Economic Conditions - Nashville, TN, U.S., Global

[Nash_12South]

1 hour ago, Nashvillain said:

It's possible that the protest marches lead to a spike in infections, but a huge difference between the protesters and ALL the people packing bars on Lower Broadway--and in Midtown apparently--is that the vast majority of the protesters are wearing masks.

And it appears that there is at least circumstantial evidence that masks make a difference:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/world/asia/japan-coronavirus-masks.html

I'm not speaking to wearing masks or if the rallies relate to a spike in infections. I don't think the rallies started a spike.  Either you ban large gatherings or you don't. My nonmedical opinion - you gather a thousand+ at these packed rallies you're increasing the chances pretty much like gathering 100's in a bar, masks or not.

If wearing masks makes mass gatherings ok, then lets start up all our sporting events again, churches too. Let the symphony reopen. Ask everyone to wear masks, like the rallies, and we'll be fine. I'm not really serious on that point.....

Edited June 15, 2020 by Nash_12South

[markhollin]

52 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

 

 lets start up all our sporting events again, churches too. Let the symphony reopen. Ask everyone to wear masks, like the rallies, and we'll be fine. 

Let's give the Symphony and other entities some credit for surveying and hearing responses from their clientele.  A large percentage of their base is made up of older citizens who are still quite concerned about Covid-19 (with good reason). Additionally, if they were going to try and set up social distancing, it was going to move a lot of folks around from the season ticket seats that they have had  for a long time, and I'm sure there was pushback on that as well.

The Predators are having similar discussions.  I was told by my season ticket rep that at least 1/3 of the people (including me) will NOT be re-upping on their season tickets until a vaccine is in circulation.  Another 1/3 on on the fence.  And they are definitely having headaches trying to figure out how to seat fans who would choose to come 6 feet apart from each other.

[Nash_12South]

8 minutes ago, markhollin said:

Let's give the Symphony and other entities some credit for surveying and hearing responses from their clientele.  A large percentage of their base is made up of older citizens who are still quite concerned about Covid-19 (with good reason). Additionally, if they were going to try and set up social distancing, it was going to move a lot of folks around from the season ticket seats that they have had  for a long time, and I'm sure there was pushback on that as well.

The Predators are having similar discussions.  I was told by my season ticket rep that at least 1/3 of the people (including me) will NOT be re-upping on their season tickets until a vaccine is in circulation.  Another 1/3 on on the fence.  And they are definitely having headaches trying to figure out how to seat fans who would choose to come 6 feet apart from each other.

My intent is not to actually advocate for the symphony and sporting events to start up. I totally see the reasoning for slow walking things. I just don't see that wearing  masks makes the mass gatherings at rallies permissible. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Nash_12South

[MidTenn1]

2 minutes ago, Nash_12South said:

My intent is not to actually advocate for the symphony and sporting events to start up. I totally see the reasoning for slow walking things. I just don't see that wearing  masks makes the mass gatherings at rallies permissible. 

I think the First Amendment does.

[titanhog]

2 hours ago, PHofKS said:

I think the First Amendment does.

And again...they shut down churches, also protected under the First Amendment.  So...it's a "pick and choose" type thing.  You can understand why people are confused.

[ruraljuror]

51 minutes ago, titanhog said:

And again...they shut down churches, also protected under the First Amendment.  So...it's a "pick and choose" type thing.  You can understand why people are confused.

The First Amendment (and all of the amendments for that matter) are not as cut and dried as people generally think.  Most people are aware of the exception to free speech as it pertains to imminent danger, which forbids shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example, but there are a number of different standards and exceptions that are applied to any possible restriction on these amendments that the Supreme Court has been refining for more than 200 years. 

With regard to churches being closed for a pandemic, this is an easy case. No specific religions were singled out and the gathering restrictions were tailored fairly narrowly as to not impose an undue burden on religious institutions that was not experienced by other non-religious institutions.  This would be a slam dunk case to uphold the pandemic restrictions were a challenge to reach the Supreme Court.

Think of it this way, if a church building were condemned because of structural integrity issues, the church members wouldn't have much of an argument to make that the city's rules about structural integrity were specifically targeting them or unduly imposing on their free exercise of religion.  The same would happen if a church were so infested with rats that a Health Inspector condemned the property. This is all settled law. 

Protests, on the other hand, have a heightened standard to meet in order for governments to lawfully restrict or inhibit them because the very nature of protest is against the government, so we (as a country of laws) don't want the government to be able to shut down protests that are counter to the governments interests without a really compelling interest in doing so.  In order for the government to infringe on the people's right to assemble in public streets for the purpose of protesting government action especially, there must be a clearly stated, and very compelling reason that's narrowly tailored to the situation, and the government gets little to no benefit of the doubt in these cases since the government is what is being protested.

All that to say, I understand why people want to equate the church restrictions to the absences of protest restrictions, but these are very different issues in the eyes of the law. Of course, the law doesn't always live up to our ideals and there are plenty of instances where it has been misapplied (i.e. the "free speech" zones of the early Patriot Act era), but I would hope that we could all recognize why different standards are applied to different First Amendment infringement cases, and acknowledge that there are good, just reasons for doing so. 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by ruraljuror

[titanhog]

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

The First Amendment (and all of the amendments for that matter) are not as cut and dried as people generally think.  Most people are aware of the exception to free speech as it pertains to imminent danger, which forbids shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example, but there are a number of different standards and exceptions that are applied to any possible restriction on these amendments that the Supreme Court has been refining for more than 200 years. 

With regard to churches being closed for a pandemic, this is an easy case. No specific religions were singled out and the gathering restrictions were tailored fairly narrowly as to not impose an undue burden on religious institutions that was not experienced by other non-religious institutions.  This would be a slam dunk case to uphold the pandemic restrictions were a challenge to reach the Supreme Court.

Think of it this way, if a church building were condemned because of structural integrity issues, the church members wouldn't have much of an argument to make that the city's rules about structural integrity were specifically targeting them or unduly imposing on their free exercise of religion.  The same would happen if a church were so infested with rats that a Health Inspector condemned the property. This is all settled law. 

Protests, on the other hand, have a heightened standard to meet in order for governments to lawfully restrict or inhibit them because the very nature of protest is against the government, so we (as a country of laws) don't want the government to be able to shut down protests that are counter to the governments interests without a really compelling interest in doing so.  In order for the government to infringe on the people's right to assemble in public streets for the purpose of protesting government action especially, there must be a clearly stated, and very compelling reason that's narrowly tailored to the situation, and the government gets little to no benefit of the doubt in these cases since the government is what is being protested.

All that to say, I understand why people want to equate the church restrictions to the absences of protest restrictions, but these are very different issues in the eyes of the law. Of course, the law doesn't always live up to our ideals and there are plenty of instances where it has been misapplied (i.e. the "free speech" zones of the early Patriot Act era), but I would hope that we could all recognize why different standards are applied to different First Amendment infringement cases, and acknowledge that there are good, just reasons for doing so. 

 

I think what you are saying is mostly subjective...I do not believe it would hold up in the Supreme Court to prohibit churches, mosques, synagogues, etc from their 1st Amendment rights.  It's one thing to ask religious organizations to take into consideration the virus and the possibility of spreading it...but that same thing can be said for protestors.    I think many churches would decide on their own to do something to protect their members...but to police them and threaten to arrest anyone who worships at a church (which they did in some states)...while allowing protests, stores (grocers, Walmart, Home Depot), gun sellers, abortion clinics, etc) to be open is wrong. .  Most religious groups are still prohibited from 100% allowance...even with masks.

It's purely a choice of governments to make this decision...and I believe it would not hold up in the Supreme Court.

[SoundScan]

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

...

With regard to churches being closed for a pandemic, this is an easy case. No specific religions were singled out and the gathering restrictions were tailored fairly narrowly as to not impose an undue burden on religious institutions that was not experienced by other non-religious institutions.  This would be a slam dunk case to uphold the pandemic restrictions were a challenge to reach the Supreme Court.

...

Protests, on the other hand, have a heightened standard to meet in order for governments to lawfully restrict or inhibit them because the very nature of protest is against the government, so we (as a country of laws) don't want the government to be able to shut down protests that are counter to the governments interests without a really compelling interest in doing so.  In order for the government to infringe on the people's right to assemble in public streets for the purpose of protesting government action especially, there must be a clearly stated, and very compelling reason that's narrowly tailored to the situation, and the government gets little to no benefit of the doubt in these cases since the government is what is being protested.

...

 

A bit of recency bias here. Governments are certainly not the exclusive target of protest in this country. As well, public protest carries the same imminent threat restrictions--I disagree that there is a "heightened standard" versus other forms of protected speech. The government can and has legally regulated protests and can impose reasonable restrictions on the place, time, and manner of protest. Could governments substantiate a claim that gatherings of tens or hundreds of churchgoers presents an imminent threat to public safety but a gathering of hundreds or thousands in the streets does not? I don't think so.

Regarding restrictions being applied fairly or evenly, perhaps they were in Tennessee, but this is certainly not the case in many states or municipalities. In California, restaurants, shopping centers, offices, and other non-essential gathering places were allowed to open, but not churches--even when agreeing to follow the same social distancing requirements. In Mississippi, they banned drive-in religious services but not drive-in restaurants. In New Mexico, a court held up restrictions against religious institutions, saying "the public's interest in limiting the COVID-19 outbreak in the state, a compelling interest, outweighs the right to gather"--a compelling interest that apparently did not extend to other non-essential services in the state. There are plenty of others, and I think one could easily argue that these restrictions were discriminatory.

I can't say I'd be as confident in the "slam dunk case" assumption.

[satalac]

11 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

I'm not speaking to wearing masks or if the rallies relate to a spike in infections. I don't think the rallies started a spike.  Either you ban large gatherings or you don't. My nonmedical opinion - you gather a thousand+ at these packed rallies you're increasing the chances pretty much like gathering 100's in a bar, masks or not.

If wearing masks makes mass gatherings ok, then lets start up all our sporting events again, churches too. Let the symphony reopen. Ask everyone to wear masks, like the rallies, and we'll be fine. I'm not really serious on that point.....

You have to look at the context of if though. One large gathering is protesting the injustice of an entire race. The other large gathering is people....drinking. One seems to have a bit more weight.  Sure, one could make the argument that it's not fair across the board, but one feels a lot more important than the other. It's like letting some businesses remain open because they were deemed essential. The protests in this same vein are more essential. 

[Nash_12South]

Good gosh, I did not mean to stir up debates on First Amendment rights or anything beyond expressing the wish the city could move on to Phase 3. That’s the extent of it. 

[Jarno]

16 hours ago, satalac said:

You have to look at the context of if though. One large gathering is protesting the injustice of an entire race. The other large gathering is people....drinking. One seems to have a bit more weight.  Sure, one could make the argument that it's not fair across the board, but one feels a lot more important than the other. It's like letting some businesses remain open because they were deemed essential. The protests in this same vein are more essential. 

If we are going to use the standard of which one feels more right, who feelings will  be used to determine which protests, rallies or business's are considered essential?

[DDIG]

16 hours ago, satalac said:

You have to look at the context of if though. One large gathering is protesting the injustice of an entire race. The other large gathering is people....drinking. One seems to have a bit more weight.  Sure, one could make the argument that it's not fair across the board, but one feels a lot more important than the other. It's like letting some businesses remain open because they were deemed essential. The protests in this same vein are more essential. 

I'm not anti-protest, but you are short selling the other side. Yes the Broadway bars are the loudest, but it goes much deeper than that. Stifling businesses reduces  jobs to all people of all colors, reduces tax revenue that funds schools and social programs, impacts mental health of the larger community, etc. 

Anyway - here's what I'm buying folks. New positive cases today are not equal to new positive cases weeks or a month ago. The hospitalization numbers are backing that up.

A month ago, the only people getting tests were people sick, seeking it out, or people in the hospital with symptoms or other conditions. Most every testing positive was symptomatic resulting in more cases that will potentially escalate.

Now we chase. We test manufacturing facilities, prisons, nursing homes, every person getting a procedure that had been delayed, etc. That results in finding more cases, but we know for a fact a large percentage of people go asymptomatic, so with those larger numbers comes new cases that are significantly less sick as a percentage than previous new case loads.

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by DDIG

[markhollin]

Vanderbilt officials announced Tuesday that in-person, on-campus undergraduate classes will begin on Aug. 24 and will conclude on Nov. 20 and  will take no fall break.

More behind the Nashville Post paywall here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/education/vanderbilt-university/article/21137422/vanderbilt-will-resume-inperson-classes-in-august

[grilled_cheese]

Are people making the same, more or less in regards to working vs unemployment?

[DDIG]

5 minutes ago, grilled_cheese said:

Are people making the same, more or less in regards to working vs unemployment?

Many are certainly making more with the $600 weekly federal supplement for the time being. 

[21jump]

2 hours ago, DDIG said:

Many are certainly making more with the $600 weekly federal supplement for the time being. 

In California, state unemployment is $450 + $600 federal. My job opened back up about three weeks ago and we've had a tough time staffing up since most of our employees (ages 18-25) are content sitting at home collecting $1050 a week to do nothing. By law, we had to offer everyone their job back before looking for new employees and I'd say about 60-70% said they don't want to come back just yet. They're going to be in for a surprise when federal money runs out and they're out of a job.

[DDIG]

24 minutes ago, 21jump said:

In California, state unemployment is $450 + $600 federal. My job opened back up about three weeks ago and we've had a tough time staffing up since most of our employees (ages 18-25) are content sitting at home collecting $1050 a week to do nothing. By law, we had to offer everyone their job back before looking for new employees and I'd say about 60-70% said they don't want to come back just yet. They're going to be in for a surprise when federal money runs out and they're out of a job.

Can't you also lose unemployment if you are offered your job back and refuse?

[MLBrumby]

4 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Can't you also lose unemployment if you are offered your job back and refuse?

Affirmative!

[21jump]

4 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Can't you also lose unemployment if you are offered your job back and refuse?

Yes, but there is a huge backlog in the state communicating with individual employers. Most likely, they wont get "caught" until later on this year or in 2021, at which point they'll have to repay their unemployment benefits.

[DDIG]

3 minutes ago, 21jump said:

Yes, but there is a huge backlog in the state communicating with individual employers. Most likely, they wont get "caught" until later on this year or in 2021, at which point they'll have to repay their unemployment benefits.

That would be a painful double whammy if you are asked to give your money back and can't get that job (or a similar one) back.

[grilled_cheese]

I'd rather people sit at home and make more money than Gov HVAC force a reopen so the state doesn't have to pay people.

[satalac]

18 hours ago, Jarno said:

If we are going to use the standard of which one feels more right, who feelings will  be used to determine which protests, rallies or business's are considered essential?

I mean it's not if we are going to, it's actually happening now. It's those who are in power and who they're willing to listen to. We've never had a completely fair system. There's always going to be someone on the other side of a decision.

[Craiger]

19 hours ago, DDIG said:

I'm not anti-protest, but you are short selling the other side. Yes the Broadway bars are the loudest, but it goes much deeper than that. Stifling businesses reduces  jobs to all people of all colors, reduces tax revenue that funds schools and social programs, impacts mental health of the larger community, etc. 

Anyway - here's what I'm buying folks. New positive cases today are not equal to new positive cases weeks or a month ago. The hospitalization numbers are backing that up.

A month ago, the only people getting tests were people sick, seeking it out, or people in the hospital with symptoms or other conditions. Most every testing positive was symptomatic resulting in more cases that will potentially escalate.

Now we chase. We test manufacturing facilities, prisons, nursing homes, every person getting a procedure that had been delayed, etc. That results in finding more cases, but we know for a fact a large percentage of people go asymptomatic, so with those larger numbers comes new cases that are significantly less sick as a percentage than previous new case loads.

 

Hospitalization is a lagging indicator. You don’t get sick one day, go get tested the next, and on the 3rd day go to the hospital. I think it does make sense for somewhat reduced hospitizations as those going out are more likely to be younger and healthier since the disease is now well known whereas at the beginning at risk individuals were out and about just as much.

[DDIG]

31 minutes ago, Craiger said:

Hospitalization is a lagging indicator. You don’t get sick one day, go get tested the next, and on the 3rd day go to the hospital. I think it does make sense for somewhat reduced hospitizations as those going out are more likely to be younger and healthier since the disease is now well known whereas at the beginning at risk individuals were out and about just as much.

Right. I think it was also clarified that while there has been an uptick in hospitalizations, not a corresponding uptick in ICU usage. So goes back to virus going through healthier population - and also better understanding of treatment practices. Also US only had around 700 deaths yesterday which is one of the lowest Tuesdays in a long time (Tuesday is usually very bad due to weekend lag).

[satalac]

1 hour ago, DDIG said:

Right. I think it was also clarified that while there has been an uptick in hospitalizations, not a corresponding uptick in ICU usage. So goes back to virus going through healthier population - and also better understanding of treatment practices. Also US only had around 700 deaths yesterday which is one of the lowest Tuesdays in a long time (Tuesday is usually very bad due to weekend lag).

I've honestly been surprised at how low the death rate is in TN compared to other states. We've always scored poorly on overall health, which pre-existing health issues seem to be a big factor in death from COVID. I wonder if that has to do with the quality of hospitals in the state.