All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (5 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[Beach Friends]

I think it isn't jumping the gun because we've already seen spikes of the infamous COVID-19 'cluster' in areas where economies have been opened up or where protestors have gathered en masse.

I'm arguing that if we don't stay shut down, we'll see more people dying than if we did. Not emotion or 'want' by me. I want the economy back open as much as anyone else..I'm just stating what I believe to be the unfortunate case.

Those openings, in turn, will cause businesses to 'operate at their own risk' or have the state/local govt's tell them to shut down again if we do see another spike.

Clubs, bars, music, all sporting events remain shut down. I mean, can you imagine a date when they 'can' open back up safely? Not until we have a vaccine. It'll take ONE outbreak on the news to send that business to its grave. Restaurants and clothing stores for example may operate on a very restricted basis, but will still lose revenue dramatically due to scares of outbreaks. I dont even see how they survive in the near term without drastic assistance.

I may be off base, but I'm saying based on what we know about how the virus spreads and our lack of vaccine within the forseeable future, I don't see how things don't go from bad to worse --- without -- and this is where I'm pitching my case, some sort of government bail out for the middle class. Expand SBA loans until the end of the year at least. Suspend all rent and mortgage payments. Cover all credit card payments and interest. Send money to every American weekly so they don't have to decide between their health and possibly infecting others or dying and feeding their families.

This isnt a liberal pipe dream. This is what other countries are doing and what will be necessary and moral to keep our country from irreparable damage.

I think our nation should be having this discussion and the stakes are too high not to try to do it as rationally as possible. I think one thing we can agree on is that this virus - whatever it actually is with regards to health risk - is probably going to be with us for a while.

Our society is so fragmented that rational discussion seems impossible. Everything is seen through a pro Trump and anti Trump lense.

Obviously Trump is a big part of that, but the truth is that our media is failing us tremendously. The media may act like they despise him, but they have learned to rack up viewers in perhaps the laziest way possible by playing one side against the other.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I am not sure what the mindset of people will be. So perhaps you are correct. I am sure there will be many people who do not spend money like they used to do regardless of how much opens up or not
But it seems like you are now arguing that things should be or will be shut down just to avoid people getting the disease.
I thought the idea was that things would be shut down to buy us some time so hospitals would not be overrun. At this point it seems like some degree of opening back up seems prudent given that hospitals are laying off people for lack of activity, unless the argument is that we should stay locked down until it is certain that no one wil lget the virus.

The argument is that you stay locked down until you can flatten the curve AND have the necessary infrastructure in place to identify, trace, and therefore minimize the spread.

Without it we are simply keeping economic confidence suppressed and playing Russian Roulette with human health and safety. With a much, much greater chance of resurgence that simply forces us back into hiding far longer than would have been had we just been more diligent in the isolation strategy until all the metrics are better met and the needed infrastructure strongly in place.

 

[JimEverett]

I think it isn't jumping the gun because we've already seen spikes of the infamous COVID-19 'cluster' in areas where economies have been opened up or where protestors have gathered en masse.

I'm arguing that if we don't stay shut down, we'll see more people dying than if we did. Not emotion or 'want' by me. I want the economy back open as much as anyone else..I'm just stating what I believe to be the unfortunate case.

Those openings, in turn, will cause businesses to 'operate at their own risk' or have the state/local govt's tell them to shut down again if we do see another spike.

Clubs, bars, music, all sporting events remain shut down. I mean, can you imagine a date when they 'can' open back up safely? Not until we have a vaccine. It'll take ONE outbreak on the news to send that business to its grave. Restaurants and clothing stores for example may operate on a very restricted basis, but will still lose revenue dramatically due to scares of outbreaks. I dont even see how they survive in the near term without drastic assistance.

I may be off base, but I'm saying based on what we know about how the virus spreads and our lack of vaccine within the forseeable future, I don't see how things don't go from bad to worse --- without -- and this is where I'm pitching my case, some sort of government bail out for the middle class. Expand SBA loans until the end of the year at least. Suspend all rent and mortgage payments. Cover all credit card payments and interest. Send money to every American weekly so they don't have to decide between their health and possibly infecting others or dying and feeding their families.

This isnt a liberal pipe dream. This is what other countries are doing and what will be necessary and moral to keep our country from irreparable damage.

I meant add the following to address your more substantive point:

I sort of agree with you. But I think a good deal of what you are wanting has been met. For example, here in Tennessee unemployment benefits have increased and there is a federal payment that goes along with it - something like $480 plus an additional $600 or so each week. I would think something similar is going on everywhere else. I would also imagine that would be more money than many people make when working.
At the same time, there are large numbers of people that have minimal negative economic impact (main, imo, the people who are so vehemently opposed to opening back up). These people can work from home or otherwise are making the same or very similar money now than they were before.

 

[Heathen]

I am not sure what the mindset of people will be. So perhaps you are correct. I am sure there will be many people who do not spend money like they used to do regardless of how much opens up or not
But it seems like you are now arguing that things should be or will be shut down just to avoid people getting the disease.

You're right, I am arguing that. What is the alternative here though?

Look, here's where I don't see the pieces of the puzzle fitting..."Opening back up the economy" is really an experiment. Many people will do this in a way that doesn't follow the previous safety guidelines -- as in people piling in to visit public places and state parks. People wont be required to wear a mask in many circumstances at all. It's just reasonable to conclude that given these events, outbreaks will arise. Thus, a knee-jerk reaction to such events will be businesses getting less customers in person. It's certainly only a hypothesis, but I don't see common sense dictating many other scenarios. We will see I suppose? One can hope the virus isn't as prevalent as it seems to be.

I thought the idea was that things would be shut down to buy us some time so hospitals would not be overrun. At this point it seems like some degree of opening back up seems prudent given that hospitals are laying off people for lack of activity, unless the argument is that we should stay locked down until it is certain that no one wil lget the virus.

I didnt hear the argument regarding the hospital capacity, but I'm sure that's a reason. I mean, we didn't have enough beds to begin with, so we can only hope we don't see a really nasty outbreak.

I guess my most reasoned argument is that people should stay in lockdown until we have a readily available vaccine, and businesses that would tank in this situation are kept afloat by the government until it subsides. I know that might not be a popular stance, but I'm looking at it through the lens of ensuring the least number of people get sick and/or die possible.

 

[Farb]

That's a great example of mental gymnastics. The problem was still that people are stupid and listen to authority figures. So, when an authority figure says something stupid, it can be dangerous. So, it doesn't matter if the 'stupid person' is a democrat of republican. What matters is when public officials, given a public trust, and authority can't muck it up so awfully.

So, thanks for reminding us of another of Trump's failings in this regard.

EDIT: And this ignores the fact that she may have been lying to try to kill her husband...

As for your gymnastic, I really hope she turns to out to be lying about her party affiliation, as well as all of their financial contributions over the years to the Democratic party turn out to be false as well, so you can solidify your stance that she was as Trumper, i really do.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I guess my most reasoned argument is that people should stay in lockdown until we have a readily available vaccine, and businesses that would tank in this situation are kept afloat by the government until it subsides. I know that might not be a popular stance, but I'm looking at it through the lens of ensuring the least number of people get sick and/or die possible.

There is no real reason we should have to wait that long until lifting a significant number of lockdown policies, but what absolutely needs to happen is benchmarks met in healthcare facilities based on the possibility of a resurge, a robust and functioning tracking and tracing system(which is actually a really good temporary stimulus program because it will require a ton of jobs to fill), and better flattening of the curve in many states.

 

[Heathen]

I meant add the following to address your more substantive point:

I sort of agree with you. But I think a good deal of what you are wanting has been met. For example, here in Tennessee unemployment benefits have increased and there is a federal payment that goes along with it - something like $480 plus an additional $600 or so each week. I would think something similar is going on everywhere else. I would also imagine that would be more money than many people make when working.
At the same time, there are large numbers of people that have minimal negative economic impact (main, imo, the people who are so vehemently opposed to opening back up). These people can work from home or otherwise are making the same or very similar money now than they were before.

I guess what I would want or think is most logical/beneficial is that on top of unemployment are weekly deposits to every American. I think this would be for many who are struggling to put food on the table even receiving unemployment checks to do just that and for those who have a WFH position or are more well off to spend that money to keep small businesses on some sort of normal business regimen if nothing else to keep a sense of normalcy.

I've heard small businesses (my dad's company for one) will have their payroll met based on amount granted for 2-3 more months -- I may be wrong on the exact number. That is troubling to me because I don't see their situations resolving in that timeframe. I propose the government keep these businesses afloat until the end of the year at least. I know even the government wont know of a 'timeframe', but at least it will give business owners a peace of mind knowing they have much more time to plan.

 

[JimEverett]

You're right, I am arguing that. What is the alternative here though?

Look, here's where I don't see the pieces of the puzzle fitting..."Opening back up the economy" is really an experiment. Many people will do this in a way that doesn't follow the previous safety guidelines -- as in people piling in to visit public places and state parks. People wont be required to wear a mask in many circumstances at all. It's just reasonable to conclude that given these events, outbreaks will arise. Thus, a knee-jerk reaction to such events will be businesses getting less customers in person. It's certainly only a hypothesis, but I don't see common sense dictating many other scenarios. We will see I suppose? One can hope the virus isn't as prevalent as it seems to be.



I didnt hear the argument regarding the hospital capacity, but I'm sure that's a reason. I mean, we didn't have enough beds to begin with, so we can only hope we don't see a really nasty outbreak.

I guess my most reasoned argument is that people should stay in lockdown until we have a readily available vaccine, and businesses that would tank in this situation are kept afloat by the government until it subsides. I know that might not be a popular stance, but I'm looking at it through the lens of ensuring the least number of people get sick and/or die possible.

I am not sure what would change my mind, but in my metro area of over 2m people - 0.17% have tested positive and 0.003% have died. With those numbers I am not sure I understand why we should continue to have a total lockdown like we have had.

 

[Heathen]

There is no real reason we should have to wait that long until lifting a significant number of lockdown policies, but what absolutely needs to happen is benchmarks met in healthcare facilities based on the possibility of a resurge, a robust and functioning tracking and tracing system(which is actually a really good temporary stimulus program because it will require a ton of jobs to fill), and better flattening of the curve in many states.

Yeah, I guess I didn't mean 'lockdown' in the sense that everyone has to stay in their homes. More so the social distancing guidelines and wearing PPE, etc. when you do go out.

I'm just worried that relaxing measures when we're so clearly unprepared already is recipe for disaster. I'd feel a lot better about the situation if our economic plan was set up as a temporary social safety net and hospitals/clinics were much more well-equipped.

 

[Heathen]

I am not sure what would change my mind, but in my metro area of over 2m people - 0.17% have tested positive and 0.003% have died. With those numbers I am not sure I understand why we should continue to have a total lockdown like we have had.

Yeah, not a total 'lockdown'. That probably sounded marshall-law'ish. More to abide by very stringent safety guidelines when you're out.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

As for your gymnastic, I really hope she turns to out to be lying about her party affiliation, as well as all of their financial contributions over the years to the Democratic party turn out to be false as well, so you can solidify your stance that she was as Trumper, i really do.

Party affiliation has nothing to do with the critique.

Republican or Democrat, signal boosting dangerous and unproven treatment is a abject failure of leadership and should be condemned and criticized without additional qualification.

It is simply made worse because like the TigerDroppings threads I mentioned, Trump supporters treat his word(despite all the evidence to the contrary) like a gospel truth. So you did have hundreds of people just in that community crowdsourcing supply chains to acquire the drug to self medicate on the back of the president’s inferred endorsement. Which makes that leadership failure even more condemnable. Because Trump(I could shoot someone on fifth avenue and still be loved by my people) knows the power he has to influence his followers in particular, but the country at large(even Democrats).

 

[JimEverett]

Yeah, not a total 'lockdown'. That probably sounded marshall-law'ish. More to abide by very stringent safety guidelines when you're out.

I think and hope most people do that. I went to the supermarket this morning and even though I did not want to or feel the need to do so - I wore a mask just becasue I think it makes others more comfortable.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I am not sure what would change my mind, but in my metro area of over 2m people - 0.17% have tested positive and 0.003% have died. With those numbers I am not sure I understand why we should continue to have a total lockdown like we have had.

What does your states testing and tracing capabilities look like?

What happens if a bunch of low symptomatic people go to a public gathering and spread it?

Without that system in place you have no real method to nip the potential surge in the bud. Like New Orleans it just spreads for weeks and then you have no means but to lockdown to stop the spread.

How would the wiser action not be to maintain relatively strong social distancing guidelines, even if not a total lockdown in smaller cities, until that capacity is achieved?

I know you have avoided addressing this from me and other posters, and I suspect it is because you don’t seem to have an answer yet, but it makes your prescriptions hard to support when it doesn’t seem like you are engaging with all the evidence and all the critiques to the sooner-than-later strategy you are promoting.

 

[FullMonte]

This isn’t true. The models predicted what would happen based on the data that they had at the time.

We made drastic changes across the country to prevent what the models were showing.

What the models were showing was prevented, and new models continue to demonstrate a downward trend and the overall efficacy of the mitigation steps taken.

Thanks for playing.

Exactly. Someone posted something that was a perfect analogy.

May doctor told me that I had an serious infection that could cause me to be hospitalized. He prescribed a strong antibiotic, and I took it as prescribed. I got better and didn’t end up in the hospital. He clearly didn’t know what he was talking about when he said I could end up in the hospital, so I think I need to find a better doctor.

 

[Beach Friends]

Exactly. Someone posted something that was a perfect analogy.

May doctor told me that I had an serious infection that could cause me to be hospitalized. He prescribed a strong antibiotic, and I took it as prescribed. I got better and didn’t end up in the hospital. He clearly didn’t know what he was talking about when he said I could end up in the hospital, so I think I need to find a better doctor.

You should probably just ignore the fact that he gave you a worst case scenario that never developed and go ahead and check into the hospital anyway.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

 

[Lapaz]

I'd be interested to hear Republicans/Trump voters opinion on this guy. This is Vic DiBitetto. He's a comedian and recently absolutely ripped the government for its COVID-19 response. I know Republicans mantra is generally being pretty anti-government, but what Vic blasts is the checks all while the rich get bailed out. He says we need to cancel rents and mortgage payments until this crisis is over and I 1000% agree. Those checks were petty. It's our money, and if the government can provide corporate socialism EVERY YEAR while regular people pay just as much if not more in taxes, the government can also restructure to provide rent relief AND provide checks for food and other necessities during this virus.

The vibe I get is that:

Republicans want less government and think it doesnt work
Democrats want more government and think it doesnt work

What if we concentrate on making it work for the people (common denominator?). Just a thought....

WARNING...The rant is expletive filled....but don't overlook the message. Tell me what you guys think:

'I struck a nerve': the US comedian whose rant against Covid-19 bailouts went viral

Vic DiBitetto believes his rant about the US government’s response was viewed more than 10m times because of his raw anger – but he says it wasn’t an act

www.theguardian.com

I didn't hear him say to cancel rents, and I don't agree with doing that as a blanket policy. If someone's job has been closed due to Covid, then that's fine, but many people are still getting income. Also, he ranted that banks are going to require a 3 month lump payment, rather than adding the 3 months to the end of the mortgage. I don't know if any other banks are adding the 3 month mortgage payment to the end of the loan, but I know for a fact that at least one bank is doing that, because I have a mortgage with Bankcorp, and that's exactly what they are doing. I own a few rental properties, and I have forgiven the rent for one of my tenants that I know has lost income, but the others are working, so I haven't asked the banks to extend those mortgages.

 

[Lapaz]

You're right, I am arguing that. What is the alternative here though?

Look, here's where I don't see the pieces of the puzzle fitting..."Opening back up the economy" is really an experiment. Many people will do this in a way that doesn't follow the previous safety guidelines -- as in people piling in to visit public places and state parks. People wont be required to wear a mask in many circumstances at all. It's just reasonable to conclude that given these events, outbreaks will arise. Thus, a knee-jerk reaction to such events will be businesses getting less customers in person. It's certainly only a hypothesis, but I don't see common sense dictating many other scenarios. We will see I suppose? One can hope the virus isn't as prevalent as it seems to be.

I didnt hear the argument regarding the hospital capacity, but I'm sure that's a reason. I mean, we didn't have enough beds to begin with, so we can only hope we don't see a really nasty outbreak.

I guess my most reasoned argument is that people should stay in lockdown until we have a readily available vaccine, and businesses that would tank in this situation are kept afloat by the government until it subsides. I know that might not be a popular stance, but I'm looking at it through the lens of ensuring the least number of people get sick and/or die possible.

I don't think we can stay locked-down until we get a vaccine which could take 12 to 18 more months. Our economy has to produce goods and services, otherwise our money will become worthless. I think we will need to re-open within a few weeks with precautions, and after we have infrastructure in place to minimize the spread, and after the daily cases have started dropping in your region. That can be done with a tremendous increase in testing (both active cases and anti-body tests) to identify hot spots, increased medical facilities to be ready for surges, and resources to do contact tracing to determine where the next hot spots may occur and to quarantine the riskiest people. Once daily cases have started to decline, that can give you a good idea of the level of medical infrastructure needed, and that's a good time to start the phased openings that have been discussed. Besides, we aren't truly fully locked-down, because a large portion of the population is still working, so we now have some experience on how to protect people that are working.