Houston19514

It's really not that simple. First, everyone dies. The analysis has to consider how much earlier people die than they otherwise would have. I read recently that a substantial number of corona virus deaths are elderly or otherwise-compromised people who likely would have died within a year even without the virus. The analysis has to consider that, along with the possibility that in the long run, many millions of people might have shorter life spans as a result of the lower prosperity caused by the economic shutdown. Plus, there remains the unanswered question of exactly what is expected to be accomplished by the economic shut-down. Flattening the curve does not necessarily mean fewer deaths from the virus. It just spreads them out further.

Really? It seems like there might be different data and electrical service and/or HVAC requirements, not to mention different load-bearing capacities if there might be medical equipment such as MRIs etc.

Not exactly. The Texas Commission on the Arts has designated the "Washington Avenue Arts District" as a (not the) state-designated cultural district (one of five such designated districts in Houston, seven in the metro area). Demonstrating Houston's difficulties with successful branding, the state designated it (presumably at the district's request) as the Washington Avenue Arts District, the street signs in the area say "First Ward Arts District" and it seems to operate at least on the web, as "Arts District Houston".

A massive economic slowdown is not a remotely possible outcome???? It's already happening. At the margins (which is where everything happens), there are already millions of people whose future health outlooks are diminished as a result of the shutdowns, and millions more to come. As a society, we will in fact be less prosperous and therefore have reduced health outlooks. I don't pretend to know where the crossover point is, but it's a discussion that should be had, openly and honestly, without hyperbolic claims that to have the discussion means you want to sacrifice 2% of our population or all old people.

Interesting. I had not idea buildings in Houston had been destroyed by the 1900 hurricane.

Just to be clear, the harms to health that can be expected to arise from an economic shutdown (or massive slowdown) are not due to civil unrest. It's about the million little things that would not longer be economically viable... money no longer available to invest in medical care, medical research, better building standards (there's a reason wealthier societies generally suffer fewer casualties from earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), better food production and distribution . . . Not to mention the fact that, without jobs (and income), it's kinda hard for people to buy food, shelter, medicine, and healthcare. Indeed, we hope there will continue to be medical discoveries, but without an economy to support that research and production...

The point isn't to sacrifice x% of people merely to avoid economic harm. The point is that, at a certain point, economic harm is also bad for society's health and could in fact cause more deaths than the x% being "sacrificed".

I think it had started. I believe they had reached the point where the crane base was installed in the last week or so.

That is based on a number of assumptions that are far from evident. (1) All or any substantial number of businesses can operate efficiently for the long-term with all or a substantial majority of workers WFH (probably not the case; certainly not the case for a very large number of businesses/employees.) (2) All or a substantial majority of the reduction in traffic we are seeing is the result of people not going to work (pretty clearly not the case); (3) No further growth.

Just to clarify, that it is not exactly what was reported. It was reported that "10% fewer cars on the roads would mean a 40% reduction in traffic jams." https://www2.deloitte.com/be/en/pages/strategy-operations/articles/future-of-mobility-press-release.html More important, I don't know where that conclusion came from. I cannot find it anywhere in the actual study.https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/be/Documents/strategy/FOMBrochureFinalVersion.pdf It's in the press release about the study, but it does not seem to be in the study.

2019 metro area population estimates were released yesterday: July 1, 2019 population: 7,066,141 July 1, 2018 population: 6,976,147 2017 population: 6,900,090 2016 population: 6,806,503 (they revise each year's estimates) 1 year increase: 89,994 Growth rate: 1.3% July 1, 2010 population: 5,947,236 9-year increase: 1,118,905 Percentage growth since July 1, 2010: 18.8%

Agreed. I wish I had more confidence in our city's leadership, including police department leadership. I'm hearing way too many first-hand accounts of police taking ridiculous amounts of time to respond to true emergencies (e.g., 45+ minutes to respond to an active home invasion, with homeowners hiding in their home). Combined with the out-of-control homeless throughout downtown, midtown, Museum District etc, we're starting to have the feeling of an out-of-control city, and not in a good way. I love all of the park projects and bike-lane projects and such, but if we don't take care of the basics, they will have been a huge waste of money.

He didn't just all but say it. He outright said it. "I would pick a woman to be my vice president.”

The Quitman grade separation is scheduled to start next year (approximately April 2021). Construction of the Hardy extension is scheduled to start in September 2021.

It's really easier to just keep walking.