rickair7777

I doubt linear regression will provide an adequate model.

Initially, early returning flyers will be dis-proportionally represented by atypical cases, perhaps urgent pent-up demand: visiting sick/needy relatives/friends, urgent business or personal business, plus a heft dose of IDGAF. Some of those will not actually want to be flying, and won't be rushing out to do it again if they don't have to.

Predicting this will require some good guesses on both the economy and the fear factor.

The ultimate key to the fear factor is a vaccine or very effective treatment; at this rate waiting for herd immunity will probably be too late for the economy as we know it (but greta will be thrilled that we're all on the dole tending our home gardens).

bradthepilot

I don't think it provides the best model either. But it's been pretty close over the last week or so. I presume it gets much less accurate the further out you look, yet it's better than the throw-a-dart-at-a-dartboard model many seem to use and it's based on solid mathematical and statistical principles. Put another way, "it's the worst possible choice, except for everything else".

I also somewhat disagree with the idea that a vaccine or very effective treatment is required before travel resumes en masse. That will absolutely be a factor for some, but for many I know it isn't even remotely on the radar. They are planning to travel in the next 3-5 months, and have already purchased tickets to California, Florida, Costa Rica, Europa, Ethiopia, and more. Anecdotal, yes. But given the cross section of the group makes me doubt popular "group think".

bigboeings

30 min ATC delays into DEN.. someone must be traveling!!

Excargodog

That is not correct in accordance With the risk management training I have had.

People respond less to the reality than to the perception of reality. They need reinforcement that return to normal is safe from someone or something they have a long familiarity with and trust in. In this pandemic almost everyone like that has failed them.

The early actions of the Chinese in this pandemic are reprehensible.
The actions of the World Health Organization went from foolhardy to inept to alarming.
The CDC certainly did not cover themselves with glory, and both political parties and most state government officials have been running around with all the purpose and clarity of chickens with their heads cut off.

there exists, in fact, only one credible and widely respected authority left in our culture:

When a certain mouse opens up his resorts the pax will be back.

aldonite7667

The good news is that a lot of business people I know are tired of zoom meetings and what to get back on the road. Coupled with the security issues behind zoom, they don’t trust the platform for sensitive meetings. The face-to-face meeting is very important.

Personally, I want to go on vacation. This has been tough on my family and we want to decompress with steak and booze and let someone else clean up and make pie bed while we go to the beach. We plan on a 2 tweet getaway at the end of June. I think a lot of people feel the same way.

LAS is going to be an issue. The people want Vegas open and tourists do too.

kingairfun

The "experts" in disease and the politicians have been an absolute disaster. Factor in media outlets wanting to gain shock value headlines and this whole thing has been on of the worlds worst moments in time. We'll look back on this in disbelief that we allowed this to escalate to the point that it did.

Heads should roll and people should be jailed, but all the politicians and media outlets and "expert" model forecasters will just skate by, be forgotten and move onto the next issue.. The election or some social issue like #metoo

Al Czervik

CDC portal this morning:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html

1,248,040 cases and 75,477 deaths

330 million / 1,248,040 =
0.0378% chance of infection (4%)

330 million / 75,477 =
0.000228% chance of death (2/1,000% chance of death)

For non-high risk groups, 20% x 0.000228 =
0.0000457% chance of death (4/10,000% chance of death)

TimetoClimb

As of today, sure. But that all hinges on what percentage of the total population has gotten the infection or will get the infection, a glaring omission in your calculations, given 1.24 million is a growing figure but 330 million isn't (for our purposes).
The virus isn't as deadly as we were led to believe but it is more deadly than you are suggesting.

Al Czervik

I think it’s exactly the opposite. I think a staggeringly large number of people have had it with no symptoms.

TimetoClimb

Well your calculation of chance of death assumes everyone HAS had it, so it literally can't get any lower than you've pointed out.