As a long term approach, the response to coronavirus isn't sustainable and is almost certainly the wrong approach

[Anthony_270 1,040]

17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Ok...we're back at square one now.  I'll give you a break so you can go read up on this topic.

You think it's a bad idea to reduce the risk of transmission to old people? Crazy.

[Actinguy 862]

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

You think it's a bad idea to reduce the risk of transmission to old people? Crazy.

We are reducing the risk of transmission to old people, with the current nationwide measures.

You think it's a good idea to force old people's caretakers to quit their jobs, with no replacements in sight.  That's crazy, and that's why people who are actually in power to make these decisions are making the correct ones, instead of following what you present here.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

You think it's a good idea to force old people's caretakers to quit their jobs, with no replacements in sight.  That's crazy, and that's why people who are actually in power to make these decisions are making the correct ones, instead of following what you present here.

Do you realize how many people are going to lose their jobs because of what's happening right now? This is *very little* compared to that.

[Actinguy 862]

15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Do you realize how many people are going to lose their jobs because of what's happening right now? This is *very little* compared to that.

And yet...the decision was made anyway, almost world-wide.

It's almost like the experts said it has to happen anyway, despite the huge challenges.

Economic relief will come.  You keep ignoring that.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Economic relief will come.  You keep ignoring that.

At some point, yes. My country just announced an $89B CAN spending measure, aimed at helping people who become unemployed, child care, homeless people, and so on, as well as a significant amount for businesses. We're about 1/10th the U.S.'s population.

[vcczar 1,229]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

At some point, yes. My country just announced an $89B CAN spending measure, aimed at helping people who become unemployed, child care, homeless people, and so on, as well as a significant amount for businesses. We're about 1/10th the U.S.'s population.

What does the 1/10th of the population matter? This just means we have to spend more money, and we have more money and more resources. We always do. 

[Anthony_270 1,040]

11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What does the 1/10th of the population matter? This just means we have to spend more money, and we have more money and more resources. We always do. 

It's to put it in context for American readers. It means federal spending of about $700B U.S. equivalent.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

So, equivalent getting towards $1 trillion.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

That's only immediate federal spending.

[Patine 514]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Do you realize how many people are going to lose their jobs because of what's happening right now? This is *very little* compared to that.

But you act as if these lost jobs won't be needed to be given back after this subsides to get the economy back up and running. You talk about their loss as though they're a permanent write-off.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

But you act as if these lost jobs won't be needed to be given back after this subsides to get the economy back up and running. You talk about their loss as though they're a permanent write-off.

No. I'm talking about how long it will be before they switch back on, and whether switching to a more targeted approach earlier will help blunt the economic damage. Presumably, 'switching the jobs back on' will be helped by massive government spending and low interest rates if it continues for a significant period of time (months instead of weeks).

[Patine 514]

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No. I'm talking about how long it will be before they switch back on, and whether switching to a more targeted approach earlier will help blunt the economic damage. Presumably, 'switching the jobs back on' will be helped by massive government spending and low interest rates if it continues for a significant period of time (months instead of weeks).

Didn't Palin call the inevitable results of that sort of thinking, "death panels." While I hate to agree with Palin, and the specific concept she was referring to at the time was a highly inaccurate, hyperbolic, vitriolic, misleading, and politicized (pre-Obamacare health insurance companies had real "death panels," with true soulless, sociopaths sitting on them, from what I've heard), but I fear your "targeted response," concept may come down to such thinking.

[vcczar 1,229]

28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's to put it in context for American readers. It means federal spending of about $700B U.S. equivalent.

 

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So, equivalent getting towards $1 trillion.

 

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

That's only immediate federal spending.

I don't think this is a overwhelming difficulty. It's mostly something that may become more and more normal. There may need to be major monetary, currency, economic reform within 100 years. I would not find it shocking if by the time that you and I are 100 years old that our concept of money no longer exists. We seem to be in a transition towards this and have been since the 1970s and arguably before. 

[pilight 237]

Switching jobs back on is a more difficult process than switching them off.

It only takes a second to get thrown off a horse.  That doesn't mean you can jump back on in the next second.

[Patine 514]

31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

 

I don't think this is a overwhelming difficulty. It's mostly something that may become more and more normal. There may need to be major monetary, currency, economic reform within 100 years. I would not find it shocking if by the time that you and I are 100 years old that our concept of money no longer exists. We seem to be in a transition towards this and have been since the 1970s and arguably before. 

Oh, my dear Lord, who would want to live to 100 in this world?

[vcczar 1,229]

15 minutes ago, Patine said:

Oh, my dear Lord, who would want to live to 100 in this world?

I’ll always be curious what happens next. 

[Centrist Emperor Kerzaris 50]

Here's the answer on why we need to shutdown. 

 

[Centrist Emperor Kerzaris 50]

Watch the whole video as it highlights the consequences of shutting down and not shutting down. 

[Actinguy 862]

We had our first confirmed positive case at the hospital where I work yesterday.

He got the virus elsewhere (we know where), we immediately caught it, and he was already in medical isolation due to a unrelated medical condition, which means you can almost guarantee he didn’t spread it to our other staff and patients.

And yet a lot of our staff are seriously freaking the fuck out about it.

As the spokesman, one of my jobs is to keep people calm.

Yet one of my own employees announced yesterday that she won’t be back to work until this all passes — even though she definitely doesn’t have enough “time off” saved up to keep getting paid in the interim.

This is all from one case.

I can only imagine what it’s going to be like when we have 50 cases.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

6 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

Watch the whole video as it highlights the consequences of shutting down and not shutting down. 

Yes, I'm well aware of everything he says there.

The question here isn't whether strong measures up front are a good idea (I think my country was too lax and slow in responding initially, including not taking much tougher measures to limit international travel while the epidemic was raging in parts of China and South Korea).

The question instead is how long are we willing to put drastic measures in place to slow the spread. I'm all for flattening the curve, and in particular (I think in the end this may actually be as or even more important!) buying time to better understand the disease and treatments (already it appears we have breakthroughs in treatment and best practices, including HCQ, avoiding ibuprofen, testing capabilities are ramping up, we are buying time to increase production of medical supplies, and so on).

I *support strong measures* in the short term. The question is how long we should be willing to do this. A few weeks? Yes. A few months? At that point, the cure may very well be worse than the disease, and so the debate is about how long strong measures need to be kept in place vs. the huge economic damage of holding them in place. There are big risks and potential damage on either side of this.

[Anthony_270 1,040]

This HCQ stuff is potentially huge, drastically lowering the mortality rate.

[Wiw 92]

On 3/18/2020 at 7:58 PM, Patine said:

Oh, my dear Lord, who would want to live to 100 in this world?

I don't even think I'll live to see 60!

[Patine 514]

36 minutes ago, Wiw said:

I don't even think I'll live to see 60!

Would you just shut up! You're not helping anything or anyone!

[Wiw 92]

Excuse me, I was only saying!!!

[Patine 514]

2 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Excuse me, I was only saying!!!

You weren't SAYING anything meaningful with any rational, sensible, thoughtful backing. You were spewing more doom-and-gloom fear-the-end crap with no evidenced validity!