Coronavirus pandemic

[tradephoric]

Flattening the curve isn't just about spreading out the infections over time--it's about reducing the total number of infections.  Just accepting that everybody will eventually get infected and 1% of the population will die is not acceptable.  There are going to have to be some long term restrictions that remain until we get a vaccine:

Even if NYC remains locked down indefinitely, the city will likely gain herd immunity long before a vaccine becomes available.  According to Phase II of the New York antibody tests, it's projected that 24.7% of the NYC population have antibodies to the virus.  With 16,936 reported deaths in NYC, that equates to a mortality rate of 0.8% (which is in the ballpark of the 1% mortality rate Dr. Fauci has routinely cited).  In Phase 1 of the study it was estimated that 1 in 5 NYC residents was infected by the virus.  Just a week later when Phase 2 was released, it was estimated that 1 in 4 NYC residents has been infected.  If herd immunity is coming (and it appears to be) why not quicken the process by reopening the city?  NYC should follow the Stockholm, Sweden approach.

Lockdown-free Stockholm 'could achieve herd immunity in May': Claim by Swedish ambassador as she reveals 30% of the city's population already have immunity
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8261519/Stockholm-achieve-herd-immunity-Claim-Swedish-ambassador-US.html

[kalvado]

Flattening the curve isn't just about spreading out the infections over time--it's about reducing the total number of infections.  Just accepting that everybody will eventually get infected and 1% of the population will die is not acceptable.  There are going to have to be some long term restrictions that remain until we get a vaccine:

Even if NYC remains locked down indefinitely, the city will likely gain herd immunity long before a vaccine becomes available.  According to Phase II of the New York antibody tests, it's projected that 24.7% of the NYC population have antibodies to the virus.  With 16,936 reported deaths in NYC, that equates to a mortality rate of 0.8% (which is in the ballpark of the 1% mortality rate Dr. Fauci has routinely cited).  In Phase 1 of the study it was estimated that 1 in 5 NYC residents was infected by the virus.  Just a week later when Phase 2 was released, it was estimated that 1 in 4 NYC residents has been infected.  If herd immunity is coming (and it appears to be) why not quicken the process by reopening the city?  NYC should follow the Stockholm, Sweden approach.

Lockdown-free Stockholm 'could achieve herd immunity in May': Claim by Swedish ambassador as she reveals 30% of the city's population already have immunity
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8261519/Stockholm-achieve-herd-immunity-Claim-Swedish-ambassador-US.html

Original estimates of transmission rate is about 2.5 - so you need more than 60% immune, 2.5x what NYC has.
To get there, NYC went through a month in hell, including storing bodies in refrigerators and disposing of the dead in mass graves. It would take another 1.5-2 months of the same pattern at the same rate to achieve herd immunity. Including about 40-50k more deaths (current estimate is about 1/3 of excess deaths are not reported as covid).  You know, a mid-size city in some states  has that many people...

[hotdogPi]

If the goal is to achieve herd immunity without overwhelming the hospitals, eastern MA has done quite well. High but constant; no huge outbreaks like NYC, Detroit, Louisiana, Washington, or SW Georgia.

[kalvado]

If the goal is to achieve herd immunity without overwhelming the hospitals, eastern MA has done quite well. High but constant; no huge outbreaks like NYC, Detroit, Louisiana, Washington, or SW Georgia.

They are likely nowhere close to herd immunity levels.

[vdeane]

One thing to keep in mind with the comparisons to Sweden: one of the reasons why we have many of the restrictions we do is because people were proving themselves unable to handle lesser restrictions.  If you don't believe me, just go to Walmart when it's busy.  Nobody follows the one-way aisles at all, and people walk every which way in such a way that you can't socially distance yourself effectively (like that guy mentioned earlier that stopped to text).  Many parks/playgrounds/etc. that are closed only closed because people were crowding the area.  Florida closed their beaches because people were having parties.  I would not be surprised if the Swedish were just better at following the rules than Americans, therefore avoiding the need to improve more restrictive, but easier to enforce, rules.

[NWI_Irish96]

One thing to keep in mind with the comparisons to Sweden: one of the reasons why we have many of the restrictions we do is because people were proving themselves unable to handle lesser restrictions.  If you don't believe me, just go to Walmart when it's busy.  Nobody follows the one-way aisles at all, and people walk every which way in such a way that you can't socially distance yourself effectively (like that guy mentioned earlier that stopped to text).  Many parks/playgrounds/etc. that are closed only closed because people were crowding the area.  Florida closed their beaches because people were having parties.  I would not be surprised if the Swedish were just better at following the rules than Americans, therefore avoiding the need to improve more restrictive, but easier to enforce, rules.

That's 100% accurate.  Americans are very selfish and entitled in general, but particularly those who come from upper-middle and upper class backgrounds.  If guidelines say that there shouldn't be more than 50 people at a park, everyone thinks they should get to go whenever they want and everybody else should adjust around them. 

[hbelkins]

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/

The movement to "reopen"  America is a fallacy based on a fantasy.

The fallacy is the notion that lifting stay-at-home orders will result in people going back to their normal routines. This is false. The state-issued stay-at-home orders did not determine most people's desires to stay home–they merely ratified behaviors that the vast majority of people and institutions were already adopting in response to COVID-19.

The fantasy is that we can go back to what the world looked like 12 weeks ago. This is not possible now and will not be possible until we possess a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.

Understand that I am not saying that stay-at-home orders should be indefinite. What I am saying is that whenever the stay-at-home orders are rolled back–whether it is tomorrow or a month from now–it will not result in anything like a "reopening"  of the country.  And the sooner people grasp how completely and fundamentally the world has changed, the faster we'll be able to adapt to this new reality.

We are not looking at a blip that everyone will soon forget and we'll all go back and pretend it never happened.  This is bigger than 9/11 - a LOT bigger.

That's The Bulwark. A bunch of Never Trumpers. If the president was talking about keeping things shutdown for the foreseeable future, they'd be advocating opening everything now.

Re: reopening restaurants, bars, sporting events, movie theaters, etc. I don't go to events. Haven't been to a movie in years, haven't been to a ballgame of any type in ages, don't go to bars, etc. I don't like crowds, traffic jams, and all the things that go along with things like sporting events and concerts. But if restaurants reopened tomorrow for full-service dine-in, I'd have no reservations whatsoever about going. The odds of any one individual becoming ill from the virus are very long. Best I can tell, 40 percent of those who contract it are asymptomatic, 20 percent become ill with minor symptoms, 20 percent have more major symptoms. Of that last 20 percent, very few require hospitalization and even fewer end up in the ICU.

I don't take a flu shot, and I've never had the flu. Back in February, I was in a meeting with someone who wasn't feeling well and went home at lunchtime to see the doctor. He'd had the flu shot, and he tested positive for the flu. No one who was in the room with him caught the flu.

I have no plans to take a COVID-19 vaccine, especially something that will be rushed to market with very little testing. I also have no plans to be tested for COVID-19. I told my wife that even if I get sick, I won't be going to the doctor unless they cart me off in an ambulance. I have no desire to be told I have the virus and have the government tell us that we have to stay home for 14 days.

[tradephoric]

Even if NYC remains locked down indefinitely, the city will likely gain herd immunity long before a vaccine becomes available.  According to Phase II of the New York antibody tests, it's projected that 24.7% of the NYC population have antibodies to the virus.  With 16,936 reported deaths in NYC, that equates to a mortality rate of 0.8% (which is in the ballpark of the 1% mortality rate Dr. Fauci has routinely cited).  In Phase 1 of the study it was estimated that 1 in 5 NYC residents was infected by the virus.  Just a week later when Phase 2 was released, it was estimated that 1 in 4 NYC residents has been infected.  If herd immunity is coming (and it appears to be) why not quicken the process by reopening the city?  NYC should follow the Stockholm, Sweden approach.

Lockdown-free Stockholm 'could achieve herd immunity in May': Claim by Swedish ambassador as she reveals 30% of the city's population already have immunity
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8261519/Stockholm-achieve-herd-immunity-Claim-Swedish-ambassador-US.html

Original estimates of transmission rate is about 2.5 - so you need more than 60% immune, 2.5x what NYC has.
To get there, NYC went through a month in hell, including storing bodies in refrigerators and disposing of the dead in mass graves. It would take another 1.5-2 months of the same pattern at the same rate to achieve herd immunity. Including about 40-50k more deaths (current estimate is about 1/3 of excess deaths are not reported as covid).  You know, a mid-size city in some states  has that many people...

The 16,936 deaths cited includes 11,708 confirmed deaths and 5,228 probable deaths (with probable deaths being 1/3 of total deaths).  I believe the 1/3 excess deaths that you referenced has been accounted for in the totals.  Assuming NYC reopens, it's hard to believe there would be 20k deaths per month moving forward (ie. 40k deaths over 2 months) when there was under 17k deaths per month during the first wave of infections.  Second wave cases should be lower compared to the first wave due to the added immunity present, the social distancing guidelines being enforced, and people required to wear masks when out in public.  None of these things were happening back in early march... in fact on March 2nd Bill De Blasio tweeted the following:

"Since I'm encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions," de Blasio tweeted on March 2. "Here's the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see The Traitor [at Lincoln Center]. If The Wire was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film."

Ultimately the healthcare system could handle the spike in COVID cases back in March and there's no reason to believe they can't handle a second wave of infections.  Keep in mind that 40 deaths per day for the next year (ie. keeping NYC shut down) would be equivalent to 14,600 deaths over the course of a month (ie. NYC reopening and seeing a sudden but short term spike in deaths while herd immunity is gained). 

[kalvado]

Even if NYC remains locked down indefinitely, the city will likely gain herd immunity long before a vaccine becomes available.  According to Phase II of the New York antibody tests, it's projected that 24.7% of the NYC population have antibodies to the virus.  With 16,936 reported deaths in NYC, that equates to a mortality rate of 0.8% (which is in the ballpark of the 1% mortality rate Dr. Fauci has routinely cited).  In Phase 1 of the study it was estimated that 1 in 5 NYC residents was infected by the virus.  Just a week later when Phase 2 was released, it was estimated that 1 in 4 NYC residents has been infected.  If herd immunity is coming (and it appears to be) why not quicken the process by reopening the city?  NYC should follow the Stockholm, Sweden approach.

Lockdown-free Stockholm 'could achieve herd immunity in May': Claim by Swedish ambassador as she reveals 30% of the city's population already have immunity
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8261519/Stockholm-achieve-herd-immunity-Claim-Swedish-ambassador-US.html

Original estimates of transmission rate is about 2.5 - so you need more than 60% immune, 2.5x what NYC has.
To get there, NYC went through a month in hell, including storing bodies in refrigerators and disposing of the dead in mass graves. It would take another 1.5-2 months of the same pattern at the same rate to achieve herd immunity. Including about 40-50k more deaths (current estimate is about 1/3 of excess deaths are not reported as covid).  You know, a mid-size city in some states  has that many people...

The 16,936 deaths cited includes 11,708 confirmed deaths and 5,228 probable deaths (with probable deaths being 1/3 of total deaths).  I believe the 1/3 excess deaths that you referenced has been accounted for in the totals.  Assuming NYC reopens, it's hard to believe there would be 20k deaths per month moving forward (ie. 40k deaths over 2 months) when there was under 17k deaths per month during the first wave of infections.  Second wave cases should be lower compared to the first wave due to the added immunity present, the social distancing guidelines being enforced, and people required to wear masks when out in public.  None of these things were happening back in early march... in fact on March 2nd Bill De Blasio tweeted the following:

"Since I'm encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions," de Blasio tweeted on March 2. "Here's the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see The Traitor [at Lincoln Center]. If The Wire was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film."

Ultimately the healthcare system could handle the spike in COVID cases back in March and there's no reason to believe they can't handle a second wave of infections.  Keep in mind that 40 deaths per day for the next year (ie. keeping NYC shut down) would be equivalent to 14,600 deaths over the course of a month (ie. NYC reopening and seeing a sudden but short term spike in deaths while herd immunity is gained).

There was an article in NYT, they compared total reported mortality with previous years background - and concluded about 19k total in NYC so far. Probably includes things like a heart attack - but reported late to ER  and refused hospitalisation due to fear of infection.
Second wave could be slightly milder - but not 2x

[kalvado]

Ultimately the healthcare system could handle the spike in COVID cases back in March and there's no reason to believe they can't handle a second wave of infections.  Keep in mind that 40 deaths per day for the next year (ie. keeping NYC shut down) would be equivalent to 14,600 deaths over the course of a month (ie. NYC reopening and seeing a sudden but short term spike in deaths while herd immunity is gained).

And to put things in perspective:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/us/er-doctor-coronavirus-help-death-by-suicide-trnd/index.html
My friend works in one of those NYC hospitals; this news were followed by yet another e-mail with psychological help hotline number and contact information of various priests. 

[tradephoric]

^That's a tragic story no doubt.  This whole situation is stressful on everyone.  Over the past 5 weeks 26.5 million workers have lost their job and filed for unemployment.  Imagine the financial stress millions of Americans are going through right now.  Nothing about this is easy.   

[SEWIGuy]

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/

The movement to "reopen"  America is a fallacy based on a fantasy.

The fallacy is the notion that lifting stay-at-home orders will result in people going back to their normal routines. This is false. The state-issued stay-at-home orders did not determine most people's desires to stay home–they merely ratified behaviors that the vast majority of people and institutions were already adopting in response to COVID-19.

The fantasy is that we can go back to what the world looked like 12 weeks ago. This is not possible now and will not be possible until we possess a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.

Understand that I am not saying that stay-at-home orders should be indefinite. What I am saying is that whenever the stay-at-home orders are rolled back–whether it is tomorrow or a month from now–it will not result in anything like a "reopening"  of the country.  And the sooner people grasp how completely and fundamentally the world has changed, the faster we'll be able to adapt to this new reality.

We are not looking at a blip that everyone will soon forget and we'll all go back and pretend it never happened.  This is bigger than 9/11 - a LOT bigger.

That's The Bulwark. A bunch of Never Trumpers. If the president was talking about keeping things shutdown for the foreseeable future, they'd be advocating opening everything now.

Re: reopening restaurants, bars, sporting events, movie theaters, etc. I don't go to events. Haven't been to a movie in years, haven't been to a ballgame of any type in ages, don't go to bars, etc. I don't like crowds, traffic jams, and all the things that go along with things like sporting events and concerts. But if restaurants reopened tomorrow for full-service dine-in, I'd have no reservations whatsoever about going. The odds of any one individual becoming ill from the virus are very long. Best I can tell, 40 percent of those who contract it are asymptomatic, 20 percent become ill with minor symptoms, 20 percent have more major symptoms. Of that last 20 percent, very few require hospitalization and even fewer end up in the ICU.

I don't take a flu shot, and I've never had the flu. Back in February, I was in a meeting with someone who wasn't feeling well and went home at lunchtime to see the doctor. He'd had the flu shot, and he tested positive for the flu. No one who was in the room with him caught the flu.

I have no plans to take a COVID-19 vaccine, especially something that will be rushed to market with very little testing. I also have no plans to be tested for COVID-19. I told my wife that even if I get sick, I won't be going to the doctor unless they cart me off in an ambulance. I have no desire to be told I have the virus and have the government tell us that we have to stay home for 14 days.

But you would do so voluntarily right?  Because otherwise you are being a danger to people you come in contact with.

And flu vaccines do work.  They aren't 100% effective in every case, but they keep people healthier by preventing community spread as well.  I presume it would be similar for a Covid vaccine.

[kalvado]

And flu vaccines do work.  They aren't 100% effective in every case, but they keep people healthier by preventing community spread as well.  I presume it would be similar for a Covid vaccine.

We had this discussion upstream. This is really a red herring for me in terms of understanding the level of discussion.
  Flu vaccine not really work, and can never work as intended by CDC in its present formulation. EU is much more honest in this regard. Fluead may work better, but for some reason has deliberately limited availability in US...

[SEWIGuy]

And flu vaccines do work.  They aren't 100% effective in every case, but they keep people healthier by preventing community spread as well.  I presume it would be similar for a Covid vaccine.

We had this discussion upstream. This is really a red herring for me in terms of understanding the level of discussion.
  Flu vaccine not really work, and can never work as intended by CDC in its present formulation. EU is much more honest in this regard. Fluead may work better, but for some reason has deliberately limited availability in US...

When I say "work," I don't mean like a measels vaccine where it prevents you from getting the disease.  I mean that they lessen one's ability to get the flu, by both hopefully helping your body develop antibodies, and by preventing community spread by having a signficant number of others develop them. 

It's effectiveness depends on the year and the forecast for the strains that will become prevelent, but they supposedly reduce one's chances by 60% on average.  Which is good considering how deadly it can be for some people.  If that causes me to get the flu once every 20 years versus once every 10 years, I would be fine with those odds.

I've never heard of Fluead.  I will look into it.

[kalvado]

And flu vaccines do work.  They aren't 100% effective in every case, but they keep people healthier by preventing community spread as well.  I presume it would be similar for a Covid vaccine.

We had this discussion upstream. This is really a red herring for me in terms of understanding the level of discussion.
  Flu vaccine not really work, and can never work as intended by CDC in its present formulation. EU is much more honest in this regard. Fluead may work better, but for some reason has deliberately limited availability in US...

When I say "work," I don't mean like a measels vaccine where it prevents you from getting the disease.  I mean that they lessen one's ability to get the flu, by both hopefully helping your body develop antibodies, and by preventing community spread by having a signficant number of others develop them. 

It's effectiveness depends on the year and the forecast for the strains that will become prevelent, but they supposedly reduce one's chances by 60% on average.  Which is good considering how deadly it can be for some people.  If that causes me to get the flu once every 20 years versus once every 10 years, I would be fine with those odds.

I've never heard of Fluead.  I will look into it.

60% is the best result of the past 15 years, an average of 30-40% improvement is a good guess. 25% this year for adults, actually. And good numbers are undermined by virus mutations, with mutated virus propagation faciliated (sic!) by vaccinated herd as fluad is not widely used.
The only good thing about flu vaccine is that we'll have pipeline for covid one when - and if - it is developed.

[SEWIGuy]

And flu vaccines do work.  They aren't 100% effective in every case, but they keep people healthier by preventing community spread as well.  I presume it would be similar for a Covid vaccine.

We had this discussion upstream. This is really a red herring for me in terms of understanding the level of discussion.
  Flu vaccine not really work, and can never work as intended by CDC in its present formulation. EU is much more honest in this regard. Fluead may work better, but for some reason has deliberately limited availability in US...

When I say "work," I don't mean like a measels vaccine where it prevents you from getting the disease.  I mean that they lessen one's ability to get the flu, by both hopefully helping your body develop antibodies, and by preventing community spread by having a signficant number of others develop them. 

It's effectiveness depends on the year and the forecast for the strains that will become prevelent, but they supposedly reduce one's chances by 60% on average.  Which is good considering how deadly it can be for some people.  If that causes me to get the flu once every 20 years versus once every 10 years, I would be fine with those odds.

I've never heard of Fluead.  I will look into it.

60% is the best result of the past 15 years, an average of 30-40% improvement is a good guess. 25% this year for adults, actually. And good numbers are undermined by virus mutations, with mutated virus propagation faciliated (sic!) by vaccinated herd as fluad is not widely used.
The only good thing about flu vaccine is that we'll have pipeline for covid one when - and if - it is developed.

Don't agree with your numbers.

[kalvado]

Don't agree with your numbers.

That's why I always assume people don't know about flu vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/2019-2020.html

[hbelkins]

Sad but funny story out of Kentucky concerning all this.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/nation-world/national/article242331811.html#storylink=bignews_latest

TL;DR: Yesterday at his press conference, the governor said that someone had fraudulently filed for unemployment benefits in the name of Tupac Shakur, which was a joke that unfortunately further impeded the overburdened unemployment system. Turns out, there is actually someone named Tupac Malik Shakur who lives in Lexington and goes by "Malik", lost his jobs as a cook at two restaurants in Lexington, and filed for unemployment.  So the governor personally called him to apologize and then publicly apologized at his presser/briefing today. Seems that Mr. Shakur called the Lexington newspaper, and in turn a reporter contacted the governor's office and gave the governor his phone number. The official excuse statement was that they had difficulty verifying his claim. But the reporter was able to talk to the husband of the restaurants' owner who stated that yes, they employed someone with that name. So everyone knows him as Malik Shakur, but he had to use his legal first name on the official filing (something I'm familiar with, since I go by my initials everywhere except where I can't) and that caused someone in the unemployment office to flag his application.

[Duke87]

That's The Bulwark. A bunch of Never Trumpers. If the president was talking about keeping things shutdown for the foreseeable future, they'd be advocating opening everything now.

Not exactly a neutral source... nonetheless the broad point is valid that we shouldn't underestimate the degree of economic disruption we're really facing.

We're already seeing some companies looking into permanently scaling back how much office space they're renting as they permit or even encourage working from home to be more commonplace permanently. This makes sense from a business perspective - real estate costs money, if you can operate just as effectively with less of it, you'd be foolish not to. But if you own and operate office space, or work for a company that does... well, sucks to be you.

Likewise, I don't see movie theaters really surviving - they're already obsolete businesses that have only survived this long due to moviemakers insisting on having initial releases exclusively in theaters. Moviemakers are now releasing movies that were supposed to be for theaters directly to home streaming services, and being forced to figure out how to make their businesses work with this business model. Once they've figured this out, will they really go back to releasing movies to theaters? Will they even have this as a feasible option, if a lot of theater companies end up in Chapter 7 by the end of the year?
On the other hand, expect some combination of future movies having lower production budgets, and the likes of Netflix getting more expensive since moviemakers are going to look for ways to replace lost box office revenue.

Restaurants, too... we're already seeing places that are used to serving as primarily dine-in establishments close because they've found they aren't getting enough business to make money as strictly takeout/delivery establishments. They will attempt to reopen when they are allowed to do dine-in again, but they will see lower than normal customer volumes as a lot of people will still not want to dine-in at any restaurant. Many will go out of business as a result.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't see movie theaters going away, not when you had movies in the last three decades raking in over Billion in ticket sales over the past three decades.  It might be hard to get investors to do big budget movies in the same scale we're used to.  I think that opens the door for some more creative newer movies that have a lower budget but have to take chances to compete for audiences.  Downloads will have their place but I can't see people wanting to stay home forever when going to movie on a night out or day off has been such an ingrained thing to do for so long. 

[US71]

I can't see movie theaters going away, not when you had movies in the last three decades raking in over Billion in ticket sales over the past three decades.  It might be hard to get investors to do big budget movies in the same scale we're used to.  I think that opens the door for some more creative newer movies that have a lower budget but have to take chances to compete for audiences.  Downloads will have their place but I can't see people wanting to stay home forever when going to movie on a night out or day off has been such an ingrained thing to do for so long. 

IMO things won't go back to "normal" overnight, and there will be changes, but from my perspective a lot of people will finally say f*** it and take their chances. If they are unscathed, they'll continue to roll the dice. We have Thai rice seemingly on every other corner. A few may fail, but others may be able to fill that void.

[kalvado]

I can't see movie theaters going away, not when you had movies in the last three decades raking in over Billion in ticket sales over the past three decades.  It might be hard to get investors to do big budget movies in the same scale we're used to.  I think that opens the door for some more creative newer movies that have a lower budget but have to take chances to compete for audiences.  Downloads will have their place but I can't see people wanting to stay home forever when going to movie on a night out or day off has been such an ingrained thing to do for so long.

movie ticket sales peaked around 2002 and are on decline. Many people predicted business will be losing steam with all those home options, and now that decay can accelerate even further. If anything, I can envision movie theaters becoming more premium experience for old timers (it already goes premium way with 3D, IMAX, some super-duper sound and whatever else) - and, coincidently, fewer people in the room, and likely fewer venues. Something along the lines of live theater being premium experience.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't see movie theaters going away, not when you had movies in the last three decades raking in over Billion in ticket sales over the past three decades.  It might be hard to get investors to do big budget movies in the same scale we're used to.  I think that opens the door for some more creative newer movies that have a lower budget but have to take chances to compete for audiences.  Downloads will have their place but I can't see people wanting to stay home forever when going to movie on a night out or day off has been such an ingrained thing to do for so long.

movie ticket sales peaked around 2002 and are on decline. Many people predicted business will be losing steam with all those home options, and now that decay can accelerate even further. If anything, I can envision movie theaters becoming more premium experience for old timers (it already goes premium way with 3D, IMAX, some super-duper sound and whatever else) - and, coincidently, fewer people in the room, and likely fewer venues. Something along the lines of live theater being premium experience.

I wouldn't mind a premium experience that I have to pay more for but only it resulted in movies that aren't fully oriented towards being the "popcorn"  variety.  It seems like the biggest problem the movie industry hasn't isn't getting people watch but a lack of creativity and willingness to try new things.  How many Disney and 80s movie remakes to we really need at this point?...especially when they usually aren't done well. 

People as a whole get over almost everything given enough time.  Sure things won't be the same as before but I'd argue they needed to be improved upon.

[SEWIGuy]

Don't agree with your numbers.

That's why I always assume people don't know about flu vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/2019-2020.html

From the FAQ in the link:

"CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the influenza (flu) vaccine protects against flu illness. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine."

So yeah I slightly overstated it. But that's still effective.

[kalvado]

Don't agree with your numbers.

That's why I always assume people don't know about flu vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/2019-2020.html

From the FAQ in the link:

"CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the influenza (flu) vaccine protects against flu illness. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine."

So yeah I slightly overstated it. But that's still effective.

Fine print: It happened once in the past 5 years, when vaccine efficiency was just below 50%. Those are some beautiful small details!