthcare system. If a lot of people get sick at the same time, hospitals would be swamped and more people would die because care is impossible.
Second, you can bring the disease from an exponential growth to sub-exponential, potentially containing it mostly (this is what happened for example in Germany, where tracking individual infections is now possible again).
Third, you buy yourself time until a vaccine is available. Even if no vaccine is going to appear in the near future, as long as you slow it down long enough (1-2 years) from reaching saturation in the population, that's lives saved.
If only the directors of museums could sell or take out loans on some vanishingly small percentage of their collections...
When you don’t put your most valuable assets on your balance sheet (but do place the cost of acquiring them as expenses) [0], you can’t reasonably expect to be financially stable.
Implicitly, these museums are saying that they’d rather lay off all their staff, than count their art towards their assets [1]. In my opinion, this has always been the real story with financial hardship in the museum world. They have been suffering financially for decades now. Every time membership declines or attendance stalls, they are doomed to teeter closer to the edge.
[0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1262403
[1]: see, for example, this financial audit of the museum of Boston. “In accordance with current practice generally followed by museums, collections are generally not recorded as assets in the accompanying financial statements. Purchased additions to the collections are recorded as expenses at the time acquired.” ... “ Museum policy specifies that proceeds from the deaccessioning of an item may only be used for the conservation or acquisition of other collections items.” https://www.mos.org/sites/dev-elvis.mos.org/files/docs/about...
When you don’t put your most valuable assets on your balance sheet (but do place the cost of acquiring them as expenses) [0], you can’t reasonably expect to be financially stable.
Implicitly, these museums are saying that they’d rather lay off all their staff, than count their art towards their assets [1]. In my opinion, this has always been the real story with financial hardship in the museum world. They have been suffering financially for decades now. Every time membership declines or attendance stalls, they are doomed to teeter closer to the edge.
[0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1262403
[1]: see, for example, this financial audit of the museum of Boston. “In accordance with current practice generally followed by museums, collections are generally not recorded as assets in the accompanying financial statements. Purchased additions to the collections are recorded as expenses at the time acquired.” ... “ Museum policy specifies that proceeds from the deaccessioning of an item may only be used for the conservation or acquisition of other collections items.” https://www.mos.org/sites/dev-elvis.mos.org/files/docs/about...
Business logic that works in tech doesn't apply to museums. The ancients aren't making more and better history every year.
If you sell an irreplaceable object to make a profit at the end of the quarter, you can't just buy a new one when times are better. On the other hand, the ancients aren't making more history, so your collection never goes out of date. If you lay off all your staff, as long as you keep the collection in good storage conditions, you can hire new staff a century later and reopen just fine.
Museum policy that prevents dumping of assets is good policy. A museum that sells its collection is no longer a museum.
If you sell an irreplaceable object to make a profit at the end of the quarter, you can't just buy a new one when times are better. On the other hand, the ancients aren't making more history, so your collection never goes out of date. If you lay off all your staff, as long as you keep the collection in good storage conditions, you can hire new staff a century later and reopen just fine.
Museum policy that prevents dumping of assets is good policy. A museum that sells its collection is no longer a museum.
I agree with you that business rules do not apply to museums.
I am not suggesting that a museum sell critical pieces of their collections to make a profit this quarter. I’m suggesting they sell or take out loans against the pieces of their collections that have never been on display and will likely never be put on display, so that they can continue to curate and display the pieces for the public to enjoy.
I’m suggesting that it’s hypocritical for a museum to claim that it exists in service to the public (as opposed to private collections), but to close its doors or gouge prices, as an alternative to selling or taking out loans on assets that have never been and never will be displayed to the public. From my perspective, a museum with closed doors and good storage is not a museum, it is a private collection with windows and a board of directors.
I realize this does not work for small museums. I specifically have the Metropolitan Museum of Art (and its cousin museums in other large American cities, which are run with similarly hyper-acquisitional).
It doesn’t make sense to me that these museums can continue to acquire art (a big expense), and lay people off. It’s putting art above people, which does not sound like a public institution to me, regardless of my beliefs about the commercialization of art.
I am not suggesting that a museum sell critical pieces of their collections to make a profit this quarter. I’m suggesting they sell or take out loans against the pieces of their collections that have never been on display and will likely never be put on display, so that they can continue to curate and display the pieces for the public to enjoy.
I’m suggesting that it’s hypocritical for a museum to claim that it exists in service to the public (as opposed to private collections), but to close its doors or gouge prices, as an alternative to selling or taking out loans on assets that have never been and never will be displayed to the public. From my perspective, a museum with closed doors and good storage is not a museum, it is a private collection with windows and a board of directors.
I realize this does not work for small museums. I specifically have the Metropolitan Museum of Art (and its cousin museums in other large American cities, which are run with similarly hyper-acquisitional).
It doesn’t make sense to me that these museums can continue to acquire art (a big expense), and lay people off. It’s putting art above people, which does not sound like a public institution to me, regardless of my beliefs about the commercialization of art.
If they sell or take out loans against (and, hypothetically, default on those loans) they have failed in their primary task, to steward their collection.
They're putting art and history, and, critically, many people's ability to learn from and appreciate that art and history 100, 200, 1000 years from now, above a few employee paychecks for a few months.
Public institutions should take a long-term view of their public duty.
They're putting art and history, and, critically, many people's ability to learn from and appreciate that art and history 100, 200, 1000 years from now, above a few employee paychecks for a few months.
Public institutions should take a long-term view of their public duty.
Amazing how HN frequently complains about Private Equity buying up tech companies and killing the golden goose for the sake of short term gains, yet the top comment suggests museums do exactly that. (Shrugs)
As opposed to the museum shutting down completely?
I mean, look, I agree, the idea of a museum selling an art piece to make ends meet leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. But I'd rather the museums stay open.
I mean, look, I agree, the idea of a museum selling an art piece to make ends meet leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. But I'd rather the museums stay open.
> As opposed to the museum shutting down completely?
Yes. Shutting down temporary for the short or even medium term is better for humanity,if that is the cost to maintain long-term public access
The primary purpose of museums is not profit or employment, but housing cultural artefacts. IMO it is better (for humanity) if all employees are furloughed or even fired, and the buildings shuttered until a time they are viable again - even if it's a whole new organisation that rises from the ashes or if collections have to be transferred to a different surviving museum.
Yes. Shutting down temporary for the short or even medium term is better for humanity,if that is the cost to maintain long-term public access
The primary purpose of museums is not profit or employment, but housing cultural artefacts. IMO it is better (for humanity) if all employees are furloughed or even fired, and the buildings shuttered until a time they are viable again - even if it's a whole new organisation that rises from the ashes or if collections have to be transferred to a different surviving museum.
...I think I may have been misunderstanding something here. If a museum goes bankrupt, what happens to their collection? Is there some legal avenue where they can keep everything in storage until they (hopefully) get more funding down the road?
I agree. In this particular case, there are short term gains, and there’s short term survival. Since long term survival requires short term survival, I, as a museum director, would do what needed to be done, even if such things would be looked down upon in better times.
I’ve always found it useful to not assume users on a website are a homogenous group of people.
I agree, although I do find it useful more generally to point out when common arguments conflict with one another. Contradictions aren't always obvious, so bringing them to light is helpful.
I'm well aware. However, voting is aggregate so I figure the top comment is representative of the zeitgeist.
I did not suggest killing the golden goose, I suggested selling the golden eggs, so that you can afford produce to continue keeping that goose alive and serviceable to the public.
Common misconception that museums exist to put things on public display, and the collection exists to serve that.
For any serious museum, it's the opposite: public exhibits are a nice thing they do, but not the most important. Maintaining the collection, and the research it enables, is mission #1.
For any serious museum, it's the opposite: public exhibits are a nice thing they do, but not the most important. Maintaining the collection, and the research it enables, is mission #1.
And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used.
At some point in the past, all of these pieces were acquired from private collections. Why must the flow be one-directional?
At some point in the past, all of these pieces were acquired from private collections. Why must the flow be one-directional?
The question you need to consider is: why didn't those private collections sell the objects themselves? No one forced them to donate to a museum.
Selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of the donation. The whole point of donating to a museum is that it is one-directional. Anyone who wants to sell their stuff can do so themselves.
> And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used.
The offer is there, even if it has not yet been taken up.
You can't plan for what you don't know yet. Museums are exercises in long-term thinking. For example a fruitful path for finding new species today is to go back through museum collections that have been carefully kept in storage for future researchers.
Selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of the donation. The whole point of donating to a museum is that it is one-directional. Anyone who wants to sell their stuff can do so themselves.
> And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used.
The offer is there, even if it has not yet been taken up.
You can't plan for what you don't know yet. Museums are exercises in long-term thinking. For example a fruitful path for finding new species today is to go back through museum collections that have been carefully kept in storage for future researchers.
Firstly, people choose to donate to museums over selling for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from philanthropic to less-than-philanthropic. I do not believe that selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of donation, but reasonable people are allowed to disagree on this, I think.
I agree that the status quo is that donating to a museum is traditionally one-directional. I do not think it needs to be. Yes, people can sell things themselves, but it's often cheaper and easier to donate them to museums for a tax deduction, than it is to sell them at auction.
I totally agree that museums should be exercises in long-term thinking. One aspect of long-term thinking is fiscal responsibility. If museums are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, posting $100mm losses, they are not thinking long-term or being responsible stewards.
The world is not black and white, and I think it's silly that we should hold museums to black and white standards regarding their ability to borrow loans against some portion of their assets.
I agree that the status quo is that donating to a museum is traditionally one-directional. I do not think it needs to be. Yes, people can sell things themselves, but it's often cheaper and easier to donate them to museums for a tax deduction, than it is to sell them at auction.
I totally agree that museums should be exercises in long-term thinking. One aspect of long-term thinking is fiscal responsibility. If museums are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, posting $100mm losses, they are not thinking long-term or being responsible stewards.
The world is not black and white, and I think it's silly that we should hold museums to black and white standards regarding their ability to borrow loans against some portion of their assets.
“We” are not unfairly holding museums to these standards, these are standards that museums have developed and set for themselves. I am just trying to explain why they did that.
If the art could be treated as an asset for accounting purposes, it would give museums and very strong incentive to collect pieces that command a high price. This would tend to weaken the internal standards of the community of artists and curators in favor of commercial standards. If you are skeptical of internal standards - if you think commercial standards should predominate - why have non-profit museums at all? Why donate to museums?
Even if you're of the opinion that the existing internal norms of the art world are bogus - as I think many are - it does not follow that market norms should supplant internal norms. Internal norms can change through deliberation.
Even if you're of the opinion that the existing internal norms of the art world are bogus - as I think many are - it does not follow that market norms should supplant internal norms. Internal norms can change through deliberation.
It's not a matter of standards and norms, but objective reality. The art has value. It is an asset. It could be sold. To pretend otherwise is an act of deception. They're cooking the books. The question is why are they making fake books? The usual answer is to skim / profit / launder / etc.
In terms of how museums choose to curate their collections, I don't really care. That's their business, not mine. However economics exist whether they want to pay attention to it or not. They have bills. They have labor costs. At some point the lights get cut off.
In terms of how museums choose to curate their collections, I don't really care. That's their business, not mine. However economics exist whether they want to pay attention to it or not. They have bills. They have labor costs. At some point the lights get cut off.
Why would art as asset incentivize collections focused on high prices? Wouldn't there be an advantage to seeking out things that they think would increase in value over time?
Non-profit != charity. Many non-profit organizations are highly focused on the bottom line and given the high ticket price traveling exhibits I think that museums are not different in seeking the cultural relevance reflected by people's engagement, engagement that can be measured in how much they might pay for something.
Non-profit != charity. Many non-profit organizations are highly focused on the bottom line and given the high ticket price traveling exhibits I think that museums are not different in seeking the cultural relevance reflected by people's engagement, engagement that can be measured in how much they might pay for something.
Most museums are small and their collection is of little value except as a whole. This is especially true when you're talking about niche museums that are basically private collections that have been turned into non-profit museums so they could continue to exist in their totality by the heirs of the deceased collector. Treating their collections like assets would help them a little but not much.
Also, many small museums aren't "art" museums with semi-independent objects that have similar value to collectors anywhere.
Many of them have some sort of focus on the history of a place, person, community, people, industry, etc., and much of the value of the artifacts they house comes from the process of curating and contextualizing them to tell us a story about the past.
Because they're telling a story, they may also have replicas of artifacts they can't obtain which hold narrative/educational/illustrative value but fairly little collector value.
Another common genre is something like a house, restored to and preserved in roughly period condition. When these exist because a "significant" person or family built/owned/lived in the house, they'll likely try to obtain genuine objects they can connect to the people there. But they'll of course fill it in with other instances of objects they know the family owned, replicas, and best-guesses.
The person or family may only be locally significant, and the artifacts may have little independent commercial value. The main thing of value is likely to be the building itself.
Many of them have some sort of focus on the history of a place, person, community, people, industry, etc., and much of the value of the artifacts they house comes from the process of curating and contextualizing them to tell us a story about the past.
Because they're telling a story, they may also have replicas of artifacts they can't obtain which hold narrative/educational/illustrative value but fairly little collector value.
Another common genre is something like a house, restored to and preserved in roughly period condition. When these exist because a "significant" person or family built/owned/lived in the house, they'll likely try to obtain genuine objects they can connect to the people there. But they'll of course fill it in with other instances of objects they know the family owned, replicas, and best-guesses.
The person or family may only be locally significant, and the artifacts may have little independent commercial value. The main thing of value is likely to be the building itself.
> ...their collection is of little value except as a whole.
I agree that citation adds value to a collection. That’s why we pay curators, after all! But, I would also claim that the benefit of curation to the value of the collection as a whole probably scales with the size of the collection, if we’re talking about art or history museums. For instance, having an entire, working 1960s mainframe that’s used routinely for demonstrations at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View is extremely valuable, beyond the monetary cost it would take to acquire and set up the physical hardware. The same system, non working, and with “do not touch” signs all around, is significantly less valuable.
Likewise, a museum with the resources to pull off an exhibit like the Warhol retrospective that was at SFMOMA recently can a full picture of how an artist grows and develops throughout a career in a way that a single work, or handful of works, cannot.
I agree that citation adds value to a collection. That’s why we pay curators, after all! But, I would also claim that the benefit of curation to the value of the collection as a whole probably scales with the size of the collection, if we’re talking about art or history museums. For instance, having an entire, working 1960s mainframe that’s used routinely for demonstrations at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View is extremely valuable, beyond the monetary cost it would take to acquire and set up the physical hardware. The same system, non working, and with “do not touch” signs all around, is significantly less valuable.
Likewise, a museum with the resources to pull off an exhibit like the Warhol retrospective that was at SFMOMA recently can a full picture of how an artist grows and develops throughout a career in a way that a single work, or handful of works, cannot.
This was the topic of a recent episode of Revisionist History. Museums, art museums in the case of this podcast, horde tons of material they simply pack away and none of them ever note the actual value in annual filings. Then, when in financial trouble, they fire people and want a bailout. It reminds me of the Rolling Stone article about Johnny Depp being 'broke', despite having earned half a billion dollars. He refuses to sell a single property of the couple dozen he owns even though he would immediately be solvent afterwards.
In short, they can right now.
There's an Association of Art Museum Directors. Usually, the consequence for selling art to pay bills would result in that museum being censured by the art museum directors. They announced a couple months ago that they are allowing a 2 year reprieve from those censures due to COVID.
There's an Association of Art Museum Directors. Usually, the consequence for selling art to pay bills would result in that museum being censured by the art museum directors. They announced a couple months ago that they are allowing a 2 year reprieve from those censures due to COVID.
[deleted]
What happens to the collections...
The article gives at least one explanation of this—the museum was legally obligated to distribute the collection to other museums, non-profits and educational institutions.
Some crony will buy them up at a discount.
Every museum has its own deaccession process. I would expect that small or partial liquidations would follow that process. More significant liquidations might have a different process due to the volume of pieces. I would expect most of these liquidations to be via public auction.
the same as with other assets - we're entering the greatest wealth redistribution (it would for example definitely beat the one triggered by 2008). The smaller and more vulnerable get distressed, and are going to be scooped up on the cheap by the big ones who have access to liquidity.
Why do you say we're entering the greatest wealth redistribution? Are you saying corona triggered something new or that it was already in progress?
It is certainly gonna be a change in distribution, but I would call that a consolidation.
> we're entering the greatest wealth redistribution
I can confidently say: this is nothing compared to the fall of the USSR or the aftermath of the Plague.
I can confidently say: this is nothing compared to the fall of the USSR or the aftermath of the Plague.
I saw BBC article having title "How the Black Death made the rich richer"
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200701-how-the-black-...
But what I remember from economic history and what the article actually says is mostly opposite.
>Before the plague erupted, several centuries of population growth had produced a labour surplus, which was abruptly replaced with a labour shortage when many serfs and free peasants died. Historians have argued that this labour shortage allowed those peasants that survived the pandemic to demand better pay or to seek employment elsewhere. Despite government resistance, serfdom and the feudal system itself were ultimately eroded.
This was the main effect of the plague. The wealth concentration BBC talks about affected much fewer people.
This time the same is not going to happens because covid just increases demand for automation.
But what I remember from economic history and what the article actually says is mostly opposite.
>Before the plague erupted, several centuries of population growth had produced a labour surplus, which was abruptly replaced with a labour shortage when many serfs and free peasants died. Historians have argued that this labour shortage allowed those peasants that survived the pandemic to demand better pay or to seek employment elsewhere. Despite government resistance, serfdom and the feudal system itself were ultimately eroded.
This was the main effect of the plague. The wealth concentration BBC talks about affected much fewer people.
This time the same is not going to happens because covid just increases demand for automation.
This time the same is not going to happen because the plague killed ~50% of the population in Europe over a four year period, while covid won't kill even 1%, with most of the covid deaths being among retirees.
If 50% of working age people died, both wages and automation would increase.
If 50% of working age people died, both wages and automation would increase.
Plague was in a vastly poorer world. Fall of USSR was not a global event. So, it really depends on what you’re measuring, but I don’t think their clearly ahead when we don’t know the full details for COVID.
End of April reporting, for comparison:
> All but about 5 to 7 percent of the world’s museums are currently shuttered because of the coronavirus pandemic, said Peter Keller, the general director of the International Council of Museums. According to the council’s research, one in 10 may not reopen, he added.
More than 30 respondents to a 41-country survey, by the Network of European Museum Organizations, said they feared they would have to close permanently, among them the Museo de La Rioja and Museum of the Americas in Spain; Kornberg Castle in Austria, the Robert Capa Contemporary Photography Center in Hungary, and the National Historical Museum of Albania.
The gravity of the situation varies by country, depending on how much museums rely on ticket sales and tourism, and how much government funding they receive. Museums in the United States which survive from earned income and philanthropy are more vulnerable than government-subsidized European institutions. The American Alliance of Museums reported to Congress in March that as many as 30 percent of museums could fail in the crisis, if there was no immediate intervention.
> All but about 5 to 7 percent of the world’s museums are currently shuttered because of the coronavirus pandemic, said Peter Keller, the general director of the International Council of Museums. According to the council’s research, one in 10 may not reopen, he added.
More than 30 respondents to a 41-country survey, by the Network of European Museum Organizations, said they feared they would have to close permanently, among them the Museo de La Rioja and Museum of the Americas in Spain; Kornberg Castle in Austria, the Robert Capa Contemporary Photography Center in Hungary, and the National Historical Museum of Albania.
The gravity of the situation varies by country, depending on how much museums rely on ticket sales and tourism, and how much government funding they receive. Museums in the United States which survive from earned income and philanthropy are more vulnerable than government-subsidized European institutions. The American Alliance of Museums reported to Congress in March that as many as 30 percent of museums could fail in the crisis, if there was no immediate intervention.
I've been working with this team for the last ~18 months: https://www.passitdown.com/
Coming from the Library of Congress' digitization project, I knew the importance and complexity of putting collections online so was drawn to them.
Unfortunately, what was one venue for sharing collections became the only venue for sharing collections. I hope they - or other efforts like them - manage to at least document the pieces that are going to disappear into storage or private collections. :(
Coming from the Library of Congress' digitization project, I knew the importance and complexity of putting collections online so was drawn to them.
Unfortunately, what was one venue for sharing collections became the only venue for sharing collections. I hope they - or other efforts like them - manage to at least document the pieces that are going to disappear into storage or private collections. :(
I see a lot of doomsday predictions, but 4 months in, I’m barely seeing any signs of a protracted recession. Everyone seems to be doing okay, and when bars and businesses open up, they are jam packed. Am I the only one that is seeing a disparity between the speculations vs what I’m seeing around me? I truly believe we are in a crisis situation but why aren’t I seeing more signs of these doomsday predications?
> I see a lot of doomsday predictions, but 4 months in, I’m barely seeing any signs of a protracted recession.
Perhaps the trillions of dollars of stimulus money that has been distributed has something to do with it? Or maybe the generous unemployment benefits the federal government has passed out over the past four months to ensure people could pay their bills and purchase things to stimulate the economy?
Without those things we'd be in a completely different scenario. Things may get worse yet, we're not exactly winning the fight against COVID-19 in the US.
Perhaps the trillions of dollars of stimulus money that has been distributed has something to do with it? Or maybe the generous unemployment benefits the federal government has passed out over the past four months to ensure people could pay their bills and purchase things to stimulate the economy?
Without those things we'd be in a completely different scenario. Things may get worse yet, we're not exactly winning the fight against COVID-19 in the US.
And those enhanced unemployment benefits expire next week, so far the Senate and White House are wanting them ‘means tested’, so it looks like they may fall off without renewal.
If they don't provide an extension, they lose the Senate and the White House. Trumpvilles, etc. I doubt they will gamble like that.
US-centric, but:
> An estimated 4,400 Chicago-area businesses have closed during the pandemic. 2,400 say they’ll never reopen.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-ch...
> 30% of Americans missed their housing payments in June
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/16/30percent-of-americans-misse...
> 32% of U.S. households missed their July housing payments
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/32-percent-of-us-households-...
Evictions are paused, so these missed payments aren't having an effect yet, but missed rent payments are also affecting mortgage payments for the owners - the biggest fallout is still coming.
> An estimated 4,400 Chicago-area businesses have closed during the pandemic. 2,400 say they’ll never reopen.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-ch...
> 30% of Americans missed their housing payments in June
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/16/30percent-of-americans-misse...
> 32% of U.S. households missed their July housing payments
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/32-percent-of-us-households-...
Evictions are paused, so these missed payments aren't having an effect yet, but missed rent payments are also affecting mortgage payments for the owners - the biggest fallout is still coming.
Here is a graph of US GDP from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Given that a protracted recession is defined as a couple of quarters of negative GDP growth there are without doubt signs of one:
https://www.bea.gov/system/files/gdp1q20_3rd-chart-01.png
https://www.bea.gov/system/files/gdp1q20_3rd-chart-01.png
From Feb 2020 and ongoing [0][1].
[0] see shaded area: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
[1] their source: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html (was determined in June)
[0] see shaded area: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
[1] their source: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html (was determined in June)
One thing you also have to consider (siblings comment are good too) is that the oil price are ridiculously low. This might seems like a good news, it's not.
It makes mining cheaper (good news in the short-term) but also it reduce the incentive to invest in capital-intensive oil rigs. And this will probably mean a small oil shock two years from now. Also, while i did not have the possibility to look directly inot Rystad[0]'s data in 2019, i've talked to people who did and Rystad's predictions about above-ground issue resolution were really, really optimist and still estimated a 1% contraction of european oil supply in 2029 (last time it happened were 2007 and 2009).
Not only counting covid effect on oil-producing countries population hunger but also ISIS resurgence and the continuing crisis in Lybia, i think it would not be dumb to bet on no growth at all in the eurozone.
[0] https://www.rystadenergy.com/
It makes mining cheaper (good news in the short-term) but also it reduce the incentive to invest in capital-intensive oil rigs. And this will probably mean a small oil shock two years from now. Also, while i did not have the possibility to look directly inot Rystad[0]'s data in 2019, i've talked to people who did and Rystad's predictions about above-ground issue resolution were really, really optimist and still estimated a 1% contraction of european oil supply in 2029 (last time it happened were 2007 and 2009).
Not only counting covid effect on oil-producing countries population hunger but also ISIS resurgence and the continuing crisis in Lybia, i think it would not be dumb to bet on no growth at all in the eurozone.
[0] https://www.rystadenergy.com/
As a layman, I don't understand why future investment isn't priced in already?
When was the last time you stepped into a region that was already impoverished before the pandemic?
[deleted]
A fair question, I think the reckoning in the US will happen in the fall, when protections against evictions expire.
Since the protections have mostly protected the old at the expense of the young, it will be interesting to see the social ramifications.
Since the protections have mostly protected the old at the expense of the young, it will be interesting to see the social ramifications.
> “How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.”