The Trouble with Tesla

[Cal]

So it all started with a small little Pandemic.
Tesla had to shut down production at the only plant that can make a complete Tesla car.

Elon wasn't happy about this. His company was almost profitable, he was hitting his stride, all was well. Then he had to shut down production, the one thing that makes him money just ended abruptly, and suddenly his company had a clock with the minutes running down.

Tesla was surely spending quite a lot, and we know they didn't have that much in the bank. I would guess someone sat down and did some napkin math and told Elon they had to be making cars around June, maybe July in order to not sink.

Enter right Reopen America, an astroturfing campaign financed by an unknown wealthy person. The campaign appealed to a new target demographic of Tesla, American Conservatives. Shortly after the campaign saw success Musk shared his support and began promoting this idea.

Spoiler: Reopen America Sidenote

Listen to the doctors. Politicians are not doctors. Billionaires are not doctors. If the doctors say stay home, stay home.

Elon fully leaned into this. Many thought "Elon only wants to Reopen America because he wants to increase his stock price" and dismissed his support as selfish.

Here's where the big brain comes in:
Open twitter "stock price is too high imo" oh, he doesn't care about the stock price, Elon is really trying to do what he thinks is the right thing. Wrong.
Tesla was likely nearing the point where they really needed to start making cars, and this radical action would in the short term hurt, but, it would hurt way less than Tesla running out of money and moving into the real dangerous staying afloat measures.

During all of this; he's having a kid. Another opportunity to make a play. Make a scene about it, maybe give it a crazy name so everyone knows he just had a kid. Investors ever wise will dismiss that crazy tweet he made as a lapse in judgement because he is stressed about the kid.

Still no budge, can't make cars. City government ever altruistic is putting public health first. They can afford to stay shut. Elon can't.

"I'll move to Texas if you don't let me make cars" this is a last ditch effort. Everyone knows he can't do that. They can barely make cars as is, he can't afford to move, train new staff and shut down the factory to move equipment. City Gov. saw straight through it and didn't budge.

Alright then, I'm going it illegally. The factory parking lot curiously was partially full yesterday, they've already started preparing to start the lines again.

Elon is out of cards. But may as well take advantage of this one too. Everyone loves the underdog, "Bella ciao!" I'll make a scene of it. Tell them to arrest me. Every billionaire should have a mugshot.
This will rally the people who supported the (my) astroturfing campaign and maybe I'll get some more Tesla Truck reservations.

Now to play bookie on what will happen next.
10% odds they go bankrupt in the next month. We don't really know how bad it is, but it can't be great. It's possible.
Another 20% they go bankrupt if the economy stays bad and no one can afford to buy a Tesla.

Nice play Elon, very clever.

 

[MTG]

Rich people don't care about people.
Businessmen don't care about their employees.
Don't think that a businessman who does public PR Stunts to gain love makes him better than one who doesn't.

 

[Ally]

It's funny because his devout followers will defend each of his actions against the measures that the outbreak has forced everyone to take. He's not alone in this but the problem is with him, and a great many other people, is that he thinks that he is allowed to be an exception just because he owns a big company or is rich or has some complex, whatever. Fact of the matter is the US has a stupid amount of COVID cases and they should be doing everything to prevent it - not protect their shares. Everyone everywhere is suffering, and Musk especially isn't an exception.

Some of the Tweets I've seen with regards to Elon and COVID are simply horrible and will get people killed. I used to respect Musk. But his "freedom" tweet made me question his merit. His further tweets just killed it for me really.

But for people who still don't understand: Quarantine isn't about you, it never was. It was about protecting the vulnerable so THEY don't get hurt or dead. Because I don't want my Dad or my Grandma or Mum or whoever kicking the bucket when they still have life in them yet. Yet people are going through this because of other people's stupidity. Please just stay home and get your essentials, whatever you need. You can't leave your homes - so what? Everyone else is going through it with you. And maybe at the end of it you might just have a family member left to give a hug.

 

[Scroll32]

Though I think the facts are interesting about Tesla the one point about not opening the Economy up is I think a little bit over the top. I think it would be fair to argue that the economical impact would be worse then the health impact. Anyway thats just my two cents and as far as Tesla going bankrupt it depends if they will be allowed to do limited production in the coming weeks to at least get in the swing of things.

 

[Ally]

economical impact would be worse then the health impact

Can't get money if you're dead though.

 

[Scroll32]

Can't get money if you're dead though.

True, but if you don't have enough money to get the essentials you need you could also possibly die. Not to mention that depression and suicide will also increase due to the economic disaster. There has to be a balance, like open the economy with social distancing guidelines in place to limit the spread.

 

[Cal]

True, but if you don't have enough money to get the essentials you need you could also possibly die. Not to mention that depression and suicide will also increase due to the economic disaster. There has to be a balance, like open the economy with social distancing guidelines in place to limit the spread.

This has already been answered.
There is established processes for determining the cost of a life in economics, the answer of what costs more; x many people dying because of COVID or shutting down the economy has definitively been said to be letting the people die and so we shut down the economy.
As soon as that math changes, the restrictions will too. But it hasn't so they shouldn't change.

I may of gone too far by saying they'll go bankrupt, maybe instead the words "facing significant financial troubles" may of been more appropriate for what may happen.

I would also like to point out this
Keep this idea in mind right about now.

 

[Innings]

this brat thinks he owns a tesla bc hes top of mcm, fucken clown

he's not top of mcm, lol

 

[Scroll32]

This has already been answered.
There is established processes for determining the cost of a life in economics, the answer of what costs more; x many people dying because of COVID or shutting down the economy has definitively been said to be letting the people die and so we shut down the economy.
As soon as that math changes, the restrictions will too. But it hasn't so they shouldn't change.

I would also like to point out this
Keep this idea in mind right about now.

Though I think you have a view valid points there are some things you fail to address (Please note I didn't get the time to listen to your whole audio so if I missed a point I apologize for that). To start off, from the graph you showed it states new cases and business as usual. Yes, the cases will go up a little bit with these measures but the physiological impacts of people are not stated in that. Also, there are lots of people that are dying due to a lot of different reasons yet there is no intervening from the government. For example, after doing some brief research there were 650,000 deaths of heart disease in 2017 (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#heart-disease) yet we don't see the government forcing people to not eat certain foods or forcing exercise or anything like that. Then there is also the fact that 66% of the admissions that were in New York were from people who sheltered in their homes (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-...hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html). My point is to not go out to concerts and sporting events and try to spread the disease as fast as possible, but to be able to have compromise to limit damage to the economy but also make sure it is done in a safe way.

 

[User]

all i'm going to say is that elon musk's financial/business decisions in the past have been very interesting

 

[sock]

all i'm going to say is that elon musk's financial/business decisions in the past have been very interesting

and this is why you have 7,000 posts... contribute to the conversation or just don't talk on every thread.

Cal At what point of economic failure should we reopen then? It's a whole cluster F because there is a cycle to business as you should know. If we instill total economic standstill (short of absolute essentials) then there will be plenty of people who end up losing much more. For example, if you run a small business, that may take care of you 100% and you might not have a backup fund... well you still need to pay rent because your landlord/property manager makes his livelihood from that... so he can't stop collecting his payments, therefore businesses still need to make those expense payments. Additionally, any workers in the business/store front have now been let go or gone to 0 hours... meaning their livelihood is gone as well. Not to mention property maintenance, upkeep, custodial, etc.

So at some point $1,200 from the gov (which a huge portion of americans still have not received...) is not going to work long-term. At some point we will hit an absolute need to basic business operations, whilst still taking precautions and such. If you're at risk, don't go to home depot... but if you run a contracting company and you need to work because you're fixing the house down the street who had a tree take out an entire side wall... then I would argue it makes more sense to let these healthy individuals keep earning their living rather than putting a beaurocratic lockdown on everyone. We shouldn't compare ourselves to countries that don't provide the same level of living and freedom... sure other countries are doing great because of their lockdowns and such, but you can't compare apples to oranges - we're a completely different system.

 

[Lotus]

Though I think you have a view valid points there are some things you fail to address (Please note I didn't get the time to listen to your whole audio so if I missed a point I apologize for that). To start off, from the graph you showed it states new cases and business as usual. Yes, the cases will go up a little bit with these measures but the physiological impacts of people are not stated in that. Also, there are lots of people that are dying due to a lot of different reasons yet there is no intervening from the government. For example, after doing some brief research there were 650,000 deaths of heart disease in 2017 (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#heart-disease) yet we don't see the government forcing people to not eat certain foods or forcing exercise or anything like that. Then there is also the fact that 66% of the admissions that were in New York were from people who sheltered in their homes (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-...hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html). My point is to not go out to concerts and sporting events and try to spread the disease as fast as possible, but to be able to have compromise to limit damage to the economy but also make sure it is done in a safe way.

These restrictions have always been about “flattening the curve”. Hospitals were prepared to handle all these cardiac cases, which unfortunately can lead to deaths. COVID is just that infectious that hospitals will fill up beyond their capacity without restrictions, and once that happens the death toll will get much higher than all the unrelated deaths your brief research entailed as people are left without care.

Everyone gets the short-term “lock-down, stop the spread”. But what’s the long term effects of it?

It allows us to reopen in parts. You used the lockdown time to get procedures, prepare dedicated hospitals, upgrade testing abilities by a lot, set up monitoring. Have the system ready to track and trace new infection spots, and start relaxing things in bits. Beaches with capacity, hairdressers by appointment. Make sure work places can figure out rules and spacing particularly for industrial jobs. Upgrade PPE production as much as possible. Set up hostels for infected and others for not infected who need it.

A month gave us a lot of time to prepare, learn things, implement things. Then start reopening crucial things and keep testing testing testing and tracking. It is a whole different scenario if person A catches this next month, and B in July and C in November, or if they all catch it next week.

It gives us time to try to figure out what works, what does not work, what we need. Ventilators probably are not that important, early oxygen might be. Hemodialysis turns out is very very important. Some drugs do not seem to work at all, others might be really important. Once we have the cure all vaccination, great! But until then, we depend on our hospitals to fully function and provide care for us all, and that means doing our part in reducing the stressed workload they already experience.

- Half of this post is derived from a Reddit comment that I recall, but I don’t remember where as a reference to the source.

 

[NoahX]

Off-Topic a little, I own a Tesla and to think they may shut down is scary cause the software updates would be discontinued. At the end of the day numbers, and money run everything so I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.

 

[User]

and this is why you have 7,000 posts... contribute to the conversation or just don't talk on every thread.

Cal At what point of economic failure should we reopen then? It's a whole cluster F because there is a cycle to business as you should know. If we instill total economic standstill (short of absolute essentials) then there will be plenty of people who end up losing much more. For example, if you run a small business, that may take care of you 100% and you might not have a backup fund... well you still need to pay rent because your landlord/property manager makes his livelihood from that... so he can't stop collecting his payments, therefore businesses still need to make those expense payments. Additionally, any workers in the business/store front have now been let go or gone to 0 hours... meaning their livelihood is gone as well. Not to mention property maintenance, upkeep, custodial, etc.

So at some point $1,200 from the gov (which a huge portion of americans still have not received...) is not going to work long-term. At some point we will hit an absolute need to basic business operations, whilst still taking precautions and such. If you're at risk, don't go to home depot... but if you run a contracting company and you need to work because you're fixing the house down the street who had a tree take out an entire side wall... then I would argue it makes more sense to let these healthy individuals keep earning their living rather than putting a beaurocratic lockdown on everyone. We shouldn't compare ourselves to countries that don't provide the same level of living and freedom... sure other countries are doing great because of their lockdowns and such, but you can't compare apples to oranges - we're a completely different system.

i have 7,000 posts because i want to post, not write an essay

 

[Cal]

and this is why you have 7,000 posts... contribute to the conversation or just don't talk on every thread.

Cal At what point of economic failure should we reopen then? It's a whole cluster F because there is a cycle to business as you should know. If we instill total economic standstill (short of absolute essentials) then there will be plenty of people who end up losing much more. For example, if you run a small business, that may take care of you 100% and you might not have a backup fund... well you still need to pay rent because your landlord/property manager makes his livelihood from that... so he can't stop collecting his payments, therefore businesses still need to make those expense payments. Additionally, any workers in the business/store front have now been let go or gone to 0 hours... meaning their livelihood is gone as well. Not to mention property maintenance, upkeep, custodial, etc.

So at some point $1,200 from the gov (which a huge portion of americans still have not received...) is not going to work long-term. At some point we will hit an absolute need to basic business operations, whilst still taking precautions and such. If you're at risk, don't go to home depot... but if you run a contracting company and you need to work because you're fixing the house down the street who had a tree take out an entire side wall... then I would argue it makes more sense to let these healthy individuals keep earning their living rather than putting a beaurocratic lockdown on everyone. We shouldn't compare ourselves to countries that don't provide the same level of living and freedom... sure other countries are doing great because of their lockdowns and such, but you can't compare apples to oranges - we're a completely different system.

I'm not an economist, so I can't give you my own number for when the economic losses outweigh deaths.
So here is an article from the MIT Technology Review and their associated economists.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both/
They've done the math. They have worked with doctors to model expected infection rates under different circumstances, how much each of those scenarios will cost in lost economic activity and the cost of putting into place different measures.
They didn't make the decision to shut down the economy on a whim. They had the price of each option on the table when they made the call. I would guess this one was the cheapest.

On the idea of freeing only those healthy:
That assumes we can test and know who is healthy and that people are rational. Very few think they themselves will get the virus and most think they'll be fine if they get it, because no one thinks they are going to be the one who loses the gamble. Saying "oh if your healthy continue as is, you all your smart you can decide if you are at risk and if you need to shelter in place" is absolutely ludicrous. Large scale testing isn't feasible, the tests are not sensitive to detect most early cases nor available in large enough quantities enough to test everyone who wants to be tested.

You simply can't sort that many people in a safe, efficient and accurate manner.
So the only option is broad strokes. Group people up, decide if they are absolutely necessary, and then quarantine everyone else. Unfortunately, it's the only reasonable and safe option.

 

[BurningKingdomsMC]

So it all started with a small little Pandemic.
Tesla had to shut down production at the only plant that can make a complete Tesla car.

Elon wasn't happy about this. His company was almost profitable, he was hitting his stride, all was well. Then he had to shut down production, the one thing that makes him money just ended abruptly, and suddenly his company had a clock with the minutes running down.

Tesla was surely spending quite a lot, and we know they didn't have that much in the bank. I would guess someone sat down and did some napkin math and told Elon they had to be making cars around June, maybe July in order to not sink.

Enter right Reopen America, an astroturfing campaign financed by an unknown wealthy person. The campaign appealed to a new target demographic of Tesla, American Conservatives. Shortly after the campaign saw success Musk shared his support and began promoting this idea.

Spoiler: Reopen America Sidenote

Listen to the doctors. Politicians are not doctors. Billionaires are not doctors. If the doctors say stay home, stay home.

Elon fully leaned into this. Many thought "Elon only wants to Reopen America because he wants to increase his stock price" and dismissed his support as selfish.

Here's where the big brain comes in:
Open twitter "stock price is too high imo" oh, he doesn't care about the stock price, Elon is really trying to do what he thinks is the right thing. Wrong.
Tesla was likely nearing the point where they really needed to start making cars, and this radical action would in the short term hurt, but, it would hurt way less than Tesla running out of money and moving into the real dangerous staying afloat measures.

During all of this; he's having a kid. Another opportunity to make a play. Make a scene about it, maybe give it a crazy name so everyone knows he just had a kid. Investors ever wise will dismiss that crazy tweet he made as a lapse in judgement because he is stressed about the kid.

Still no budge, can't make cars. City government ever altruistic is putting public health first. They can afford to stay shut. Elon can't.

"I'll move to Texas if you don't let me make cars" this is a last ditch effort. Everyone knows he can't do that. They can barely make cars as is, he can't afford to move, train new staff and shut down the factory to move equipment. City Gov. saw straight through it and didn't budge.

Alright then, I'm going it illegally. The factory parking lot curiously was partially full yesterday, they've already started preparing to start the lines again.

Elon is out of cards. But may as well take advantage of this one too. Everyone loves the underdog, "Bella ciao!" I'll make a scene of it. Tell them to arrest me. Every billionaire should have a mugshot.
This will rally the people who supported the (my) astroturfing campaign and maybe I'll get some more Tesla Truck reservations.

Now to play bookie on what will happen next.
10% odds they go bankrupt in the next month. We don't really know how bad it is, but it can't be great. It's possible.
Another 20% they go bankrupt if the economy stays bad and no one can afford to buy a Tesla.

Nice play Elon, very clever.

Stock market plummeted after that :/ Was not a fun day

 

[Scroll32]

These restrictions have always been about “flattening the curve”. Hospitals were prepared to handle all these cardiac cases, which unfortunately can lead to deaths. COVID is just that infectious that hospitals will fill up beyond their capacity without restrictions, and once that happens the death toll will get much higher than all the unrelated deaths your brief research entailed as people are left without care.

Everyone gets the short-term “lock-down, stop the spread”. But what’s the long term effects of it?

It allows us to reopen in parts. You used the lockdown time to get procedures, prepare dedicated hospitals, upgrade testing abilities by a lot, set up monitoring. Have the system ready to track and trace new infection spots, and start relaxing things in bits. Beaches with capacity, hairdressers by appointment. Make sure work places can figure out rules and spacing particularly for industrial jobs. Upgrade PPE production as much as possible. Set up hostels for infected and others for not infected who need it.

A month gave us a lot of time to prepare, learn things, implement things. Then start reopening crucial things and keep testing testing testing and tracking. It is a whole different scenario if person A catches this next month, and B in July and C in November, or if they all catch it next week.

It gives us time to try to figure out what works, what does not work, what we need. Ventilators probably are not that important, early oxygen might be. Hemodialysis turns out is very very important. Some drugs do not seem to work at all, others might be really important. Once we have the cure all vaccination, great! But until then, we depend on our hospitals to fully function and provide care for us all, and that means doing our part in reducing the stressed workload they already experience.

- Half of this post is derived from a Reddit comment that I recall, but I don’t remember where as a reference to the source.

I think you are confusing what I am trying to say. I am not against the original quarantine, I am against more quarantine at the same rate it is now. As long as we are making progress to open up the economy safely then thats what I am advocating for.

I'm not an economist, so I can't give you my own number for when the economic losses outweigh deaths.
So here is an article from the MIT Technology Review and their associated economists.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both/
They've done the math. They have worked with doctors to model expected infection rates under different circumstances, how much each of those scenarios will cost in lost economic activity and the cost of putting into place different measures.
They didn't make the decision to shut down the economy on a whim. They had the price of each option on the table when they made the call. I would guess this one was the cheapest.

On the idea of freeing only those healthy:
That assumes we can test and know who is healthy and that people are rational. Very few think they themselves will get the virus and most think they'll be fine if they get it, because no one thinks they are going to be the one who loses the gamble. Saying "oh if your healthy continue as is, you all your smart you can decide if you are at risk and if you need to shelter in place" is absolutely ludicrous. Large scale testing isn't feasible, the tests are not sensitive to detect most early cases nor available in large enough quantities enough to test everyone who wants to be tested.

You simply can't sort that many people in a safe, efficient and accurate manner.
So the only option is broad strokes. Group people up, decide if they are absolutely necessary, and then quarantine everyone else. Unfortunately, it's the only reasonable and safe option.

Your message seems to be a little bit confusing with the article you choose (reading a good chunk of it). The article talks about opening the economy with regulations to prevent the spread and multiple measures to do so, yet you say there should be a complete shutdown and its the only "reasonable and safe option." Though I agree human nature is not always the best, if they won't follow mild guidelines, how do you think they will handle complete lockdowns. It would be like Michigan is right now, complete chaos and in the end of the mass protest actually be more likely to spread the virus. You also talk about "large scale testing isn't feasible" yet your article states its possible to get 20 million tests a day (this is in the future though, so if you meant as of right now I get what your saying). Also, I have read in multiple places that this is a cold weather virus. If this is accurate, then this could something we face for centuries. If that is the case, would we have to live in quarantine for the first of human civilization? So what exactly is your argument? Is it to have the economy open slowly and make sure its safe, if so I agree with you as I do Lotus(at least from what I understand his argument is). Or is it to just shut down everything completely until the the cases are down to 0, in which case I completely disagree with you.

 

[Cal]

I think you are confusing what I am trying to say. I am not against the original quarantine, I am against more quarantine at the same rate it is now. As long as we are making progress to open up the economy safely then thats what I am advocating for.

Your message seems to be a little bit confusing with the article you choose (reading a good chunk of it). The article talks about opening the economy with regulations to prevent the spread and multiple measures to do so, yet you say there should be a complete shutdown and its the only "reasonable and safe option." Though I agree human nature is not always the best, if they won't follow mild guidelines, how do you think they will handle complete lockdowns. It would be like Michigan is right now, complete chaos and in the end of the mass protest actually be more likely to spread the virus. You also talk about "large scale testing isn't feasible" yet your article states its possible to get 20 million tests a day (this is in the future though, so if you meant as of right now I get what your saying). Also, I have read in multiple places that this is a cold weather virus. If this is accurate, then this could something we face for centuries. If that is the case, would we have to live in quarantine for the first of human civilization? So what exactly is your argument? Is it to have the economy open slowly and make sure its safe, if so I agree with you as I do Lotus(at least from what I understand his argument is). Or is it to just shut down everything completely until the the cases are down to 0, in which case I completely disagree with you.

My argument is you should listen not to politicians, not to me, not to billionaires but to doctors.
I can't make recommendations because I don't know everything I need to know to make an informed decision, I'm not a doctor. Right now, the guidance I'm receiving from both the county government and my healthcare provider is to stay home and stay away from others, I suggest everyone else follow the guidance they are receiving from those two groups as well.
Nobody knows better than the doctors.

Reopening the economy is the risky part.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/
See the case of St. Louis. The worry is, if we relax restrictions now, we'll end up in the same situation we had before.

https://covid19-projections.com/
This is a Machine Learning driven model by MIT Data Scientist Youyang Gu, it has proven to be one of the most accurate models for infection rates. Take a look at the projection, as we lax restrictions, the model projects a significant increase in infection rates, with the margins branching all the way up to Mid April levels of infections.

There's a price to all things. Listen to your doctors, listen to public health authorities. They've done the math, they know prices to all the options. It is their job to make the right call here, I trust they'll make the correct one.

Spoiler: Why we can't test our way out

On testing, here's the thing.
Temperature tests only tell if the virus has reached "fever pitch" in other words, the part of the virus where you feel ill and show symptoms, but that only makes a portion of the time infected. Someone with the virus could be screened by temperature test, present negative because their too early in the virus' growth to have a fever, then cough for an unrelated reason and suddenly someone who was tested negative has spread the virus.

Same goes for the molecular/swab tests. A close friend of mine is currently working in hospital. My account of how they describe the tests to me is as follows: Swab tests need the virus to develop to the point where they are close to being symptomatic before the test can return a reliable result. If an asymptomatic patient is tested, there is a high probability of a negative result, even if the patient has the virus.

Even if we could with 100% certainty know if someone has the coronavirus or not, we could not enforce the policies needed to keep the sick home. It's simply an impossible feat in the United States.

 

[Scroll32]

My argument is you should listen not to politicians, not to me, not to billionaires but to doctors.
I can't make recommendations because I don't know everything I need to know to make an informed decision, I'm not a doctor. Right now, the guidance I'm receiving from both the county government and my healthcare provider is to stay home and stay away from others, I suggest everyone else follow the guidance they are receiving from those two groups as well.
Nobody knows better than the doctors.

Reopening the economy is the risky part.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/
See the case of St. Louis. The worry is, if we relax restrictions now, we'll end up in the same situation we had before.

https://covid19-projections.com/
This is a Machine Learning driven model by MIT Data Scientist Youyang Gu, it has proven to be one of the most accurate models for infection rates. Take a look at the projection, as we lax restrictions, the model projects a significant increase in infection rates, with the margins branching all the way up to Mid April levels of infections.

There's a price to all things. Listen to your doctors, listen to public health authorities. They've done the math, they know prices to all the options. It is their job to make the right call here, I trust they'll make the correct one.

Spoiler: Why we can't test our way out

On testing, here's the thing.
Temperature tests only tell if the virus has reached "fever pitch" in other words, the part of the virus where you feel ill and show symptoms, but that only makes a portion of the time infected. Someone with the virus could be screened by temperature test, present negative because their too early in the virus' growth to have a fever, then cough for an unrelated reason and suddenly someone who was tested negative has spread the virus.

Same goes for the molecular/swab tests. A close friend of mine is currently working in hospital. My account of how they describe the tests to me is as follows: Swab tests need the virus to develop to the point where they are close to being symptomatic before the test can return a reliable result. If an asymptomatic patient is tested, there is a high probability of a negative result, even if the patient has the virus.

Even if we could with 100% certainty know if someone has the coronavirus or not, we could not enforce the policies needed to keep the sick home. It's simply an impossible feat in the United States.

I think you have a fair point that politicians and billionaires have bias for wanting to open up, so they can get back in business and say they solved the problem. But I still think that the economy has to be a factor and that economic consultants and doctors should come up with the solution. Cases will go up when we open the economy no matter how long we way, unless we want to just shut down the world entirely. But lets say your right and quarantining for a few months to a year won't completely destroy the economy, how do you plan to implement this? You said this yourself, "we could not enforce the policies needed to keep the sick home. It's simply an impossible feat in the United States." So, how are we going to enforce these measures even longer for people who aren't even sick. The answer to this is we most likely won't be able to in some places for much longer. Protests all over the country prove that. But if we release the restrictions a little bit more people will listen to the order. But in reality it is really about what place your talking about, for example New York should take longer then Wyoming. But anyway thats just my thoughts, what do I know lol.

 

[Anish]

Still no budge, can't make cars. City government ever altruistic is putting public health first. They can afford to stay shut. Elon can't.

"I'll move to Texas if you don't let me make cars" this is a last ditch effort. Everyone knows he can't do that. They can barely make cars as is, he can't afford to move, train new staff and shut down the factory to move equipment. City Gov. saw straight through it and didn't budge.

Alright then, I'm going it illegally. The factory parking lot curiously was partially full yesterday, they've already started preparing to start the lines again.

Fairly inaccurate this bit is.
California approved Tesla to open, but an unelected county official illegally overrode. Also, all other auto companies in US are approved to resume. Only Tesla has been singled out.

Source: &
Yall need to chill out on the Elon Musk hate.