Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Ronson]

I wonder just what the infection rates are. The US is not testing widely (except for the Very Important People in government).

Which is practically worthless except to satisfy VIP curiosity. If the CDC wants to know the actual spread of this virus and they don't have enough test kits, they should pick people at random like pollsters do.

We have some state recording almost no spread of the disease while neighboring states do. We basically have to extrapolate data collected in other countries, such as Iceland and South Korea.

There is no hard data in the US on morbidity and mortality, we will have to examine the number of deaths for each months and estimate the number of deaths by comparing numbers of deaths in the past, which is how we estimate deaths due to epidemics in the 19th century: How many more deaths.

Does anyone know if a person can be tested months after the fact if they had been exposed? From what I'm hearing, it sounds like tests only tell us if a person had been exposed within a three-week period.

[rogue06]

They can't function without tests?

IMO, tests are mainly helpful in monitoring the spread of the virus. In that case, everyone (as much as possible) needs to be tested. Only testing people with a lot of money and privilege doesn't tell us anything useful.

Also in slowing the spread since if you test positive you can self quarantine

[oxmixmudd]

They can't function without tests?

IMO, tests are mainly helpful in monitoring the spread of the virus. In that case, everyone (as much as possible) needs to be tested. Only testing people with a lot of money and privilege doesn't tell us anything useful.

Everyone needs to be tested to halt the spread. You then quaranteen everyone that is positive, and you keep testing people for 3 to 5 weeks. The only problem of course is that means we need BILLIONS of test kits and tests, which is impossible.

But I agree - it should not be easy for 'big names/big money' to get tested and nearly impossible for 'normal folk'.

The priority needs to be based on exposure potential and job criticality. And for that the people around or in contact wiht senators, congressman, presidents etc are all high on the list. We can't have our leaders down for the count during this. so we have to keep peopel with the disease away from them. That means the people that clean the buildings they work in, and the people they may consult with etc. Testing them is also necessary to keep them from stpreading it to other senators,congressmen etc. if they get it

First responders, medical workers, but also pilots, public transportation employees, grocery and pharmacy clerks, anyone interacting with the public all day long doing necessary or critical job in the current time. People in the supply chain especially if they are public facing.

It's still a lot of people. And we just don't have the supplies or the tests. Lets hope the 'do it yourself' sort of test come online soon so people administering them don't need PPE. Lets hope the president stops caving to his big industry buddies and allows the right people to take over production AND DISTRIBUTION AND PRICING of necessary supplies and PPE required to deal with the surge in critical cases.

I'l like to see a law right now that says ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION price gouging necessary medical equipment or not prioritizing purchasing by regional need get mandatory criminal penalties and/or jail time.

[carpedm9587]

Looking at expenses with people and where they spend their money. In many cases, many people waste money on quite a few frivolous things. Cell phones, coffee, food they don’t eat, toys they/kids don’t need, vices (beer or cigarettes being two big ones I’ve seen), etc. Do you really need the newest phone when the a 2 or 3 generation phone can cost 75% less?

Again, Pix, you made a claim about how people spend their money in the context of the study that showed that 40% of Americans cannot deal with a $400 unexpected expense. Presumably, you were commenting on that 40%. or your post makes no sense. So can you show where you get the data that shows that a significant part of this 40% is updating their iphones every year and paying hundreds of dollars a month in cell phone bills? I'd just like to look at it. If true, it would make your case.

[Bill the Cat]

Everyone needs to be tested to halt the spread. You then quaranteen everyone that is positive, and you keep testing people for 3 to 5 weeks. The only problem of course is that means we need BILLIONS of test kits and tests, which is impossible.

But I agree - it should not be easy for 'big names/big money' to get tested and nearly impossible for 'normal folk'.

The priority needs to be based on exposure potential and job criticality. And for that the people around or in contact wiht senators, congressman, presidents etc are all high on the list. We can't have our leaders down for the count during this. so we have to keep peopel with the disease away from them. That means the people that clean the buildings they work in, and the people they may consult with etc. Testing them is also necessary to keep them from stpreading it to other senators,congressmen etc. if they get it

First responders, medical workers, but also pilots, public transportation employees, grocery and pharmacy clerks, anyone interacting with the public all day long doing necessary or critical job in the current time. People in the supply chain especially if they are public facing.

It's still a lot of people. And we just don't have the supplies or the tests. Lets hope the 'do it yourself' sort of test come online soon so people administering them don't need PPE. Lets hope the president stops caving to his big industry buddies and allows the right people to take over production AND DISTRIBUTION AND PRICING of necessary supplies and PPE required to deal with the surge in critical cases.

I'l like to see a law right now that says ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION price gouging necessary medical equipment or not prioritizing purchasing by regional need get mandatory criminal penalties and/or jail time.

And let's hope Pelosi and her gestapo stop holding up necessary funds for people to make it through this unprecedented time just to get back at Trump and the Republicans....

[carpedm9587]

In other words, they "guess" one year in advance which strains are likely to be prevalent next year.

They use past epidemiological studies, the way the flu spreads, in order to predict which strains to protect against next year. Not perfect, but it does provide significant benefits in lives saved.

Basically...

[carpedm9587]

And let's hope Pelosi and her gestapo stop holding up necessary funds for people to make it through this unprecedented time just to get back at Trump and the Republicans....

As far as I can tell, Pelosi and the Democrats are actually working on the Phase 3 bill, so Phase 1 and Phase 2 are already in the pipe. They are objecting to the lack of adequate protections to keep the money from going into stock buybacks and otherwise ending up in the wallets of the 1%. Since the GOP has something of a history of using things like tax cuts to give a sop to the lower and middle class and enrich the upper class (usually in the name of so-called "trickle-down" economics), I find their efforts valuable and worthwhile. If the GOP would stop trying to use the crisis as an opportunity to further enrich the already rich, we might actually be getting somewhere.

[Bill the Cat]

Again, Pix, you made a claim about how people spend their money in the context of the study that showed that 40% of Americans cannot deal with a $400 unexpected expense. Presumably, you were commenting on that 40%. or your post makes no sense. So can you show where you get the data that shows that a significant part of this 40% is updating their iphones every year and paying hundreds of dollars a month in cell phone bills? I'd just like to look at it. If true, it would make your case.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lo...ies-2017-06-28

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...-united-states

Although there is a growing trend to wait longer to upgrade:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/smar...heres-why.html

[Bill the Cat]

As far as I can tell, Pelosi and the Democrats are actually working on the Phase 3 bill, so Phase 1 and Phase 2 are already in the pipe. They are objecting to the lack of adequate protections to keep the money from going into stock buybacks and otherwise ending up in the wallets of the 1%. Since the GOP has something of a history of using things like tax cuts to give a sop to the lower and middle class and enrich the upper class (usually in the name of so-called "trickle-down" economics), I find their efforts valuable and worthwhile. If the GOP would stop trying to use the crisis as an opportunity to further enrich the already rich, we might actually be getting somewhere.

Oh, no. It's far more than this bit of money for the airlines and other heavily impacted industries.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/trump-says-he-is-ok-with-forbidding-buybacks-as-condition-of-corporate-bailouts.html

Warren has proposed that companies receiving federal assistance should be barred from buybacks permanently, and prevented from issuing dividends or executive bonuses for three years.
Warren has also proposed requiring those firms to boost their minimum wage to $15 an hour within a year of the end of the crisis, and provide a board seat to workers.
“If there is so much as a DIME of corporate bailout money in the next relief package, it should include a reinstated ban on stock buybacks,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted earlier this week

© Copyright Original Source

It's about crippling businesses long term in exchange for a life raft.

[carpedm9587]

The fact is Carp, he did not bungle it badly, at least no worse than most other leaders (except maybe in South Korea or Germany). Second, even though there were early missteps Trump is fully up to speed. The governors of the two worst infected states (New York and California) have nothing but praise for Trump and his response. I just listen to Como again this morning. And they are on the front lines.

So I think we can put the "nothing but praise" claim to rest...

[carpedm9587]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lo...ies-2017-06-28

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...-united-states

Although there is a growing trend to wait longer to upgrade:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/smar...heres-why.html

So did you read those links, or just Google and link them?

From your first link:

It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our incomes rise — while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities. For its part, the Deutsche Bank report explicitly defined luxuries as goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increases and necessities as those goods or services that make up a smaller proportion of spending as a person’s income increases.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lo...ies-2017-06-28

In your second link, I have several objections. First, much of the data is from 2005 - 15 years ago. Another objection is the broad-brush approach to some of the "amenities." While I agree that a poor household with air conditioning in Maine is spending on a luxury, that same person in the desert southwest is not. The Internet today is not a "luxury" any more than a phone is. I would agree that I cannot think of any place where cable TV is not a luxury. But the table points to the following as "amenities:" refrigerators, stove, ovens, microwaves, clothes washers, phones, computers, and Internet service, to name a few. Sorry, but in 2020 I cannot imagine anyone having to live without these things. Many of the amenities listed are present in fewer than 60% of households, again raising the question "which hourseholds?"

Don't get me wrong - there are always going to be people who abuse the system. But study after study shows that they are the exception rather than the rule. Reagan famously talked about the "welfare queen" and generated a lot of hype - but the fact is that she was an outlier - an extreme case. This is a common tactic used by many: take one example of a real thing that exemplifies something bad, and broadcast it far and wide as if it were a norm. That is why I am often heard saying "an anecdote/example is not an argument." My point is if you are making the statement "X sometimes happens" then an example of it happening is an adequate argument, but if you are trying to make a case about a trend or a statistical reality - one example doesn't make the argument.

[firstfloor]

Italy’s elderly are being decimated we hear.

[Bill the Cat]

So did you read those links, or just Google and link them?

From your first link:

It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our incomes rise — while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities. For its part, the Deutsche Bank report explicitly defined luxuries as goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increases and necessities as those goods or services that make up a smaller proportion of spending as a person’s income increases.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lo...ies-2017-06-28

In your second link, I have several objections. First, much of the data is from 2005 - 15 years ago. Another objection is the broad-brush approach to some of the "amenities." While I agree that a poor household with air conditioning in Maine is spending on a luxury, that same person in the desert southwest is not. The Internet today is not a "luxury" any more than a phone is. I would agree that I cannot think of any place where cable TV is not a luxury. But the table points to the following as "amenities:" refrigerators, stove, ovens, microwaves, clothes washers, phones, computers, and Internet service, to name a few. Sorry, but in 2020 I cannot imagine anyone having to live without these things. Many of the amenities listed are present in fewer than 60% of households, again raising the question "which hourseholds?"

Don't get me wrong - there are always going to be people who abuse the system. But study after study shows that they are the exception rather than the rule. Reagan famously talked about the "welfare queen" and generated a lot of hype - but the fact is that she was an outlier - an extreme case. This is a common tactic used by many: take one example of a real thing that exemplifies something bad, and broadcast it far and wide as if it were a norm. That is why I am often heard saying "an anecdote/example is not an argument." My point is if you are making the statement "X sometimes happens" then an example of it happening is an adequate argument, but if you are trying to make a case about a trend or a statistical reality - one example doesn't make the argument.

Just giving you something to look at and digest. That's why I posted all 3. 2 pro and 1 con.

[carpedm9587]

Oh, no. It's far more than this bit of money for the airlines and other heavily impacted industries.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/trump-says-he-is-ok-with-forbidding-buybacks-as-condition-of-corporate-bailouts.html

Warren has proposed that companies receiving federal assistance should be barred from buybacks permanently, and prevented from issuing dividends or executive bonuses for three years.
Warren has also proposed requiring those firms to boost their minimum wage to $15 an hour within a year of the end of the crisis, and provide a board seat to workers.
“If there is so much as a DIME of corporate bailout money in the next relief package, it should include a reinstated ban on stock buybacks,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted earlier this week

© Copyright Original Source

It's about crippling businesses long term in exchange for a life raft.

If a company is receiving a federal buyout, I agree it should be blocked from stock buybacks using that money. The problem is, once the money is injected, creative accounting practices can be used to fudge the line between the bailout funds and income/profits. To me, that makes a long-term ban on stock buybacks make sense, though I am not sure it should be permanent. Prevented from issuing dividends and executive bonuses for 3 years I 100% agree with. Those dividends primarily go to the upper middle and the wealthy. For the middle and lower class, the primary edge they see is in their retirement portfolios and that is not the current/urgent need.

The minimum wage thing is apparently an effort to ensure that the $ go to the workers, but it is poorly crafted, IMO. I would make a requirement that a percentage of the bailout be directly used to provide salary for idled workers for the duration of the crisis. A board seat for workers is not required, but a good idea and (again) gives emphasis to workers over the wealthy leveraging their wealth yet again.

So - although I would change a couple things slightly - I largely agree with Warren and AOC. But Warren and AOC are two voices - and they are the most progressive voices. They are not representative of all Democrats.

[carpedm9587]

Just giving you something to look at and digest. That's why I posted all 3. 2 pro and 1 con.

So I'm really curious - did YOU "look at them and digest them?" Or did you just Google and post the links with titles that seemed to fit your narrative?