Lockdown Fans: What Is Your Endgame Plan?

[Cecilie1200]

They will try to sell the businesses for as much as they can, not just the balance on the mortgage. But what qualified people are going to be out there, able/willing to buy? Remember that after 8 or 9 months of shutdown, we're talking about 30% unemployment rates or more and the customers will have already found other ways to deal with their hair/nail situation.

Everybody knows the banks will accept any offer that pays off the balance on the mortgage. Anything above that goes to the mortgagee. So the banks done't care to maximize the price.

Does everybody know where these apocryphal buyers are going to come from?

 

[Polishprince]

They will try to sell the businesses for as much as they can, not just the balance on the mortgage. But what qualified people are going to be out there, able/willing to buy? Remember that after 8 or 9 months of shutdown, we're talking about 30% unemployment rates or more and the customers will have already found other ways to deal with their hair/nail situation.

Everybody knows the banks will accept any offer that pays off the balance on the mortgage. Anything above that goes to the mortgagee. So the banks done't care to maximize the price.

Does everybody know where these apocryphal buyers are going to come from?

I think the mayors of cities that got crushed by the steel collapse , like Youngstown, Ohio, would like to know. Vacant lots and storefronts stayed vacant for decades after that economic apocalypse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, it's that simple, is it? "Hey, we destroyed your business, but we'll just get another one, so fuck you"?

If you don't like capitalism, move to Cuba.
If you want socialism, do a write in for Bernie Sanders. Otherwise you have to work with the economic system we chose.

If you don't like reality, don't come in here and try to pass your childish fantasies and selfishness off as "capitalism" and accuse other people of "socialism" as though that's defined as not agreeing with you, Junior.

How DARE you airily suggest the government continue the lockdowns for months and then claim to be "working with the economic system we chose", you rank, arrogant, hypocritical little punk? Nothing about the government shutting down the economy and putting people out of business is the system we chose, you little puke, and if you want to set yourself up as some capitalism champion, you need to get the fuck on board with getting back to work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They should have a working vaccine by the end of the year. That would allow full normal at that point.

Who is "they"? How do you know that? What happens if the reports that the virus is mutating turn out to be true?

The economics are based on a vaccine in 12 (to 18) months. If the virus mutates, or a new pandemic pops up, then it's time to execute "plan B"

And nobody has come up with a plan B for a multi-year global pandemic.

Cue planet of the apes (new series)

But in War of the Planet of the Apes, the simian flu flares up again, mutating to quietly spread through the last surviving people. Immunity against the original plague is no protection against the latest form of the virus, which causes a degenerative disease that leaves humans mute and animalistic.

The Simian Flu Pandemic is a major event in the film Rise of the Planet of the Apes which determined the fate of mankind. At the company Gen-Sys Laboratories, scientist Will Rodman created a supposed cure for Alzheimer's Disease, the ALZ-112. He tested it on a female chimpanzee nicknamed Bright Eyes.

I didn't ask you what timeframe your empty assumptions was based on, and I sure the fuck didn't ask you for your junior high movie review. Answer the fucking questions, or admit that your ADD meds are on the fritz and you forgot there WERE questions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They will try to sell the businesses for as much as they can, not just the balance on the mortgage. But what qualified people are going to be out there, able/willing to buy? Remember that after 8 or 9 months of shutdown, we're talking about 30% unemployment rates or more and the customers will have already found other ways to deal with their hair/nail situation.

Everybody knows the banks will accept any offer that pays off the balance on the mortgage. Anything above that goes to the mortgagee. So the banks done't care to maximize the price.

Does everybody know where these apocryphal buyers are going to come from?

I think the mayors of cities that got crushed by the steel collapse , like Youngstown, Ohio, would like to know. Vacant lots and storefronts stayed vacant for decades after that economic apocalypse.

Exactly. I just love this 12-year-old asshat's airy assumption that 1) there will actually be anyone left with money to buy or start businesses, and 2) that even if there were, they would WANT to buy those businesses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I doubt it. People will start setting up shop in their homes and doing nails and hair on the QT. A new nail salon would have a hard time getting market share, in addition to being a very risk enterprise for a bank to loan to or a landlord to rent to. The possibility of a pandemic would make it too risky

I refer to a post vaccine world. How quickly it could be rebuilt. How to rebuild it under the current pandemic is a whole different story.

Please do not assume that if people are telling you how wrong and dimwitted you are, it MUST be because they just didn't understand what you were talking about. We know exactly what you were talking about; that's actually WHY we're telling you you're wrong and dimwitted.

Even if there WAS a vaccine, as you so confidently assert with not a shred of definitive proof, there would still be the possibility of a new, mutated strain of Covid-19. Even if one didn't show up, there would still be the fear on many people's minds that it COULD.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People will be able to buy a startup business at a tax auction.

I doubt that many banks would loan the money for such a startup, considering they could lose their whole thing when another pandemic or other event motivates the government to force the firm out of business.

Maybe large companies, your Walmarts and Amazons might be willing to take over the business at a major discount?

If Jeff Bezos or the BOD of WalMart was interested in starting nail salons, wouldn't you think they'd have already done so?

Noticeably, most of the WalMarts near my house actually have nail salons in them . . . and they neither own them nor run them. They just rent the space out to the owner. If they'd wanted to own and run them, they'd have done it then.

 

[meaner gene]

YOU have to wake up, because you're still viewing things through the half-assed, using-jargon-makes-me-an-expert lens of previous economic situations, and totally missing the unique facts of THIS economic situation. Only an utter selfish, juvenile dumbass thinks, "Oh, it's okay if everyone goes bankrupt, so long as I have what I need" is any kind of strategy.

I have a newsflash for you, Einstein: anyone who has any money at the end of your timeframe is going to have no interest whatsoever in opening nail salons or the vast majority of small business types.

I'm not suggesting vast bankruptcy is a good thing. I'm saying because of the governments position, it will become what happens. You can wish for pie in the sky to save the current businesses from going under, but it's better to figure out how to pick up the pieces after the crash.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tens of trillions. Then we'll spend the next 1000 years trying to pay it off.

You're mentally disturbed if you believe that's a viable plan.

Donald Trump in 2015 said that he could pay off the national debt (about $19 trillion) in 8 years. So we're not talking 1,000 years.

You get that this is no longer 2015 and the economic situation and the debt have changed drastically since then, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I doubt it. People will start setting up shop in their homes and doing nails and hair on the QT. A new nail salon would have a hard time getting market share, in addition to being a very risk enterprise for a bank to loan to or a landlord to rent to. The possibility of a pandemic would make it too risky

I refer to a post vaccine world. How quickly it could be rebuilt. How to rebuild it under the current pandemic is a whole different story.

All the equipment exists, as well as the staff. That's not the problem. The problem is getting people to make an investment and to attract customers. The customers right now are getting their nails and hair done in friend's basements, places without the overhead of a legit shop.

That's what happened to the equipment: it went home with the staff so they could work out of their living rooms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The free market has a solution. Banks as primary lenders get first bite of the apple. The landlords will probably get screwed, but then their properties become prime opportunity for somebody to buy them at auction prices.

Actually, both parties will get screwed if there is next to no money. Further, the landlord might be in a better position as leases give them a right to possess the equipment on the premises in case of default. And it is their premises.

You have three parties involved. The banks, the landlords, and the tenants.

The tenants get completely screwed, they'll lose everything unless the government bails them out, and it looks like the government is going to skip out on doing that.

Landlords similarly get screwed, they still have to pay taxes and utilities and unless they have a pile of cash to keep themselves afloat, they'll end up going bankrupt. They can inherit the mechanics of the businesses when the tenants go bankrupt, which would just get passed on to the banks.

This is where the banks come in. Banks as primary secured lenders get first bite of everything. They'll inherit ready to go businesses they'll sell for the balance on the mortgage.

You might want to talk to some bankers if you think it's either that easy OR that desirable. I defy you to find one banker in the US who's as sanguine about being left holding a glut of bankrupt businesses they have to sell or liquidate in the middle of a collapsed economy.

 

[meaner gene]

Exactly. I just love this 12-year-old asshat's airy assumption that 1) there will actually be anyone left with money to buy or start businesses, and 2) that even if there were, they would WANT to buy those businesses.

You will have people like Jeff Bezos, who continued to make money during the crisis, and who will come out of it with huge stockpiles of cash. They will see the real estate, and business markets crash, not from want of business, but from being forced to shut down. The pent up demand, will make any reopened business a success.

That will be a buying opportunity for anybody with a dollar to spend.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. I just love this 12-year-old asshat's airy assumption that 1) there will actually be anyone left with money to buy or start businesses, and 2) that even if there were, they would WANT to buy those businesses.

You will have people like Jeff Bezos, who continued to make money during the crisis, and who will come out of it with huge stockpiles of cash. They will see the real estate, and business markets crash, not from want of business, but from being forced to shut down. The pent up demand, will make any reopened business a success.

That will be a buying opportunity for anybody with a dollar to spend.

There's a long list of businesses that will suffer drastically during this shutdown. Take every restaurant, hotel and airline in the country. Take Boeing.
Take Disney. Take every Hollywood production company. Take every retail chain in the country.

You really are a shortsighted fool.

 

[meaner gene]

Even if there WAS a vaccine, as you so confidently assert with not a shred of definitive proof, there would still be the possibility of a new, mutated strain of Covid-19. Even if one didn't show up, there would still be the fear on many people's minds that it COULD.

People are not afraid of what "could" happen. Are you afraid of a resurgence of SARS, or MERS, or H1N1, or ebola, or the 1918 spanish flu, or polio, or whooping cough?

Are you going to lock yourself in your house with a years worth of canned goods and bottled water?

P.S. and toilet paper.

 

[meaner gene]

If Jeff Bezos or the BOD of WalMart was interested in starting nail salons, wouldn't you think they'd have already done so?

It's the old stock market adage. Buy LOW, sell HIGH.
Prior to this crisis, nail salons were at their market HIGH. This crisis has pushed them to their market LOW, or even lower into bankruptcy.

When a recovery starts, the people with money will invest it in those bankrupt businesses. Which supply and demand, makes them guaranteed money makers.

 

[meaner gene]

You might want to talk to some bankers if you think it's either that easy OR that desirable. I defy you to find one banker in the US who's as sanguine about being left holding a glut of bankrupt businesses they have to sell or liquidate in the middle of a collapsed economy.

What you don't understand is that the economic collapse is not due to economics, but to politics.
Economics is a slow process, while politics is a fast one. Remember when they put a 55mph speed limit in place, and slowed the highways from 70+mph to 55mph. That's what the government did or the coronavirus. Take away that speed limit and cars would return to doing 70mph as soon as the signs came down. That's what the economy is waiting for.

 

[HappyJoy]

Americans, by a large 30-point margin, are resistant to re-opening the country now, believing the risk to human life of opening the country outweighs the economic toll of remaining under restrictive lockdowns -- a concern that starkly divides along partisan lines, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos released Friday. ​

It's not the only poll showing this result either. I know, I know, you've been programmed to disregard any information you don't want to be true but your confirmation bias is not my problem.

The polls only indicate that the 24/7 news cycle of alarmism regarding the corona panic has swayed the opinion of a lot of people.

As people see things open up in Georgia, in Mississippi and other forward thinking parts of the country, their opinions will change. And that's why radicals on the coast are fighting the efforts of people in the interior to get back to normalcy.

Yeah, people aren't as dumb as you. When they see the virus spike in places like Georgia it's going to be painfully obvious why.

What "spike?"

Georgia cases are increasing. Wait for the spike because with their economy allegedly opening the outcome is going to be pretty obvious. Georgia already has more cases and deaths per capita than California by almost double.

I'm sure you hope that will be the case, but my guess is that the opening of the Great State of Georgia will occur with no particular problems at all, leading other states to follow suit. Maybe not Far Left New York, but other, forward thinking states.

No, my hope would be that COVID will mutate out of existence but you can't count on hope.

There is not a shred of evidence that supports opening up will lead to fewer cases, quite the opposite.

So far as I can tell, there has been no evidence actually suggesting that lockdowns lead to fewer cases and/or fewer deaths, either. Which makes sense, since they were never intended for that purpose. The lockdowns were only ever supposed to delay cases and spread them out over time, so that the hospitals wouldn't be overrun. The models never suggested that the eventual end totals wouldn't be the same either way.

As far as I can tell you didn't really look.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/big-decline-in-wash-state-coronavirus-cases-after-stay-home-orders

As far as I can tell, you didn't really think. Washington has been locked down, but it's still generating cases.

We're moving the goal posts then? Did Washington reduce their cases due to social distancing or not? They did. Actually most places that effectively practiced social distancing and stay at home have reduced their cases or kept them low. San Francisco Bay Area, Washington State, Michigan and the NYC area are all seeing reductions in new cases yet if you remove those areas the remaining population of the U.S. is still going up.

Here is what is happening in NYC vs the rest of the United States. By reopening further it's just going to push much of the country back up.

View attachment 333918

Where are those coming from, if lockdowns utterly prevent people from getting sick like you keep pretending? Where is the model showing us that the end total number of cases is going to be lower? EVERY model indicates that, months down the road (barring a deus ex machina), the exact same number of people are going to have been infected. The only difference is whether they get infected now, or a month from now.

Did I ever say that stay at home measures alone reduce cases to zero immediately? No, why are you lying and saying I did? Very disingenuous of you or perhaps you're just not that bright. Which one?

Exact same number will be infected? That sounds whimsical.

So what is your suggestion? That places with zero deaths or very few deaths should close and not open until after New York does?

No, according to Trump's guidelines they should see 14 days of straight decline, most states haven't. I would actually say 4 weeks but hey, who am I?

You're a retired old coot who doesn't need to earn a living and who doesn't care if people starve and lose everything they have ever worked for.

I'm old and retired? That's news to me. I do earn a living and I'm still working. I've also managed to generate wealth and save so in those respects I am very fortunate. Though the way you're shitting on people living in retirement I'm not surprised if you don't care if they live or not.

Anyway, I understand insulin is expensive so I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

So you have a source of income that isn't affected by the shutdown.

Did I say that? Nope.

What a fucking douchebag. Everyone in here who supports the shutdown has an income that isn't affected by the shutdown.

How noble of you to tell other people they aren't allowed to work.

I think temporarily the government should pay wages for those who lose their job. I don't mind my taxes eventually going up for that, more than happy to pay them.

ROFL! How many weeks do you imagine the government can pay everyone their wages?

You people are totally fucking insane.

It'll cost trillions.

Tens of trillions. Then we'll spend the next 1000 years trying to pay it off.

You're mentally disturbed if you believe that's a viable plan.

Ok, go ahead and give that money to corporations instead.

Anyway, it's not like there was any plan to pay off Trump's unnecessary tax cuts and record deficits anyway. I guess you only have a problem when the money goes to people who need it.

 

[Polishprince]

Americans, by a large 30-point margin, are resistant to re-opening the country now, believing the risk to human life of opening the country outweighs the economic toll of remaining under restrictive lockdowns -- a concern that starkly divides along partisan lines, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos released Friday. ​

It's not the only poll showing this result either. I know, I know, you've been programmed to disregard any information you don't want to be true but your confirmation bias is not my problem.

The polls only indicate that the 24/7 news cycle of alarmism regarding the corona panic has swayed the opinion of a lot of people.

As people see things open up in Georgia, in Mississippi and other forward thinking parts of the country, their opinions will change. And that's why radicals on the coast are fighting the efforts of people in the interior to get back to normalcy.

Yeah, people aren't as dumb as you. When they see the virus spike in places like Georgia it's going to be painfully obvious why.

What "spike?"

Georgia cases are increasing. Wait for the spike because with their economy allegedly opening the outcome is going to be pretty obvious. Georgia already has more cases and deaths per capita than California by almost double.

I'm sure you hope that will be the case, but my guess is that the opening of the Great State of Georgia will occur with no particular problems at all, leading other states to follow suit. Maybe not Far Left New York, but other, forward thinking states.

No, my hope would be that COVID will mutate out of existence but you can't count on hope.

There is not a shred of evidence that supports opening up will lead to fewer cases, quite the opposite.

So far as I can tell, there has been no evidence actually suggesting that lockdowns lead to fewer cases and/or fewer deaths, either. Which makes sense, since they were never intended for that purpose. The lockdowns were only ever supposed to delay cases and spread them out over time, so that the hospitals wouldn't be overrun. The models never suggested that the eventual end totals wouldn't be the same either way.

As far as I can tell you didn't really look.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/big-decline-in-wash-state-coronavirus-cases-after-stay-home-orders

As far as I can tell, you didn't really think. Washington has been locked down, but it's still generating cases.

We're moving the goal posts then? Did Washington reduce their cases due to social distancing or not? They did. Actually most places that effectively practiced social distancing and stay at home have reduced their cases or kept them low. San Francisco Bay Area, Washington State, Michigan and the NYC area are all seeing reductions in new cases yet if you remove those areas the remaining population of the U.S. is still going up.

Here is what is happening in NYC vs the rest of the United States. By reopening further it's just going to push much of the country back up.

View attachment 333918

Where are those coming from, if lockdowns utterly prevent people from getting sick like you keep pretending? Where is the model showing us that the end total number of cases is going to be lower? EVERY model indicates that, months down the road (barring a deus ex machina), the exact same number of people are going to have been infected. The only difference is whether they get infected now, or a month from now.

Did I ever say that stay at home measures alone reduce cases to zero immediately? No, why are you lying and saying I did? Very disingenuous of you or perhaps you're just not that bright. Which one?

Exact same number will be infected? That sounds whimsical.

So what is your suggestion? That places with zero deaths or very few deaths should close and not open until after New York does?

No, according to Trump's guidelines they should see 14 days of straight decline, most states haven't. I would actually say 4 weeks but hey, who am I?

You're a retired old coot who doesn't need to earn a living and who doesn't care if people starve and lose everything they have ever worked for.

I'm old and retired? That's news to me. I do earn a living and I'm still working. I've also managed to generate wealth and save so in those respects I am very fortunate. Though the way you're shitting on people living in retirement I'm not surprised if you don't care if they live or not.

Anyway, I understand insulin is expensive so I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

So you have a source of income that isn't affected by the shutdown.

Did I say that? Nope.

What a fucking douchebag. Everyone in here who supports the shutdown has an income that isn't affected by the shutdown.

How noble of you to tell other people they aren't allowed to work.

I think temporarily the government should pay wages for those who lose their job. I don't mind my taxes eventually going up for that, more than happy to pay them.

ROFL! How many weeks do you imagine the government can pay everyone their wages?

You people are totally fucking insane.

It'll cost trillions.

Tens of trillions. Then we'll spend the next 1000 years trying to pay it off.

You're mentally disturbed if you believe that's a viable plan.

Ok, go ahead and give that money to corporations instead.

Anyway, it's not like there was any plan to pay off Trump's unnecessary tax cuts and record deficits anyway. I guess you only have a problem when the money goes to people who need it.

Actually, the tax cuts were absolutely necessary to pull America out of the depth of Obamunism. And tax cuts aren't an expenditure, they don't have to be "paid off"

It is fortunate that America had the benefit of the tax breaks, else we would be in a worse position now.

 

[HappyJoy]

Americans, by a large 30-point margin, are resistant to re-opening the country now, believing the risk to human life of opening the country outweighs the economic toll of remaining under restrictive lockdowns -- a concern that starkly divides along partisan lines, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos released Friday. ​

It's not the only poll showing this result either. I know, I know, you've been programmed to disregard any information you don't want to be true but your confirmation bias is not my problem.

The polls only indicate that the 24/7 news cycle of alarmism regarding the corona panic has swayed the opinion of a lot of people.

As people see things open up in Georgia, in Mississippi and other forward thinking parts of the country, their opinions will change. And that's why radicals on the coast are fighting the efforts of people in the interior to get back to normalcy.

Yeah, people aren't as dumb as you. When they see the virus spike in places like Georgia it's going to be painfully obvious why.

What "spike?"

Georgia cases are increasing. Wait for the spike because with their economy allegedly opening the outcome is going to be pretty obvious. Georgia already has more cases and deaths per capita than California by almost double.

I'm sure you hope that will be the case, but my guess is that the opening of the Great State of Georgia will occur with no particular problems at all, leading other states to follow suit. Maybe not Far Left New York, but other, forward thinking states.

No, my hope would be that COVID will mutate out of existence but you can't count on hope.

There is not a shred of evidence that supports opening up will lead to fewer cases, quite the opposite.

So far as I can tell, there has been no evidence actually suggesting that lockdowns lead to fewer cases and/or fewer deaths, either. Which makes sense, since they were never intended for that purpose. The lockdowns were only ever supposed to delay cases and spread them out over time, so that the hospitals wouldn't be overrun. The models never suggested that the eventual end totals wouldn't be the same either way.

As far as I can tell you didn't really look.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/big-decline-in-wash-state-coronavirus-cases-after-stay-home-orders

As far as I can tell, you didn't really think. Washington has been locked down, but it's still generating cases.

We're moving the goal posts then? Did Washington reduce their cases due to social distancing or not? They did. Actually most places that effectively practiced social distancing and stay at home have reduced their cases or kept them low. San Francisco Bay Area, Washington State, Michigan and the NYC area are all seeing reductions in new cases yet if you remove those areas the remaining population of the U.S. is still going up.

Here is what is happening in NYC vs the rest of the United States. By reopening further it's just going to push much of the country back up.

View attachment 333918

Where are those coming from, if lockdowns utterly prevent people from getting sick like you keep pretending? Where is the model showing us that the end total number of cases is going to be lower? EVERY model indicates that, months down the road (barring a deus ex machina), the exact same number of people are going to have been infected. The only difference is whether they get infected now, or a month from now.

Did I ever say that stay at home measures alone reduce cases to zero immediately? No, why are you lying and saying I did? Very disingenuous of you or perhaps you're just not that bright. Which one?

Exact same number will be infected? That sounds whimsical.

So what is your suggestion? That places with zero deaths or very few deaths should close and not open until after New York does?

No, according to Trump's guidelines they should see 14 days of straight decline, most states haven't. I would actually say 4 weeks but hey, who am I?

You're a retired old coot who doesn't need to earn a living and who doesn't care if people starve and lose everything they have ever worked for.

I'm old and retired? That's news to me. I do earn a living and I'm still working. I've also managed to generate wealth and save so in those respects I am very fortunate. Though the way you're shitting on people living in retirement I'm not surprised if you don't care if they live or not.

Anyway, I understand insulin is expensive so I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

So you have a source of income that isn't affected by the shutdown.

Did I say that? Nope.

What a fucking douchebag. Everyone in here who supports the shutdown has an income that isn't affected by the shutdown.

How noble of you to tell other people they aren't allowed to work.

I think temporarily the government should pay wages for those who lose their job. I don't mind my taxes eventually going up for that, more than happy to pay them.

ROFL! How many weeks do you imagine the government can pay everyone their wages?

You people are totally fucking insane.

It'll cost trillions.

Tens of trillions. Then we'll spend the next 1000 years trying to pay it off.

You're mentally disturbed if you believe that's a viable plan.

Ok, go ahead and give that money to corporations instead.

Anyway, it's not like there was any plan to pay off Trump's unnecessary tax cuts and record deficits anyway. I guess you only have a problem when the money goes to people who need it.

Actually, the tax cuts were absolutely necessary to pull America out of the depth of Obamunism. And tax cuts aren't an expenditure, they don't have to be "paid off"

It is fortunate that America had the benefit of the tax breaks, else we would be in a worse position now.

The economy was doing just fine, we didn't need tax cuts unless we were in recession. All he did was allow corporations to buy back stock and add to the national debt.

 

[Flopper]

People who want the lockdowns to continue spend a lot of time shouting slogans and congratulating themselves on how they're "the only ones who care about saving lives", but I have yet to hear any of them tell us what their actual plan is for an endgame, or how they envision the future going forward if we were to cave in to their demands.

So I'd really like to know: if you could convince all the governors to continue the lockdowns, what do you think that looks like? How long do you want it to last, and/or what is your metric for ending it? And then what happens? What's your plan going forward from there? Do you have one?

1. It should last as long as necessary to bring the daily cases of new virus down to a level that is very low.
2. From there, with the proper increase in testing, contact tracing, and isolation, then the economy can begin to slowly open up.
3. The rate of new virus cases should be low enough that testers and contact tracers can research and control each case including isolating anyone that came in contact with the positively infected person.
4. This low level of daily new cases and large scale testing and contact tracing, will then make it safe to begin to reopen parts of the economy that are closed.
5. But the United States needs to hire about 200,000 contact tracers and train them.
6. Testing must be increased.
7. Those isolated must be given a place to live away from other people but with their basic needs supplied for 2 to 4 weeks.

The lockdowns would not have been necessary to this degree if we had simply done what TAIWAN did on January 20, 2020. On that date, the blocked all travel from anywhere into the country. Citizens were only let in when they could be tested and had to be isolated for 2 to 4 weeks before they could have physical contact with other people.

The results are that TAIWAN has only had 440 cases, and 6 deaths. There are currently only 79 active cases in Taiwan which are contained their testing, contact tracing and isolation. By June, Taiwan will likely be free of the virus and will be able to lift more restrictions. Schools were able to remain open in Taiwan as well as restaurants.

How could Trump ban entry to the US by dozens of countries carrying a virus that is nothing but the common flu, a democrat hoax?

Taiwan did it right as did South Korea and New Zealand. Each of these countries were successful and each did it a bit different. However what each of these countries had was a plan to respond to a pandemic which went into operation before the first case was reported in their country. What the Trump administration did not understand is you can't begin planning for a pandemic after it arrives and have any chance of success. There are simply too many different entities involved in the private and public sector at the local, state, and national level to plan as you go. From the time the virus arrives, it spreads exponentially. The time for planing is gone after the first case is confirmed.