Corona 2020

Although covid-19 and the Spanish Flu are not identical, historically the Spanish Flu can perhaps give us some insight into where we could be heading. The big unknown is ultimately what happens to covid-19 a year plus out and what effect medications and vaccines will have.

There's plenty of good articles drawing comparisons, you can search for an interesting piece out of the, I believe St. Louis fed that was put out a few years ago on the risks of a pandemic to the United States. A detailed analysis of the Spanish Flu along with its economic impact. I couldn't share here because it's a PDF.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/06/828345390/pandemic-onomics-lessons-from-the-spanish-flu

Keith
TBG

Well if we're talking about regional Fed's opinions:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/america-should-be-ready-for-18-months-of-shutdowns-in-long-hard-road-ahead-warns-the-feds-neel-kashkari-2020-04-12

thanks for the new thread -- SE's method of having to click through to the next part of the thread is truly annoying. Although I will now miss my favorite sentence from the prior thread (at the bottom of the first page: "We also got an eviction order on a defrocked priest at Christmas, so I guess it goes both ways." The story is probably less interesting than the one I've made up in my head...

Cuomo today: 21% of New York City residents tested at grocery stores have the antibodies...

I'm going to say if NYC did it like Sweden, perhaps with extra support for those in high risk groups, we'd have herd immunity without locking up the economy and the populace for 2+ months.

Likes: That's the elephant in the room. I think it's too early to say, but, on a per capita basis, the initial data for Sweden on COVID-19 when compared to other European countries doesn't look way out of , and their economy has definitely not been as hard hit. In the US, the states that didn't lock down also seem to stack up well when compared to the states that did.

If these results hold up, the blowback is going to be potentially immense.

Oops - meant to say "doesn't look way out of line".

Are you seriously comparing those low population, heavily rural states that didn’t lock down with the high dense population states? Seriously?

Sweden once again did it better than all the rest of us.

As for high-risk populations, fully half of covid deaths have been from aged care homes. The death rate in the general population is far lower than the crazy press reports would have you to believe. Overall mortality including covid is basically unchanged over the course of this illness.

PH: No, because that would be ridiculously biased. I'm comparing states with similar population density that did lock down vs. those that did not. There were 43 states that locked down vs. 7 that did not. Given the large number of states that did lock down vs. the small number that did not, you can easily match states of similar density together. Here is an example:

States / Cases per 1MM / Deaths per 1MM / Density per sqmi / Locked down
AZ - 793 / 34 / 60 / Yes
AR - 808 / 15 / 57 / No
OK - 762 / 45 / 57 / Yes
IA - 1244 / 30 / 55 / No
CO - 1891 / 88 / 52 / Yes

I don't know about you, but I see no pattern here. Now there are a host of other factors here, which is why I say it's too early to say. The states could be on different parts of the curve, there's probably inconsistency with the data collection, you ideally would adjust for state demographics, etc. But these initial results don't really provide any real evidence yet for the benefits of lock downs.

Some of the states that did lock down are now starting to remove their restrictions, so that should provide more data to help shed more light on this over the next several weeks.

big cities bias the per state data

What Anton said...I'm from Arkansas, and it's basically farmland with three big Metros: Little Rock, where the state capital is; Northwest Arkansas, where the University is, and where the big businesses -- Wal-Mart and Tyson -- are, and West Memphis, which is the "poor" section of Memphis, Tennessee.

Schools were closed on Mar. 17. West Memphis' mayor announced a curfew two weeks ago. Little Rock and Northwest Arkansas are as locked down as they can be without violating the executive order of the state's Republican Governor.

So to say that "not being locked down is ok" isn't borne out by the evidence -- people are staying at home in the populous parts of the state. Many of the Arkansas cases are from a church in Greers Ferry where the pastor ignored social distancing -- there are more than three dozen cases and three deaths so far, and I fear more to come.

Some people have little to no symptoms. Monday morning quarterback, but imo best case would have been to get to herd immunity by having those who would not have serious symptoms be infected and have their own body and immune system generate antibodies, and have those in high risk groups avoid getting infected. Not just better for an economy and quality of life, but also better in long term (i.e. over the next 18 months) for minimizing hospitalization and deaths for high-risk individuals.

To be simplistic, let the college kids get it now so that they won't spread it to vulnerable people in the future.

Has anyone else noticed grocery stores in Manhattan are starting to run out of food? To be specific, canned protein.

Anton / FP: you are missing my point. I am not saying "not being locked down is ok", and lock downs and social distancing are not the same thing. For example, AR is not locked down, but they do have social distancing guidelines. What I am saying is that the impact of lock downs on the data is far less clear than you would expect based on the conventional wisdom. We'll have a better idea of what the real impact looks like as the data continues to trickle in.

FWIW, my hypothesis is what this will show is that lock downs need to be much more targeted, not just blanket bans across states (or countries). Seems like that's what's actually happening de facto in AR.

As of today UrbanDigs shows Pending Sales - Existing Resale as 0% YOY and Market Wide -9.5%

Thoth, There was a clear case for lock-down till we understood this beast better, had adequate preparation for medical resources and how social distancing will work in practice. In some rural states, it was probably not needed and was probably not implemented the same way as in NY. In retrospect, only nursing homes should have been locked down along with high risk population, and large urban metro area. I do like the phased approach to reopening but that could only have been developed after we learnt from lock-down.

I don't know who this Bret Stephens guy is, but he's the only one in the NYT who makes any sense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-lockdown.html

It doesn’t make sense to me. It ignored documented reality that rural locations can, and in some places already have experienced infection and high fatality rates.
Stephens wrote a column not too long ago on the secrets of Jewish genius.

Months ago if this administration approached this problem as it should have been approached, we would have been in far better shape.
As it is, it seems that the White House has been defying reality in ludicrous ways.

Did any one notice the significant increase in daily corona tests? We were running at 150k or so. Suddenly we are pushing 250k in the last couple of days. Very encouraging for re-opening. Of course, people are free to quarantine themselves.

It seems to me that large sections of the country are going to reopen soon, when the entire population doesn't drop dead the very next day they will declare victory, and no amount of hand wringing, logic or advice from actual experts is going to change that.

I have mixed emotions as I head up to NY for closing and move out. I was hoping buyers would want to postpone everything for a few months, but they are anxious to both close and move in. I feel like I should be happy, but I am not.

People will criticize whatever decision is made by Governors and Federal Govt as they have to balance the negative impacts of shut down including long term health effects, adequate medical care, and corona virus deaths where as the medical experts only have to worry about the corona virus deaths. I am in the camp of phased reopening camp.

I thought about going to Bellevue yesterday to get tested but decided against it. I would rather wait to get tested for antibodies. When I do go out (about 2x per week) I have N95 plus surgical mask, safety glasses and rubber gloves so if I have it I am contained and not spreading. When I go out it's because I need to (food, post office mainly). To be locked up means I couldn't even go downstairs for delivery pickup or disposing of trash.

Stache, Why not go for a long walk with mask? Streets are near empty and it will boost your immune system. In my few mile daily power walk, I rarely encounter more than few people per block and you can easily maintain enough distance.

“We need at least 60-70% of people infected in order to reach herd immunity, at the moment 5-15% of people in the country have been infected ; we’re in the earliest days of the situation right now.”
Dr. Michael Osterholm

Precisely what we’ve been discussing. People were already leaving NYC. Now you’ve got decimated tax revenues, which can only lead to fewer services, higher taxes, or both.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/people-were-leaving-new-york-city-before-the-coronavirus-now-what-11587916800?emailToken=cb2de81de9112dcf23f6feef17ef213eIrLxD3+VL4WFhOuRQKNU4dqb22iUH9TDZh8+GRTTYxgjfjgQupRV33+7fqzBVTzWTHq9sHzsEdeLD7Q8Y5BiUbrTNBEyy8LkY+GL18qtXG9DMwAl41mueRHBILiyGIFz&reflink=article_copyURL_share

In the 1970’s New York was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. It was a grave fiscal crisis. President Ford offered no help.
The Municipal Assistance Corporation was created by the State of New York for purposes of providing financing and fiscal oversight for the City of New York. All the information can be googled. This in essence saved the city.
People essentially left the city before Covid-19 due to the Trump Tax act.
Hopefully if there are elections in November and the Democrats take control, the State of New York and Congress will have the resources to address our problems.

"Hopefully if there are elections in November and the Democrats take control, the State of New York and Congress will have the resources to address our problems"

How does that happen? Do you think Congress will pass a bill bailing out only a couple of states? First off, Dems would have to take control of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster. Secondly, Reps and Senators from other states would have to willingly agree, by definition, to use significant tax payer funds to bail out other states, and will have to explain that to contiuents in their own states.

Never going to happen. Texas, Florida, the Carolinas, etc etc are NOT going to sign onto sending their constituents' taxes to NY.

Which means NYC will have to do what it did in the 70s. Raise taxes, cut services and raise $ through expensive bonds. All while somehow stanching the exodus, which is well underway.

The only thing that the Dems could do with all three chambers is reinstate SALT deductibility. Which will be politically challenging and contrary to Dem principles (it's helping the wealthy disproportionately), and only helpful on the margins.

This is gonna be a rough, rough road back for NYC and NYS.

I think what you mean is Texas, Florida, the Carolinas, etc etc are NOT going to sign onto letting New York stop being a cash cow for most other states.

30yrs - you are 100% correct. Per capita, NYS is the third largest net funder of the federal govt of all the states. Only NJ and MA are higher. And only 9 states are "givers", the rest are "takers".

But we all know that won't change the politics. There isn't anybody in any other state that feels they owe NYS anything. And NY can't take its ball and leave.

It’s possible the dems can retake the senate.

Don’t rule out a stimulus package to bail out the blue states.
The country can not afford not to do this.

This, from today's WSJ:

"Superintendents and school-board members say they are weighing painful options, including teacher layoffs and program eliminations. Some are considering raising property taxes above the state’s normal 2% cap on annual increases.

All are assembling spending plans with an asterisk next to an important revenue stream: the amount of money allocated by Albany. State officials warned Sunday that state school aid could fall as much as 20%, as revenue declines as a result of the coronavirus-related restrictions.

“You can’t spend what you don’t have,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said last Monday."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-schools-prepare-for-cuts-as-coronavirus-hurts-state-revenue-11587736800?mod=itp_wsj&ru=yahoo

And that's just schools.

What about police, firefighters, transportation, sanitation, etc. etc.?

Property taxes are already on the table. State and City income taxes are next.

Buckle up.

While States and Cities can't print their own fiat currencies, anyone can start their own digital currency these days. Is it at all possible for the state or city to start their own digital currency with some sort of "one for me, one for you" on coin mining and then use their powers to "encourage" people to use them? (And yes I'm speaking from a position of relative ignorance here).

Coins are securities and need to be regulated by the SEC, no?

This really does not bode well for co-ops with (already) high maintenance charges and retail leases making up 15-20% of revenues

https://therealdeal.com/2020/04/23/jeff-blau-predicts-wave-of-defaults-on-commercial-and-hotel-loans/

I don't disagree. I pointed that out here a couple of months ago when someone had questions on a building's financials/assessments.

https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/45587-special-assessment-discovered-in-diligence

The last person trying to touch a hair on currency was JFK

300, I go for occasional longish walks. For the most part I am staying inside because I have been told to do that.

“You can’t spend what you don’t have,”. Heh, heh...

Perhaps the governor and the mayor would have more in their pockets had they not been so lavish with tax breaks to real estate developments, economic development zones, and the like.

(but the pockets of the consultants, 'advisers', and re-election campaigns would be emptier)

As if on cue,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-reward-states-bad-decisions-11588026132?mod=itp_wsj&ru=yahoo

It couldn't possibly be because Florida receives $2,187 net Federal funding per resident each year while New York contributes $1,792? How about we reverse that for a couple of years?

This coudnt possibly explain Illinois. Maybe Texas and Montana keep their oil. Iowa keeps all their corn. Don't think the founders had that kind of thinking when they put this all together.

I would love to see some numbers which adjust for retirees. Think work in NYC and pay a lot of taxes to Federal govt and retire to FL at 67 and collect social security and Medicare.

Also I think capping SALT deductions were grossly unfair as they are just the cost of doing business in NYC.

The "makers / takers" issue is a lot more nuanced than it seems. I dug into this a bit and realized pretty quickly that this is far more complicated than the numbers that are usually thrown around. The "make" part is straightforward, but the "take" part is not. For example, are you talking about intergovernmental transfers or the whole federal budget? What metric do you use to measure the money given back by the feds, e.g., do you use per capita, % of state budgets, or something else? How do you divvy up federal spending on things like defense that are public goods?

Then someone pointed out to me that this entire line of analysis is misleading because the Federal government doesn't really take and give to states, it primarily takes and gives to individuals. NY state is not handing over $X to the Feds., the Feds happen to take $X from someone that lives in NY. If that person moved to FL, they would still take the $X. Conversely, the Feds may send $Y to NY, but that doesn't mean the NY state government gets the majority of this money. Most of this money goes to some individual that happens to live in NY. If that person leaves NY and moves to FL, the dollars follow that person. That person is making the decision where they want to live, so you can't blame the Feds for "taking" this money from NY and sending it to FL.

300: There's a general bipartisan consensus among economists that the SALT tax deduction is one of the worst tax breaks (right next to the mortgage interest deduction!) . I'm curious why you think it is grossly unfair. See: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/

Good point of net takers etc. It is very complex and I have not seen a study which adjusts for people moving states after they retire.

On SALT: Most professionals, if they moved from NYC to Florida, would make less gross taxable income and pay lower $ federal taxes. Incomes in NYC are high as the cost of living is high which also drives local taxes higher (in addition to bloated union benefits and welfare system). Federal taxes in total $s would be lower if more people moved from NYC to Florida and made less income. So it is better for Federal tax collection maximization for people to keep working in NYC and offer full SALT deduction. Essentially it is a partial adjustment for cost of living to earn the income. Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of generating revenues why not individuals especially when they can’t control local taxes. AMT already is/was a mechanism to make sure the states didn’t take all of Federal tax share. SALT was just a fku to Blue states.

Of course, when Federal govt does not control state budgets, pensions, sanctuary city bs, why should they be bailed out. Let the bond holders take a cut. Let the inclusion of overtime for pension calculations stop.

I suspect the elimination of SALT deductions was largely a show that they weren't just lowering taxes on corporations, but also raising them on states which dared vote against them. This is largely a continuation of that same tactic.

You can skip the first 29 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSvQtAnh_CI

To add to 300's SALT point, property taxes are generally used as a means to fund public education. Public education may or may not be "bloated" (certainly tele-schooling is not its shining moment) but it is a public good to have it, and from an economic POV, it is cheaper to have it than not to have it.

^ Thoth is a smart man

@300, when you said this:

"People will criticize whatever decision is made by Governors and Federal Govt as they have to balance the negative impacts of shut down including long term health effects, adequate medical care, and corona virus deaths where as the medical experts only have to worry about the corona virus deaths."

I am a practicing MD. We (medical experts) do not have to ONLY worry about the corona virus.

We also have to take care of non-covid patients - as we have been doing for the past several decades. In fact, the point of the shutdown is so we can still take care of other diseases and don't overwhelm the system with just covid (that's what happened this first round btw, med care for other dz has plummeted bc even with the shut down the surge of patients overwhelmed our systems).

The biggest problem with this virus is that when it is actively spreading, it essentially causes a paralytic crisis of the healthcare system, which seems to be absolute (meaning every country has faced this if they let the virus grow at full speed). So any "reopening" needs to take into account the side effects of a healthcare system that is paralyzed and only focused on covid. Mortality rates for every dz are based upon a functioning medical system. Naturally, those rates will climb up too if the system is clogged up with corona virus.

Bk, You make a good point. Many doctors in private practice are suffering greatly and want to open up and treat people with non corona diseases. I meant Medical Experts as mostly epidemiologists who are interviewed by the media. I am not sure that they are balancing other factors except for a few like the Doctor from Stanford.

Also, it would be great to see some projected increase in deaths from non-Covid diseases, depression, alcoholism, lack of physical activity etc due to shutdown, when they show Covid death projection assuming social distancing and various shut down measures. But I do not think those projections are available which is why public and media is focused on corona-virus deaths as they can get a number for that.

Is there a credible possibility that the federal government would let NYC and NYS default on their bonds? I keep hearing that they have never in their history defaulted and it won't happen now. Thoughts?

There is precedent of Detroit and Puerto Rico, and but do not know about state.

McConnell seems to have backed down a bit from his earlier comments regarding allowing states to declare bankruptcy (currently it is against the law). I don't understand how all of this works.

Believe McConnell can’t do anything without House for state bankruptcy. So it is just political messaging.

@300 Re: makers/takers - yes, I found out that trying to get to a reasonably sound answer here was going to take up far more of my free time than I had. Then the follow-up conversation I mentioned not only was hugely insightful, it made me realize that this was a fool's errand anyway, so I was doubly grateful!

Re: SALT deduction. I think it comes down to a key sentence you wrote above: "Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of generating revenues why not individuals especially when they can’t control local taxes." Most economists would disagree with the "can't control local taxes" part, as that's what elections and moving are for. From their perspective, paying state and local taxes isn’t much different from any other expenditures. Your taxes pay for public services like police, roads and schools, the same way your rent or mortgage pays for housing. And just like housing, you make the decision about where to live based on your own personal trade-offs. The other problem that people already pointed out is that it's a hard argument to tell someone living in FL or any other state that they should help subsidize NY's taxes. Under the old system, every time NY raised its tax rates, people in NY could deduct part of the increase from their federal taxes, so taxpayers around the country were in effect subsidizing the NY increase. Trying to reverse that may be somewhat politically painful. It also puts the D's in an awkward position of trying to reinstate a tax break that overwhelmingly goes to the wealthy.

With regards to reducing the SALT deduction, I heard that the main reason wasn't to screw the blue states, it was because the R's were desperate for anything to offset the massive negative fiscal hole they were going to create with the tax cuts in 2017, and this was one of the few things that was able to deliver any real offsets (they capped the mortgage interest deduction for the same reason). The icing on the cake was that it happened to hurt blue states more, but that wasn't the primary reason, small comfort that may be.

There was AMT to minimize the following:
“Under the old system, every time NY raised its tax rates, people in NY could deduct part of the increase from their federal taxes, so taxpayers around the country were in effect subsidizing the NY increase.”

Also people who get hit by SALT deduction elimination are top 5-10 percent earners (higher percent Republican than Overall blue states) - not the people who elect state and local govt. And most of these jobs are not transferable.

The republicans could have easily reduced the corporate tax to 22 percent instead of 21 percent.

And you probably know from my posts before that I am a conservative.

So blue state high wage earners (call it $300k plus) are screwed by both Democrats and Republicans.

AnonBk, Forgot to thank you for your service to the society as a doctor during these tough times. My very good friend more or less runs the ICU at Elmhurst. So I know the risks she is taking for herself and her family. But she is dedicated to save as many as she can and working 12-15 hours a day. Medical workers are true heroes in this crisis. For the rest of us without corona, it is only money.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8242679/amp/Droves-New-Yorkers-looking-flee-city-permanently.html

30, May we call you “grave dancer”? Sam Zell is very proud of that name. Just read his book “Am I being too subtle”.

Sometimes the Daily Mail is really annoying. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history can identify that the 1920s saw a big population increase due to the Great Migration and a wave of immigration. A virus-infected NYC was far preferable to being lynched in Mississippi or starving in post-war Europe. The situation today is more akin to the 1960s with John Lindsay as mayor.

And there was a massive suburbanization trend in the 1920s -- into the outer boros, so still counted as NYC. Overground subways like the F were extended around 1920 and massive tracts were developed into new single family houses with garages. This was the start of the post-war suburbanization that was enabled by Bob Moses from the '30s onward. Of anything, the experience of the '20s should make us more worried about NYC, not less.

What will be will be and we will adapt, we have no other choice. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, 'history; one damn thing after another'. And yet somehow the great cities of the world still not only exist, but thrive after millennia out of s***.

The price of real estate in New York is not the end-all and be-all of our existence. I'm not only a seller of real estate, I'm a buyer and consumer of it. However, It occupies a very small part of my existence and who I am. It's a place that I live in and enjoy and in some cases a place where I store a portion of my wealth.

When I lived in California there were fires and earthquake's to deal with, in Costa Rica dengue fever, and Florida hurricanes. We adapted we dealt with it, some people pack up and decide it's not for them. As human beings we're faced with death everyday, coming at us in all different directions. I'm 56, I don't know, if I'm lucky maybe I have another 20-30 years left on the planet? I'm going to do my best not to live in fear. Certainly easier said than done at times.

New York and the world are going to get through this. And maybe moving to New Jersey will be the answer for some, the great state where I was born and raised.

I look forward to the time when this is just another blip in history books, among millions of other blips that have scared, enlightened and inspired people in various ways.

Keith
TBG

@300

Thx. Also, your comment makes more sense in that context.

Btw, after seeing this city get hit with covid and thinking through daily what my long-term plans are, I've settled on likely never leaving the city. Caveat is that we don't have kids and I own my practices and can work from home so I don't have subway risk and can avoid high-density environments.

But the decision was made for the same reason I came here almost 20 yrs ago. At its core, NYC is an adaptable place, reminds me of that Bruce Lee quote "be like water". Maybe decisions are not perfect, but it is capable of pivoting and changing as needed.

While other cities and small towns have lived the essentially the same way culturally for decades, New York is constantly evolving. Btw that doesn't mean I think real estate prices will not fall. We may see $1,400/sq ft avg or even $1000/sq ft. But the city will probably still be preeminent for several more decades, maybe centuries, and when the dust settles it's unlikely that there will be other places that have adapted as well (especially in the US).

I've lived all over the country and imo most of the US is not mentally ready for this type of challenge. They are coddled. They don't know what's it like to struggle just to pay rent (I'm speaking as someone that had very low income and lived in the midwest prior to coming here). Although the media often portrays New Yorkers as comfortable elites, what they don't tell you is day to day life in NYC is a hypercompetitive race & this hardens individuals in a way that creates resiliency.

And since this is likely a multi-year war not a multi-week battle, in the end, resiliency will be a large deciding factor and one that people will forget to put into their spreadsheets until far out into the future when everyone will AGAIN realize, "oh yea, NYC has been through everything and always bounces back, why did I ever think otherwise"?

New York's recent bounce was largely due to two great leaders: Giuliani and Bloomberg, along with a generational shift back to urban living. Today we are stuck with the Bill. I've always known Bill is incompetent at best, but this New Yorker article is shocking even to me.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not

AnonBk, Thank you for thoughtful comments about resilience of NYC.

And I wonder what happens if antibodies do provide immunity for 6-12 months and each recurring infection is weaker.

https://s12.therealdeal.com/trd/up/2020/05/1200_US-pending-home-sales-2019-v-2020-1155x720.jpg

And now NJ has more cases than NY. There is no escaping this, just like the Spanish flu it will go everywhere in time, in waves. I was thinking about renting an apt. in Philly in the fall but decided against it for the time being, Yes they have a lower viral load than us but I have five supermarkets fairly close to me here whereas they have about seven in all of Center City. People will leave here but young people will come. I see about half of white people 20's/30's on the street without masks. They are confident they won't get sick.

I agree that NYC is resilient to many things, but I think that this (for some version of 'this') is going to be with us for some time, and its effects on the economy and on life in general will take years to overcome. My opinion is that the concept of a "V-shaped" recession is a pipe dream.

Here are 3 medical views: https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/01/three-potential-futures-for-covid-19/

Pick your scenario and plan accordingly.

I think this will be here for a while but I also think New Yorkers will be quicker to adapt than most other areas in the US.

Why would NYC be quicker to adapt? Baloney - NYC will be last. Several states are already back open for business, with far lower case loads than NY, and NY's leaders are still dithering on basics of the reopening plan.

Wyoming has had 7 deaths so far, vs. 18,909 in NYS. You could debate whether WY even needed to shut down, which is perhaps why there's a surge of interest from New Yorkers in buying estates in Teton County at the moment (where deaths = 1).

NYC has several things going against it: density, reliance on mass transit, easily overwhelmed hospitals, massive numbers of people coming and going from around the world on normal days, incompetent leaders, a$$hole coop boards that kick out doctors, insular groups that don't behave, concentrated poverty... the list goes on.

Backcountry Greenwich looks better and better.

I think a big problem with NYC opening back up is going to be retail. It was kind of on the precipice before the crisis. A large percentage had shifted towards tourist business, which has evaporated. Most retail absolutely can not make rent at current levels in this environment. And what do neighborhoods in NYC look like at 70% retail vacancy? Especially gentrifying areas?

Ditto for restaurants. Unless they get back to 100% occupancy, the only way they survive is if landlords take massive cuts in rents. They might... the alternative is an empty space possibly for many years to come. Not every space can be a Chase branch or a Sephora.

Just to be clear, when I said "retail" I was very much including bars/restaurants (and even more so). Especially when talking about emerging/gentrifying neighborhoods where the only exposure an awful lot of the people moving there have that as their only exposure before becoming a resident. The only people I don't think it has a huge impact on are those moving within a few blocks of where they already live.

I'm wondering if the CV pandemic is going to end up looking a bit like the opioid epidemic, just on a much shorter time frame. At first, it was an inner city, minority, etc problem and the affluent, the suburban, etc didn't care. So it was largely ignored until those groups lost loved one's to it. And then after it hit home opinions changed drastically.

Since this thread is about covid-19, here's some commentary from doctors treating people. It seems many are puzzled by the path the disease is taking in some people.

https://youtu.be/bp5RMutCNoI

It's a lousy time to be old and/or obese. Western governments will have a tough time implementing a second lockdown.

We've tried the off-the-shelf therapeutic interventions and nothing has been a game-changer. Maybe we'll get some therapeutic antibodies in 2021 and novel antivirals in 2022. Vaccines, who knows when, and like most vaccines they'll probably work best in the young and worst in the old.

At this point the infection fatality rate appears to be around 1%. Herd immunity will save us before we get to complete infection so maybe the US is looking at 2.5 million covid-19 deaths. Now it's just a question at what kind of daily death rate society will accept -- there doesn't seem to be much pushback over the 3,000/day rate, which would last through summer 2022.

Either way, there are 240 days left this year, and we aren't getting 330 million people vaccinated before New Year's. At 2000 deaths/day, that's another 480,000 to go in the US.

If you gave people the choice of eating at a restaurant or obliterating the residents of Kansas City, well...

@George

We are already adapting quicker. Here are some examples:

1- Scaled and increased beds above and beyond demand
2- Never ran out of ICU beds at the hospital I am associated with
3- Multiple leading-edge institutions with access to high-quality doctors and supplies (again relatively)
4- Ability to do multiple clinical trials at multiple institutions in real-time and cross-polination of ideas
5- Resource access: supply chain for delivering items is several X in efficiency to the rest of the country (there are towns where people are struggling to get many food items and toilet paper, I can buy an N95 mask and have it delivered same day even now - again this is relative)

I understand why Wyoming or Connecticut seem like a great idea, but literally 1 small outbreak in those communities would fill up every hospital bed and ICU unit (assuming they have any to begin with). If you are transferred, giving how quickly patients desaturate, odds are not great you will make it to a city. And this disease is probably (80% is my guess) going to be with us until at least 2022, so for those communities to make it, their MDs will need to understand how to deal with the disease & somehow every town will have to simultaneously get access to all of those resources & they need to be at that level of alertness for 2 yrs+.

The other issue is that those places are isolated and delivery of essential goods is not that easy. It's not by chance that the USPS struggles due to these last mile issues. I lived in the midwest until ~20 yrs ago. If this hits most of those smaller towns, they will not be able to handle it. And there are no redundancies in those places. And it's not like it will be easy to recruit help from other places when the problem becomes decentralized. This is partly why cities are built quickly after wars yet remote areas may demonstrate decay for decades.

Additionally, we've already been through a massive wave of covid and are hospitals are already learning how to respond in a way that other towns don't even know about yet.

Btw, this doesn't mean I think things will get better anytime this year or next, but I gave up on that well before March.

Your reasons all concern the response. The problem in NY is the propensity to get the disease and to maintain the distance needed to function until there is a vaccine. The lack of distancing in the subway will be the city's Achilles Heel, unless the politicians decide that social distancing doesn't matter after all.

@300: Sorry for the much delayed response. Life and remote learning (which I am slowly starting to hate!) ended up taking over the past several days.

RE: Salt deduction cap. The math simply doesn't add up. The SALT Deduction cap generated an estimated ~$80B+ in revenue for the Feds in 2019. To your point about the AMT, if it was capturing most of the benefits from the SALT deduction, imposing the cap would never have delivered such a major revenue boost. And a 1% change in corp tax in the same year would be nowhere enough to cover for the cap; it would only have generated about ~$11B. Lastly, even with this plus other maneuvers, the R's still blew a hole in the budget - it's why federal deficits have been increasing in size YoY since 2017.

I do agree upper high income people at $300k+ bear the brunt of current tax policies, especially in NY. They don't make enough to take real advantage of the tax code, and they make too much to benefit from most tax breaks and govt. support that are available.

I'm also concerned that NYC and the entire metro area are potentially highly vulnerable to COVID-19 vs. other parts of the country. Unfortunately, the make or break factor may be public transportation. I hope I'm wrong, but the fact that NY, NJ, and CT are the top 3 in deaths / 1MM and top 4 in cases / 1MM is concerning, especially since the gaps between these vs. other states are so large. For example, if you look at deaths/1MM:

NY: 1295.6
NJ: 933.6
CT: 738.5

For comparison:
CA: 60.1
FL: 68.5
TX: 33.1

Correlation isn't causation, so I would hope some focused research is in progress to get at the heart of this, but it would be hard to imagine that public transportation is not a factor. You can also see why some states are moving forward on opening up.

On 9/12, everyone asked how they would secure the subway against terrorists. Turns out they did squat, even after subways in London, Moscow, Madrid, and other cities got blown up. I wouldn't be surprised if we try some social distancing for a month or two, maybe with a feeble attempt at mask-wearing, and then the subway returns to being the petri dish-cum-homeless shelter that it has always been. Which actually is fine with me.

As for the theory that it was a major transmitter of the virus, some learned people with PhD's have jumped to the same obvious conclusion based on some correlations.

"New York City’s multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator – if not the principal transmission vehicle – of coronavirus infection during the initial takeoff of the massive epidemic that became evident throughout the city during March 2020"

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27021

List a really cool property with knock-out views and great light for a good price, and it can sell in 2 months even in a coop, even during a pandemic.

https://streeteasy.com/sale/1460696

Didn't that unit turn over 3 times in 5 years back 2005-10?

Spectacular views, spectacular terraces, spectacularly difficult to actually live in, tho whoever does will be in great shape. No elevator access directly to apartment but long narrow flight(s) of stairs. Tight spiral staircases to top levels , and spiral staircases are only good for mountain goats and small children. And I may be missing something but are there any closets anywhere near the entrance, or in the master bedroom ?
Gorgeous, but not very livable

There are literally thousands of white boxes on the market. They all look the same, and thousands more could be built tomorrow if developers thought ppl would buy them. Many prewar buildings aren't much different. This is unique.

Reminds me of 55 Liberty Street. https://streeteasy.com/sale/1330087

One small town -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/virus-hazleton-block.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=US%2

Wow - that place in the El Dorado looks amazing, and the maintenance even seems reasonable for what it is.

You've got to love New Yorkers!
https://greenpointers.com/2020/03/31/williamsburg-landlord-mario-salerno-waives-rent-for-all-hundreds-of-tenants-due-to-coronavirus/

Is this gentleman in Italian family business?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/health/happy-hypoxia-pulse-oximeter-trnd-wellness/index.html

Posted before, but this is really good information.

@George - it's not that simple in the real world, and the Harris paper has been heavily critiqued by other researchers. The problem is that Harris doesn't attempt to eliminate the confounding factors that could easily make the subway not the primary driver. As many people have pointed out, Asian cities with extremely high rates of transit use, such as Hong Kong and Seoul, are among the safest places in the world right now. NY has also been hit much harder than other transit-dependent Western cities like London and Paris. See just one of many critiques:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/04/15/the-subway-is-probably-not-why-new-york-is-a-disaster-zone/

Indeed, hence why I used the term "jumped to conclusions". However, in our new state of criooling germophobia, the subway can't be what it was, and hence NY can't be what it was.

Btw, Seoul, Hong Kong, and Beijing have some extreme virus-fighting measures that would never pass muster here.

After 9/11, we all came together and declared that the terrorists wouldn't beat us, we'd go on living as normal. Now we are the opposite, so completely scared that we are willing to stop everything and thinking that paranoia helps rather than hurts the situation. It will take much longer to recover unless people remember that they have a functional immune system and should let it do its job.

*crippling germophobia

@george, PPE would help too. My friend in Beijing is now wearing a N95 and sterilizing it in the oven between wearings. I'd certainly feel safer riding the subway wearing one of those rather than a fabric mask (which is what I currently have).