(From Press Release) – Governor Gavin Newsom today unveiled six key indicators that will guide California’s thinking for when and how to modify the stay-at-home and other orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Governor noted that the progress in flattening the curve, increased preparedness of our health care delivery system and the effects of other COVID-19 interventions have yielded positive results. However, these actions have also impacted the economy, poverty and overall health care in California. Any consideration of modifying the stay-at-home order must be done using a gradual, science-based and data-driven framework.
“While Californians have stepped up in a big way to flatten the curve and buy us time to prepare to fight the virus, at some point in the future we will need to modify our stay-at-home order,” said 
Governor Newsom. “As we contemplate reopening parts of our state, we must be guided by science and data, and we must understand that things will look different than before.”
Until we build immunity, our actions will be aligned to achieve the following:
- Ensure our ability to care for the sick within our hospitals;
- Prevent infection in people who are at high risk for severe disease;
- Build the capacity to protect the health and well-being of the public; and
- Reduce social, emotional and economic disruptions
California’s six indicators for modifying the stay-at-home order are:
- The ability to monitor and protect our communities through testing, contact tracing, isolating, and supporting those who are positive or exposed;
- The ability to prevent infection in people who are at risk for more severe COVID-19;
- The ability of the hospital and health systems to handle surges;
- The ability to develop therapeutics to meet the demand;
- The ability for businesses, schools, and child care facilities to support physical distancing; and
- The ability to determine when to reinstitute certain measures, such as the stay-at-home orders, if necessary.
The Governor said there is not a precise timeline for modifying the stay-at-home order, but that these six indicators will serve as the framework for making that decision.
He also noted that things will look different as California makes modifications. For example, restaurants will have fewer tables and classrooms will be reconfigured.
This is outstanding. Gov. Newsom is far exceeding my expectations on this issue. This should be a blueprint for the whole country.
No… NY Gov Cuomo should be the model… Newsome is somewhat following his (Cuomo’s) ‘lead’, but clearly lagging behind… I do give Newsome credit for following the lead. My opinion is that Newsome’s ‘leadership’ depends on licking finger, placing it where the ‘wind’ can give him a clue as to how to proceed.
Am becoming impressed with Cuomo… reminding me of a leader/governor for whom a major NY airport is named for…
Bill
I do not believe that Gov. Newsom’s leadership in the area of public health began with this pandemic. It began well over a year ago when he named the state’s first surgeon general and allotted more funding to public health. Those actions provided a framework on which decisive state action could be taken without delay.
Have you reviewed who he named? [I have] No vetting by anyone but the Gov.
The position itself may have been by ‘fiat’… unclear if the legislature approved the position, per se..
At first glance, looks like a ‘gift’ to a supporter, rather than a ‘commitment’ to public health… suggest you Google the SG before responding, if at all…
I may be incorrect, but have relatives in Missouri… the “show me” state…
Don
I agree with you about Gov. Newsom’s performance to date. I would also like to call out specifically the Public Health Officer from Santa Clara County who was the first to issue a shelter in place order and to our own Public Health Officer Dr. Ron Chapman who quickly did the same and who has been instrumental along with Michael Bisch & his Yolo County Food Bank team, Ryan Collins, the Davis Homeless Outreach Coordinator, and Communicare in their swift actions to provide motel/hotel rooms for the unsheltered allowing them the ability to shelter in place while providing in-room food delivery, social services and even medical visits from two MDs.
Tia… those folk deserve the kudos you gave… je d’accord…
Bill
I am not sure how you have come to your conclusions ( or should I say suspicions) about the intent behind Dr. Harris’ appointment. She has an interest in ACES as they affect lifetime health and development. From the point of view of the prevention of chronic illness over decades, this is a good match in a little pursued area of medicine. True, at present, due to the dramatic nature of the coronavirus pandemic, it may appear to be a curious choice, but in the very big picture of the cost of chronic medical illness, both human and economic, I think her specialty makes her a forward-looking choice.
The governor’s leadership is largely ignoring the economic emergency. And it that respect it is a bit of false leadership… appealing to the immediate fears and failing to incorporate the economic restart to the plan. However, on the immediate health-related issues I do give him high marks.
I do think the final assessment will be a failure in leadership due to the economic calamity caused and the slow response in planning for the recovery.
They are marching in Michigan today. I suspect the same in other states soon. Texas is moving quicker to address the economic issues. My guess is that Newsom and his supporters will trumpet the healthcare outcomes and blame the economic damage and failures on Washington. But the economic outcomes of other states might put a big wrinkle in that plan.
They are marching in Michigan today? A state that’s in the top 5 hardest hit? That dog won’t hunt. Be interesting to see how many in three weeks end up getting sick.
We should be figuring out ways to transition to more of a distance and remote economy. It’s interesting watching my kids going to school online and holding meetings with interns located across the state. There are real opportunities that would not only help the economy now, but better position us to long term reduce GHG emissions as well.
No one is talking about this. We can re-open with a modified economy that completely shifts how we do this.
I agree that there are opportunities to rethink and restructure much about our lives to improve how we live with respect to this newly realized threat and fear. The point is that there should be a “get California back to work” task force formed a week after the shutdowns were ordered and we should have been hearing about that side of the emergency response plan.
Don’t disagree with that point, in fact, I ran a similar column on that last week.
Agreed – as well for the need from outset of the shutdown. We have a situation begging for experienced, respected, visible leadership drawn from within the ranks of small business owners and operators. It is profoundly telling, just how out of touch are our elected and institutional leaders not to recognize this simple reality.
I’ve done my bit to communicate the need to our elected leaders all the way up the line, as well as to remind them of the unique opportunity for demonstration of true leadership in this hour of need. It is akin to a war. All we’re asking for is a recognition of the need and importance of rallying the troops.
At the community level, following only the heroic efforts of our healthcare professionals and first responders, the success and resilience of our many small businesses will prove the decisive factor in how our communities weather this devastating assault from an unknown enemy.
I posted the other day that this was a car rally protest taking place today and you responded to my post. So why are you acting surprised by the news? Did you wonder how many would get sick when activists conducted a car rally protest over ICE detainees in Sacramento last week? They were called brave for not obeying the stay in place order if I remember right.
I also see there were protests in Ohio, Vancouver, North Carolina and Germany over the stay in place policies.
This seems to be catching fire.
And another protest planned in Pennsylvania on 4/20.
Jeff
I do not see drawing up specific conditions under which a safer reopening of the economy could be achieved as “failing to incorporate the economic restart to the plan”. I also do not consider acknowledging 26,000 deaths & attempting to prevent more as “appealing to immediate fears”. Clearly what has been put out so far is a brief outline, not a detailed plan. One aspect I would urge you to consider is that with past contagions, when lockdown or avoidance strategies have been abandoned, there is frequently a second wave, sometimes more numerically devastating than the first. California has been relatively spared to date. Nothing would be more devastating to the local, regional and state economy than to loosen restrictions too soon only to be overwhelmed by a second surge.
So immediate action related to the virus threat, yet no urgency for the economic threat. Got it.
No, Jeff. I do not believe you do “get it”. I do see the urgency of a sound economic plan. I just do not see on what you are basing the conclusion that one does not exist. Did you read the list I posted of named economic advisors? I doubt their job in this crisis has been to sit around and do nothing. While you might not approve of the individuals chosen, and I am in no position to judge, I think it a little disingenuous to comment unless you have already thoroughly vetted this group and their activities. Have you?
The governor has laid out the evidence-based criteria that will be used to decide when the state order will be lifted. Counties will likely be allowed to decide for themselves at that point.
Encouraging civil disobedience during a pandemic is very much akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Certainly it isn’t something to celebrate or encourage.
Civil disobedience isn’t something I generally support. It seems that one political party has adopted it as its primary method to try and gets its political way instead of working through the standard political process. But if I am to support that type of behavior as a mechanism to try and influence policy this seems EXACTLY the type of thing where it would be necessary and useful.
Politicians don’t seem to understand the severity of economic harm being caused every day this shutdown continues. Protests are needed to get their attention due to the critical timeline.
Don,
So what do you say about Davis Target store being open, while Fleet Feet and Avid Reader are not?
Here’s the Governor’s most recent list from his website: https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/
Can you honestly call this approach either coherent, consistent, clear or fair?
Who is in-charge of these decisions? What are their criteria? How do you make an appeal?
That’s part of what the people in Michigan were protesting today.
You can’t buy a can of paint to do home projects or a bag of seeds to plant your garden but you’re allowed to buy state lottery tickets.
If you live in Michigan and have a vacation home you’re not allowed to travel to it and stay but out of staters can.
Some of these rules make no sense.
Fleet Feet and Avid Reader should contact their county supervisor to determine, from the county health officer, how they can safely and legally provide their products. If there is a complaint against Target, it should be filed with the police department via their non-emergency line.
The County Health Officer is in charge of the decisions. The County Board of Supervisors can overrule him. It is a function of the definition of ‘essential’ but non-essential businesses have been allowed to operate within specified guidelines. The county supervisors have been very responsive to individual queries.
Bob Dunning and the Enterprise have written articles about the golf course closings in Davis. You talk about something that makes no sense. How is walking a golf course any different than walking down a street or taking a stroll in the park? If anything a golf course is more open. Anything that a golfer might come in contact with has either been covered or removed. For instance, no more sand trap rakes and the hole cups are raised so the golfer doesn’t have to touch the flagstick or pick his golf ball out of the hole.
I hear they’ve now approved Tea Party Rallies in all 50 states. ?
This is what we get when the administrative state acquires more power through a crisis or otherwise. These are people pretty pleased with the open ended blank book of rules they can fill in during an emergency. They get a chance to show their constituents how caring and effective they are.
The normal rule-making process, at least at the federal level, starts with the interim rule, then a period of comment, and then the final rule… and then the agency guidance for how to implement the rule and deal with all the questions and challenges. It is slow, but it brings in the stakeholders to have a say. Today the politicians are just blowing through everything and making orders. It makes sense that they are doing this… first there is the need… and there there is the person. Why does someone go into politics if not attracted to the power to tell others what they must do?
In times of crisis there is a need for quick and decisive action. So we have to grant our politicians this extra power to make instant rules in times of a crisis. And we need to accept that it isn’t going to be perfect. However, in return for this power we grant our politicians, we expect them to not go political and to focus on EVERYTHING related to the crisis. I could scream about this point at the federal level as one party holds up another funding bill to fill it again with pork. But what we are missing at the state level is any significant focus on the economy. It makes me think that there is some political motivation for seeing a damaged economy. Will this create yet another crisis for local and state politicians to exploit as a reason they should be given more power to make rules? Is this demonstrating a political agenda connected to the clear political interest in a reduction in industrialism supporting a global warming agenda? Is a damaged economy leading into the 2020 election something that one party wants because they think it will benefit them in the election?
I don’t know, but it is weird that the state and local economic recovery rockets are not fired by now.
Doby
You specifically mentioned Target, Fleet Feet, and The Avid Reader, so I would like to share my thoughts on those three in particular. But first a word about my personal preferences. I did not want the Target in town and was very vocal in my opposition & have never made a purchase there. I was a frequent flyer at The Avid Reader. I am beyond my running shoe days but I am a huge advocate of buying local when possible. Having said that:
1. Target offers groceries and other truly essential items that the other two do not
2. Ace Hardware, presumably also offering home repair, plumbing items and the like is also open.
3. The Avid Reader has made arrangements for online ordering and delivery. Certainly not the same as wandering through and leisurely deciding which one book to take home, but an ongoing source of income.
I do think it is logical to focus on stores that sell essential items to leave open. Of course, there will be inconsistencies and differences of opinion on which should be included, but that does not make the policy itself irrational.
It is unbelievably reckless and irresponsible to encourage civil disobedience during a pandemic. It shouldn’t even be necessary to say this.
Good reason to start a pandemic and for government to label something a pandemic. China is well benefiting from the end of the Hong Kong protest and the Wuhan protests.
Some of the comments here from various business owners in our community suggest that Governor Newsom may be “shooting from the hip” or cavalier about the economic issues related to the pandemic. Since I have no experience with running a business beyond selling fruit to a small town grocer when I was 15, I cannot assess his team of economic advisers but did check it out. What I have posted is a list of Newsom’s economic advisers for your consideration. I would love to hear your thoughts on this group.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/02/21/governor-gavin-newsom-announces-council-of-economic-advisors/
I will pose a few open and honest questions for those advocating for “opening the economy”
1. Doby, what is not coherent in the list you presented? Certainly food, medications, gas (for those driving), financial institutions, are basic necessities. They involve limited time spent in crowds and each entity can set rules to provide physical distancing (see Costco, Trader Joe’s, etc.). We can all disagree on what is essential but given that boundaries have been drawn why the accusation of a “lack of coherence”?
2. What should, and should not be immediately opened?
3. If these (in point 2) ARE opened, what precautions, if any, should be taken to reduce transmission? So, for example, should bars and restaurants be allowed to return to normal business operations? Should masks be required? (Not sure how to eat and drink with masks in place but I am genuinely interested in the entities that advocates believe should be opened).
4. What, if anything, should be done if, after re-opening, there is a spike in cases?
5. If shops are opened, do you believe that people will frequent them, and under what guidelines to limit transmission?
To me, saying we should “re-open” the economy sounds good. What I want to make sure I understand is whether this means “open everything immediately with no preconditions”? If so, then what about the health consequences? If not, then what are the responsible actions to take to assure health is maintained in the face of a virulent infective agent?
Rather than sniping at the governor, put forward some concepts, some plans, some models for how it will work. I will engage the suggestions honestly and openly.
As for civil disobedience… If people want to gather in large groups to do whatever then they should do it and, I would argue, for their own safety, the police should not intervene. I think it is foolhardy and destructive, but as long as they stay away from unwitting and unwilling participants then I am willing to let them live with the consequences of their political statement.
I find it a little ironic – those who are so intent on opening things up or going out when the experts are warning against it could end up prolonging the economic shutdown if there is a secondary outbreak and that could bring about a much worse economic calamity than before.
Robb,
Doubt we disagree on much in terms of the common sense challenges you pose.
But, why is OK to purchase shoes or browse books at Target, but not at Fleet Feet or Avid Reader? Just because they sell groceries and have a pharmacy?
To my specific criticisms of leadership, just have a look at this Board of Advisors and tell me their cumulative qualifications to advise retailers managing their safe interactions with their employees and their customers in context of their individual businesses.
Name one.
To your specific questions about specific high touch businesses – who/which organizations and leaders are best equipped to direct a working group in their findings and recommendations?.
Very grateful that we continue to exchange ideas between one another and the larger community. Sincere thanks for engaging and staying engaged.
Your example is what I call leadership.
Doby, part of the challenge of asking “who should advise” is that we are dealing with a novel coronavirus. Coronaviruses have been around in an evolutionary sense “forever” I guess but the novel nature of this one means that we are literally learning on the fly.
Not a day goes by that I do not read a new paper on droplet dispersion, asymptomatic spread (recent papers suggest 40%), analysis of why there is an over-response by the body’s immune system that seems to kill many, transmission period, and long-term sequelae of infection (among others).
A novel virus with the infectious capacity of this virus is not something that has been widely studied and recommendations come slowly from science because real-life observational conditions have only existed for about 3 months worldwide.
It is not simply that we do not know much about this virus, it is that it seems to be particularly well adapted to spread quickly, silently, and widely. It kills 10X the common flu across ages and many more times that in my age group and older.
So there are no occupational health experts who can advise on precautions to take beyond the basics of avoiding personal contact, washing hands (fomite transmission), and staying home if sick.
The information we need to make the kinds of recommendations you seek does not yet exist. This is the nature, we are learning, of a highly infectious—and wholly new—respiratory virus.
Just one more point. Having led a food relief program for shut-ins over the past six weeks I can say with a high level of confidence that asking people to maintain distances in even lightly crowded areas is a HUGE challenge. Our culture—which we analyze with the concept of proxemics—seems to accept about a 2-foot distancing as a maximum—even for strangers. So, merely asking people to maintain safe distances does not seem to work. Rather, we must structure the environment itself—spacing of people waiting in line, required masks, limiting customer flow, etc. in order to achieve appropriate physical distancing.
Of course, all of this presumes that distancing is key to stemming the spread of this particular virus. I accept this premise.
So true. Someone was doing some work outside a few days ago and I went to talk to them and reminded them of social distancing. When we’d move, they’d automatically move to the usual social distance, and I’d remind them and step away, they’d apologize, and it would happen over and over.
Across from my (temporary?) home office window, I view a large construction site with many workers. The construction industry says they have trained their people to social distance, but I can see multiple times that certain moves require workers to work together in close proximity and they just do it. The tough macho culture often found in this sort of blue collar work probably doesn’t help – ‘what, you’re afraid of a teeny tiny virus?’
“Of course, all of this presumes that distancing is key to stemming the spread of this particular virus. I accept this premise.
I think in a more general sense independent of the current pandemic, most people accept the concept of distancing as a self-protective action. From years as a primary care provider, I have witnessed over and over people sitting as far away from someone who is coughing as possible in a waiting room. Clinics have offered surgical masks to incoming patients during the cold and flu season for decades. Now, some are taking very firm stands on protective measures, on either end of the spectrum, from Alan Miller’s letter on face coverings, to those who resent any directive from the government.
I do find one thing quite ironic about the WI car protest. First, it is a “car protest” which provides automatic distancing of the very type they are protesting. Second, a fair number of the protesters were wearing face coverings and maintaining social distancing spontaneously thus indicating some awareness that it might be a good idea. Having said that, I am a firm believer in the right to safely and peacefully assemble in protest and fully support their right to do so, despite my perceived irony.
I’ll tell you some more irony, Gov. Whitmer stating after the protest
as she sat at a table in close proximity to another official and an interpreter standing behind her all not wearing masks.
One of the reasons that people are attracted to become part of the ruling class where they have a position of power in government is that they get to make rules they have no intent or reason to follow. Who is going to arrest them for not following the rules?
In the case of Boris Johnson, God.
De Blasio was still going to the gym while they were closed to the public and recently Chicago mayor Lightfoot getting her hair done when salons were shut down are a few examples.
Not essential for you but okay for her.
https://news.yahoo.com/chicago-mayor-defends-hairstylist-visit-142603152.html
Keith
I agree with your comments on Gov. Whitmer not wearing a mask. The science is fuzzy about whether masking helps or not. But it is clearly inconsistent to call on others to mask, and then not do so yourself.
Robb’s points on the unknowns of this virus precluding a comprehensive initial response are well taken. One county health worker put it well in describing the efforts of her team. She said it was like building the airplane while flying it. The information and recommendations are literally changing from day to day making what appears to the general public to be a consistent, coherent policy very difficult.
Arguing with a couple of doctors is always going to be a challenge for a non-doctor.
I’m merely reiterating what I thought I head from Alan Miller earlier today about the seemingly abritrary approach to opening up businesses in the midst of this pandemic.
Where is the consistency in observation of best practices – wearing masks – in particular? Even Tia doesn’t seem to want to take a position concerning the efficacy of this measure – because the County Health Officer hasn’t declared it to be a must. Sorry, I don’t get it?
Who gives whomever the right to declare what is “safe” and “best practices” for employers, employees and the public? If it’s science based – why isn’t it uniform and universal.
Does anybody really wonder why everyday people are walking around with giant “?” floating above their heads?
From a standpoint of simple common sense, to me, this is the antithesis of leadership.
Science is a theory.
But seriously folks, ‘scientists’ don’t agree amongst themselves about a lot of stuff. In this case, the science is unfolding.
I jumped on the mask thing, because in researching why Asians were almost the only people in town wearing masks up until 2 weeks ago, I learned that most Asian doctors recommended masks for pandemics – universally worn to keep others safe. When the Whitehouse and every level of government suddenly did a 180° on this on April 3rd, I was already on board. The only problem is, it’s not mandatory yet in many locations, including Davis, and it only works somewhat well in reducing transmissions if everyone does it.
To reiterate Richard McCann’s observation. Don’t mean to put words in his mouth, but maybe the correct admonition is for older and at-risk individuals to squester at home, whilst everybody else is allowed to go about their lives. Why should the world’s economy be held hostage to the special needs of certain “at risk” classes?
What are the fatality statistics for those 20-30 years old who have been identified as currently infected or post exposure? Same question for 30-50 year olds?
Do we even have those statistics?
If so, what are they?
At what point do they get to weigh in on their personal “chances” and “choices” about going back to work and helping their customers to return to normal lives?
Doby,
I initially thought that too. However, more recent information suggests that there are substantial numbers of deaths occurring in individuals under 60 who were not known to have chronic conditions. I will preface any numbers by stating that their accuracy is in question for a number of reasons: limited testing, inconsistent reporting, and false-negative tests being only a few. But I have posted a few references for your consideration. Robb may want to weigh in on this aspect as he is much more proficient in statistical analysis than I.
From a national perspective: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e4.htm
From a county perspective: I recommend entering Yolo County COVID-19 Dashboard
Also from a now somewhat dated article from the MMWR of 3/27/20:
Of a total of > 4200 coronavirus test + patients:
1. Of 508 hospitalized – 55 % were aged 20-64
2. Of 121 ICU admissions – 48% were aged 20-64
3. Of 44 deaths – 20% were aged 20-64
Then there is this, were death causes are being changed and attributed to COVID 19 without testing.
And concurrently death rates from other illnesses like pneumonia have seen a drop. Coincidence?
https://news.yahoo.com/york-city-revises-coronavirus-death-205328540.html
Maybe they’ve seen a drop because the shelter in place should reduce all infection and pneumonia is often the result of a secondary infection
Or maybe they’ve seen a drop because they’ve been instructed to call deaths COVID related when they actually aren’t.
First, not everyone can stay home all of the time. Certain folks MUST go into public work and to shop for essentials. If this doesn’t happen, then we all die anyway. So the discussion about mask effectiveness should focus on those essential excursions.
Ones study found that facial masks do appear effective, even if not N95;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/
Here’s a summary of two other studies
https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/cdc-face-masks-public.html
Unfortunately, the disease vectors to the aged and compromised is through those younger individuals who are in their lives. If the virus is in everyone everywhere, there’s no where to hide for those who are most susceptible.
RMc, there is Idaho, Northern Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania . . . etc. 😉
Doby
“Even Tia doesn’t seem to want to take a position concerning the efficacy of this measure – because the County Health Officer hasn’t declared it to be a must. Sorry, I don’t get it?”
You are correct that you do not get it. I don’t want to take a position, not because of anything Dr. Chapman did or did not say, but rather because I do not believe there is clear evidence that facial coverings, as opposed to surgical or N95 masks are actually effective in the prevention of spread. N95’s have been demonstrated to stop the spread, but only if they are specifically fitted and tested for the individual user. This has never been demonstrated for homemade masks, scarfs, bandanas and the like, so their utility is largely based on wishful thinking. Since I see no harm in doing so, I am masking when out. The real solution is clear although undesirable. For all who can…Stay home.
If anyone can show me a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates that homemade face coverings are effective in this setting, I will reconsider and post my new understanding here.
First, not everyone can stay home all of the time. Certain folks MUST go into public work and to shop for essentials. If this doesn’t happen, then we all die anyway. So the discussion about mask effectiveness should focus on those essential excursions.
Ones study found that facial masks do appear effective, even if not N95;
<a href=”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/” rel=”nofollow”>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/</a>
Here’s a summary of two other studies
<a href=”https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html” rel=”nofollow”>https://www.livescience.com/are-face-masks-effective-reducing-coronavirus-spread.html</a>
<a href=”https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/cdc-face-masks-public.html” rel=”nofollow”>https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/cdc-face-masks-public.html</a>
I shared an article on infection fatality rates on Sunday and what they would lead to in the absence of any distancing
Look at the free Lancet article for all the age-specific fatality rates: 0.03% in 20-29, 0.08% in 30-39, 0.16% in 40-49, 0.6% in 50-59, 1.93% in 60-69, 4.28% in 70-79, and 7.8% in over 80.
Given the proportion of obese people in the US population the rates overall by age are probably higher here
I really disagree. The true leaders in this crisis are those who take risks to use the best/latest/most robust evidence to guide decisions. Any “leader” who stands up and says we must do X without laying out the uncertainties and caveats, and restrictions of the data is not leading. People looking for certainty in this time are going to be disappointed and it is unfair and unrealistic for leaders to pretend to provide that certainty. They must lead from an understanding of balancing risks, employing multiple tools, and with clearly sought ends laid out at the beginning and repeated at each opportunity.
Newsom has made it clear that saving lives, not overwhelming a fragmented health system, and carefully providing tools to enable communities to begin to reduce restrictions are his priorities. He has repeated them over and over and his policy choices have been consistent with those. You may disagree but he is attempting to lead on the basis of evidence and with a focus on ends. Personally, I want leadership like that.
Robb,
Thank you for repeating this information.
What should we be saying to our youth in their 20s to 40s – as their jobs, their careers, their dreams melt away in real time?
Do we, in our sunset years have that right as long as everyone is conscientious and responsible?
I think we as a society should start re-thinking how we run our entire economy. I have been having this conversation this week with business and political leaders – we have our disruption already, use this time to transition into an economy that relies more on technology and less on physical travel and presence. That doesn’t work for everything. Instead of giving people one-time checks for money, they could have used a lot of more of that money to start transitioning our economy.
I don’t know what to tell you Doby. It is not as if someone is being intentionally cruel and taking steps to render life difficult for younger folks.
Cognitively, it appears to us that life is basically normal. We see no destroyed buildings, there is no required rebuilding, no physical losses. But the reality is this is a massive natural disaster. If I am a political leader and I say: “Go about your lives, don’t change anything, keep the economy humming, then I can predict the number of unnecessary deaths that will result. Is it really a choice?
I suspect that one problem is that we live in a big country and prior disasters have never touched all of us at the same time (even Pearl Harbor or 9-11, while nation-changing had their immediate effects felt by only a few and George W Bush told us to keep shopping in the aftermath of 9-11). But this is a natural disaster that is truly national in scale. It is slow moving, but deadly.
Life cannot NOT change in the face of this kind of national tragedy and the policy levers are not a simple act of “off/on.” FWIW, I don’t think this is just about young people. I expect my own job to disappear in the coming months. It is difficult to know how to prepare for that.
Answer: Why did you go to Fort Lauderdale for spring break, you selfish f*ck.
Here’s an excellent, cogent, and readable summary of why wearing face masks makes sense:
https://www.fast.ai/2020/04/13/masks-summary/
In a clear case of “ask and ye shall receive”, Robert posted an article suggesting the evidence is clear on the wearing of masks. I highly recommend reading not only the article itself but the linked articles as well to understand why there is controversy. While the author of the article implies the science is clear and definitive, in reality, it is a preponderance of the evidence that there is some unquantified benefit of facial coverings. I will continue to cover only when I must go out and when I am in an enclosed space or otherwise able to maintain a distance of > 6ft from those around me. The safest path remains for those who do not have to go out, to stay home.
As a business owner I will go by the guidance of the County Health Officer, informed by the CDC, on the mask issue. In seeking answers to all of these questions, I want to know first what the health officials say and what they base their recommendations on. At the state and federal levels, those officials are saying far more testing is needed before any decisions are made about loosening the stay-at-home orders. It is very premature, in my opinion, to talk about significant changes, simply because they don’t yet have the data they need. More funding for testing is clearly needed at all levels. More funding for mitigation of the economic impacts is also needed. More funding for the agencies that are helping at the international level is also warranted.
The drop in retail sales through March is historic, and the April numbers are likely to be catastrophic as will the unemployment numbers. So the federal role, IMO, should heavily focus on getting cash out to help businesses and employees as fast as possible. The rollout doesn’t seem to be off to a great start. I think our governor is giving good guidance that county officials will likely use as they review their orders. Some counties are operating under the governor’s order. Others, like ours, have stricter orders in place. So for us, the county is where the action is.
The federal response to the economic side has been nothing less than breathtaking in speed and efficiency given the monumental challenge.
Treasury and SBA launched programs to help small business owners almost immediately.
The SBA Economic Injury and Disaster Loan (EIDL) program was up and running the day after the first legislation was passed to allocate relief funds. These are low-interest, long-term, fixed rate loans. They added an almost immediate $10k forgivable loan for the smaller businesses.
In addition, all existing SBA loans have put on an immediate 6-mth payment forgiveness beginning with the April payment.
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was a different challenge because it was a brand new program. SBA quickly put the pieces in place to ride on their flagship SBA 7a loan program… one that banks use to make small business loans with the backing of a federal guaranty which allows better terms and reduced credit eligibility so that more small business owners qualify. The idea was for existing 7a lenders to use their own capital to make the loans (1% @ 24 months), and then SBA would come back in the 7th month to forgive all or part of the PPP loan for the preceding six months of payments.
Where PPP ran into problems is that banks were prioritizing their own clients with loans and deposits as a first priority. Some banks were overwhelmed with the number of loan transactions and the capital draw, and they either did not participate or did not have the capital to participate. This left many small businesses unable to find a PPP lender.
The Treasury had already been dealing with a bank liquidity challenge, and relatively quickly responded bu opening up the discount window to deposit institutions for special PPP funds. This was/is a rather complicated arrangement where the Treasury will provide the loan secured by the PPP loans and will buy them back from the lender so the lender can re-lend the capital.
But the PPP lending limit will be reached today. All $349 billion will be approved.
So, if you want to point fingers at the primary difficulty for the economic recovery at the federal level, you must point at the Democrat party for its political obstruction and pork-grabbing from the process. That is not a partisan swipe without merit. All the media-fired partisan swiping at the President for failing to move quickly enough related to the pandemic and yet there is little reporting on the stalling done by Nancy and crew for holding up the CARES Act and now the follow-up bill to increase the money available for the economic recovery. And she sent the House members home to shelter in place until May.
So the PPP money will be gone today and thousands of small businesses will be without that help. The follow on bill will likely not be approved for at least two weeks. And the reason? The Democrats in the House led by career-politician Nancy Pelosi cannot let a pandemic-crisis bill go through without adding billions in non-pandemic-related spending. It is disgusting. It is just another example of the economic recovery getting inadequate attention from Democrats. The same is true at the state level.
The House leadership and Mnuchin are negotiating as we speak. I’d expect an agreement shortly. Then the question is whether the Senate Republicans will accept what Mnuchin and the House leadership agree to.
Just read the same.
IMO, any politician attempting to put non pandemic-specific-related spending in a pandemic-related bill should be arrested and imprisoned for theft.
The Republicans should put their foot down this time. Nancy and crew got enough candy the first bill.
Jeff, it will be interesting to see what non essential pork the Democrats will try to attach to the bill.
This is a good program, which should be expanded, but it is only 16% of the total $2.2T in funds. You don’t judge the success of a program by looking only at a small portion of the total.
Why, because the people in those same positions in New York, Los Angeles County, Sonoma County, and the City of Fremont all got it wrong? Just because we have fewer infections doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea here, too. Remember, each infection prevented may stop multiple infections down the line.
Much as I respect Dr. Chapman, I found his argument at the City Council meeting — on not requiring masks in public enclosed spaces — to be weak.
Again, here’s the 10-second cartoon-graphic that changed my behavior from ‘semi-rebellious’ to ‘semi-extreme social distancer’:
https://tinyurl.com/Covid-19-Transmission-Graphic
Because the Yolo County Health officer is the one that issued the regulations that control my business and has the authority to close me down or allow me to remain open.
Doby
“What should we be saying to our youth in their 20s to 40s – as their jobs, their careers, their dreams melt away in real time?”
This is a question I have had to face in my own family. My daughter is a teacher whose current job is secure through electronic education. My son, on the other hand, had built a freelance business as a sports trainer and had built his business to the point where he had the potential to make about 90K per year without being contracted with an individual school or team. He was being offered a school contract when everything collapsed to zero business overnight. Although this is, of course, devastating for him, he had saved and views the situation as an inevitable setback. He understands that his adherence to recommendations may be the difference between life and death for him or more likely for me age 68 and my partner age 71. I did not tell him this. He came to the conclusion that the lives of seniors are worth more than a specified trajectory of his career. He has enrolled in online courses which will ultimately lead to an MS and is doing online credits while he stews.
It looks like part of Newsome’s recovery plan is to give state handouts of our tax money just to illegal immigrants.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/15/gavin-newsom-california-governor-announces-coronav/
Jeff
Honest question from someone not involved in running a small private business. Which do small businesses benefit more from, customers or one time loans? Would it not be more effective from the point of small businesses for all, including themselves, to receive the equivalent of a UBI? With many more unemployed now, would it not be more beneficial to receive a monthly stipend than a one-time bailout until small businesses are able to resume their normal activity including hiring back employees?
UBI is a disastrous idea because it separates people from work.
https://ibb.co/WDCvNzD
Jeff
I realize that is your philosophic belief regarding human nature. You believe ( per our previous conversations) that people will not work if they have government support. And yet I and millions of other people are proof that is not the case.
However, that is not the point I feel you are missing. In the time of COVID-19, in order to save lives, many people are already separated from their work. I see the UBI in this instance as a means to bridge those who are not able to return to outside jobs in the foreseeable future, and indeed may never to able to return to their previous jobs. What is your solution for those folks?
It’s not if ‘people will’ or ‘people will not’. A certain percentage of people – my guess is a large percentage – will not work if they have government support to cover them.
In experience with my own human nature, I collected it once about 30 years ago, and vowed then to avoid unemployment unless I’m literally unable to maintain food and shelter. Why? For the same reason I don’t keep ice cream in the fridge — too easy and too tempting!
Jeff can address this better, but these loans are pretty specifically targeted as I understand them. They help small businesses continue to make payroll and are likely to be turned into grants at the end of the process. So they address a very specific need and are helpful to both the business owners and their employees. Coupled with the extended (and in CA case increased) unemployment benefits, these programs are directed at getting cash out to those who need it and getting spending going again. The question is whether there is enough dollars in the pipeline, and whether some of the other organizations such as hospitals that are facing serious revenue shortfalls can also be included.
The PPP loan amount is basically the total average monthly payroll of all employees capped to not exceed $100,000 x 2.5 (eight weeks). That was the calculation for the amount of time that the federal government expected business to be impacted by the orders to close. There are no loan payments for the first six months. Around the end of that time, the lender will collect information from the borrower to prove that the funds were used for payroll-related expenses. Only 25% can be used for non-payroll related expenses and those are also specified (rent, mortgage interest, utilities, etc.). If 100% is used for eligible expenses, then the federal government will pay back the lender 100% of the loan amount plus interest accrued (1% annual) and the loan if forgiven for the small business. If less than 100% is proven used for eligible expenses, the federal government will forgive and pay off the portion that was confirmed used for eligible expenses, and the borrower will be on the hook for the remainder. In that case the remaining loan will be converted to a 2-year loan at 4% (this last part is being discussed and more guidance will be forthcoming… for example, the loan term might be allowed to be longer and the rate might be allowed to be adjusted based on the loan amt). These loans will all be 100% guaranteed by the federal government. They are no-recourse loans… no collateral, no personal guarantees. The lender is held harmless. If the borrower defaults, the government can refer to Treasury for collection. They would do so if the borrower was a shyster. For example, took a PPP loan and let all the employees go and used the proceeds to buy a house, etc.
The goal of this program is to help small businesses keep their employees on payroll including their health benefits, etc., while they cannot work.
Good for lenders… they will profit… not so much for taxpayers… but, business first, employees second, and taxpayers/consumers last, when and if we get around to it, right, Jeff?
Lenders do not profit much on 1% loans, but they do make some fee revenue… but most is required to offset their costs.
The motivation for most lenders is to:
1. Protect their own clients from financial ruin… which causes bank financial ruin.
2. Do the right thing to save the economy… also to protect from financial ruin.
Bloomberg, 17 April 2020: Small-Business Rescue Shows Not All States Are Created Equal
“‘I’m hard-pressed not to think that this is political,’ said Jackie Speier, a Democratic congresswoman from California, in an April 16 tweet shared more than 10,000 times. ‘Blue states like California got a pathetic number of loans.’ At a press briefing, California Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, said, ‘We’re trying to understand exactly why.’”
A big “duh”… the golden rule… those with riches, power, and axes to grind, get to make the rules… “golden”
The Trump admin just released some of their guidelines for opening up the economy. They sound very reasonable.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/look-guidance-states-coronavirus-221737081.html
More importantly, the Fed Admin has recognized that it is up to the State governors, not “The Donald” and his bullying pulpit… the Admin’s proposal sure looks a lot like what the `west coast and east coast governors came up with… the Fed Admin is “spinning” big time… but managed to come up with a good answer… points awarded…
The current Fed Admin reminds me of the “base” area of his support… the mid-west… where the common expression is, “if you don’t like the weather, wait an hour…”
The good news is we are headed toward prudence, yet progress… but the Feds cannot take much credit in that… but, some…
Seems to me this is almost certainly going to require building walls on the borders of blue states and red states – or more precisely – heavily policed checkpoints on ALL roads between. The different tactics employed between states are going to derail each other if there is free travel across different policy lines.
More good news just out:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/futures-gain-ahead-earnings-reports-102604358.html
“Futures” are ‘derivatives’… gambling, not investments, per se… IMO…
Futures are a great indication of how the market will open tomorrow and they’re currently up 830 points.
830 points? Don’t matter to me. What matters to me is where my stock-related investments are when I retire, and has it all been destroyed anyway by hyper-inflation?
UC Davis has seen very positive results from their remdesivir study.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/uc-davis-remdesivir-trial-shows-early-promise-for-treating-covid-19/
Keith
I saw that too and Robert “attended” a grand rounds on treatment trials last night. At this point in time, remdesivir looks like the best bet for treatment, but it is important to not downplay the preliminary nature of these findings in small studies, involving compassionate care only and no controls. Eagerly following developments in this area.
Tia – why haven’t we solved the lack of testing problem?
David, are there problems in getting 325,000,000 tests manufactured and administered? Is that maybe why this hasn’t happened? I know the initial test took 45 minutes to administer and had to be given by a health care professional. I’m sure we have modernized the test, but is testing 325,000,000 in short order even a possibility?
Honest questions.
Perhaps not. But I would think we could have done more than 1 percent of that by now. I keep hearing the desire to open the economy, the best way to be able to do that would be to identify who is infected.
In the absence of sufficient testing, California won’t meet the criteria set out by the governor by the May 1 date when the Yolo County order comes up for consideration. The state shelter-in-place order is open-ended. I am assuming that these orders will continue into May, perhaps to June, and that removing them will be a gradual process. Big public events aren’t going to be happening at all in 2020, I’d guess.
That’s what LA Mayor Garcetti said.
Personally I think we are going about this the wrong way anyway. We should not be looking at re-opening the economy, we should be looking at pivoting the economy. And making it work under current conditions – now and into the future.
It will never work under current conditions, pivot or not.
What does that mean? Specificity would be great… I understand each of the words, but not the phrase…
In general, I agree with the concept that the goal should not be moving back to our previous economic model. The model of brick and mortar stores, whether large or small, was being eroded long before coronavirus. Automation, online ordering, home food and meal delivery, telecommuting, and telemedicine were already changing our economic landscape.
The current pandemic has certainly highlighted these changes by providing a situation in which these are not only reasonable options to consider but in some cases, necessary safety measures. This provides a strong reason to rethink how public health interacts with our preferred economic models and redesigning both accordingly.
I suggest that health professionals simply lay out what measures need to be taken for public safety, and businesses can adapt themselves in most cases. Some industries will be impacted long-term and will likely need bailouts to help the employees transition to other fields. I expect there will be big fights about bailing out the shareholders, but to some degree that may be unavoidable in the current political environment. Airlines, cruise ship operators, tourism, professional sports, florists, convention services — all are likely to contract substantially over the next many months. That’s a lot of workers who will be dislocated, and a lot of capital lost.
I am not really interested in the government defining the outline of the ‘pivot’. Just tell us how to keep people safe and who is going to enforce that. I don’t think the public wants a revolution right now.
The expectation of “being safe” is ludicrous. ‘Minimizing’ being unsafe is doable.
“Safe” is an absolute, un-attainable… ‘risk’ is not un-attainable, particularly ‘informed risk’…
I agree that big public events will be pushed further out, but if much of the rest of the country starts to reopen it will be hard for Californians to just sit back and watch that.
States that are in coalitions with governors intending to work together as they use evidence-based decision-making about when to gradually reduce limits include California, Oregon, Washington; Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island; and Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, and Indiana.
That is almost exactly half the population of the United States.
It will depend on what’s happening. For instance, sporting events are either going to have to launch without crowds or most believe they will not be able to restart until 2021. I’m going to guess we see crowdless sports at some point.
And crowdless concerts 😉
Several large tours that were scheduled from mid-March through August are now reschedule to September 1st onward. Very early in the lockdown, I bought tickets to three large Bay Area shows of world tours of foreign artists, and a smaller Sac show. I now realize with Ticketmaster’s new refund policy, this was probably all foolish and ploy to keep the cash flowing and the concerts ‘on the books’ so they don’t have to return all that cash, only to defer the concerts again to 2021, possibly beyond some of these artist’s life-ability to tour (i.e. some of them are old), especially as some of the older ones would be fools to tour before there is a vaccine. There is no way a large world tour can take place when the U.S. coasts cannot accept them. Can you imagine the fallout were a famous older musician to die of CV while on a premature world tour?
The overall public remains on board – but the very far right, not so much. How that plays out will be interesting
” but the very far right, not so much.”
And that is their right. I am encouraging Keith and Jeff to get out there with their far right compatriots and shake hands, share food, even hug and kiss. Yes, I am willing for them to sacrifice their lives to prove their point. Show us how silly these social distancing protocols really are and in a few weeks we should have a much smarter electorate.
John Hobbs comment is inappropriate on several levels and against Vanguard rules.
I’m sure Nancy Pelosi smartened up the electorate of San Francisco when she encouraged large groups of her liberal followers go to Chinatown just as Mayor De Blasio did the same for liberal New Yorkers telling them to take the subway and attend parades all during this pandemic.
KO, all the better to leave these up. Let each Rebecca De Mornay die on their own white picket fence.
An excellent set of guidelines for relaxing the current state and reopening society by Dr. Harvey Fineberg can be found on Medium .com.
The 4 Kingdom Laws For Overcoming Crisis | Dr. Myles Munroe
170,009 views
Feb 10, 2019
https://youtu.be/JkypuyT5VGI
There is an ‘industry’ that relies on unemployment benefits… the construction industry… particularly in states where seasonal (winter) weather is not conducive to construction… construction folk in cold climes work A LOT during good weather (lots of OT, etc.)… then they are ‘laid off’ and collect unemployment during inclement weather… and “re-hired” (same employer) next construction season… has been that way for at least 40 years… still is… SOP…
I was pretty sure Keith promised to never return for the seventh or eighth time last week. Just shows what his word is worth. I love it when snowflakes melt.
Jerry’s link is from a dead nutjob Bahamian preacher who’s plane crashed.
Reporting both for off-topic comments.
Probably because Don “undeleted” Keith’s comments on that day (of which there was nothing “wrong”), and David asked him to reconsider.
Gov. Newsom just tapped Tom Steyer, who couldn’t even hardly get 1% of Democrats to vote for him and seems to only care about the Green New Deal and social injustice to chair his economic recovery team. What could go wrong there? Never waste a good crisis.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gov-gavin-newsom-unveils-recovery-200359104.html
It’s a good move because Steyer has a strong business background, but more importantly understands the need to shift the economy during the climate crisis. I’ll explain a lot more in my commentary tomorrow. But talking to people yesterday, they are excited by this – by people I mean in industry and economic development.
Tom Steyer made his money as a hedge fund manager which I thought liberals detested. Now is definitely not the time to saddle already reeling Californians with the high cost of the Green New Deal and and the wealth transfer involved with social injustice.
He’s a leader in the climate change movement, he understands business, and most importantly he understands that we cannot simply go back to the old economy. One example – a lot of people can do their work just as well from home, so why drive the miles every day when perhaps they could come into the office once and the rest of the time meet via zoom? Think about how much money you save – less gas, less wear on the car, less traffic, less pollution… It’s a win across the board? So why not invest in the infrastructure to transition to that? That’s the conversation going on.
BTW, you are focused on Steyer, did you see the full committee? I mean leaders on both sides of the aisle, business leaders conservative and liberal. It looks like a strong group.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Task-Force-on-Business-and-Jobs-Recovery.pdf
I saw some of the names, some okay and others like the inept recalled Gray Davis and Arnold who we all know is a joke to name a few. But Tom Steyer is the chairman, so I think focus on him is called for.
Yes it does save some money, gas and other costs but it also causes a loss of productivity from the workers. I’ve read estimates that home based workers cost companies 10 to 20% in productivity. Too many distractions and too easy to mess around at home.
Keith
One of my former points was that not everyone was going to agree with the choices of experts. This would seem to demonstrate that point. First, you and Jeff were bemoaning the lack of an economic plan. Now faced with the fact that there is a team and a plan being developed, your tactic is not to wait and see if the plan is both valid and strong enough but rather to just criticize who Newsom chose.
All I have to see is who’s chairing the commission to know where it’s going. Tom Steyer is not the guy we need right now. Heck, Democrats didn’t even like him, he only garnered about 1% of the primary vote.
Another question, what was so wrong with the CA economy that it needs to be changed. It was going at a great pace and umemployment was at all time lows before the current crisis. Why mess with a good thing? I know, don’t waste a crisis, right?
Keith – I would argue he is exactly what we need.
We still drive and physically go to work, sometimes over a long distance, as though it were still 1990. We were not prepared to handle the current crisis. We are not prepared to handle the next crisis. We have just had a major disruption to the economy – no reason to go back to 1990.
Who would’ve ever thought that we would be facing something of this magnitude? Maybe we could’ve had more health supplies on hand but economically how would anyone have prepared for this? Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy.
Another point Keith, before you said that people were 20 percent less productive. One thing I would point out is that it takes some adjustment to change, so that might not be a permanent condition. But the second point I would make is how much is that extra 20 percent costing us? How much time do people spend commuting? How much cost in terms of cars, gas mileage, wear and tear, new roads, infrastructure the like. It may be that whatever the loss in production can be made up in other ways. Why are you not more forward-thinking here? Should we continue to do business like it’s pre-internet?
You’re concentrating on people now working from home who have kept their jobs and their pay. They’re not the problem, it’s the other 10’s of millions who can’t work from home. It’s the businesses that can’t send their people home to work and have to shut down. I have no problem with people working from home who can.
My view is you start with the people who can transition where they work and how they work. Then you re-think how the other industries can shift. And then the people who can’t work from home, you figure out in this instance how you can protect them, in the future how you can reduce car trips.
Who is the “you” in this formula?
Just a generic pronoun – probably policy leaders at various levels
Trump? I’m just guessing…
Pretty funny. I’m thinking that he might “volunteer” to do so, regardless.
It’s surprising, regarding the number of comments the topic of this article (over which there’s no local control) has generated.
Meanwhile, the articles regarding the solar lease have generated few comments (perhaps because it’s already well-explained).
Keith
“Another question, what was so wrong with the CA economy that it needs to be changed.
Really? Have you not been following the discussion, largely driven by local businessmen and women about the need to 1. Reinvigorate our local business opportunity climate 2. Build innovation centers 3. Move innovation from the university into the private sector 4. Grow, grow, grow? Because I seem to remember this being a major theme over the past decade.
We’re all talking about the state and you’re talking about Davis.
It’s a recurring “theme” of the blog that you (for some unexplained reason) support.
Bill
““Safe” is an absolute, un-attainable… ‘risk’ is not un-attainable, particularly ‘informed risk’…”
There is another layer of complexity here. Many people will behave in a “safer” manner if they perceive themselves as being at direct risk. It is another thing to ask people to behave in a “safer” manner when they believe only others are a risk. In pandemic circumstances, it is critical to bridge this gap in levels of concern and for people to act in accordance with the welfare of all.
Substitute the word, “ask” to “compel”, “require”, “sanction/punish” [which is the trend line we’ve been seeing… OK… get your apparent drift…]…
I believe in being prudent… and respect/concerns for others… but, maybe you don’t realize how your profession is locking out “”elective procedures” that will only get worse over time…