Because it will cost too much, in monetary and non-monetary terms. That’s why.

The pharmaceutical industry is not likely to develop, test, gain approval for, and be able to manufacture and distribute billions of doses of a vaccine for a couple of years at least.

The idea that these measures would stay in place for that long is completely untenable. It would destroy far more lives than the virus. It would be better to lose a million people in their 70s and 80s than to extend this lockdown for a period of years.

But that’s what this has really always been about from a policy perspective. There was always going to be an “acceptable” number of deaths and a balance to be struck between mortality and other effects. The political class can’t simply tell people what that is though (people would never stand for it, understandably). Instead society will develop a consensus over time. Judging by the mood, the efforts to reopen, the protests (on the extreme side), that is starting to happen.

And the people working on this are all driven by their own agendas (that dipshit Neil Ferguson first and foremost).

None of that matches the plan. I don't see why you aren't getting it.

The plan is to reopen much of the economy pretty quickly, with moderate precautions. This is only possible because the numbers have gotten under control, or are getting there.

The "two years" doesn't match the prevailing expectations. The guess a couple months ago was 18 months. It looks very possible we'll get that down to a year or less...even this winter for mass vaccine availability.

My advice is to pay attention.

My advice is to not be such a condescending prick.

Tell me how much you know about vaccine development and production. Have you also been on the phone with the head of one of the world’s largest vaccine companies in the last few weeks?

I obviously saw Moncef’s comments. He might be right, or the most advanced candidates might stumble for various reasons. Either way he is going to project confidence, because that’s part of his job with this appointment (not to mention that until last week he sat on Moderna’s board).

Try to focus on reality and not the public relations effort.

Just to wade into the waters here....

As an immediate and initial course of action, I do agree with the idea of shutting everything down....However, we all need to realize that economic activity is essential to human health and well being. Even a command or non-complex/industrialized (Feudal/Agrarian) economy would not survive a prolonged furlough of it's total capacity for months on end.

The minute after the shutdown press conferences were over, our mayors and governors should have been consulting with the experts about how we get to reopening slowly but steadily. Even in the midst of the incline, some activities could be modified to allow for safety. Just off the top of my head:

Allow small businesses to open with a capacity constraint based upon square footage. If a clothing boutique is 1000 sq ft and maintaining an 6 ft radius from one another is 114 ft sq, then a max of 8 people are allowed in the shop at one time.

Have cities subsidize online delivery fees.

Allow cultural institutions to open per appointment.

Move towards all cashier less checkout.

But I guess that's been the case everywhere.

Asia is pretty much completely reopened. Most of Europe, many places in Americas. At this point, we probably have much more people living in places reopened than in places with restrictions.

The difference is I know I don't know anything. My job is to gather and regurgitate what the experts say.

None of what I said relies on one company's vaccine candidate. There are many candidates.

As for who's more condescending, I think it's the guy who thinks he knows more than the experts, not the guy who calls him on it.

N.J. reveals multi-stage coronavirus reopening plan. We’re in ‘Stage 1,' Murphy says.

https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images....MY7PHYCOY.jpeg

====================
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/...outputType=amp

When can people go to other states and/or stay in hotels? I have not seen that addressed anywhere. Has anyone stayed in a hotel in the last two months, even if for essential work? Do hotels check to see if you are essential work or anything?

I wish they would give us dates so I have an idea of when I'll not be furloughed anymore. NJ Unemployment is generous, very generous (probally why we get raped in taxes)... but even with that, I want to go back to work. Like I've had my twisted vacation already, for almost 2 months, but I do want to work again to make more, and also because it keeps the mind sharp.

I believe you can do that, right now. Pretty sure you could have always done that, anywhere in the U.S., but Hawaii had a quarantine-in-hotel rule.

I'm checking online for hotels for a trip this summer and seeing that hotels may ask for verification of essential work. Is this one of those things that is unenforceable, like keeping people from entering another state?

Here in Delaware, you can enter the state, but must quarantine for 14 days. That will still be in effect even as things begin to reopen in June. Short-term rentals are also banned. For the most part, this has been unenforceable, but the police are allowed to pull over out-of-state license plates to remind about quarantining (that are not in I-95, I-295, and I-495).

Oh mah gah I'm already waxing nostalgic for the "before times."

On Facebook I got those "memories" notifications, and a few pics that I shared from 6 years ago popped up, pictures I took at a restaurant. In addition to going to the library, I really miss eating at restaurants!

From May 18, 2014:
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0c&oe=5EE94828
Photo by me

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...ff&oe=5EE777E4
Photo by me

Misty water-colored memories...

Sing it, Gladys! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9x6z9T0zG0

If deaths go down after a state reopens, could this prove the lockdowns weren't as important as we initially thought?

I mean, if one state is locked down and is barely getting better and another state opens up and is getting better by the day, do we ignore that? Because that is happening right now.

Honestly from what I've been told by hotel staff in Austin is that more people are starting to come. Alot of hotels occupancy is around 50% or more. Up from 20% last month.

No.

For one, there are still a lot of distancing measures in opened states. And a lot of people are avoiding the stuff that's reopening.

Two, there are too many variables. It would be evidence. It would take many times that evidence to even develop a prevailing theory, let alone what you'd call "proof." (The scientists will continue to use "theory" forever...kind of like gravity, human-caused climate change, and so on.)

Three, it's too early.

Four, there's not much testing even with the recent increases.

An animatronic sculpture called Wake was built here, displayed in Times Square for a while, and has returned home until September, when it will go off to be displayed somewhere in Europe. While here, it's been given a COVID-19 makeover:

South Slope sculpture on display with a COVID-19 reminder

https://static-10.sinclairstoryline....?1589827064496
Source.

IIRC the cross-country evidence from Sweden versus the other Scandinavian countries showed.

1. The overall reduction in activity was relatively similar, despite being entirely voluntary in Sweden.

2. Projected shrinkage of GDP across the countries is fundamentally identical.

3. Yet Sweden has a far higher death rate. Not as high as the worst-hit parts of the world like NYC, but higher than neighboring countries, or the U.S. as a whole.

The conclusion would suggest that the reduction in economic activity would happen regardless of whether social distancing was mandatory or voluntary.

Basically it very well may be the lessening of social distancing doesn't cause a "second wave." But the economy won't quickly recover either in that case.

From NYTimes Interactive.

Covid 19-related deaths(rate of doubling) as of May 19, 2020
By Metro Area:
36,089 New York(3 months)
4,259 Boston(4 weeks)
4,038 Chicago(4 weeks)
3,956 Detroit(3 months)
3,572 Philadelphia(4 weeks)
1,927 Los Angeles(4 weeks)
1,630 Washington(4 weeks)
1,122 Miami(5 weeks)
964 Indianapolis(6 weeks)
819 Denver(2 weeks)
764 Atlanta(6 weeks)
762 Baltimore(3 weeks)
723 Seattle(3 months)
657 St Louis(4 weeks)
632 Minneapolis-St Paul(3 weeks)
418 Riverside-San Bernardino(3 weeks)
389 Dallas-Ft Worth(4 weeks)
355 Phoenix(3 weeks)
308 Houston(6 weeks)
296 Las Vegas(6 weeks)
283 Cleveland(4 weeks)
273 Pittsburgh(2 months)
242 San Diego(4 weeks)
236 San Francisco-Oakland(2 months)
231 Columbus(3 weeks)
223 Cincinnati(6 weeks)
161 Kansas City(3 months)
149 Charlotte(4 months)
139 San Jose(6 months)
137 Tampa-St Petersburg(2 weeks)
130 Nashville(7 weeks)
111 Portland(2 months)
103 Austin(5 weeks)

I don’t think I know more than the experts, but I recognise their biases and priorities. It’s not their knowledge but their view of the trade offs that I am questioning.

Someone like Neil Ferguson knows an awful lot about epidemiology (although his models have always been wrong and erred significantly on the side of more negative scenarios). But that doesn’t mean he should decide public policy, that preventing as many deaths as possible regardless of other costs should be the objective, and so on. Not to mention he’s enjoyed the media attention (at least until recently).

Doctors have as their priority, perhaps only priority, the saving of lives. That’s good and admirable in a doctor. Policymakers have other things to consider. Just because an expert in virology and epidemiology says that the way to minimise the loss of life is to keep society “locked down”, with social distancing, no non-essential travel, no restaurants or bars, no large gatherings, and so on until there is a vaccine does not mean that is the right course of action - even if they are correct that this will save lives.

I hear you. I don't give a poop about cases though. It means literally nothing. I only care about hospitalization and deaths.

But the political narrative is quite different. The Illinois governor is acting like if ONE business opens up before he deems them ready, people will DIE. This hyperbolic language is literally their 'go-to' answer to questions the media ask of them. But, let's say 70% of the economy is shut down and then another 20% is allowed open. Even if these businesses see only 50% of their usual business, this is still a good case study to compare to places that are still in a strict lockdown, right?

I mean, we are told people will die if businesses open back up, period. If this isn't the case, we certainly shouldn't ignore that. Even CNN is conceding the Georgia and Florida case and they had a doctor on last night that stated wearing a mask while riding a bike is completely unneeded. I understand why politicians would want to prove lockdowns work, they are the ones who decided that. It's human nature to want to be right(look on this forum lol). But as casual observers, if a place like Georgia opens up, and it's been open now for almost a month, and things are getting better, this throws a wrench in the stick lockdown narrative. It doesn't mean its scientific proof, of course, but it should get us questioning some things.

I agree. All the places I've been visiting here in Arkansas seem to have less people than it would normally have, besides the Mexican restaurant we went to the first night I was here, we had to wait outside for 20 minutes to get a table(of course they are working at only 30% capacity). But as time goes on more and more people will venture out. Sweden has a headstart on most places. It will be interesting to see the unemployment rates in a place like Arkansas vs Illinois in a year's time. Does opening up two months earlier make a big difference in the increase in unemployment? We will see.

For people interested in data, we will have PLENTY to look at for a long time.

This is where my doubts come in: There is a certain segment of the media/political establishment that ever so subtly does not seem eager to see things reopen. It's not anything quantifiable, but when you read certain things it gives the impression that maybe there are people who genuinely don't see the importance of establishing some sort of economic normalcy or actively deride such concerns.

Yes, the protests are ridiculous and the refusal of many to wear masks out of "Freedom" strikes me as petulant. But there is a definite divide to this issue and it's sad to see so many take this situation in a partisan way.

Letting one company off the hook would release a flood of others. That's the point of examples.

Cases lead to other cases which lead to death. Cases matter. Policy-makers know that. If cases don't matter, a pandemic can become endemic...that's how you get several times the deaths.

Deaths are a very lagging indicator of a new policy. It's not even the first-generation infections after the change, but also the second, third, etc. To the extent a state like Georgia reopens, it risks this compounding effect. Since it's reopening slowly (since people are more cautious than the State) and with partial measures in place, it might be guessed that cases and deaths will increase slowly.

But meanwhile deaths have plummeted in the original hotspots...the goal shouldn't be to plateau but to drop cases and deaths way down.

That's why policy-makers make policy, and health agencies advise. I give them a pass for using blunt objects for a while, because finely-tuned approaches can be impossible in a short time, to implement and for the public to understand. In recent weeks, governors (like WA/OR) have been gradually rolling out updated policies that are largely about reopening things with a finer grain. This is also due to the effective shutdowns that have reduced our numbers...Washington was the initial #1 outbreak, and is now half the average aggregate death rate in the US, while Oregon has avoided a major outbreak at all.

The pain to workers, companies, museums, etc., is another topic. We could bail them out for months, far more effectively than we have. As discussed above somewhere, even three months of heavy bailouts would be cheap compared to the packages we've gotten.

While there are many legit issues beyond that, such as mental health, childhood social development, and so on, enjoyment isn't a priority and shouldn't be.

But Austin is open, whereas the Northeast US is not (yet). Do you know if hotels are asking for evidence of essential travel? Is non-essential travel allowed down there right now?

Ding ding ding ding ding! Exactly. Best post of this thread, IMO

I say little around here because you’ve pretty much echoed my sentiments on this issue.

And as many people know around here, I am a doctor and I am talking to my patients about Covid-19 every day. But public policy makers (Governors, Mayors) have a much greater responsibility that. They cannot just listen to the doctors and public health experts (we don’t all even agree with each other). They have to vigorously defend their local economies, citizen’s rights, etc etc. It does seem rather lazy that some Governors have essentially passed off all of their decision making to their local public health expert, as if there aren’t a bigillion other factors that warrant consideration.

The problem with your point here is, just as the lockdowns have been “blunt objects”, so have been the bail outs.

Many, many, many people or businesses just didn’t fulfill the “criteria” and haven’t gotten the support they need in this troubling time to avoid shutdown or bankruptcy. The proof is in the pudding—look at how people are responding. They don’t feel economically secure, like, AT ALL.

Yes, I've made the same point about the bailouts.

For starters, maybe everyone with a low/average income should have gotten an aid check in April, which they did. But the next one should be based on need. It should help keep people afloat, rather than only trying to stimulate spending.

There's no easy answer on the business side. It gets political...states trying to act responsibly should be aided by the federal government, not discouraged as a way to get them to open too early.

Speak for yourself. (And it’s also essential to mental health)

Anyway it’s a red herring. The things I can enjoy right now, like going to the park and getting some sun, are largely free. The things I enjoy that I can’t do right now generally cost money. One man’s enjoyment is another’s livelihood, and the leisure, entertainment, hospitality and travel sectors employ tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people globally.

And frankly I’m more concerned about restaurants dying (and not coming back for some time) than some additional 80-somethings. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Keeping people afloat isn’t good enough.

People that don’t qualify based on need are still being impacted financially. Plans to buy homes, plans to start families, all of these things are being disrupted by the economic damage caused by the lockdowns.

It’s time to open up, even if it costs some percentage increase in deaths. The only justification for the lockdown is the “structural” one related to health care system capacity.

Cuomo Press Conference: Today

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...1dc9f5032.jpeg

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...37cfc6090.jpeg

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...3bf6addfc.jpeg

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...d23371ddf.jpeg

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...688f1a785.jpeg

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/busin...4b61a7e0a.jpeg

Exactly. a political leader is told hospitals are about to overrun and citizens are going to be dying by the thousands because of a new disease about which scientists know nothing, I think shutting everything down for a short period and attempting to mitigate the economic impacts is the only responsible course of action. Unfortunately, what would already be an extremely delicate balance of policy priorities has been made nearly impossible because certain political leaders have decided it is in their personal interest to oppose literally everything being done about the crisis, even if it means directly contradicting themselves several times over.

If you think just telling citizens to wash their hands and social distance is enough, then you're not paying attention. Even two months into the worst of it, some buffoons still refuse to take even basic measures of decency toward the health of their neighbors. Try getting people to social distance overnight.

Brazil has crossed today the 1,000 daily deaths barrier. First country aside the US to reach this terrible mark.

1,179 deaths were registered in the country today, 324 in São Paulo state, most of them in the metro area, but growth upstate has been faster for the past two weeks.

yes I just noticed that...this refers to 1,000 or more deaths in a single day for those wondering...

Brazil's President when asked to comment on the country's rising death toll: "so what??"

Yes, I edited the comment as it was ambiguous. Bolsonaro said that on 28th April, when Brazil had reached 6,000 deaths. 19th May, and now we have 18,000 deaths.

In the mean time he made the second Ministry of Health to resign, the one he chose after been jealous of the former. And every weekend, he keeps attending the far right demonstrations in Brasília and attacking state governors and mayors.

So, you're worried about:
--Economic outcomes, which we could bail out if we wanted to
--Some other consequences that we're agreeing on, like mental health
--Enjoyment

We can figure out the first. The second is a big challenge but much can happen without reopening most things. The third (enjoyment) isn't worth killing hundreds of thousands for in the US alone.

Who is “we”? Do you think there’s a magic money tree? What a completely economically illiterate argument.

I am not receiving anything to make up for the large drop in income that I will experience this year, next year and probably into the future. And my taxes will go up to pay for the “bail outs” of individuals and businesses.

Enjoyment is mental health, and your argument on that point is non-existent.

We know this virus overwhelmingly kills the very old who are already in poor health. Those deaths have lower cost, economic and otherwise, than other deaths. And saving a life is not something we do at any cost anyway.

Much of my point is that we could have spent the existing bailouts better. But we can certainly afford more, to a point.

Your business could have been (and could be) aided like the others.

As for quality of life and what a death is worth, I suspect you're not convincing the majority here.

I can’t believe you’re defending keeping everybody locked out of earning a living and being 100% dependent on a Government that already missed the mark in their last bailouts with the argument of “gee, don’t worry they’ll get the next one right”

You’re missing the entire point. There is no such thing as a bailout for a collapsed economy that you’re forcing to stay closed. People don’t want to live in Cold War era Poland or present day North Korea, dude. Those places suck.

Wow, comparing this to "Cold War era Poland or present day North Korea"!

You just have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

People, I think, aren't thinking about the consequences, some of which are baked in at this point.

It's not "people just want to go to Red Lobster." But it's also not just 36 million unemployed. It's EVERYTHING.

-It's the fact that we are letting out criminals from jail. Cook county let out something like 25% of inmates. Also, people getting arrested are being released and told they will eventually get a warrant for their arrest. When will that be, if ever? Can our judicial and legal system handle ALL of these cases being called in at once in addition to the new cases that will rack up? Of course not. Oh, and when you are releasing criminals has anyone ask "hey what are they going to do for money in this shitty economy?" Of course not, no one has asked any serious question unless it revolves around corona. So we are releasing criminals with ZERO chance of them being employed- what could go wrong?

- People are donating a lot less. This is huge and will have a ripple effect. I've noted this before, but my girlfriend works for a marketing agency that works with nothing but non-profits. Her first campaign, which was for a children's hospital in Ireland, saw a 48% decrease in donations from respondents. This was the largest year-over-year decrease her CEO said they've ever seen...in 15 years.

-My friends dad owns 5 Mexican restaurants here in Arkansas. I asked her how the opening went last week and if they can survive. She said "We can survive but we are doing half to go orders, half dine-in. We rehired everyone back and raised their pay but some of them didn't want to come back to work because of the money they are making through unemployment, so to answer your question, probably no in the end." Even if we open things, it could take months for things to get back to normal and things WONT get back to normal until the government stops paying people 2,400 dollars a month ON TOP of their normal unemployment. This is the classic case of the government trying to do good but having horrible blowback. WHY ON EARTH would you go back to making 1,500 a month when you can sit at home and do nothing? And the Democrats want to extend this until January, they are insane.

-My mom can now get her thyroid surgery. However, it's going to take awhile. Her doctor, who she knows quite well, said that they have cut staff and there is a rush of people wanting to be seen so she is now looking at waiting almost a month for a surgery that she originally was supposed to be waiting 3 days for. My brother inlaw is a rad tech, he's been working roughly 20 hours a week. Him and my sister were in the market to buy some land and build a house, no longer. They are going to sit where they are at and wait to see what happens with his job and the housing market before they make a huge purchase.

-Keeping people "afloat" is not the same as keeping people prospering. Period. It seems people don't understand this. Also, the government help will end, and then what? Of course some will say CONTINUE HELPING but the answer to that is that we can't afford 2 trillion dollars a month. We would up spending 100% of our GDP on government spending.

- The longer this lockdown lasts, the more big companies and the internet-based companies win. There is zero question about this. What will cities look like in the future? Horribly boring. Population loss, vacant offices, restaurants gone, retail gone, and crime up.

-If someone spent a lifetime building a business and it goes under, there is NOTHING the government can do for them, nothing. Starting a business isn't some mathematical equation, it's time, effort, luck, and hard work. It won't come back tomorrow. How many small businesses will be lost after all this is done? It will be massive, even if it's just 10% of businesses. Those families will now have to find another income source, will it be as good as their former source? Chances are no. Most small business owners probably don't have the education or skills to do anything but the work they already did. Where will their employees go? Who cares. What will that do to the existing market? Obviously, it will make things more expensive for others. If you have 10 businesses in town that do some job and now you only have 5, things will get more expensive.

- Three decades of job gains have been lost. HOW LONG will it take to gain those back? No one here knows this. I might be 40-50 years old before it fully recovers.

-Kids are getting screwed. A second-grader on zoom? YEAH RIGHT. And now the writing is on the wall. Teacher unions will resist any and all openings that are workable. The hysteria in America is laughable really, and it's anti-science. But who cares, it makes for nice headlines on CNN. Fuck the kids.

-No tax revenue, no money for local governments. No money for local governments, no services or road repairs etc. We could give everyone in America check, every month. But if they DON'T SPEND IT, then it means absolutely nothing for the economy. It seems people aren't understanding this point. How many people with jobs just pocketed the 1,200 dollars because of the uncertain future? I put 600 into savings because of the crazy economy. I imagine a lot of other folks we're doing the responsible thing and saving the money for the unknown.

- How many places like Orlando or Las Vegas will be facing worst-than-great-depression economic situations? What will that look like, does anyone know? Of course not, no one knows. But then we have idiots going around acting like everything will be AOK once we open up. They aren't doing this based on history or sound economic theory, they are saying this because their religion is #stayathome and they will believe in anything possible to make their position stronger.

- How many people are going to buy homes or cars right now? My girlfriend's job is quite secure at this point, but she is even worried and has started putting a little more in savings than spending based on an uncertain future.



All of these things and 10,000 other issues are all related and aren't going to be fixed by some bullshit government check. The fear-based hysteria the media has been spewing for almost three months now has created enough fear that people are still agreeing with shutdowns, are excusing away our MASSIVE economic issues, and are still saying people that want to open up don't care about people dying. The senator from Ohio said it just yesterday during a hearing. "How many people are you willing to die in order to add .5% to the GDP." That bastard said that. An elected official. When that is what "leaders" are saying, you know the idiots on the ground are also saying insane shit like that.

People control the economy. People do not control mother nature. If you take nothing else away from this pandemic experience, you should take away that lesson.

A few articles on how things are going around here:

Coronavirus forces Murphy, N.C. musician to be stuck at sea for 56 days

Asheville restaurant persists in defying governor's stay home order

Not all restaurant owners ready to resume indoor dining

From cocktails to toilet paper: Restaurants, bars, serve as markets during COVID-19

At some point you come to the conclusion that there may be lots of people who are just enjoying this. There is a subtle desire among some to see a great “equalizer” in society, and to see those who’ve economically done well now suffer.

Problem is, a lot of people who were already poor before are only going to be worse off and dependent on Governm—.........ahhhh yes........wait a sec....very sneaky. Now it’s making sense. This multi-decade march toward making Government our Daddy in every walk of life is a tide that I am too small to turn. So perhaps I should run for political office? If you can’t beat um, join um. :hmmm:

Are people seeing out-of-staters in their area? This is a question for people in states that began to reopen and for people in states that did not begin to reopen.

I am seeing so many cars from New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, and so on. They are not just on I-95, passing through, but they are also driving around the towns and in store parking lots and all. I can't imagine that all of these people are essential.

The suffering is disproportionately service workers. People in career jobs (myself included) are mostly doing fine, aside from temporary drops in our retirement accounts. It sounds like you're projecting.

This is not at all true. There are salary cuts being implemented across white collar sectors, and people who depend on bonuses or other discretionary payments (or actual payments from clients for success) are fucked. They are obviously losing a lot more in nominal terms than people at or close to minimum wage. This is disrupting life plans (e.g., only an idiot would start a family this year).

Again, lock down the old folks and open everything else up (as in normal activity). Or let them take the risk if they want to. I don’t really care.

That's the problem, people should NEVER depend on bonus payments. They should be looked at as gravy on top of regular pay should a situation like the one we're currently in occur. My wife gets regular and pretty generous bonuses but they aren't factored into our budget because of the nature of her industry and that anything can happen.

If they were previously employed, many just go back to the jobs they had prior to getting arrested, and yes I'm aware that many were not previously employed. You're talking about the Cook County Jail though and not the Illinois Department of Corrections. The people they're letting out either via recognizance bonds or bond reductions (meaning some are still posting) are awaiting trial and haven't been convicted yet. That means a number of people getting out are on lower level felony allegations, especially in terms of property crime, drug use, etc.

As for the judicial system, it's going to be backlogged for ages. There's no way around it, especially since the Illinois Supreme Court has yet to reinstate the speedy trial statute. That means those currently in the jail because they can't post bond are currently not entitled to a trial within 120 days until further order of the Supreme Court.

Update: The Supreme Court actually just put out a new order going into place on June 1. It allows for the local chief judges of the state's circuits to continue jury trials without tolling speedy trial time now if they need to.