Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Meanwhile, the NRL is on track for a May 28 restart of the season. The New Zealand Warriors just landed in Tamworth. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stay home for months"  wouldn't be necessary if people followed instruction since the start, like China did. I see people on beaches and all that stuff. This could have been over in two months if people were forced to stay in their houses. Now it's a mess

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

Bush will never be a model for anything.

 

far more.... does not mean someone reached ‚model‘ status. If one reaches 0.0001 (or minus on a scale that never was considered to even have minus included) of possible 10, and the other reaches e.g. 2 out of 10, than the 2/10 sounds far more like a.... than the worse one

 

7 hours ago, grim22 said:

An enclosed venue full of sweaty people jumping up and down sounds like the best thing to open first up.

We need reaction thingies that say ~ agreement in a sarcastic sense, or agreement if someone is utterly trashed and as such agrees to a stupid idea like to allow concerts ... already

 

Edited by terrestrial
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I live. They are going to trial the contact tracing app this week.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-app-nhs-uk-trial-isle-wight-may-a9496146.html

 

We have 140,000 people and around 130 cases.

 

I'm not sure why people would install the app unless something is given in return, like a loosening of restrictions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cdsacken said:

I'll go insane if it it's that long. That or my child will kill me. Washington numbers have plummeted and testing is finally about to be in order. I don't see another extension coming without surge in numbers.

 

However if that happens I agree add as long as we need.

I'm finding it's the fall learning year planning that's killing me...and trying to make parents who have wildly divergent desires happy...and yet, also give them plans b/c they all want to know what's gonna happen now, not in August...

 

I have parents with asthmatic and allergy kids who both want no risk in an onsite class, but who are dying to ship their kids to an onsite class b/c their kids need the in person socializing...and they even told me they couldn't decide day by day what they wanted...

 

So, I split the difference...our once a month MS/HS debate club that relies on public library meeting rooms is going to stay totally online for next year (like we are now), and we picked a yearly plan that works with that...

 

Our weekly HS Lit class will be onsite b/c we meet at a private institution that charges us nothing...but I put in place illness-free standards for kids (they have to be 48 hours illness free to come) and set up a skype call in per class when we are onsite (so anyone who is sick can call in and not miss), and kept our online google we are using now for when we ourselves or our kids might be sick, (or if they won't let us start in Sept, or I think it's dumb to start in Sept)...and for Dec/Jan, we'll be online, b/c I figure when everyone goes to visit family at Thanskgiving/Xmas/Hannukah/New Years/etc, they will all get sick with something b/c of the mixing of germs, and I'm not gonna figure out with what, or have parents second-guessing me.

 

And my monthly movie club is on hiatus til our county starts deciding anything...and even then, if I hate their standards, we'll stay on hiatus for awhile.

 

The plans kept all the parents and their kids in and happy for next year...but I felt like I was walking a tightrope making them...and even then, I'm not sure I made the right ones...but really, who can be right now.

 

I don't envy colleges right now...(my oldest is taking a pre-designated all online dual enrollment class for the fall, so we don't have what happened this spring happen again...and I figure we are trying to lower our out-of-the-home commitments to keep our social circle smaller to start, so if we open in full in Sept, we'll be out for something on 3 days of the week vs the 6 days/week we were this year)...

Edited by TwoMisfits
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoMisfits said:

I'm finding it's the fall learning year planning that's killing me...and trying to make parents who have wildly divergent desires happy...and yet, also give them plans b/c they all want to know what's gonna happen now, not in August...

 

I have parents with asthmatic and allergy kids who both want no risk in an onsite class, but who are dying to ship their kids to an onsite class b/c their kids need the in person socializing...and they even told me they couldn't decide day by day what they wanted...

 

So, I split the difference...our once a month MS/HS debate club that relies on public library meeting rooms is going to stay totally online for next year (like we are now), and we picked a yearly plan that works with that...

 

Our weekly HS Lit class will be onsite b/c we meet at a private institution that charges us nothing...but I put in place illness-free standards for kids (they have to be 48 hours illness free to come) and set up a skype call in per class when we are onsite (so anyone who is sick can call in and not miss), and kept our online google we are using now for when we ourselves or our kids might be sick, (or if they won't let us start in Sept, or I think it's dumb to start in Sept)...and for Dec/Jan, we'll be online, b/c I figure when everyone goes to visit family at Thanskgiving/Xmas/Hannukah/New Years/etc, they will all get sick with something b/c of the mixing of germs, and I'm not gonna figure out with what, or have parents second-guessing me.

 

And my monthly movie club is on hiatus til our county starts deciding anything...and even then, if I hate their standards, we'll stay on hiatus for awhile.

 

The plans kept all the parents and their kids in and happy for next year...but I felt like I was walking a tightrope making them...and even then, I'm not sure I made the right ones...but really, who can be right now.

 

I don't envy colleges right now...(my oldest is taking a pre-designated all online dual enrollment class for the fall, so we don't have what happened this spring happen again...and I figure we are trying to lower our out-of-the-home commitments to keep our social circle smaller to start, so if we open in full in Sept, we'll be out for something on 3 days of the week vs the 6 days/week we were this year)...

A lot of my work colleagues say they won't travel this year.

 

Going to Hawaii for a week, Utah/Montana/Oregon small trips, and long Christmas Trip in Atlanta, Thanksgiving in Austin. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

Even if you get just enough to survive?

 

Okie, how long do you think people should stay at home? I agree for a month more, but 6 more months?

 

How long do people sacrifice their small business, ability to generate more income then a subsistence wage... and somehow get ahead in life then just getting by?

 

 

What i am saying if people are just told to just stay at home for a long time, a lot of peoples life potential is going to get severely curtailed or altered for the worse. 

 

What I am saying "Stay home for months" seems to be reaching a break-even point of the cure being worse then the disease. 

 

 

How long do people stay at home? As long as is necessary to prevent as many deaths as is possible.

 

Anyone who says the cure is worse than the disease is saying that there is some amount of death that is acceptable for their comfort.

 

For me? No deaths are acceptable. Every single one is a tragedy.

 

Tax billionaires into fucking oblivion and distribute their money to everyone else. That's how they achieve life potential.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ElsaRoc said:

How long do people stay at home? As long as is necessary to prevent as many deaths as is possible.

 

 

Tax billionaires into fucking oblivion and distribute their money to everyone else. That's how they achieve life potential.

If you tax billionaire it will be to pay people to not stay at home and create the food-power-etc.... like you said money is just a exchange tool construct that do nothing by itself, this become:

 

Quote

How long do people stay at home? As long as is necessary to prevent as many deaths as is possible.

How long some people whose jobs are not considered essential stay at home. 

 

Quote

 

Anyone who says the cure is worse than the disease is saying that there is some amount of death that is acceptable for their comfort.

For me? No deaths are acceptable. Every single one is a tragedy.

 

I doubt it is true, every year kids die going to school, should they stay at home instead ? Should the speed limit become 35 km/h with cars engine barred at that speed and $5000 more on any car price tag in security feature and illegal to drive an old car to save those unacceptable car accident death ? There is some amount of death that are acceptable for humanity flourishing it is a choice everyone make and accept every day, all the money, time, talent, energy spent making art could save live, every movie ever made was at the cost of letting people die by using ressource toward that versus focusing on saving life.

 

Comfort is a bit of weighted word, a stay at home order that make it so that people cannot be there when someone close die, a father not in the room when is wife deliver their baby, when someone last 12 year's of really hard work (that has no comparable of the work someone do when they are simply a salaried person) toward their dream business go to smoke and have to fire close friends/family working for them, is uncomfortable, but it is more than just not having to have a drink with friend friday night and not going to the beach level of uncomfortable, they are tens of millions of human tragedy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of yesterday on worldometers, the US was more than a third of global cases for the first time. I know it’s kind of meaningless with the data issues, but I’ve had my eye on that benchmark for along time.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ElsaRoc said:

How long do people stay at home? As long as is necessary to prevent as many deaths as is possible.

There will be a point when the longer people are forced to stay home, the larger the number of people who die becomes (due to an economic depression).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

There will be a point when the longer people are forced to stay home, the larger the number of people who die becomes (due to an economic depression).

I feel like this has been debunked in this thread already like half a dozen times. Two main  issues:  

If the epidemiological conditions are bad enough that people should be forced to stay home, the economy won’t recover it restrictions are lifted. The virus kills the economy, not the government reaction.   
Evidence that more people die in a depression is mixed at best. Probably it’s the opposite.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderation:

 

A full page and half of politic posts does not belong in this thread.  I moved them to the USA Politics thread for lack of a better place.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arendelle Legion said:

Evidence that more people die in a depression is mixed at best. Probably it’s the opposite.

Recession yes in a rich country (shutdown do lower death level at least short term), depression of the level people are potentially talking and worldwide ? That a big unknown, it is a bit unprecedented, during the 1929-1933 one death rate were going down so much for many reason that it would be hard to isolate the impact of the depression on them (and we are comparing with the Spanish flu + year of the complication caused by the spanish flu and then WW2).

 

Right now that a country like Nigeria they are feeling that the economic cost became higher than the health cost by the virus (in a poor country with 3% of the population aged 65+ that could be true), how poor a country need to be for this to become true will raise and raise for how long it goes:

https://allafrica.com/stories/202005010126.html

 

1 hour ago, Arendelle Legion said:

If the epidemiological conditions are bad enough that people should be forced to stay home, the economy won’t recover it restrictions are lifted. The virus kills the economy, not the government reaction.  

For some situation what is good for the economy and good to fight the virus are almost the exact same (In NY for example, the situation got dire enough that a strict shutdown feel like the best for both, it is clear that taking a giant but short hit would have been greatly beneficial on point aspect).

 

It will become more of an actual debate when we talk about making a RO of 0.9 vs one of 0.3 than debating against a 3.0 vs a 0.9 one (i.e. Sweden level effort or doing much more than that).

 

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening too soon when the public doesn't feel ready is stupid sorry to tell you guys.

 

Georgia reopening was an epic failure. Tons of businesses spent thousands of dollars on marketing to see only a handful of customers the whole day.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arendelle Legion said:

I feel like this has been debunked in this thread already like half a dozen times. Two main  issues:  

If the epidemiological conditions are bad enough that people should be forced to stay home, the economy won’t recover it restrictions are lifted. The virus kills the economy, not the government reaction.   
Evidence that more people die in a depression is mixed at best. Probably it’s the opposite.

I don't think the epidemiological conditions will be bad enough that people will be forced to stay home. And realistically, what do you think the government reaction will be? 

 

I think the goal should be preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which doesn't need a complete lockdown as we learn more about the virus, create plans, and find ways to alleviate the pressure on hospitals.

 

And Harvard researchers did find a link between cancer-related deaths and the great recession: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-downturn-excess-cancer-deaths-atun/

Edited by lorddemaxus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

Opening too soon when the public doesn't feel ready is stupid sorry to tell you guys.

This sound trivial, if it is too soon you are putting in your premise that it is too soon.

 

A lot of the re-opening an economy do is not about requiring customer on place (think re-opening a car factory, the construction business) or about sector that has still customer (food production/transformation and transport), sector without much on location customer tend to be those that you open first and it is a also about school or equivalent opening (to augment parents productivity, even for those working at home.

 

Is it too soon for this, is also what is talked about (think the nuance before when you restart tv content production vs openning movie theater):

https://globalnews.ca/news/6878731/bombardier-recalls-workers-coronavirus-quebec-economy/

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/20/volvo-cars-reopens-swedish-factories-offices/

 

To judge that, you cannot judge how many customer show up.

Edited by Barnack
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

This sound trivial, if it is too soon you are putting in your premise that it is too soon.

 

A lot of the re-opening an economy do is not about requiring customer on place (think re-opening a car factory, the construction business) or about sector that has still customer (food production/transformation and transport), sector without much on location customer tend to be those that you open first and it is a also about school or equivalent opening (to augment parents productivity, even for those working at home.

 

Is it too soon for this, is also what is talked about (think the nuance before when you restart tv content production vs openning movie theater):

https://globalnews.ca/news/6878731/bombardier-recalls-workers-coronavirus-quebec-economy/

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/20/volvo-cars-reopens-swedish-factories-offices/

 

To judge that, you cannot judge how many customer show up.

Lmao sure sure. Georgia businesses are gonna go even further into debt then bankrupt because of this but yeah they needed to reopen right away. Totally makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.