COVID-19 Megathread 4: Grandma Got Run Over by the Dow Jones

[Del Tachi]

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

Is this really the case?  I understand there are some OSHA-type requirements for employees, but could stadiums/convention centers/other businesses really be held liable for transmission happening on their premises among the general public?  I don't think there's any legal precedent for this type of liability. 

[PSOL]

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

Is this really the case?  I understand there are some OSHA-type requirements for employees, but could stadiums/convention centers really be held liable for transmission happening on their premises among the general public?  I don't think there's any legal precedent for this type of liability. 

There, in no question at this point, should be under these circumstances.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.leftvoice.org/

Is it run by Russians? I endorse!

Trump owns this, for good or for bad. There is still a long way to go till November. His actions from now until then will matter a lot. He needs to make sure the government is functioning efficiently from now on. If we can't get our testing capability along with our ability to contain local outbreaks through contact tracing and local lockdowns, we will be back here again in a few months and then the people will be really pissed.

I never said, he didn't own it. Especially when US media are as they are.


People will, perhaps, look at Europe? US will likely be better on testing, economy and tracing.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-google-partner-on-coronavirus-contact-tracing-technology-11586540203
Apple, Google Partner on Coronavirus Contact-Tracing Technology
Solution helps alert users if they have had contact with an infected person

Apple Inc. and Google are teaming up to build software into smartphones that would alert people recently in contact with someone infected with the coronavirus, an unprecedented collaboration between the makers of the operating systems behind billions of smartphones world-wide.

The tech giants said the solution, which will be released over the coming months, will use Bluetooth technology on phones to allow users who opt-in to tap into an ecosystem of apps from health authorities that track the virus. The concept, known as “contact tracing,” would make it easier to contain future outbreaks as people return to work and the drumbeat of daily life.

[Del Tachi]

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

Is this really the case?  I understand there are some OSHA-type requirements for employees, but could stadiums/convention centers really be held liable for transmission happening on their premises among the general public?  I don't think there's any legal precedent for this type of liability. 

There, in no question at this point, should be under these circumstances.

"Duty of Care" is the appropriate legal framework to think about this.  Do private businesses have to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others (that harm being potential infection with Coronavirus)?

Most states have adopted a multi-pronged test to determine whether a duty of care exists or not.  In old days, simple "forseeability" was enough to establish a duty of care but California set a new standard in 1987 with the following multi-factor test.

1.  the foreseeability of harm to the injured party
2.  the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury
3.  the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered
4.  the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct
5.  the policy of preventing future harm
6.  the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach
7.  and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved

4 and 6 seem like the biggest stumbling blocks to establishing liability in cases like this, and if such liability is established I don't see what's to stop it from being applied to future seasonal flu pandemics, for example.

[PSOL]

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

Is this really the case?  I understand there are some OSHA-type requirements for employees, but could stadiums/convention centers really be held liable for transmission happening on their premises among the general public?  I don't think there's any legal precedent for this type of liability. 

There, in no question at this point, should be under these circumstances.

"Duty of Care" is the appropriate legal framework to think about this.  Do private businesses have to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others (that harm being potential infection with Coronavirus)?

In circumstances like this, yes.

[Grassroots]

The problem with people who presume that the restrictions are killing the economy is that they fail to understand that absent these restrictions, large number of people would not be attending or participating in risky economic activity.

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

With or without the stay at home orders and mitigation, the economy was going to get wrecked and until you get the virus under control and gone, you cannot conduct business. Not because the government won't allow you to, but because you literally cannot afford conduct business in this environment. Either you won't have any customers or you get sued into oblivion, or both.

I don't understand why the critics of the mitigation strategy don't account for this aspect of the economic effects of the virus.

This. The only way to actually just flip a switch and make the economy work again is if you keep the restrictions until mid-late may, when the cases have fallen.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

The model is updated. US #s are revisited slightly up from 60 to 61 [26-155] thousands of deaths.


http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates

Predicted peak for daily COVID-19 deaths. At the national level, current data suggest that the predicted peak for daily COVID-19 deaths could be approximately April 10, reaching 1,983 deaths (estimate range of 500 to 5,583). These projections suggest that the US may be nearing its peak for COVID-19 deaths; subsequently, we may soon see the number of daily deaths decreasing at the national level.

Predictions for cumulative deaths. For the US, projected cumulative COVID-19 deaths could reach 61,545 (estimate range of 26,487 to 155,315) across states during the epidemic’s first wave. Today’s release aligns closely with national-level predictions published on April 7, where the cumulative death toll was projected to be 60,415 (estimate range of 31,221 to 126,703).

Based on the latest data and current model, the following states could have the highest cumulative COVID-19 death toll through the epidemic’s first wave:

• New York, at 13,463 deaths (estimate range of 9,382 to 24,236)
• Massachusetts, at 6,739 deaths (estimate range of 1,269 to 22,854)
• Connecticut, at 4,614 deaths (estimate range of 1,143 to 13,559)
• Florida, at 3,999 deaths (estimate range of 1,218 to 10,293)
• Georgia, at 3,564 deaths (estimate range of 1,300 to 9,020)

Obviously, the model put to much weight on stay-at-home order (Massachusetts!).

[Del Tachi]

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

Is this really the case?  I understand there are some OSHA-type requirements for employees, but could stadiums/convention centers really be held liable for transmission happening on their premises among the general public?  I don't think there's any legal precedent for this type of liability. 

There, in no question at this point, should be under these circumstances.

"Duty of Care" is the appropriate legal framework to think about this.  Do private businesses have to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others (that harm being potential infection with Coronavirus)?

In circumstances like this, yes.

I agree that a duty of care exists when there's stay-at-home orders or social distancing requirements in place at the state/local level, but absent those I can't imagine a successful case being made. 

The existing orders are what establish any liability for private businesses, and state legislatures would be smart to pass new laws limiting business' liability for disease transmission once all this passes. 

[T'Chenka]

The virus doesn’t kill that many people, we should reopen the economy because otherwise millions of people will die. Covid-19 is not that bad of a disease.

Orange Man GOOD

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The problem with people who presume that the restrictions are killing the economy is that they fail to understand that absent these restrictions, large number of people would not be attending or participating in risky economic activity.

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

With or without the stay at home orders and mitigation, the economy was going to get wrecked and until you get the virus under control and gone, you cannot conduct business. Not because the government won't allow you to, but because you literally cannot afford conduct business in this environment. Either you won't have any customers or you get sued into oblivion, or both.

I don't understand why the critics of the mitigation strategy don't account for this aspect of the economic effects of the virus.

That's why most of critique of Trump rings hollow and just lame attacking a straw man. Anyone understands you can't just magically re-start economy until it's under control. You have though to start to think about it.

"Grandma Got Run Over by the Dow Jones" straw man are so sweet. In US that is. In Europe the discussion on when and how you'll re-start economy has already started. But they don't have CNN, either.

Good thing is that Trump gave US 2 weeks. US will be able to see what and how well Europe is doing. That's among other things why I think US will handle it (much?) better than Europe.

[Skill and Chance]

The problem with people who presume that the restrictions are killing the economy is that they fail to understand that absent these restrictions, large number of people would not be attending or participating in risky economic activity.

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

With or without the stay at home orders and mitigation, the economy was going to get wrecked and until you get the virus under control and gone, you cannot conduct business. Not because the government won't allow you to, but because you literally cannot afford conduct business in this environment. Either you won't have any customers or you get sued into oblivion, or both.

I don't understand why the critics of the mitigation strategy don't account for this aspect of the economic effects of the virus.

That's why most of critique of Trump rings hollow and just lame attacking a straw man. Anyone understands you can't just magically re-start economy until it's under control. You have though to start to think about it.

"Grandma Got Run Over by the Dow Jones" straw man are so sweet. In US that is. In Europe the discussion on when and how you'll re-start economy has already started. But they don't have CNN, either.

Good thing is that Trump gave US 2 weeks. US will be able to see what and how well Europe is doing. That's among other things why I think US will handle it (much?) better than Europe.

We are doing significantly better than the average of Europe so far.  The free East Asian countries are doing the best of all and we should think carefully about what we can learn from them.

[Sbane]

Trump owns this, for good or for bad. There is still a long way to go till November. His actions from now until then will matter a lot. He needs to make sure the government is functioning efficiently from now on. If we can't get our testing capability along with our ability to contain local outbreaks through contact tracing and local lockdowns, we will be back here again in a few months and then the people will be really pissed.

I never said, he didn't own it. Especially when US media are as they are.


People will, perhaps, look at Europe? US will likely be better on testing, economy and tracing.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-google-partner-on-coronavirus-contact-tracing-technology-11586540203
Apple, Google Partner on Coronavirus Contact-Tracing Technology
Solution helps alert users if they have had contact with an infected person

Apple Inc. and Google are teaming up to build software into smartphones that would alert people recently in contact with someone infected with the coronavirus, an unprecedented collaboration between the makers of the operating systems behind billions of smartphones world-wide.

The tech giants said the solution, which will be released over the coming months, will use Bluetooth technology on phones to allow users who opt-in to tap into an ecosystem of apps from health authorities that track the virus. The concept, known as “contact tracing,” would make it easier to contain future outbreaks as people return to work and the drumbeat of daily life.

Yes, America will be better than Europe, but only Europe. And even then it will be worse than Germany. We will be worse than most of Asia outside of Hubei province. Are we supposed to pat ourselves on the back for that? Like I said, this pandemic isn't over yet. We shall see if we can get our act together going forward. Testing capability has gone up by magnitudes, and now we need to change the testing criteria to increase testing. No more trying to save tests for those with severe symptoms and healthcare workers.

[brucejoel99]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-google-partner-on-coronavirus-contact-tracing-technology-11586540203
Apple, Google Partner on Coronavirus Contact-Tracing Technology
Solution helps alert users if they have had contact with an infected person

Apple Inc. and Google are teaming up to build software into smartphones that would alert people recently in contact with someone infected with the coronavirus, an unprecedented collaboration between the makers of the operating systems behind billions of smartphones world-wide.

The tech giants said the solution, which will be released over the coming months, will use Bluetooth technology on phones to allow users who opt-in to tap into an ecosystem of apps from health authorities that track the virus. The concept, known as “contact tracing,” would make it easier to contain future outbreaks as people return to work and the drumbeat of daily life.

If anybody's concerned, this isn't about collecting data. The keys of the phones you've been in contact with as well as the keys generated on your own phone stay on your phone until you decide to upload them. And even when you do, the server doesn't know who these keys belong to. Your phone regularly checks the keys on the server against the keys on your phone to see if you've been in contact with somebody who shared their data because they've been infected.

This is the most privacy-respecting system for contact tracing we currently know of. Implementing this at the OS level is fantastic. A system like this only works if enough people participate. This collaboration means that basically everybody's phone has the ability to do this. Amazing!

We need contact tracing to be able to reduce the restrictions & hasten our return to normal while still keeping the basic reproductive number low. In other words, the faster we have a system like this, the better.

[PSOL]

Furthermore from a liability standpoint. How can you hold a concert, or a business conference in a world without the stay at home orders? You couldn't even begin to cover that liability, no insurance company on earth would cover that risk. No business would want to risk being sued into oblivion by people once they get infected.

Is this really the case?  I understand there are some OSHA-type requirements for employees, but could stadiums/convention centers really be held liable for transmission happening on their premises among the general public?  I don't think there's any legal precedent for this type of liability. 

There, in no question at this point, should be under these circumstances.

"Duty of Care" is the appropriate legal framework to think about this.  Do private businesses have to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others (that harm being potential infection with Coronavirus)?

In circumstances like this, yes.

I agree that a duty of care exists when there's stay-at-home orders or social distancing requirements in place at the state/local level, but absent those I can't imagine a successful case being made. 

The existing orders are what establish any liability for private businesses, and state legislatures would be smart to pass new laws limiting business' liability for disease transmission once all this passes. 

By all means, these businesses are liable in any deaths or injuries in situations like this. The law may not recognize this, but the effects do not lie.

[The Free North]

A short article that makes the case that easing restrictions won't automatically restart the economy, because people won't start going out again until they feel safe in doing so:

...the essential variable in “flattening the curve” isn’t central planning but behavior change. Many businesses closed down well before they were ordered to. Millions of people practiced social distancing and refused to get on planes not because they were commanded to, but because they were convinced this was a wise course of action for themselves and their loved ones.
...
Information doesn’t just come from governments. The death tolls in Italy and New York probably did more to change behavior on the ground than all of Trump’s press conferences or Dr. Anthony Fauci’s TV appearances.

And this raises another complication for those who think the government can just “re-open” the economy with the flick of a switch. Trump and all of the governors could lift the stay-at-home orders and federal advisories tomorrow. That wouldn’t necessarily fill the restaurants, airplanes or stadiums. People would still need to be convinced it’s safe. Such persuasion comes via clear, believable information, not orders from on high.

https://thedispatch.com/p/central-planning-hasnt-flattened

Certainly it will be a gradual transition, but for me personally and I think many people, I will be right back out there the second I can because staying at home sucks for so many reasons. I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

[Virginiá]

My business lost 75% of its business 4 weeks before we had the stay at home order it was like night and day. Even if we reopen the economy theres a good chance most people still wont go out

Ditto. We rapidly dried up in the weeks before the official order. I don't even work in an actual store but there wasn't enough reason to keep me in the office.

I'm not expecting it to be viable to remain open until at least June. And that is putting aside health-related concerns...

[T'Chenka]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

[roxas11]

A short article that makes the case that easing restrictions won't automatically restart the economy, because people won't start going out again until they feel safe in doing so:

...the essential variable in “flattening the curve” isn’t central planning but behavior change. Many businesses closed down well before they were ordered to. Millions of people practiced social distancing and refused to get on planes not because they were commanded to, but because they were convinced this was a wise course of action for themselves and their loved ones.
...
Information doesn’t just come from governments. The death tolls in Italy and New York probably did more to change behavior on the ground than all of Trump’s press conferences or Dr. Anthony Fauci’s TV appearances.

And this raises another complication for those who think the government can just “re-open” the economy with the flick of a switch. Trump and all of the governors could lift the stay-at-home orders and federal advisories tomorrow. That wouldn’t necessarily fill the restaurants, airplanes or stadiums. People would still need to be convinced it’s safe. Such persuasion comes via clear, believable information, not orders from on high.

https://thedispatch.com/p/central-planning-hasnt-flattened

Certainly it will be a gradual transition, but for me personally and I think many people, I will be right back out there the second I can because staying at home sucks for so many reasons. I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

You are not just slightly risking your health
you are also potentially risking the lives of people around you

you may end being ok after getting the virus but for other who came in contact with you
they may not be so lucky.......

[Grassroots]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

Repeat after me folks, 0.5 percent death rate.

[T'Chenka]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

Scientists, doctors and epidemiologists agree with my statement. Your decision to not take it seriously is you turning your back on science/reality. Sadly, science and reality will not their back on you. It is possible and somewhat likely that your betrayal of your community will ultimately kill somebody due to your wrecklessness. Maybe more than one person. All because you wanted to act like a rebellious teenager. Disgusting...

[Grassroots]

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

[T'Chenka]

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, you'll eventually learn to like the taste.

[roxas11]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

Repeat after me folks, 0.5 percent death rate.

You can repeat that all you want but the reality is it took the 2009 swine flu A whole year to kill 12,469 people in the US

It only took a few months for Coronavirus to kill 18,248

This virus is no joke and we should not be rushing to quickly reopen everything until we are 100 percent sure that will it not cause more deaths.

[jamestroll]

We will not be able to keep the economy shut down and everyone unemployed and locked in their homes until every human being on this planet is vaccinated. That is not realistic and it actually causes the cure to be worse than the disease.