Thank you. We can agree to not keep debating that. I think we agree on a lot of the more central points of the thread and manage to get hung up on other things. Hopefully, we can avoid that going forward.

Why do you think poker rooms will be re-opened any time soon, when there is a higher revenue channel, in casino markets like Las Vegas, competing use for that space ?

If Wynn for example needs to close 1/2 its machines, don't you think the added space from replacing the poker room will look attractive to casino management ?

Poker was under pressure from competing uses long before CoVid 19; its place in a day-to-day product mix has been made even more tenuous. Sure, after the OTHER operating restrictions on more profitable channels are eased, it should be brought back, but right now ?

Doesn't seem too likely to me .... although I could easily be wrong in special cases. Where poker branding plays a role, like the WSOP, we have seen a move to online events, conceivably leading to a "Final Table" live event.... played on a REALLY long table or behind clear sneeze guards ? .

I’d imagine that regardless of how many machines or tables the casinos are able to open up, the demand will be way below capacity for a least a few months. They’ll have no convention or event traffic, and even a lot of tourists will be reluctant. Whether they open up the poker rooms will depend on distancing guidelines, not space for slot machines.

Free speech media in the free market trying to make a buck the way the always do with sensationalism and you feel misled? Grow up. The media is media. If you actually read for facts it's usually pretty good, if you don't rely on just two or three sources.

The people who freaked out after 9/11 and demanded America act (even though we solved 99% of the vulnerability we had on 9/10 by deciding not to hand over airplanes to any passenger that requests one) by invading Iraq and Afganistan are the same ones who are bitching how we're overreacting today. 9/11 was tragic but a small thing compared to covid.

sorry about the politics I'll shut up.

I actually don't think the people who have some level of distrust in the government now are the same people who fell in line behind the post 9-11 policies in general, and Iraq war specifically.

And one doesn't have to believe in conspiracy theories to suggest that, despite good intentions, the policies being enacted over the last couple months may look really wrong-headed in the light of hindsight. We'll see. I think I've made it clear in most of my posts that I find this sort of thinking to be extremely unfair. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize that most people are not as forgiving as I. And, aside from the obvious direct negative consequences, I think that sort of thing erodes people's trust in the government even more and leads to future apathy.

Poker rooms compete for space when there are potentially better alternatives. I don't think there will be anything like that any time soon. Specific to the Wynn (Encore), that room has a pretty small footprint. I could see it being usurped by a restaurant or bar someday, or maybe even a high-limit area. But as it stands its probably safe.

I do hope poker doesn't suddenly become a primarily online phenomenon. My opinion is that would not be sustainable due to the increasing power of technology. But setting that aside, I would lose interest in a hurry. I don't think I'm alone in that regard, but maybe I am.

Agreed. IMO, poker will be no different from a safety standpoint from regular table games. When those re-open, there's no virus-related reason not to reopen poker. Of course, I do think casinos are going to be going with a relatively small numbers of employees early in the re-opening process due to the low demand you mention. That might mean poker gets the short end of the stick, as it often does. And, of course, some casino execs may feel there may be financial reasons not to dive right back into poker, and the virus will just be a convenient excuse.

I don't see it that way. Net Revenue per square foot is a pretty powerful metric.

We will see what the mix brween poker and other channels is at re-opening and again say 9 months later.

I wish you were right, and that certainly should be the mix in jurisdictions outside Nevada that offer poker only.

I cancelled my flight to vegas May 25- June 1

good or bad move?

Good job

In all fairness, I don't believe anyone thinks previously closed businesses will be completely barren when they reopen. (Hell, I'm pretty sure I'm getting in line for a haircut the first chance a barber shop opens, and I'm probably someone akashenk and others would laugh at -- I put a disinfectant wipe to everything I bring into the house from the outside.)

But all in all, business for these places will be slower than they were before the storm. That's all people, myself included, are saying. Yes, plenty of people can't wait to get back. And plenty of people will be cautious. Never mind that there will probably still be factors (e.g. travel restrictions or restaurants limited to a certain percentage of capacity) that prevent many institutions from operating at full strength.

Obviously, I can't truly refute this because I don't really know where you live (except that apparently it's not Bumblefuk, Pa.). In my hometown, none of this is true.

Sure, the stores are open, and they're hanging in there. And it makes sense -- a large retail outfit like Target or CVS is the only place to buy certain things because the smaller specialty stores are shuttered. But overall, even these places are mere shadows of their usual selves. The parking lots are where it is most evident -- they are maybe 25 percent full at peak hours, which is a far cry from when you might wander a few rows before finding a spot.

All of this said...

I have to side with the rest of your post. It's a grim risk-reward calculation that no one likes to think about, but what we're doing now simply isn't sustainable. There is a point where more businesses need to open up, but with some guidelines in place. We won't suddenly jump back to where we were two months ago. It will take baby steps, and those steps really should begin as soon as possible.

Oh, and just to address something that I've seen a lot in reading through the last few pages in this thread, although not in zrap's post:

A lot of people have thrown that word around as if it's the only key that reopens society's doors. I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes, having a vaccine would be the point where we can truly declare an end to this unconventional war. At that point, COVID-19 would be preventable, and we largely return to LAWKI.

In the shorter run, however, the development of therapeutics will also allow us to speed up the transition back to normal life. After all, if remedies can be developed that would allow people to get the disease but have less severe responses to it, then the strain placed on our health systems would be lessened.

Now, I'm not so optimistic to think we're out of the woods in a few months. Developing and/or testing these treatments will take plenty of time on their own. What I AM saying is that the typical timeline for a vaccine -- sometimes years, plural -- is not necessarily what we're up against.

Although for what it's worth, I did invest in a set of clippers.

Excellent post

Been a while since I read anything as terrifying as the paper mentioned in this article:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/road-map-r...opstories.html

Aside from the fact that it flies in the face of decades of epidemiology, not to mention physical reality, this "Ethics" thinktank seems to want to use this virus to take the country (and indeed the World) into a different direction. If this became reality, it would make the Patriot Act look child's play as far as the assault on civil liberties.

People need to be very leery about some of the things going on. I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but I'm not surprised we have seen an uptick in protest in recent days. Now that the worst of the direct effects of the virus appear to be behind us and we are on some form of downward track, it seems there are a variety of entities looking to use the fear and uncertainty associated with this event to further some unrelated goals. Goals which would likely be extremely unpopular if not obscured by the fog of war.

Hard to say. Why did you cancel?

Meh

Lies

How those people who 'elect' to stay home continue to eat and have access to healthcare without incurring the risk of infection caused by others 'electing' to stay home? Infectious diseases don't adhere to 'free society' principles.

What are you suggesting?

I can only think of 4 ways a person is free from risk of infection:
1. Every single person on planet earth goes into strict quarantine for some period until the virus dies out.
2. Herd immunity is taken to the nth degree where there are literally no hosts left to accept the virus so it dies out.
3. A vaccine or some other form of treatment comes along that treats the virus.
4. An individual chooses to strictly self quarantine regardless what others are doing.

Number 1 is never happening. Number 2 might be possible but herd immunity is more about a numbers game to greatly minimize but not necessarily remove risk. Number 3 will happen but long after the lockdowns are over. Number 4 seems to be the most logical solution for high risk people yet that is the option you seem to be disagreeing with.

I guess there is a 5th option that you might be alluding to. You could phone up every living person in your town and tell them to stay home while you go shopping and hit the doctors office. Of course it might be tough getting groceries and seeing the doc when no one is there.

I've said this before but it seems like there has been a shift from "we are quarantining to reduce the burdens on hospitals/supplies for high risk people (which can take away needed resources for critical non-COVID patients)" to "we are quarantining to eliminate everyones risk of catching the virus (even though the vast majority of people will recover without serious complications)".

Beats me. So am I to understand that the whole shelter in place at all costs viewpoint only works as long as its convenient for you?

There isn't a single epidemiologist who has suggested the goal is to eliminate the risk of infection, because they know that's impossible. The goal has been and continues to be to control the rate of infection below the threshold that would allow it to reach an exponential growth phase, both for the immediate effect it would have on the public health and economy (sick people can't work) and to prevent deaths from overloaded hospitals that wouldn't occur otherwise.

If this is true, why are we using mostly the same measures to control the rate of infection everywhere regardless of the rate of infection growth? Why are we applying the same restrictions to everyone regardless of how likely they are to get serious complications?

Because we currently lack the testing capacity to establish what the rate of infections are across the country. The best indicator we have right now is the number of hospital admissions, which is a lagging indicator, so not the best one to use to throttle public policy on quarantine measures.

Oh noes! They want a large amount of testing and contract-tracing so that people can safely go to work and the economy can function again. These people from Harvard and Berkeley, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley and the Rockerfeller Foundation are clearly dangerous oppressors of your civil liberties!
Here's the PDF of the report.

Here is their roadmap, which they think is only feasible if testing and contact-tracing is ramped up considerably:


Is your alternative plan to just open up the country and act like there isn't a worldwide pandemic causing a 1930s-style economic depression?

... because someone who suffers no personal serious medical consequences can nevertheless be a carrier, increasing the likelihood of an infection for anyone else, including people who are at a greater risk of serious personal medical consequences.

There is little reason to think an effective vaccine will not be developed, social distancing and stay at home make the time until it is a little less risky for people facing potential serious medical consequences.

I would expect at risk folks will practice stay at home behaviors in the event that things are opened up generally, but there is a real social benefit to tying opening up to real, actual testing first, then a determination of whether immunity arises, and whether social distancing is sufficient. (The empty claims echoed on the television about testing is available for anyone who wants is are nonsense, just Fox-news talking points and not reality.)

Unfortunately there is reason to think this won't happen- especially anytime soon

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2...razer/12146616

'it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere'

-Voltaire