Bars will have patrons, but won't be as busy. People will travel, but not as much. Restaurants will still serve food, but half will be delivery.
The govt. has little control over real economic productivity except by handling the pandemic and the economic shocks produced by it.
If we open up, support from the government zeroes out and bars and restaurants will find themselves in two circumstances: they will be partially full because people are scared to be in public (and will struggle to make ends meet and maybe fail), or they will be plenty full until someone brings in COVID-19, a bunch of folks get sick, contact-tracing tracks it back to the bar or restaurant, word gets around, and business at that place crashes because it's a plague vector. Some businesses will win in this circumstance. Most will lose.
It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma deal.
Someone will bring covid 19, sure, that is fully expected, we know that since the virus spread easily, but we also know majority of them will be not get stick or only have some mild symptom. no need contact tracing, no need to get panic.
Three total children have died in the US from complications relating to covid. It’s more dangerous to drive your kid to the park than it is to let your kid play in the park.
One might hypothesize that kids have done pretty well because, you know, schools have been near-uniformly closed, so their "places of employment" have been near-100% remote. I bet the COVID numbers look pretty good for work-from-home tech workers too, that doesn't mean tech workers are "nearly immune" to COVID.
It's just a numbers game and if COVID starts to pick up big time then it'll surge through schools. You're spending 8 hours a day in close contact with 8 different sets of 30 students who rotate every hour, plus crowded halls and busses and all that stuff. Then you go home to Grandma and she gets it.
It's already happening: https://www.businessinsider.com/schools-reopen-coronavirus-s...
> Although kids are less likely to get severe coronavirus cases, mounting evidence suggests they can spread the virus. Most children have the same amount of virus in their upper respiratory tracts as adults do, according to a research letter published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, and children under 5 may have between 10 and 100 times more virus than adults (though this doesn't necessarily mean they spread the virus more efficiently).
Given her age, any small diseases could kill her.
That link doesn't really contradict that. It contradicts actually immune, since kids can obviously catch it. However most, particularly young children, don't show symptoms. And most of those that do show symptoms only have mild symptoms.
So yes, basically immune. Kids don't have much to fear themselves, the concern is that they'll infect adults who actually do have something to fear.
... and I still wouldn't put money on children being immune enough to, say, safely open schools even if we discard the child->adult transmission risk. Over half the youngest demographic in the Georgia camp were infected, and children are dying from this disease, even if at a lower rate than adults (how much lower is a really important question).
The data I've found is:
Under 1: 15 deaths
1-4: 10 deaths
5-14: 20 deaths
15-24: 225 deaths
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-...
I'm hoping that's not the dominant factor in the numbers, because school re-opening will be real ugly if it is.
In the Netherlands, 0.6% of the reported hospitalisations involved children under the age of 18, and 0 death have been reported under this age. Here's the summary page of the RIVM: https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-a...
Some googling reveals only corroborating reports that the case fatality (CFR) rate among young children is very low:
https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/sites/know4pol/files/j...
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatalit...
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ep...
AFAICT if you just try to synthesize the existing research without prejudice, you'd have to conclude that the risk of young children dying from COVID-19 is very low.
Whether there is much risk of children -> adult transmission is more difficult to answer.
Kids require adults to take care of them. That means those kids who may have the infection could VERY easily spread it to higher risk people.
They aren't immune, they still get the virus, they can still spread it. That is not immune. They just don't show symptoms like older people. That's not an immunity.
On top of that we don't know the long term effects of this thing. While kids may not show symptoms what long term effects might this have on kids? There's still a huge risk there.
It means a lot, its a good news, it means the virus is not that dangerous.
>On top of that we don't know the long term effects of this thing
Sure but there also long term effect of kids not going to school in person, that is bigger risk.
If you are really really that paranoid, you can home school your kids.
I never claimed they are, so I don't know what you're actually replying to here.
That might be true to a degree, however the discrepancy is so huge, 2-3 orders of magnitude, that it should be pretty clear kids really do have much less to fear. I think some Olympic-level contortionism is needed to come to any other conclusion.
That is utterly, utterly wrong. Even in those with only moderate symptoms, damage across the body results from catching the 'rona: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/brain-fog-heart-dama...
And it's across the body that the 'rona does long lasting damage, this is pretty rare in any form of sickness. And it's going to bite economies in the butt for many, many decades to come. The only way to prevent this is to prevent people from getting infected.
The damage caused by lockdown is more than covid.
If I told you that every day you lived your normal life, you had a 1 in 100 chance of dying, would you take it?
How about a 1 in 1,000 chance? That's an expected payoff of about three years before you die, Worth it?
The breakeven point is different for different people, but I think even 0.1% chance of death is too high for most.
Or flipping the numbers: if 100% of Americans become infected, a disease with a 0.1% fatality rate is about 350,000. That's more people than we lost in World War II.
Of course, in fact that I'm doing right now, i try to lived my normal life as much as i still possibly can.
>The breakeven point is different for different people, but I think even 0.1% chance of death is too high for most.
There are always some chance of death everyday regardless of covid.
Do you think lockdown doesn't case long term damage ? The lockdown and the fear mongering cause more damage than the covid itself.
>That's more people than we lost in World War II
Sure but we have more people now compare to before.
I think everyone is underestimating the behavioral changes two months of lockdown can bring about. 60 days is exactly the number of days you need to cement a habit. We've had more than that.
If even 10% of the people end up changing their behavioral patterns, businesses that depend on these customers have 10% lower business. That's huge, especially when you borrowed debt expect +10% growth, not -10%