All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (11 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?

 

[Dadsdream]

It appears they've hammered out a deal to bar Trump's business interests from benefiting from the stimulus.

President Donald Trump’s businesses are barred from getting loans or investments under the new $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus deal, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The Trump Organization, which the president has not divested, is run by his two elder sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. The company controls several hotels, resorts and golf clubs, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. The resort closed last week, during its peak season.

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

President Trump's businesses are barred from getting loans or investments under the new $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus deal, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Dadsdream]

Meanwhile, on the "Let's Make A Buck on Coronavirus" category:

McDonald’s gives its famous logo a makeover to promote social distancing

 

[TaylorB]

Seriously, and I am not saying it is a good thing, but I think people know Trump is a BS'r and they don't really care.
They take what he says with a grain of salt. They want the big picture, the details they will get elsewhere.

He is in that magical spot where one gets a pass.

I think you're right about everything you said, with the caveat (as noted by the first response to your post) that I don't think everyone is aware that Trump is a liar, or at least the extent to which he is a liar.

Yikes

When 90% of people trust you for information about coronavirus, and you are the president of one of the potential epicenters of the outbreak, you can't falsely minimize its mortality rate by comparing it to a figure about Spanish flu that's blatantly untrue and inflated. You're going to get people killed.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Yikes

When 90% of people trust you for information about coronavirus, and you are the president of one of the potential epicenters of the outbreak, you can't falsely minimize its mortality rate by comparing it to a figure about Spanish flu that's blatantly untrue and inflated. You're going to get people killed.

The problem is that he doesn't care if people get killed from listening to him. In fact, he's willing to sacrifice however many of the people who believe him it takes to get the economy going. Sacrificing your life for the economy is starting to be a talking point for some republicans.

 

[The moose]

It appears they've hammered out a deal to bar Trump's business interests from benefiting from the stimulus.

President Donald Trump’s businesses are barred from getting loans or investments under the new $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus deal, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The Trump Organization, which the president has not divested, is run by his two elder sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. The company controls several hotels, resorts and golf clubs, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. The resort closed last week, during its peak season.

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

President Trump's businesses are barred from getting loans or investments under the new $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus deal, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

www.cnbc.com

So I take it as you were in the camp of bailouts of whom ever with no knowledge of who got the money till after the election? Beautiful crooked plan foiled.

I all fairness he is the smartest person ever why would he need any help? One of the greatest business minds of all time as he says.

Also to put hotels and golf courses that are irrelevant to the greater good ahead of other businesses would be just plain silly.

Now if said president wants to allow hotels to become makeshift hospital space for the greater good would be another thing all together. Is he doing that? Nope.

Or even has he donated food or paper products from closed resorts to the cause? Nope not even a square of tp!

 

[Saintamaniac]

Now if said president wants to allow hotels to become makeshift hospital space for the greater good would be another thing all together.

If he did this, it would be a game changer for him. Not in the sense that it would drastically change the view that anyone who doesn't like him has, but in the sense it would show that he's actually trying to do something that requires some sort of compassion for humans. Imagine the headlines..."Trump Makes His Closed Properties Available to be Converted to Hospitals."

 

[Dadsdream]

Also to put hotels and golf courses that are irrelevant to the greater good ahead of other businesses would be just plain silly.

The same could be said of all these empty hotels, restaurants, casinos and golf courses here on the Gulf Coast.
I'm sure they'll get their cut though.

The "for the greater good" line is straight out of the Bolshevik Revolution. Gives me the creeps every time I read it.

 

[The moose]

If he did this, it would be a game changer for him. Not in the sense that it would drastically change the view that anyone who doesn't like him has, but in the sense it would show that he's actually trying to do something that requires some sort of compassion for humans. Imagine the headlines..."Trump Makes His Closed Properties Available to be Converted to Hospitals."

Never gonna happen.

Just imagine ball rooms holding infected and beds upstairs for healthcare workers to sleep. Kitchen to feed them. It would be perfect.

Yet he has not given a square of tp. It is very telling of what type of human he is. The rest of the world is working to fight this but his assets are off the table.

 

[TaylorB]

The problem is that he doesn't care if people get killed from listening to him. In fact, he's willing to sacrifice however many of the people who believe him it takes to get the economy going. Sacrificing your life for the economy is starting to be a talking point for some republicans.

I agree with the first two points. As to the third, the inevitable conflict between those who want to stop the spread vs. those who want to save the economy will certainly be more nuanced than, for example, Dan Patrick's clownish comments about sacrificing grandparents. As silly as his comments were, the concept of accepting a certain level of risk for the greater good is one we encounter on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not. Ask anyone who works a dangerous job, like working offshore, or repairing electrical wires (some people have to do this from a helicopter). We know a certain percentage of people will be killed or seriously hurt working those jobs, but the services are essential to the economy. We accept risks with seasonal flu, driving cars, etc., as well. We know for a fact that people will be killed by both of those things, but we don't order everyone to stay home and not drive.

The difference here is that with all of those other activities for which we willingly accept risk, we have so much information on what those risks are, and what the benefits of assuming those risks are, that we are able to make an informed assessment of where we want to draw the line as a society. With coronavirus, we probably have a good idea of how the measures we're taking will harm the economy, but we certainly don't have enough information to fully assess the harm of the alternative -- returning to work before we have the outbreak under control.

But instead of seeing people like Dan Patrick saying we should sacrifice people for the greater good, you're more likely to see people like Trump continue to (1) minimize the potential harm of the spread of coronavirus while (2) magnifying the potential harm to the economy, and having those simple talking points permeate all the echo chambers. The fact that Trump is untrustworthy and tends to reject scientific analysis he doesn't view as beneficial to him, combined with the fact that 90% of Rs find him trustworthy, concerns me greatly in light of the decisions we're about to have to make as a country.

My gut tells me that the measures we are currently taking are appropriate, and that we should continue to heed the advice of epidemiologists about the consequences of lifting those measures too early. We should also make sure we are conscious of the disastrous economic consequences of shutting down, and we should continuously reassess to ensure the measures we are taking to prevent the spread are more helpful than harmful. Hopefully we are able to buy ourselves time to get a better handle on this outbreak so that we can get the economy rolling again, because people are hurting badly. I've heard thoughtful arguments on both sides of that coin from intelligent and well-intentioned people; Trump is neither thoughtful, nor intelligent, nor well-intentioned, and I can only hope most people do not attribute much weight to his opinions on this crisis.

 

[The moose]

The same could be said of all these empty hotels, restaurants, casinos and golf courses here on the Gulf Coast.
I'm sure they'll get their cut though.

The "for the greater good" line is straight out of the Bolshevik Revolution. Gives me the creeps every time I read it.

Dude I sure hope you and your family makes it thru this.

But I do think it would take some earth shattering thing for you not to fall in line and question this leadership.

And yes to beat this is gonna take for the greater good thinking. Just like WW2.

Good luck

 

[The moose]

I agree with the first two points. As to the third, the inevitable conflict between those who want to stop the spread vs. those who want to save the economy will certainly be more nuanced than, for example, Dan Patrick's clownish comments about sacrificing grandparents. As silly as his comments were, the concept of accepting a certain level of risk for the greater good is one we encounter on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not. Ask anyone who works a dangerous job, like working offshore, or repairing electrical wires (some people have to do this from a helicopter). We know a certain percentage of people will be killed or seriously hurt working those jobs, but the services are essential to the economy. We accept risks with seasonal flu, driving cars, etc., as well. We know for a fact that people will be killed by both of those things, but we don't order everyone to stay home and not drive.

The difference here is that with all of those other activities for which we willingly accept risk, we have so much information on what those risks are, and what the benefits of assuming those risks are, that we are able to make an informed assessment of where we want to draw the line as a society. With coronavirus, we probably have a good idea of how the measures we're taking will harm the economy, but we certainly don't have enough information to fully assess the harm of the alternative -- returning to work before we have the outbreak under control.

But instead of seeing people like Dan Patrick saying we should sacrifice people for the greater good, you're more likely to see people like Trump continue to (1) minimize the potential harm of the spread of coronavirus while (2) magnifying the potential harm to the economy, and having those simple talking points permeate all the echo chambers. The fact that Trump is untrustworthy and tends to reject scientific analysis he doesn't view as beneficial to him, combined with the fact that 90% of Rs find him trustworthy, concerns me greatly in light of the decisions we're about to have to make as a country.

My gut tells me that the measures we are currently taking are appropriate, and that we should continue to heed the advice of epidemiologists about the consequences of lifting those measures too early. We should also make sure we are conscious of the disastrous economic consequences of shutting down, and we should continuously reassess to ensure the measures we are taking to prevent the spread are more helpful than harmful. Hopefully we are able to buy ourselves time to get a better handle on this outbreak so that we can get the economy rolling again, because people are hurting badly. I've heard thoughtful arguments on both sides of that coin from intelligent and well-intentioned people; Trump is neither thoughtful, nor intelligent, nor well-intentioned, and I can only hope most people do not attribute much weight to his opinions on this crisis.

I hear where you are coming from with this but it is way different.

The risk of a lineman of the power grid is for him and him alone. His family takes that risk for financial gain.

The risk with this goes to everyone in contact with the infected or even people that followed him at a store or an ATM. Not nearly the same in risk because everyone else involved.

Yeah I agree we have plenty of risky jobs that people are paid well to do because of risk but that risk is now applied to pumping gas or going to the store. It is not the same. The risk is for the economy or the greater good but the ones taking risk are not being compensated for risk like in the job force.

This reminds me of the star wars debate in the movie clerks.

About the contractors on the death star.

 

[JimEverett]

I am not sure what the correct answer is, but do not underestimate the bad health effects, including death, that come with widespread poverty.

Goldman Sachs and others are talking about 30% loss of GDP in the second quarter of 2020 with unemployment reaching 13%. It just doesn't strike me as clear that THAT is preferable to the virus spreading at a greater clip then it currently is. And vice-versa for that matter. I just don't think there is a certain "best" answer given what we know.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Sacrificing your life for the economy is starting to be a talking point for some republicans.

And just to be clear, the people making this argument on TV are literally talking about sacrificing "your" life and not their own. Dan Patrick will be in a protected setting checking his account balances, not shopping at the mall for useless trinkets imported from overseas.

 

[Saintamaniac]

But instead of seeing people like Dan Patrick saying we should sacrifice people for the greater good, you're more likely to see people like Trump continue to (1) minimize the potential harm of the spread of coronavirus while (2) magnifying the potential harm to the economy, and having those simple talking points permeate all the echo chambers. The fact that Trump is untrustworthy and tends to reject scientific analysis he doesn't view as beneficial to him, combined with the fact that 90% of Rs find him trustworthy, concerns me greatly in light of the decisions we're about to have to make as a country.

The chart in a previous post showed that 90% of Republicans believe trump and 90% also believe the medical professionals which I find peculiar since trump and the medical professionals have been saying completely different things. While trump might be willing to have the people who believe him sacrifice their lives and the lives of their families and others, governors of the states that those folks live in don't believe trump and are not willing to allow those people to sacrifice themselves....unless of course you live in Mississippi. I think we are reaching a point where only republicans believe anything that trump is saying. Personally, I wish more media outlets would stop putting him on TV. They can report on bullet points from the conference that are factual but just don't broadcast it any longer.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I am not sure what the correct answer is, but do not underestimate the bad health effects, including death, that come with widespread poverty.

Goldman Sachs and others are talking about 30% loss of GDP in the second quarter of 2020 with unemployment reaching 13%. It just doesn't strike me as clear that THAT is preferable to the virus spreading at a greater clip then it currently is. And vice-versa for that matter. I just don't think there is a certain "best" answer given what we know.

Poverty isn't transmitted via touch or being sneezed on or being in the vicinity of the poor. Being alive and broke is much more preferable than being dead or clinging to life waiting on a ventilator to become available. Ask anyone who has lost a loved one or in danger of losing a loved one or friend to COVID-19 and I guarantee you that they will tell you they'd rather be alive and broke. If one solution involves death, the other solution is always preferable.

 

[TaylorB]

I hear where you are coming from with this but it is way different.

The risk of a lineman of the power grid is for him and him alone. His family takes that risk for financial gain.

The risk with this goes to everyone in contact with the infected or even people that followed him at a store or an ATM. Not nearly the same in risk because everyone else involved.

Yeah I agree we have plenty of risky jobs that people are paid well to do because of risk but that risk is now applied to pumping gas or going to the store. It is not the same. The risk is for the economy or the greater good but the ones taking risk are not being compensated for risk like in the job force.

This reminds me of the star wars debate in the movie clerks.

About the contractors on the death star.

All the distinctions you're making are accurate and relevant. The examples I used were just illustrations of risk acceptance as opposed to apples-to-apples comparisons to coronavirus, but you're right that they're not all societal risks we are forced to encounter. I think the fact that you can choose to accept a risk and be compensated for it makes a big difference, and I should have pointed that out.

The flu example is actually the best match -- we know people will die from the flu every year, and we know we could prevent the spread of the flu by keeping everyone home, but we don't keep people home because we accept the fact that X number of people dying every year is a sacrifice we'll make to keep the economy going and/or keep living our lives.

The point I was making is that it's easier to accept that risk with the flu every year because we roughly know the range of what "X" is going to be with the flu year in and year out. The numbers we have thus far tell us that without preventative measures, "X" with coronavirus would be much bigger than "X" with the flu because (1) there is no vaccine, (2) it's more contagious than the flu, and (3) it's been more deadly than the flu. So until we can get a better grip on what "X" will be with coronavirus, it seems we are justified in taking rather extreme measures to prevent it from spreading.

 

[JimEverett]

Poverty isn't transmitted via touch or being sneezed on or being in the vicinity of the poor. Being alive and broke is much more preferable than being dead or clinging to life waiting on a ventilator to become available. Ask anyone who has lost a loved one or in danger of losing a loved one or friend to COVID-19 and I guarantee you that they will tell you they'd rather be alive and broke. If one solution involves death, the other solution is always preferable.

That is assuming that increases in poverty don't directly result in increases in death. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it does.
At the same time - I guess the counter to that is in this instance the rise in poverty will be short term. Not sure how anyone could know that, but I guess it is there.

 

[Saintamaniac]

That is assuming that increases in poverty don't directly result in increases in death. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it does.
At the same time - I guess the counter to that is in this instance the rise in poverty will be short term. Not sure how anyone could know that, but I guess it is there.

So what would be the metric for classifying poverty? Do we still use the current definition of poverty? If so, why would people losing their jobs suddenly result in increases in death? If what you are positing holds water, wouldn't we have already seen a substantial rise in poverty related deaths? I mean that's essentially what you are arguing, no? So basically, you are saying that because people will be losing jobs and therefore have no income, resulting in poverty and because they are in now in poverty, death will follow. I don't agree whether it's short term or long term. I believe that the majority of people who suddenly find themselves in poverty will not be dying or killing themselves. Trump actually suggested that this would be the case yesterday when he claimed that millions of people will be committing suicide. Are you actually agreeing with that?