Regardless of the ability of people to travel to the UK or Canada and get here (which people have done for a long time with other nations we don't take kindly to) it's absolutely going to reduce the number of people who will travel across the pond. Which is the goal, reduce infection rates.
My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened since U boats were in open waters.
Can anyone comment on supply chains that rely on Europe to source goods? I know medical grade steel comes from over there, but I don't know what else.
Based on the localized infection cases I see across the US and have been watching as well as the characteristics of the virus (life outside host/on surfaces, in air, the degree of asymptomatic transference, etc.), it's well beyond containment IMHO.
Travel isn't going to do too much to reduce infection rates alone. We need significant cultural changes to reduce infection rates, but I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. This country isn't about proactive action and is all about reactionary action though, so we're just waiting for that reactionary threshold. Some preventative measures have been pushed but they're no where near aggressive enough at this point.
It will be interesting how this is handled in our modern cultural, current political and work culture, etc. I suspect it's going to be fairly nasty but certainly hope not. I've been advising my parents to stock up and minimize any outside interactions for awhile.
All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. That doesn't mean it's sufficient, but it's something positive.
I think we would all like to see stronger social distancing rules domestically (in the US), but here the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order and even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications as well as federalism issues.
It's not easy to pass a law giving the President this type of power and I suspect many in congress already rue passing the laws that gave the president power to suspend international travel. That's one of the prices of living in a federal government with separation of powers and a bill of rights guaranteeing right to assembly rather than in a place like China.
For example, the CDC has issued social distancing guidelines but they are only guidelines not laws: Santa Clara county has said "no thank you we'll follow our own guidelines" instead, when the CDC asked to ban meetings of more than 250 but Santa Clara banned meetings of more than 1000, and just refused to change their target to the CDC recommendation.
So the US simply lacks the tools that would allow the President to go on the air and announce "I'm declaring that the MLB season needs to be delayed and Disneyland must close." He can try to exert pressure, or rather have the CDC exert pressure, but these types of declarations are not going to happen in America.
It's not just about containment, which signs point to being past us. If we slow the infection and spread it out over time, we do a couple things. Slowing it gives us time to develop tests and treatment and processes and systems to deal with it. Spreading it out over time means that at any given moment fewer people need medical care. Like, if everyone needs care tomorrow, obviously the system can't handle it, but if a few people need it tomorrow, and a few the day after and so on, spreading it out over time, the system can handle a few at a time.
It'd be pretty sweet if it took a pandemic for the government to solidify sick day laws.
Too bad money making is somehow above preventing others getting sick. People wouldnt show up to work if they didn't have to worry about their wages. I'm sorry but 3 sick days is garbage and requiring doctors notes is asine when your healthcare plan is shite. Not to mention wasting a day in a hospital. Companies can afford this stuff. It's not often and it's minimal to say the least. But God forbid a small business can't have someone for 80 hours a week at minimum wage!
I'm seeing more indications of people taking things seriously. The first cases were announced in my state (Michigan) today, and already most universities have cancelled in-person learning, various gatherings are being cancelled, etc. It sounds like my church—on the west side of the state (the two confirmed cases are on the east side)—will be altering plans, perhaps even cancelling services as early as this Sunday. The concept of "social distancing" is rapidly gaining steam.
This depends on how you're defining containment. Grounding aircraft may not decrease the current case count, you're right, but it may help not adding to it, or adding as much, or as fast. Because of this, it may still be worth doing.
The notion that we're going to abandon containment measures in favor of mitigation, which I've seen in many places (not in your comment though of course), is wrong. We're going to be doing both.
As someone posted on FB, the infection rate spikes a lot more with no measures, and flattens with more preventative measures. So while the same number of people may be infected overall, it lessens stress on the healthcare system when it is more spread out.
Which democratic(* - I was going to use Western) nations do though? Seriously the freedom enjoyed by those in these nations and the significant time any global conflict or pandemic have pretty much restricted the ability of leadership in those countries from taking action that would have any true effect short of trying to implement martial law, which in most countries would be met with protests and in some with courts being tied up.
Now I will not attempt to speak for Europe but the US government could certainly push short public advisories and messages to adults and children through broadcast TV and even get the cooperation of streaming services as well. Short thirty to ninety second spots that give helpful non panic information.
The US President is hamstrung by both political disagreement and the law. There were articles he is loathe to declare any national emergency declaration until approached by the governors of many of the states. If he did without states approaching him and asking you can damn well guarantee there were would be Democrats out there claiming he was trying to be a Dictator and comparing him to Putin. The same article concerning the declaration also reveals all the behind the scenes work going on with Congress to get funds in place before any message is put forth so that the government as a whole looks to be cooperating as well as acting appropriately.
The current administration in the US has been more proactive than any previous administration during any previous outbreak, despite the deluge of criticisms that were surprisingly absent during said previous outbreaks. The measures that have been taken thus far are more than aggressive enough, based on the information we currently have. We're just a few steps away from shutting everything down completely, which wouldn't be good for anything at this point. It doesn't get much more proactive than that.
To reiterate what others said, it is long past containment in the United States. In Canada early on the cases were people who came from known hot spots. Now it is almost entirely people coming from the United States, from places with no known cases.
Clearly there are clusters throughout the United States. Unconfirmed, unrecognized clusters. And with the adversity of many to utilizing health care, it seems impossible to deal with now.
It's also worth noting that this flight ban applies only to non-Americans, just as the Wuhan restriction before did. During the prior travel restriction dozens of flights a day were going to and from Wuhan -- they just had Americans on them, who apparently aren't susceptible to the foreign virus. This new restriction is identical, allowing Americans to march the globe with their COVID-19, but at least they kept out the foreigners.
Instead of any actual efforts it is again mere security theater. And again Trump will pat himself on the back for his very-close-to-useless theatrics.
I think elementary/high schools are how this will spread through communities with the most efficiency. Collect a person from each family, mix them together with the poorest respect for hygiene, then send them home, 5 times a week.
Here's the perspective of a San Jose public high school [1] proving that containment isn't a concern:
> Oak Grove High School officials said they were not considering school closures because “children have not been shown to be a high-risk group for serious illness from this virus.” The Centers for Disease Control said last week that limited reports showed child COVID-19 patients in China had generally presented with mild symptoms.
> “As much as possible, children should be allowed to carry on with their education and normal activities,” school officials said.
Related, a family member received a "exposure notice" from her child's school that one of the students tested positive. No closure.
There's no attempt for containment in the US. My hunch is that it's not needed as much as is being suggested by some. I guess we'll see.
> It's also worth noting that this flight ban applies only to non-Americans, just as the Wuhan restriction before did. During the prior travel restriction dozens of flights a day were going to and from Wuhan -- they just had Americans on them, who apparently aren't susceptible to the foreign virus. This new restriction is identical, allowing Americans to march the globe with their COVID-19, but at least they kept out the foreigners.
Well presumably they'll always allow non-Americans to leave. As for americans, they would still have to wade through quarantine or whatever restrictions the other country requires.
For entry into the US, does the govt even has the power to keep americans and permanent residents from entering? Seems like every country will at worst only quarantine its own people.
> Can anyone comment on supply chains that rely on Europe to source goods? I know medical grade steel comes from over there, but I don't know what else.
I don't see why commercial sea-shipping would be restricted.
Mariners may not be allowed to leave their ship while in port though.
I'm not sure where this level of panic is coming from.
Numbers are about to spike everywhere pretty much no matter what anybody does, because better testing and funding has become available.
Quarantining an entire continent, and even worse than this badly doing it, seems to be an astonishing overreaction. The average age of death for coronavirus victims is 83. The mortality rate seems to be as low as 0.6% in South Korea or as high as 5% in Italy. Italy is especially vulnerable because it has the oldest population in Europe which is one of the factors that is leading to the 5% figure from there.
It is not an End of Days zombie apocalypse.
I recently watched a speech by a US mayor which essentially said that the panic over Corona is going to do much more damage to people than the actual virus and I tend to agree. Simple quarantining measures mixed with best practices for infection control until we have more information about the virus seems perfectly fine. Blowing up the global economy is complete overkill and is a typical move from an administration whose response to topics are either to ignore them or sledgehammer them.
The President, for want of a better term is an idiot. When there is plenty of time to act he does nothing, and when the crisis is in full swing he makes symbolic gestures that have but one goal: to increase his chances of re-election. This has absolutely nothing to do with public health.
I couldn't agree more. In the next week, we'll see flights canceled to and from most countries in Europe anyway, so this is a cheap attempt to point the finger at Europe, and away at this administration.
> Can anyone comment on supply chains that rely on Europe to source goods?
You know all of the stuff that's made in China? The machines that make that stuff are made in Europe. Well, not literally the ones that make the stuff in China, but the ones that US companies would buy if they were trying to manufacture more stuff domestically to replace the stuff they can no longer buy from China.
It will get interessting. because of the huge container backlog / production backlog in China Europe is facing a serious container shortage right now. Until this is figured out and solved, supply chain management will be a very interesting job.
But by no means end-of-world serious, all life critical things are still getting through. also money buys a lot, even cargo space on ships and planes.
I think yes, literally, European machinery exported to China.
It's a massive export sector for the EU (€127bn), and a chunk of that is to China, but the easily-available statistics lump machinery and vehicles, so I don't have a source.
Trade should not be affected. According to the BBC:
The US president said his travel ban did not include Americans who had undergone appropriate screenings - or "the tremendous amount of trade and cargo".
There are tens of thousands of incubating cases in the United States already. How exactly is a few dozen sick passengers per day going to affect that at all? You'd have to literally be picking up and flying in planes full of active cases to even match what we have here already.
This is insanity. No one with any expertise at all recommended it. No one serious thinks this is a good idea. It's not going to do anything useful at all.
Any restriction in travel will help to slow the spread of the virus. If you look at Europe, a sizeable number of cases outside of Italy are still travel related. Stopping all travel is one of the key measures to keep infections local.
I'm not saying the measure suffices. Obviously domestic travel is also a big issue, as is travel from outside the Schengen area. But being one of the people affected (currently in Schengen), I still believe this is a right step. It might not slow infections down enough but it will certainly prevent many cases. Also, it will remind people how serious the situation is.
There was an AMA on Reddit, yesterday I think, with a guy whose employer is manufacturing the tests. He said one of the challenges was some of the materials had to come from Belgium and it was taking much longer to get the supplies in the needed quantities. I'd assume such materials would be exempt if his statement is correct.
You can't get around it by going through the UK. It applies whether you've been to the countries affected at any point in the last 14 days, even if it's not your immediate origin port.
I would imagine anyone who can answer that question comprehensively is filling their boots on some options dealer page right now, in between sips of champagne.
Uncertainty is the worst for financial markets. And we currently have extreme levels of uncertainty. Economically, it seems likely that we'll see a global recession in the first half of the year. Simply because many companies can't produce as much with travel restrictions in place. If governments step in to help this could recover quite quickly for the second half or latest next year. But no one knows how hard it will hit companies and how quick recovery will be. And until we get first indications, markets will continue to panic.
On the other hand, for long-term investors it doesn't seem like a terrible time to get into the market.
a) is because as I understand it it's /very/ hard to legally refuse to readmit a US citizen. You can seize all their stuff at the border but besides arresting them for a crime you can't really keep them from coming home.
You can't refuse to readmit a US citizen (as in a person that can prove that they're readily a US citizen). They can force you into quarantine and take all your stuff, but you have a right to be in the country.
> a) is because as I understand it it's /very/ hard to legally refuse to readmit a US citizen. You can seize all their stuff at the border but besides arresting them for a crime you can't really keep them from coming home.
The trick is to get the airline to be your police and refuse them boarding. Then your only choice is to get to a Port of Entry via Canada, Mexico, private jet or chartered boat.
I don't know for sure but my assumption is that H1B holders (and potentially green card holders, which are "permanent residents") are not excluded from this ban. As many others have mentioned here it's not easy to prevent a citizen from returning; permanent residents and visa holders can be refused entry much more easily.
I didn't write this rule though so I don't know if this interpretation is correct.
> There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval. Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing. These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom.
It reads a whole lot cleaner, i.e. like you would expect from a speech, if the statement about cargo was intended to say it was not prohibited.
My best guess is honestly that it was meant to be "these prohibitions will not apply to the" instead of "these prohibitions will not only apply to the". Inserting an extra "only" is a pretty easy mistake to make when reading text out loud.
[EDIT] Since the downvotes have started pouring in, I have to ask. Do you really attribute to this error to malice rather than stupidity? Given that the administration immediately (within minutes? edit: [0]yes, within minutes) made a correction I find it difficult to believe it was deliberate misinformation.
I mean, miscommunication happens. Trump didn't invent the plan, he was advised by others and gave the go-ahead. Then, his advisors drafted all of the details of the plan (probably in very short order). And of course, he didn't write the speech, someone prepared it for him. Afterward, the speech changed hands numerous times until some staff member loaded it into the prompter.
Someone definitely messed up, but it's hard for me to see how anyone could blame the speaker for this one. Assuming there's no partisanship, of course.
Here is the full text that will likely be published in the Federal Register. Double-check when it has been published.
> by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:
> Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the Schengen Area during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation.
> Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.
> (a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:
> (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
> (ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
> (iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;
> (iv) any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age of 21;
> (v) any alien who is the child, foster child, or ward of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, or who is a prospective adoptee seeking to enter the United States pursuant to the IR-4 or IH-4 visa classifications;
> (vi) any alien traveling at the invitation of the United States Government for a purpose related to containment or mitigation of the virus;
> (vii) any alien traveling as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a C-1, D, or C-1/D nonimmigrant visa as a crewmember or any alien otherwise traveling to the United States as air or sea crew;
> (viii) any alien
> (A) seeking entry into or transiting the United States pursuant to one of the following visas: A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (as a foreign government official or immediate family member of an official), E-1 (as an employee of TECRO or TECO or the employee’s immediate family members), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4, or NATO-6 (or seeking to enter as a nonimmigrant in one of those NATO categories); or
> (B) whose travel falls within the scope of section 11 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement;
> (ix) any alien whose entry would not pose a significant risk of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the CDC Director or his designee;
> (x) any alien whose entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee;
> (xi) any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees; or
> (xii) members of the U.S. Armed Forces and spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
> (b) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect any individual’s eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with the laws and regulations of the United States.
> Sec. 3. Implementation and Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State shall implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish.
> (b) Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that any alien subject to this proclamation does not board an aircraft traveling to the United States.
> (c) The Secretary of Homeland Security may establish standards and procedures to ensure the application of this proclamation at and between all United States ports of entry.
> (d) An alien who circumvents the application of this proclamation through fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or illegal entry shall be a priority for removal by the Department of Homeland Security.
> Sec. 4. Termination. This proclamation shall remain in effect until terminated by the President. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall recommend that the President continue, modify, or terminate this proclamation as described in section 5 of Proclamation 9984, as amended.
> Sec. 5. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on March 13, 2020. This proclamation does not apply to persons aboard a flight scheduled to arrive in the United States that departed prior to 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on March 13, 2020.
> Sec. 6. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national security, public safety, and foreign policy interests of the United States. Accordingly:
> (a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and
> (b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.
> Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
> (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
> (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
> (b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
> (c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.
I get that they excluded the UK for diplomatic reasons, but it's literally only a few days behind the rest of Europe in terms of infection count, which means this will have almost no effect.
I actually think banning travel from China months ago was a good call, but by analogous reasoning, the right time to ban travel from Europe (including the UK) was last week.
> it's literally only a few days behind the rest of Europe in terms of infection count
And it's ahead of some Schengen countries.
Besides that, it is the 'per capita' part that matters and there are great differences between the various countries as to how many tests have been administered, leading to severe discrepancies in the relative pictures between countries.
> the right time to ban travel from Europe (including the UK) was last week.
The US had active uncontained clusters, and was known to have them, two weeks ago. Once that's true, there's no way that mere travel numbers are going to move that needles significantly.
Again: we banned travel from China and it was too late already. This does not work. And I'm horrified at the number of people on this site that don't see that.
Banning travel isn't a magic cure-all that guarantees zero cases, it just lowers the initial caseload. That's extremely important because exponential growth is extremely slow in the beginning -- it takes as long to go from 1 to 100 as 100 to 10,000. If banning travel reduces 100 starter cases to 1, you double the time you have.
I beg to differ. US was the first major country to ban travel from China. Other countries only followed suit after. South Korea, Japan, France, Germany and Italy never did, and see where they are now.
The reason the UK is behind continental Europe is the lack of testing. Their numbers are no worse than continental Europe (excluding Italy, of course). The US, on the other hand, are lightyears behind Europe on testing, the real number of infections is closer to 5000 than to 1250, again bringing it in line with the rest of Europe.
Is there anywhere in the US where we are doing random testing of residents to determine what the real infection rate is here? From all I can see we're currently just adding up the number of people who have come in with symptoms and tested positive instead of getting a real handle on what percentage of the population is infected. The CDC website right now says that there are 938 total cases.[1] That's laughable. At this point I'd sooner believe 93,800 or 938,000 than 938. Oh wait: "Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide." OK, so nobody's keeping up with the totals? Is that what I'm reading?
The CDC gave local labs the go-ahead to develop their own tests, but that was very recently and it seems very likely that the CDC doesn't have a centralized reporting system in place.
I really doubt there's capacity to do random tests for scientific field study, considering there's a large backlog of people with symptoms or suspected contact w/ infected that are waiting to be tested.
For example, here's aerial footage of the lines in Denver for a drive-thru clinic restricted to patients with "a doctor's order confirming they meet requirements": https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1237869000169644032
It's tragic that a lack of test kits is costing us the ability to accurately track the spread of this disease and its true mortality rate. If right now there are 100,000 (actual) positive and 50 deaths, that's a whole different situation than 1000 (reported) positive and 50 deaths.
I've been maintaining a spreadsheet with States-level department of health Covid-19 situation page data and the totals roughly tally.
As of 13:00 GMT March 12: 1,300+ positive cases, 38 deaths. You could multiply the positive number by factor of 10 say to get a rough estimate of the total number of persons tested to this point (~13,000 let's say) that individual states, private labs, and the CDC have checked. (Hard to say though as only about 1/3 to 1/2 of states release full data and some are under-reporting (Nebraska and Texas afaict)) Another niggle is that it can (does?) take more than one "test" to perform a test.
I would think we be able to estimate fairly correctly. I assume pretty much everyone who dies from it would end up in a hospital and counted. And since we know the death rate, we know for every 1 death there were x who have it and will/have recovered.
There have already been missed deaths that were later attributed to Covid-19 in the US. Since the fatality profile of Covid-19 closely matches the fatality profile you expect anyway (people are more likely to die when they are old or have preconditions), it is actually a problem to get reliable death counts. Fatalities must have been tested, or tested retroactively, for correct attribution, and since the US currently isn't even close to doing proper testing of living patients, you can probably add two and two together by yourself.
At least they are consistent. Following at a far enough distance gives you 20/20 hindsight for those you follow, but only if you can internalize the lesson fast enough. Otherwise you just slo-mo replicate their same mistakes.
This is insane. I haven’t been really scared of the pandemic yet, but if this is the response, now, I’m terrified.
Changing the number of infected people entering the community does nothing when we already have transmission happening within the community at some fixed rate which is determined by the community.
“Flattening the curve” of an exponential function means changing the rate of growth, not the fucking constant offset.
It’s basic math. Innocent people will die off this incompetence. I’m a little lost for words.
People dying isn't the only consideration; public policy isn't made with the assumption "save human life at all costs", otherwise e.g. private cars (which kill 1-2 million people per year and injure tens of millions more) would be banned by now.
If healthcare capacity in the US becomes overwhelmed by an exponential function, every moment wasted by officials now, while the numbers are still low enough to do something real about, will turn out to have been a moment responsible for many thousands of needless deaths.
I hope your flippancy turns out to be warranted. I just can’t get there.
I really lost heart when Trump addressed the cruise ship incident with "I don't want my numbers to go up." Just manipulation of the numbers to reduce fear/keep stocks up. But if the virus is a threat, it will become undeniable.
I don't normally say this, but I hope Trump's right about the whole thing. Wash your hands and you'll be fine, right? We'll see in a month. Maybe a week.
But even the tinest of improvements is better than no improvements, because we all know the most important thing when making decisions is to only consider the possible benefits and never consider the cost!
Readit News
My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened since U boats were in open waters.
Can anyone comment on supply chains that rely on Europe to source goods? I know medical grade steel comes from over there, but I don't know what else.
Edit: apparently the president misspoke.
Based on the localized infection cases I see across the US and have been watching as well as the characteristics of the virus (life outside host/on surfaces, in air, the degree of asymptomatic transference, etc.), it's well beyond containment IMHO.
Travel isn't going to do too much to reduce infection rates alone. We need significant cultural changes to reduce infection rates, but I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons. This country isn't about proactive action and is all about reactionary action though, so we're just waiting for that reactionary threshold. Some preventative measures have been pushed but they're no where near aggressive enough at this point.
It will be interesting how this is handled in our modern cultural, current political and work culture, etc. I suspect it's going to be fairly nasty but certainly hope not. I've been advising my parents to stock up and minimize any outside interactions for awhile.
All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. That doesn't mean it's sufficient, but it's something positive.
I think we would all like to see stronger social distancing rules domestically (in the US), but here the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order and even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications as well as federalism issues.
It's not easy to pass a law giving the President this type of power and I suspect many in congress already rue passing the laws that gave the president power to suspend international travel. That's one of the prices of living in a federal government with separation of powers and a bill of rights guaranteeing right to assembly rather than in a place like China.
For example, the CDC has issued social distancing guidelines but they are only guidelines not laws: Santa Clara county has said "no thank you we'll follow our own guidelines" instead, when the CDC asked to ban meetings of more than 250 but Santa Clara banned meetings of more than 1000, and just refused to change their target to the CDC recommendation.
So the US simply lacks the tools that would allow the President to go on the air and announce "I'm declaring that the MLB season needs to be delayed and Disneyland must close." He can try to exert pressure, or rather have the CDC exert pressure, but these types of declarations are not going to happen in America.
https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
I'm considering the USA fully seeded at this point.
Too bad money making is somehow above preventing others getting sick. People wouldnt show up to work if they didn't have to worry about their wages. I'm sorry but 3 sick days is garbage and requiring doctors notes is asine when your healthcare plan is shite. Not to mention wasting a day in a hospital. Companies can afford this stuff. It's not often and it's minimal to say the least. But God forbid a small business can't have someone for 80 hours a week at minimum wage!
This depends on how you're defining containment. Grounding aircraft may not decrease the current case count, you're right, but it may help not adding to it, or adding as much, or as fast. Because of this, it may still be worth doing.
The notion that we're going to abandon containment measures in favor of mitigation, which I've seen in many places (not in your comment though of course), is wrong. We're going to be doing both.
Now I will not attempt to speak for Europe but the US government could certainly push short public advisories and messages to adults and children through broadcast TV and even get the cooperation of streaming services as well. Short thirty to ninety second spots that give helpful non panic information.
The US President is hamstrung by both political disagreement and the law. There were articles he is loathe to declare any national emergency declaration until approached by the governors of many of the states. If he did without states approaching him and asking you can damn well guarantee there were would be Democrats out there claiming he was trying to be a Dictator and comparing him to Putin. The same article concerning the declaration also reveals all the behind the scenes work going on with Congress to get funds in place before any message is put forth so that the government as a whole looks to be cooperating as well as acting appropriately.
Clearly there are clusters throughout the United States. Unconfirmed, unrecognized clusters. And with the adversity of many to utilizing health care, it seems impossible to deal with now.
It's also worth noting that this flight ban applies only to non-Americans, just as the Wuhan restriction before did. During the prior travel restriction dozens of flights a day were going to and from Wuhan -- they just had Americans on them, who apparently aren't susceptible to the foreign virus. This new restriction is identical, allowing Americans to march the globe with their COVID-19, but at least they kept out the foreigners.
Instead of any actual efforts it is again mere security theater. And again Trump will pat himself on the back for his very-close-to-useless theatrics.
Here's the perspective of a San Jose public high school [1] proving that containment isn't a concern:
> Oak Grove High School officials said they were not considering school closures because “children have not been shown to be a high-risk group for serious illness from this virus.” The Centers for Disease Control said last week that limited reports showed child COVID-19 patients in China had generally presented with mild symptoms.
> “As much as possible, children should be allowed to carry on with their education and normal activities,” school officials said.
Related, a family member received a "exposure notice" from her child's school that one of the students tested positive. No closure.
There's no attempt for containment in the US. My hunch is that it's not needed as much as is being suggested by some. I guess we'll see.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/08/oak-grove-high-school...
Well presumably they'll always allow non-Americans to leave. As for americans, they would still have to wade through quarantine or whatever restrictions the other country requires.
For entry into the US, does the govt even has the power to keep americans and permanent residents from entering? Seems like every country will at worst only quarantine its own people.
I don't see why commercial sea-shipping would be restricted.
Mariners may not be allowed to leave their ship while in port though.
Me either, but Trump did seem to say that. Vaguely. Stand by for "clarification".
Numbers are about to spike everywhere pretty much no matter what anybody does, because better testing and funding has become available.
Quarantining an entire continent, and even worse than this badly doing it, seems to be an astonishing overreaction. The average age of death for coronavirus victims is 83. The mortality rate seems to be as low as 0.6% in South Korea or as high as 5% in Italy. Italy is especially vulnerable because it has the oldest population in Europe which is one of the factors that is leading to the 5% figure from there. It is not an End of Days zombie apocalypse.
I recently watched a speech by a US mayor which essentially said that the panic over Corona is going to do much more damage to people than the actual virus and I tend to agree. Simple quarantining measures mixed with best practices for infection control until we have more information about the virus seems perfectly fine. Blowing up the global economy is complete overkill and is a typical move from an administration whose response to topics are either to ignore them or sledgehammer them.
edit: air cargo flights between US and Europe also suspended
You know all of the stuff that's made in China? The machines that make that stuff are made in Europe. Well, not literally the ones that make the stuff in China, but the ones that US companies would buy if they were trying to manufacture more stuff domestically to replace the stuff they can no longer buy from China.
But by no means end-of-world serious, all life critical things are still getting through. also money buys a lot, even cargo space on ships and planes.
It's a massive export sector for the EU (€127bn), and a chunk of that is to China, but the easily-available statistics lump machinery and vehicles, so I don't have a source.
There are tens of thousands of incubating cases in the United States already. How exactly is a few dozen sick passengers per day going to affect that at all? You'd have to literally be picking up and flying in planes full of active cases to even match what we have here already.
This is insanity. No one with any expertise at all recommended it. No one serious thinks this is a good idea. It's not going to do anything useful at all.
>You'd have to literally be picking up and flying in planes full of active cases to even match what we have here already
Even one person with corona can do a lot of damage.
For example, a singular person boarded Diamond Princess. The ship had 696 confirmed positive cases and 7 deaths from 1 person who had the virus.
I'm not saying the measure suffices. Obviously domestic travel is also a big issue, as is travel from outside the Schengen area. But being one of the people affected (currently in Schengen), I still believe this is a right step. It might not slow infections down enough but it will certainly prevent many cases. Also, it will remind people how serious the situation is.
The last couple of weeks have been very profitable for "finance".
On the other hand, for long-term investors it doesn't seem like a terrible time to get into the market.
Oil and other commodities also took a dump.
https://m.investing.com/indices/indices-futures
https://m.investing.com/commodities/
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
a) This does not apply to US citizens or their family members[1].
b) This does not apply to cargo[2].
It appears that the President misspoke regarding point 2.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting....
[2] https://twitter.com/AnaSwanson/status/1237921160500830208
The trick is to get the airline to be your police and refuse them boarding. Then your only choice is to get to a Port of Entry via Canada, Mexico, private jet or chartered boat.
Deleted Comment
I didn't write this rule though so I don't know if this interpretation is correct.
The rule only excludes US citizens, green card holders and their immediate families.
> There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval. Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing. These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom.
It reads a whole lot cleaner, i.e. like you would expect from a speech, if the statement about cargo was intended to say it was not prohibited.
My best guess is honestly that it was meant to be "these prohibitions will not apply to the" instead of "these prohibitions will not only apply to the". Inserting an extra "only" is a pretty easy mistake to make when reading text out loud.
Deleted Comment
I mean, miscommunication happens. Trump didn't invent the plan, he was advised by others and gave the go-ahead. Then, his advisors drafted all of the details of the plan (probably in very short order). And of course, he didn't write the speech, someone prepared it for him. Afterward, the speech changed hands numerous times until some staff member loaded it into the prompter.
Someone definitely messed up, but it's hard for me to see how anyone could blame the speaker for this one. Assuming there's no partisanship, of course.
[0]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/11/trum...
Dead Comment
As of now this executive order has not been published.
You can check here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%...
> by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:
> Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the Schengen Area during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation.
> Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry.
> (a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:
> (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
> (ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
> (iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;
> (iv) any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age of 21;
> (v) any alien who is the child, foster child, or ward of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, or who is a prospective adoptee seeking to enter the United States pursuant to the IR-4 or IH-4 visa classifications;
> (vi) any alien traveling at the invitation of the United States Government for a purpose related to containment or mitigation of the virus;
> (vii) any alien traveling as a nonimmigrant pursuant to a C-1, D, or C-1/D nonimmigrant visa as a crewmember or any alien otherwise traveling to the United States as air or sea crew;
> (viii) any alien
> (A) seeking entry into or transiting the United States pursuant to one of the following visas: A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (as a foreign government official or immediate family member of an official), E-1 (as an employee of TECRO or TECO or the employee’s immediate family members), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4, or NATO-6 (or seeking to enter as a nonimmigrant in one of those NATO categories); or
> (B) whose travel falls within the scope of section 11 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement;
> (ix) any alien whose entry would not pose a significant risk of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the CDC Director or his designee;
> (x) any alien whose entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee;
> (xi) any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees; or
> (xii) members of the U.S. Armed Forces and spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
> (b) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect any individual’s eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with the laws and regulations of the United States.
> Sec. 3. Implementation and Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State shall implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish.
> (b) Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that any alien subject to this proclamation does not board an aircraft traveling to the United States.
> (c) The Secretary of Homeland Security may establish standards and procedures to ensure the application of this proclamation at and between all United States ports of entry.
> (d) An alien who circumvents the application of this proclamation through fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or illegal entry shall be a priority for removal by the Department of Homeland Security.
> Sec. 4. Termination. This proclamation shall remain in effect until terminated by the President. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall recommend that the President continue, modify, or terminate this proclamation as described in section 5 of Proclamation 9984, as amended.
> Sec. 5. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on March 13, 2020. This proclamation does not apply to persons aboard a flight scheduled to arrive in the United States that departed prior to 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on March 13, 2020.
> Sec. 6. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national security, public safety, and foreign policy interests of the United States. Accordingly:
> (a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and
> (b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.
> Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
> (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
> (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
> (b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
> (c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.
> DONALD J. TRUMP
I actually think banning travel from China months ago was a good call, but by analogous reasoning, the right time to ban travel from Europe (including the UK) was last week.
No, Ireland is also exempt. In other words, the US is banning travel from the Schengen Zone.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
And it's ahead of some Schengen countries.
Besides that, it is the 'per capita' part that matters and there are great differences between the various countries as to how many tests have been administered, leading to severe discrepancies in the relative pictures between countries.
Like extraditing Julian Assange while the world is looking elsewhere.
Deleted Comment
The US had active uncontained clusters, and was known to have them, two weeks ago. Once that's true, there's no way that mere travel numbers are going to move that needles significantly.
Again: we banned travel from China and it was too late already. This does not work. And I'm horrified at the number of people on this site that don't see that.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/covid-19-testing/
I don't know where you get that info from but it is severely outdated or just outright wrong.
Can you elaborate on this with some sources?
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html
I really doubt there's capacity to do random tests for scientific field study, considering there's a large backlog of people with symptoms or suspected contact w/ infected that are waiting to be tested.
For example, here's aerial footage of the lines in Denver for a drive-thru clinic restricted to patients with "a doctor's order confirming they meet requirements": https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1237869000169644032
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu
It's been pretty much on the ball.
I've been maintaining a spreadsheet with States-level department of health Covid-19 situation page data and the totals roughly tally.
As of 13:00 GMT March 12: 1,300+ positive cases, 38 deaths. You could multiply the positive number by factor of 10 say to get a rough estimate of the total number of persons tested to this point (~13,000 let's say) that individual states, private labs, and the CDC have checked. (Hard to say though as only about 1/3 to 1/2 of states release full data and some are under-reporting (Nebraska and Texas afaict)) Another niggle is that it can (does?) take more than one "test" to perform a test.
This shortly following Golbert jokingly (ugh) rubbing all of the mics at an interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qxtxIVtOZE
France is the 2nd most impacted country in Europe, and the DoS' last update was 11 months ago where their primary concern was terrorism.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
Only Italy is currently at "Reconsider Travel" or "Do Not Travel" for the Northern regions.
Changing the number of infected people entering the community does nothing when we already have transmission happening within the community at some fixed rate which is determined by the community.
“Flattening the curve” of an exponential function means changing the rate of growth, not the fucking constant offset.
It’s basic math. Innocent people will die off this incompetence. I’m a little lost for words.
I hope your flippancy turns out to be warranted. I just can’t get there.
I don't normally say this, but I hope Trump's right about the whole thing. Wash your hands and you'll be fine, right? We'll see in a month. Maybe a week.