Reopening: pent up demand or caution still

[disneysteve]

Now that things are starting to reopen and there's growing talk of expanding that, what do you think that's going to look like? Are we going to see a lot of pent up demand and cabin fever and people rushing out to do normal things like dining out and going to stores and parks and bars? Or are people still going to be really cautious and only go out if they really need to?

I imagine it will partly depend on what you thought of the shut downs. If you felt they were an overreaction and unnecessary, you may dive right back into your usual routine. If you felt they were appropriate and maybe even not aggressive enough, you may hold back.

It may also vary based on the individual. Are you at elevated risk of complications from COVID (which is an extremely long list that probably covers the majority of the population)? Or do you feel you aren't vulnerable?

What about your faith and trust in whoever is making the reopening decisions? If government officials are giving the all clear but medical personnel are still saying to stay home, how will that impact your actions?

We've just seen how thousands flocked to the Florida beaches when they were reopened. And we're seeing various protests from people who want the restrictions lifted.

I really wonder what "reopened" is going to look like. Personally, I think it's not going to be business as usual for quite some time. I wonder if some businesses are going to find that being open is more costly than being closed. Closed with the staff laid off might be cheaper than open with a fraction of your normal customers. It's going to be interesting to watch for sure.

[QuarterMillionMan]

Reopening too soon to me means a 2nd wave which hit harder than the first. It'll be open season for COVID. More people will be dropping like flies.

[Snicks]

There will be a second wave regardless. Isolate and protect the at risk elderly. Go back to work with precautions

[mumof2]

I think that reopening right now is going to continue to spread the virus and the second wave will hit...i wouldn't be going out for at least another month just to see what happens to others but we are in the vulnerable group

[~bs]

For areas with cases under control, they really need to start a limited reopening with instructions that the most vulnerable group still needs to stay at home. Perhaps letting businesses reopen, but not bars/restaurants. People are already showing signs of revolting, even with the threat of the virus. A compromise needs to be reached.

Better to do this in the summer when the virus doesn't spread as easily than in teh fall once flu and coronavirus season hits.

[disneysteve]

Isolate and protect the at risk elderly.

the most vulnerable group still needs to stay at home

Ok, let's take a look at this. I borrowed this list from a friend who works front line in an area hospital treating COVID patients.

"Ok. Here are the people at risk:
People over 65
Men
Post menopausal women
Women on birth control
Anyone taking any supplemental hormones
Having had recent surgery
Asthma: moderate or severe disease
Smokers: 1/2 pack cigarettes per day for more than 1 year of your life, vaping, marijuana
COPD: chronic bronchitis and emphysema
Heart disease: CHF, CAD, hypertrophy (enlarged hearts), and myopathy (weak heart muscle)
Hypertension
People who take steroids
Diabetics
People with and recovered from cancers
Bone marrow or organ transplant patients
People taking immunosuppressants
Sickle cell, sickle cell trait, thalassemias, factor V leiden, and other clotting disorders
History of DVT or PE
History of recent pneumonia
Living in a nursing facility
Regularly attending densely populated facilities
HIV
Hepatitis or other liver disease
Kidney disease
Being overweight
Also, if anyone lives with someone who falls into those categories, should also isolate if they cannot find another place to live, in order to protect the at risk person.
Show of hands who doesn't fit in there?
Yeah, it's not many people.
Would you all just stay home?"

So if businesses start reopening and you are in a higher risk group, you don't have to go out to those businesses, but what about all of the people who work there? They can't stay home. They have to go back to work and put their lives at risk.

Better to do this in the summer when the virus doesn't spread as easily

We actually don't yet know if this is the case. It might be. We just don't know.

We can't stay closed forever. Nobody disagrees with that. But we also probably shouldn't be reopening while the disease is still peaking in so many areas. Our area hasn't peaked yet. Neither have many other areas. Cases are still on the rise many places. Maybe there are select areas that somehow escaped this that can safely reopen now but I think those areas are few and far between.

[ua_guy]

Agreed. In the event of coming waves of COVID and already-changed patterns, I think there will be an initial pop in demand for "all the social things" followed by a lot of struggling business that can't operate with reduced or fluctuations in volume. The true test is when bailouts and unemployment end. How many small (and large) businesses will be able to boot-strap it?

Re-opening and health risk have an inverse relationship. The missing buffer to help speed re-opening is testing, IMO. Testing was a nationalized strategy until it wasn't; and then it was shifted to the states so the administration could side-step blame. States need time and resources to figure that out, and it's not there yet. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could get a test - if we thought we had symptoms, or were worried, so that we could quickly self-isolate? We can't do that yet, and THAT is what will help businesses STAY open.

I just want to point out that I don't buy the protest garbage. They are in the vast minority. I think most people support safe protocols, and re-openings that are both gradual and highly vigilant (testing). And even though "we" have the right to assemble and be loud and make ourselves known and go bang on capital doors regarding testing, we're mostly at home trying to make ends meet and hoping our elected officials do the right things.

[disneysteve]

Agreed. In the event of coming waves of COVID and already-changed patterns, I think there will be an initial pop in demand for "all the social things" followed by a lot of struggling business that can't operate with reduced or fluctuations in volume. The true test is when bailouts and unemployment end. How many small (and large) businesses will be able to boot-strap it?

Re-opening and health risk have an inverse relationship. The missing buffer to help speed re-opening is testing, IMO. Testing was a nationalized strategy until it wasn't; and then it was shifted to the states so the administration could side-step blame. States need time and resources to figure that out, and it's not there yet. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could get a test - if we thought we had symptoms, or were worried, so that we could quickly self-isolate? We can't do that yet, and THAT is what will help businesses STAY open.

I just want to point out that I don't buy the protest garbage. They are in the vast minority. I think most people support safe protocols, and re-openings that are both gradual and highly vigilant (testing). And even though "we" have the right to assemble and be loud and make ourselves known and go bang on capital doors regarding testing, we're mostly at home trying to make ends meet and hoping our elected officials do the right things.

I agree. A quick, affordable, readily available, and RELIABLE test is needed. We DON'T have that yet. We simply don't know enough about the virus.

Here's a quick story I heard this morning. A patient came to one of our testing sites and got tested. A provider called him back to let him know his test was positive and asked how he was feeling. He said he felt perfectly fine, no symptoms at all. In fact, he NEVER had any symptoms. He had lied about having symptoms in order to get tested. So now we've got a COVID POSITIVE patient and we need to advise them when they can return to work and stop self-isolation. The answer is we don't know. We have no idea how long someone is contagious if they are asymptomatic. We could tell him to stay in for 2 weeks from the test date, but that's totally a guess.

We need a test that accurately tells us if someone is contagious. That just doesn't exist. Until we have that, sending everyone back out to normal activity is a total crap shoot.

[disneysteve]

I also agree that the protestors are a very small group that just happens to be getting a lot of media coverage. I don't think they represent a majority of people at all.

[Snicks]

I think the protestors represent at LOT of people. And, the protestors are being painted as people who want to open with abandon but that is not true. I live in Pennsylvania. And, i have supported the shutdown and i support it through the end of the month. However, our Gov needs to have a plan to really re open. And, by reopen, i don't mean fling open the doors. I mean allowing businesses to cautiously reopen using good practices.

[Snicks]

The current test takes several days. My sister is a Med Tech and she does that for a living. There is no need to "test everyone". That is expensive and it only tells you that someone is not infected at the moment in time. It doesnt tell you what they have tomorrow. We can manage this with good infection control and public health practices and protect the vulnerable without committing National Suicide.

[disneysteve]

The current test takes several days.

The test being used in our hospital system takes 3 hours.

The antibody tests take 15 minutes but we're not quite sure what the results actually mean yet and not all of the tests are the same.

The question is how do we "protect the vulnerable" when the list of who is vulnerable is so long (see my post above)? I saw a patient a couple of weeks ago who owns an auto repair shop. Although repair shops were classified as essential he closed his voluntarily because he is over 70 with some health issues as well and felt that he'd be putting himself at too much risk by remaining open. What if you own a business and are told it's okay to reopen but you have employees who are 60+ or diabetic or have COPD or are immunocompromised? How do you call them back to work and ensure their safety? It's a really tough situation to be in.

[cypher1]

The question is how do we "protect the vulnerable" when the list of who is vulnerable is so long (see my post above)? I saw a patient a couple of weeks ago who owns an auto repair shop. Although repair shops were classified as essential he closed his voluntarily because he is over 70 with some health issues as well and felt that he'd be putting himself at too much risk by remaining open. What if you own a business and are told it's okay to reopen but you have employees who are 60+ or diabetic or have COPD or are immunocompromised? How do you call them back to work and ensure their safety? It's a really tough situation to be in.

I don't expect anyone to really agree with this response; but for protecting the "vulnerable" (as I did read your previous list for high risk) there really is no guarantee for health safety besides continuing a stay-in order/self isolation for those at risk. So if businesses were to open, any high risk people I would let them decide for choosing to remain quarantined, while allowing others to take that risk with day to day interactions.

If the employer or employees are right fully concerned with health risks, I don't blame them to be hesitant to return to work, or staying closed. But for a local business/employer with re-opening or remain closed, shouldn't that decision be ultimately theirs to decide, than the governments?

But I would argue based on a city or town, rural or urban settings, population, and comfort level with inventory of medical supplies, shouldn't we let local governments make the decision to slowly open based on state? Or do we make it federal as an all or nothing agreement/decision?

I don't think it's that simple. But from an IT perspective and rolling out patches/drivers in large domains, I use to schedule those changes within the smaller sites first with less users/impact something failed. While saving large corporate environments for last. Couldn't states apply a similar concept starting with smaller spread out areas, and the move to the heavier populated cities if they feel comfortable with low levels of contagion? The biggest flaw I could think of is people moving between cities and states with services that are now open, and potentially accelerating the spread.

For the record, I'm just a computer geek trying to learn more about what can be done moving forward.

[disneysteve]

I don't expect anyone to really agree with this response; but for protecting the "vulnerable" (as I did read your previous list for high risk) there really is no guarantee for health safety besides continuing a stay-in order/self isolation for those at risk. So if businesses were to open, any high risk people I would let them decide for choosing to remain quarantined, while allowing others to take that risk with day to day interactions.

Okay, so what about unemployment? If you are currently collecting benefits and your job reopens and they call you back and you say, "No thanks", can you keep collecting benefits?

But for a local business/employer with re-opening or remain closed, shouldn't that decision be ultimately theirs to decide, than the governments?

But I would argue based on a city or town, rural or urban settings, population, and comfort level with inventory of medical supplies, shouldn't we let local governments make the decision to slowly open based on state? Or do we make it federal as an all or nothing agreement/decision?

I absolutely do not think it should be up to the businesses to decide. It should definitely be a government decision. This is a public health emergency. It needs to be managed by public health officials, not business people who are primarily concerned with their own self interests.

I don't think it is a Federal decision. It should be state and local officials deciding. The situation isn't the same everywhere.

[Snicks]

No the situation isnt the same everywhere but i live in rural PA in lockdown so ehy do i have to live like i am in NYC? Because our Dem gov loves the power thats why,”.