It is Past Time to Face Reality

The first time I looked at Allsides and Media Bias Fact Check I saw the Times and the Post designated as leaning left with mostly factual content (understand opinion is not news) I figure they had it correct. Then I checked the Boston Herald. Even though they have six right leaning columnists and six left their editorials lean right. They were designated as such.

The one they have wrong is the Boston Globe. It’s as far left as Slate, Salon and Vox. Other than the great sports page I consider it bird cafe liner. The extreme bias is disgusting. 

I just use common sense and Google. With any given article I read, I consider the source first, then ask myself what is their motive. To inform, to sway opinion, to mislead, etc. Then if need be I'll do a Google search for more info.

That said most of the time it's not about what is written, it's about what's not covered. Or hidden somewhere down the page, tucked away so as not to be noticed. Under Obama, 2% growth is headlines on CNN. With Trump 3% growth is down near the bottom of the page, after "man in India has 50 lb tumor removed from foot".

You forgot that trump is probably also speculated to have caused said tumor. 

SomeBaseballDad posted:

I just use common sense and Google. With any given article I read, I consider the source first, then ask myself what is their motive. To inform, to sway opinion, to mislead, etc. Then if need be I'll do a Google search for more info.

That said most of the time it's not about what is written, it's about what's not covered. Or hidden somewhere down the page, tucked away so as not to be noticed. Under Obama, 2% growth is headlines on CNN. With Trump 3% growth is down near the bottom of the page, after "man in India has 50 lb tumor removed from foot".

Google search results are biased.

Smitty28 posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

I just use common sense and Google. With any given article I read, I consider the source first, then ask myself what is their motive. To inform, to sway opinion, to mislead, etc. Then if need be I'll do a Google search for more info.

That said most of the time it's not about what is written, it's about what's not covered. Or hidden somewhere down the page, tucked away so as not to be noticed. Under Obama, 2% growth is headlines on CNN. With Trump 3% growth is down near the bottom of the page, after "man in India has 50 lb tumor removed from foot".

Google search results are biased.

It just takes a little digging and reading to get around that. What you're looking for may not be on page one.

Some reports out this morning show that an early study on Hydroxychloroquine proved mostly ineffective (aside from relieving a few symptoms and causing other side effects) and that there is serious concern about accuracy of antibody tests considering the FDA waived initial review requirements, leaving them virtually unregulated.  And, while the popular spin on the timing of a vaccine is 12 to 18 months (always with the "hopefully sooner" tagline), some experts tell us that the fastest any such vaccine has hit is closer to four years.

My point -  I fully recognize that we must get at least parts of the economy going sooner than later, and I surely don't think we can wait until a vaccine is in place.  Still, many of the required elements to make smart decisions about how to roll things back out will take time to figure out.  Even with the massive efforts under way by so many around the world, these are not simple problems.  We can't just start swing the doors open now based on opinion and emotion.  We can't just pick an aggressive date and do it because we want to hit our target date.  I think, for most places in the country, we are still at least a month away from being in position to execute any smart gradual rollout plans.  We will surely know more and hopefully have made significant progress come mid-May.

In other news, the US reached the highest number of deaths in a day yesterday.  We are not out of the woods by any stretch.  What has happened in the NY area can repeat itself anywhere (adjust to scale).  I, too, hate what is happening to our economy (and certainly to our own financial outlook and that of our immediate family).  But there are still tens of thousands of lives to be saved and more progress that needs to be made.

I don't fully understand the argument about the lowering of projections on US death toll.  We have rolled out massive efforts, closing hundreds of thousands of schools and businesses, doing a pretty good job overall with the extensive stay-in-place, social distancing, handwashing and other guidelines almost across the entire country.  Of course the projections have decreased.  That was the whole idea, wasn't it?  We need to hang in there for just a while longer and allow the efforts of the experts around the world to put us in a better position to role things back out in a smart manner that won't cost us even more in the long run, both in number of lives and the economy.

Was this the study funded by Bill Gates?  Who is also working on a vaccine$$?   Who also did not use a traditional sugar pill for a placebo, but instead used a vitamin C pill (which is known to help against Covid-19)?  Or a different one?

Also, deaths in March 2020 were down 15% from 2019 and 2018.

Apparently MLB is doing a large-scale antibody test:

https://www.usatoday.com/story...ch-study/2993584001/

I hope they are using a reliable test, otherwise it's useless.

baseballhs posted:

Also, deaths in March 2020 were down 15% from 2019 and 2018.

I've pondered this for a while.  Take the school buses off the road and many people staying home, and traffic accidents have to be lower.

The U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.  In the US, it is about 90 per day.  March 2019, 253,000 people died, March 2018, 249,000 people died, this year in March 193,000.

Who knows?  But this is interesting, whatever it means:

"Death rates have dropped during past economic downturns, even as many health trends have worsened."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0

There are a couple of researchers at Stanford who are discovering COVID wasn’t nearly as dangerous as originally thought. In their research to this point they’re finding the death rate to be .003% rather than the projected 2-4%. They say had this been known certain people could have been protected and sheltered while the rest of us might have caught low grade or treatable COVID. Did you know there are 7,000 deaths in the US in an ordinary day?

Denmark, Norway and Austria are beginning to open up this week with precautions. Austria is almost to the bottom of their downslope. Surprisingly while Denmark and Norway are on the downslope they have  until mid June before they hit the bottom.

The reason I’m optimistic ME will open up in a couple of weeks is the death rate is low and the bottom of the slope is May 7. I believe it’s why Trump mentioned there are twenty something states that can open earlier than the rest. But as previously noted it will be with precautions.

Since Maine is a big hospitality state the Portland Business Journal predicts more than 50% of restaurants to go out of business. Portland has more restaurants per capital than any city in the country. The Old Port area is just one restaurant after another.

yes, when you start looking into it, the numbers from this virus are not near as alarming as when you hear them with no comparisons.  When you compare to a normal day, normal month, flu deaths, etc.  The numbers do not warrant a complete shut down for months.

RJM posted:

There are a couple of researchers at Stanford who are discovering COVID wasn’t nearly as dangerous as originally thought. In their research to this point they’re finding the death rate to be .003% rather than the projected 2-4%. They say had this been known certain people could have been protected and sheltered while the rest of us might have caught low grade or treatable COVID. Did you know there are 7,000 deaths in the US in an ordinary day?

Accuse me of nitpicking if you want, but the Stanford researchers haven't discovered anything yet.  They have some preliminary findings that they argue suggest covid-19 infections were/are more common than others have argued.  I don't know if any of these findings (the Stanford group's or others) have been peer reviewed.  And even if they have, nobody has anything close to a satisfactory dataset to work from yet. 

No disrespect to Stanford, to RJM, or to anyone else, but at this point I take every new study I read about as just one more data point.  (And I'm not qualified to interpret those data points.) 

baseballhs posted:

yes, when you start looking into it, the numbers from this virus are not near as alarming as when you hear them with no comparisons.  When you compare to a normal day, normal month, flu deaths, etc.  The numbers do not warrant a complete shut down for months.

If you jump out of a 10th story window, you're doing fine for the first 9 stories.

Flu deaths, traffic accidents, heart disease don't grow exponentially. 

I'm actually not here to argue for extending stay-at-home orders--I don't know what the answer is.  But I don't think your comparison reflects the reasoning of public health officials.

many Chinese patients were lifelong tobacco users.  population differs from the US in that regard and others (available medical facilities, etc) Combined with data that may not be credible, and it's difficult to establish mortality rates from Chinese experiences.   

As I said “to this point.” A better choice of words would have been preliminary research. It will take until this is over and all the numbers are in to write a paper.

But what they’re saying is essentially how reopening the country will be handled. The country can’t stay closed. Have you seen the lines of thousands of cars at food banks? These people are out of work, out of money, out of food and out of their home could be next. These government stipends don’t cover the bills for most people.

The Mortgage Bankers Association is reporting the forbearance rate on mortgages rose from 2.73% to 3.74% in the last month. They expect it to rise significantly in the next report.

They are going to have to take into account where you live, how densely populated, is there mass transit, etc but once the economic part starts hitting the majority, the tide will turn.

This just popped up. D2 cutting 6 sports due to Covid-19.

https://www.kxan.com/news/coro...-impact-of-covid-19/

 

Sure they can open up.  But, the hardest-hit types of business are travel, entertainment, hotels, etc.  How many people are going to fly somewhere and stay in a hotel?  Go to crowded athletic events?  They can open, but they can't make people go back to doing what they were doing.  How profitable will those businesses actually be?  This is what is missing from all the arguments that just say "reopen".  In fact, many people who are or live with high-risk people will continue to be cautious. 

Right now the media and everyone else are issuing ideas and predictions based on very little data, because they want us to read them.  We need data.  Antibody tests.  Let's hope the MLB study will show something hopeful.

I think about half the country will stay inside even if they don't have to, the rest of us are going to wash our hands and get out.

Chico Escuela posted:

baseballhs posted:

yes, when you start looking into it, the numbers from this virus are not near as alarming as when you hear them with no comparisons.  When you compare to a normal day, normal month, flu deaths, etc.  The numbers do not warrant a complete shut down for months.

If you jump out of a 10th story window, you're doing fine for the first 9 stories.

Flu deaths, traffic accidents, heart disease don't grow exponentially. 

I'm actually not here to argue for extending stay-at-home orders--I don't know what the answer is.  But I don't think your comparison reflects the reasoning of public health officials.

I could just give your statement a like, but I wanted to say, specifically, that I enjoy your statements.  

My comment on all of this is that the stay at home order was necessary, but how extreme (i.e. what they did in Michigan seems a bit of an overreach, while I wish we could go back in time and have NY do its a week earlier), and how long is debatable.

 

An interesting data point from this week's COVIDView Weekly Summary from the CDC:

• Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to COVID-19 increased from 4.0% during week 13 to 6.9% during week 14. The percentage of deaths due to pneumonia (excluding COVID-19 or influenza) decreased from 7.5% during week 13 to 7.2% during week 14.

* https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...ata%2Fcovidview.html

COVID deaths definitely increased from week 13 but are still below non-COVID and non-flu pneumonia death rates. So more people died of pneumonia than COVID. And those rates are down due to COVID. And rates are already down from 2018. That's still a lot of COVID deaths, don't take this the wrong way. It just adds a little perspective when looking at U.S. deaths overall. Flu deaths are down but that is likely because of COVID deaths. So much so the CDC has published the last weekly FLUVIEW for this flu season:

• With ongoing declines in influenza activity and the continued effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient ILI and P&I mortality data, this will be the final week of a full FluView report. More detailed interpretation of data from these systems can be found in COVIDViewstarting next week (week 15).

* https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

baseballhs posted:

I think about half the country will stay inside even if they don't have to, the rest of us are going to wash our hands and get out.

I’m in the “we have to get back to work” camp. But when we get back to work I don’t believe there’s going to be much outside work to do other than biking and walking which we can do now. Social distancing will be part of opening up. 

Austria, Denmark and Norway are reopening. It’s with a lot of precautions. Restaurants, movie theatres, sports, etc. aren’t reopening yet. 

I think that might be slower, but things like practicing, throwing the ball to someone not in your family.  That will happen.  Right now we have people saying to call the police if you see a few kids together playing catch.  It's overboard where we are because we haven't had many cases and they aren't increasing.  I would think if this was a slow the curve thing, we've gone too far.  We've had an increase of 3-4 cases in the past two weeks with 30,000 people in our zip codes. Not everywhere is the same.

I was just on the phone with my cousin. He’s a highly respected Doctor of Toxicology in the NYC area. Virology is his field.

He said a lot of half truths are being printed in the paper. He said if you want to see rainbows after the storm it’s there to read. If you want to see doom and gloom it’s there’s to read. He said not enough is known about COVID to be conclusive about anything. There won’t be until several years after this is over. He said the ideal health world is test everyone before they go back to work. But it’s not realistic. The five minute tests Abbott Labs is building will create false positives and negatives because they’re being rushed to service.

baseballhs posted:

I think that might be slower, but things like practicing, throwing the ball to someone not in your family.  That will happen.  Right now we have people saying to call the police if you see a few kids together playing catch.  It's overboard where we are because we haven't had many cases and they aren't increasing.  I would think if this was a slow the curve thing, we've gone too far.  We've had an increase of 3-4 cases in the past two weeks with 30,000 people in our zip codes. Not everywhere is the same.

I understand all places are not the same. I’m sitting in a state that has had 24 deaths. 23 elderly people and one obese 50yo. If Dunkin opened tomorrow I’d be sitting there in the afternoon reading and drinking coffee. The number of people out biking, walking and driving around is large. Yesterday’s traffic looked like a normal day. The parking lot at a grocery store I biked by was almost full. 

Fining people for attending drive up religious services is way over the top. People who aren’t religious don’t understand very religious people see God as essential as food and medicine. 

Let's start with just a few of the issues with a premature or less than complete return to work approach.

A pork processing facility in  South Dakota now has over 300 covid cases. The plant needed to be shut down because of the inability to control the spread within the facility and some concerns of the impact in the community and the medical facilities.

Probably every one of those 300 will have a potential a workers' compensation issue with the employer. For those not working due to the shutdown, but not testing positive, how are they compensated? For those who are positive, but not significantly ill, who pays their lost time and need for medical oversight? For anyone who develops serious illness, now the responsibility shifts to the employer and the WC program for that employer. With recent medical information showing impact (possibly directly) through infection to the heart and heart muscle, these are very significant medical cost issues.

Any return to work is going to require employers everywhere to provide a safe place to work including training, needed PPE and to be able to take action with employees and customers (or both) who fail to adhere to the safety mandates.

But, what are the required  or even appropriate safety procedures?There seems to be a lack of consensus, for sure.

One only needs to appreciate the challenges workers are having in States like FLA even being able to file a UI claim, let alone collect benefits.  Opening the economy is clearly desirable.

Opening the economy can present massive challenges of the type noted above for the employer community.  Opening their business will be nothing like it was when it closed because of covid with the employer obligations to not only pay the employees, but to pay the cost for safety. Even then, an infection spread of the type in South Dakota will likely shut them down again and present a myriad of horrible insurance and legal issues.

A good friend of ours just closed his restaurant in Palo Alto CA because he could not see financial way out when he was able to reopen. 

None of this is clear cut. None of this is easy and it is made ever more challenging because the disease and responses to it are fluid and disparate and even the manifestations of the disease are still being appreciated.

Too bad, in my view, posters get in camps and refuse to consider other opinions.

Even  more too bad some of the posters regurgitate nasty comments.  Personally, knowing Julie pays for this site out of her pocket, I find it highly offensive when truly vile stuff gets posted and Julie pays for that stuff.

All of those issues are being addressed already with any business still open. Restaurants, grocery stores, target, delivery services. You don't get compensated with other illness, why this one. If people are able to work from home they will likely have the option.

If over 80 percent of the population would recover normally if infected (and the remaining could get treated if hospitalization is required), why would there need to be a vaccine for everyone? 

I'm learning quickly about our society that it is perfectly acceptable if people die everyday, but not just from this ONE thing

cabbagedad posted:

Some reports out this morning show that an early study on Hydroxychloroquine proved mostly ineffective (aside from relieving a few symptoms and causing other side effects) and that there is serious concern about accuracy of antibody tests considering the FDA waived initial review requirements, leaving them virtually unregulated.  And, while the popular spin on the timing of a vaccine is 12 to 18 months (always with the "hopefully sooner" tagline), some experts tell us that the fastest any such vaccine has hit is closer to four years.

My point -  I fully recognize that we must get at least parts of the economy going sooner than later, and I surely don't think we can wait until a vaccine is in place.  ..

Agree that we can't wait until a vaccine even if its only 12 months out let alone 4 years.   On HCQ for use as a therapeutic, its just one of many emerging options.  I realize its the most visible for obvious reasons and due to those reasons the news we get on it will be terribly tainted both ways IMO.  However, it's not the only potential therapeutic.  The one most people have the most hope in is Remdesivir.  GILD is in trials (although they had to stop one in China today due to not enough patients).  Convalescent Plasma seems to actually work, but you need more people with immunity.  Regeneron and Sanofi working on an antiviral as well, right behind the GILD timeline (again a therapeutic). There are like 3-4 others as well.   On the vaccine side, there are also many trials underway but I agree vaccines may take a lot longer.   Your comment that the antibody tests have concerns with accuracy, they do now but you have real US-based pharma co's working on that and they will shortly have much more accurate tests, like any day now. 

I think we agree though - the economy will be opening before a vaccine and I think my view on treatments and antibody testing is a little bit rosier but I am a glass 3/4 full guy.   Heck, I still think my son will get a stub HS baseball season in and a double elim State or conf tournament.  

James G posted:

If over 80 percent of the population would recover normally if infected (and the remaining could get treated if hospitalization is required), why would there need to be a vaccine for everyone? 

I'm learning quickly about our society that it is perfectly acceptable if people die everyday, but not just from this ONE thing

There is a lot of behavioral economics research in the past 20 years or so (including some that won a Nobel Prize) demonstrating that people are bad at assessing risk.  And one of the kinds of risk they are particularly bad at assessing is novel threats--like COVID-19.  We ride in cars all the time (or used to, before we were ordered to stay home) and don't give a thought to the fact that doing so is the most dangerous activity most of us will undertake that day.  That risk is familiar, so we discount it.

But... working from your numbers (the last time I tried math on this site I completely screwed up, but here goes):

U.S. population = 330,000,000

Assume 80% of population gets the virus (could be completely wrong; bear with me) = 264,000,000

If we assume a 1% death rate (which guess could be much too high), then 2,640,000 fatalities--that is roughly the population of the city of Chicago.

If we assume 0.1% fatality rate, then 264,000 dead--roughly the population of Madison, Wisconsin.

Any or all of the above assumptions could be drastically wrong.  But they show the potential scope of the problem.  And that doesn't mention the strain on the health care system.  These are likely worst-case figures--I don't claim otherwise.  But IMO there is no way to realistically work these numbers to come up with merely a trivial risk.

I don't know what the answers are.  But this is serious stuff.  So is the economic dislocation caused by attempts to slow the virus' spread.  The next year ain't going to be easy.

Disclaimer:

I have not read many posts on this thread so I’m just sharing some info from a conversation with a medical professional.  If it’s a repeat, sorry for wasting your time.

Also, I’m not a doctor neither do I play one on TV so don’t shoot the messenger. 😂

My doctor friend seems to think that widespread COVID19 testing will be the key to returning to normalcy. Why? Because he and many others think the virus was around in the US as far back as November. His theory is that many more people had it than we know of but passed it off as a cold or flu, depending on the severity of the symptoms.

His theory is that once more people realize they've had the virus and are okay now it might ease the fears.

Also, right or wrong the following article makes it sound like we’re closer to reopening the country than we might think. Interesting that schools and daycares are two of the potential early adopters.

https://apple.news/AaVKctnKpQSukII2KTnTkgQ

Mike Trout on quarantining players to play for a long period ... We’re also people with families. My wife is due this summer. 

The hilarious irony of all the "better open it" argument is this: does anyone believe a group of people can kick start an economy totally and completely built on every last consumer WILLINGLY spending their money?

(Last nite I spoke with a PAC-12 coach. A religious, conservative guy. Used to eat out every single meal during the week. [Apart from going nuts about the situation] I asked him if the restaurants were giving away free food, would he go dine in. His answer, "are you crazy?")

So, reject the science, reject the experts. It's all moot. People will do whatever activity they feel safe. Over time, we all hope they will be satisfied as science and experts invent the things we didn't know we needed only four months ago.

Goosegg posted:

The hilarious irony of all the "better open it" argument is this: does anyone believe a group of people can kick start an economy totally and completely built on every last consumer WILLINGLY spending their money?

(Last nite I spoke with a PAC-12 coach. A religious, conservative guy. Used to eat out every single meal during the week. [Apart from going nuts about the situation] I asked him if the restaurants were giving away free food, would he go dine in. His answer, "are you crazy?")

So, reject the science, reject the experts. It's all moot. People will do whatever activity they feel safe. Over time, we all hope they will be satisfied as science and experts invent the things we didn't know we needed only four months ago.

Last night I spoke to my neighbor and 3 other people that said they can’t wait to eat in a restaurant again. 

Small businesses don’t need every single consumer to spend money to survive. They just need some type of trickle of revenue to keep the lights on and to pay some employees. 

TerribleBPthrower posted:

Goosegg posted:

The hilarious irony of all the "better open it" argument is this: does anyone believe a group of people can kick start an economy totally and completely built on every last consumer WILLINGLY spending their money?

(Last nite I spoke with a PAC-12 coach. A religious, conservative guy. Used to eat out every single meal during the week. [Apart from going nuts about the situation] I asked him if the restaurants were giving away free food, would he go dine in. His answer, "are you crazy?")

So, reject the science, reject the experts. It's all moot. People will do whatever activity they feel safe. Over time, we all hope they will be satisfied as science and experts invent the things we didn't know we needed only four months ago.

Last night I spoke to my neighbor and 3 other people that said they can’t wait to eat in a restaurant again. 

Small businesses don’t need every single consumer to spend money to survive. They just need some type of trickle of revenue to keep the lights on and to pay some employees. 

When (inevitable?) reports come out about a few restaurants becoming clusters of infection, is that going to scare many folks away who formerly were willing to be patrons?  (In part because folks have exaggerated responses to that sort of thing; in part because some currently don't have sufficient respect for this disease.)  Any given school, warehouse, manufacturing facility, office, etc. could potentially be the source of tens or hundreds of covid-19 cases.  That's going to be the price of returning to some version of normal life--it's going to happen, it's just a question of when and of how bad it will be.  Some otherwise healthy folks will be unlucky and will die from the virus.  And of course some of the pundits now calling for re-opening America for business will then start shouting about how irresponsible it was to subject folks to such risk...  

Let's not be too naive. Many, many, many people (including me) all over the country still go to work in offices, warehouses, manufacturing facilities, etc., every single day. And that's a good thing because they are still getting paid. So just because there is a stay at home order for most of the country doesn't mean most of the country is sitting at home.

Chico Escuela posted:

TerribleBPthrower posted:

Goosegg posted:

The hilarious irony of all the "better open it" argument is this: does anyone believe a group of people can kick start an economy totally and completely built on every last consumer WILLINGLY spending their money?

(Last nite I spoke with a PAC-12 coach. A religious, conservative guy. Used to eat out every single meal during the week. [Apart from going nuts about the situation] I asked him if the restaurants were giving away free food, would he go dine in. His answer, "are you crazy?")

So, reject the science, reject the experts. It's all moot. People will do whatever activity they feel safe. Over time, we all hope they will be satisfied as science and experts invent the things we didn't know we needed only four months ago.

Last night I spoke to my neighbor and 3 other people that said they can’t wait to eat in a restaurant again. 

Small businesses don’t need every single consumer to spend money to survive. They just need some type of trickle of revenue to keep the lights on and to pay some employees. 

When (inevitable?) reports come out about a few restaurants becoming clusters of infection, is that going to scare many folks away who formerly were willing to be patrons?  (In part because folks have exaggerated responses to that sort of thing; in part because some currently don't have sufficient respect for this disease.)  Any given school, warehouse, manufacturing facility, office, etc. could potentially be the source of tens or hundreds of covid-19 cases.  That's going to be the price of returning to some version of normal life--it's going to happen, it's just a question of when and of how bad it will be.  Some otherwise healthy folks will be unlucky and will die from the virus.  And of course some of the pundits now calling for re-opening America for business will then start shouting about how irresponsible it was to subject folks to such risk...  

Restaurants and any places where large crowds would gather close together will be the last to open, at least in my opinion. Until they can figure out a way to space people out, they need to remain closed. 

It is inevitable that there will be outbreaks if we open next week, next month, or six months,  and the government will need to have a policy on how to shut down a neighborhood, city, county, etc. very quickly. My original with this was that everything (including grocery stores and other "essential" businesses) needed to be closed for 2 weeks and every person tested. It wasn't that simple and it will require much more time than I expected. The best people around the world are working on this and we still don't have the testing capability or antibody testing. My opinion has now shifted to slowly starting to open businesses that are ready to follow the necessary guidelines. Those that can't need to stay closed a while longer. 

RJM posted:

I was just on the phone with my cousin. He’s a highly respected Doctor of Toxicology in the NYC area. Virology is his field.

He said a lot of half truths are being printed in the paper. He said if you want to see rainbows after the storm it’s there to read. If you want to see doom and gloom it’s there’s to read. He said not enough is known about COVID to be conclusive about anything. There won’t be until several years after this is over. He said the ideal health world is test everyone before they go back to work. But it’s not realistic. The five minute tests Abbott Labs is building will create false positives and negatives because they’re being rushed to service.