OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Part III

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

No, it most certainly is not.

But as @HFBS above I don't know that things are always that black and white.

Now, I know it isn't a 100% chance that I will lose everything but as a homeowner, the parent of a young child and two dogs, the husband of a wife who is no longer receiving a paycheck, as someone who also helps provide for my in-laws, there will come a time sooner than later where I don't have a choice.

There is a fine line between being irresponsible and opening the US back up too early and leaving it closed for too long. Both will do catastrophic, potentially irreparable damage to our economy. I sit here and see that if this drags out too long, along with millions of other Americans, I potentially lose everything. Everything I have worked so hard for over the years, putting in 80-100 hour weeks, traveling and living out of a hotel room, all to build a life for my family, gone in the blink of an eye.

That is a hard, hard sell to a lot of people. It is as hard of a sell as telling millions of elderly/vulnerable people that the economy is more important than their life, essentially giving them a giant middle finger.

I wake up this morning feeling the same way that I did last night, I still lean on the side of caution and believe everything needs to stay shut down. I believe the situation should be constantly monitored. I believe saying anything in absolutes at the moment, whether it be the President saying we will open up in two weeks or saying we MUST stay closed longer than two weeks, is completely irresponsible. We really don't know how things will progress. We have an idea, but that can and likely will change.

It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

You lock it down for 1-2 months. Meanwhile, pay everyone a UBI, suspend most payments, foreclosures, debt coming due, etc. while the health care system gets up to speed, we gain ground on important measures like vaccines and research into the efficacy of existing drugs, etc.

Then, you reevaluate, and establish a more definitive plan – which to be clear, may not necessarily involve the immediate loosening of restrictions. (And may require subsequent change!)

We can easily do that for 2 months. Hell, we could probably do it for 6 or more.

The "problem" is, in order to do it, you need to take measures that people of certain ideological bents find extremely distasteful. You need to curtail "normal" capitalism; for the next X days/weeks/months, we all need to focus on staunching losses, no more grinding for that next buck. It'll require big government programs – and when we come out of it, increases in taxation, particularly on corporations and the wealthy.

But if we do it right, 99% of the people's bank accounts can remain about where they are. They can keep their houses, their cars, and their lives. And then, we may need a tough couple of years to gin things back up.

The good news is that we can look to the example of the Great Depression and WWII and the fact that America endured its strongest and longest period of prosperity immediately thereafter.

(The bad news, of course, is that there is a large segment of society today that has come to loathe some of the key underpinnings that led to that recovery.)

 

[Ola]

Coming from Sweden, I am in relation to US politics extremely socialistic, but like the economy pay for our health. Its not economy or health, you need both.

Also, the 07'-08' financial crash has started a real ugly (in its extremes) right wing movement in Europe for example. A Neo-Nazi party in Greece got almost 8 percent. The after math of the type of genuine social unrest a deep recession can create is nothing to play around with. The original Nazi party of course origned from the 29' crash and the recession in Germany in the 30s, and of course, that was a long time ago and maybe no parallels can be drawn. But the 07-08 crash alone created a lot of problems across the globe.

So I do think its a bit unfair to shut down discussions about the economy because human lives are more important. There is certainly a breaking point, and one that should be discussed at all levels and for a long time -- because if it isn't and mistakes are made, it could backfire.

 

[Synergy27]

Coming from Sweden, I am in relation to US politics extremely socialistic, but like the economy pay for our health. Its not economy or health, you need both.

Also, the 07'-08' financial crash has started a real ugly (in its extremes) right wing movement in Europe for example. A Neo-Nazi party in Greece got almost 8 percent. The after math of the type of genuine social unrest a deep recession can create is nothing to play around with. The original Nazi party of course origned from the 29' crash and the recession in Germany in the 30s, and of course, that was a long time ago and maybe no parallels can be drawn. But the 07-08 crash alone created a lot of problems across the globe.

So I do think its a bit unfair to shut down discussions about the economy because human lives are more important. There is certainly a breaking point, and one that should be discussed at all levels and for a long time -- because if it isn't and mistakes are made, it could backfire.

Was it the crash itself or the response to it? I’m fearful of exactly what you are alluding to if the response to this is similar to the response to the financial crisis.

Because of that botched response, where the rich bankers stayed rich and a bunch of ill-informed plebes got screwed, I think there is more awareness in general of how important this response is. I don’t think a bunch of hand waving and catchy slogans like “too big to fail” are going to cut it this time around. The backlash will be much more intense than Occupy Wall Street if the people aren’t taken care of directly this time around.

 

[Gardner McKay]

It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

You lock it down for 1-2 months. Meanwhile, pay everyone a UBI, suspend most payments, foreclosures, debt coming due, etc. while the health care system gets up to speed, we gain ground on important measures like vaccines and research into the efficacy of existing drugs, etc.

Then, you reevaluate, and establish a more definitive plan – which to be clear, may not necessarily involve the immediate loosening of restrictions. (And may require subsequent change!)

We can easily do that for 2 months. Hell, we could probably do it for 6 or more.

The "problem" is, in order to do it, you need to take measures that people of certain ideological bents find extremely distasteful. You need to curtail "normal" capitalism; for the next X days/weeks/months, we all need to focus on staunching losses, no more grinding for that next buck. It'll require big government programs – and when we come out of it, increases in taxation, particularly on corporations and the wealthy.

But if we do it right, 99% of the people's bank accounts can remain about where they are. They can keep their houses, their cars, and their lives. And then, we may need a tough couple of years to gin things back up.

The good news is that we can look to the example of the Great Depression and WWII and the fact that America endured its strongest and longest period of prosperity immediately thereafter.

(The bad news, of course, is that there is a large segment of society today that has come to loathe some of the key underpinnings that led to that recovery.)

Respectfully, this reads to me like an using an existing tragedy to implement large scale societal change and not necessarily a response to what we are currently facing.

 

[Synergy27]

Respectfully, this reads to me like an using an existing tragedy to implement large scale societal change and not necessarily a response to what we are currently facing.

Did you purposefully neglect to highlight the 1-2 months part? Otherwise, you are right. We need to institute large scale societal change, hopefully for only a short period of time, to mitigate this tragedy.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Did you purposefully neglect to highlight the 1-2 months part? Otherwise, you are right. We need to institute large scale societal change, hopefully for only a short period of time, to mitigate this tragedy.

No. But I also didn't highlight the suggestion that it would be palatable 6 months either.

On a positive note, Italy's death rate has declined for a second straight day.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Respectfully, this reads to me like an using an existing tragedy to implement large scale societal change.

Agreed. I would be completely supportive if it had a defined end point. In fact I would argue vigorously in favor in it...it’s clear as day letting people go 3-6mos+ without income is not just damaging its foolish. People are not going to sit idly they are going to take action. Failing to account for human nature is what had the bars packed for St Pats in Chicago and the beaches in FL packed last week.

But without that defined end point it seems like the type of program that gets rolled out in a crisis and is never unwound but in fact via the magic of politics grows bigger and bigger over time.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Respectfully, this reads to me like an using an existing tragedy to implement large scale societal change.

Would it be better if I said "temporary monthly payments" instead of UBI? I just used the shorthand of the day for convenience.

Though, I should point out that your implied reaction – which reads negative – goes precisely to my point about doing things a certain segment finds distasteful.

I thought it was obvious by my post, but to be clear, by no means am I suggesting that these measures need – or should – be permanent. (Personally, though I am generally progressive in my views, I am uncertain as to the effectiveness of a UBI; truthfully, I haven't really investigated the arguments because I thought that it was an unrealistic proposal in the political environment of 2019.)

But by the same token, I can see how if such measures were successful, they might impact subsequent political conversations.

Of course, I'm sure I don't need to tell you how I would react to anyone suggesting I should risk the safety of my 72-y-o mother who just recovered from pneumonia 3 months ago, simply because they don't want to risk the possibility that a permanent UBI might become a popular platform in subsequent elections 2 to 4 years down the line...

 

[Leetch3]

Yeah, keep eating the bullshit their feeding you.

The lede was buried.

not sure how that buried the lede when the 2nd tweet just further explained why these people are morons and a perfect example of darwin at work.

 

[chosen]

How do you define an endpoint before you flatten the curve?

 

[Gardner McKay]

Agreed. I would be completely supportive if it had a defined end point. In fact I would argue vigorously in favor in it...it’s clear as day letting people go 3-6mos+ without income is not just damaging its foolish. People are not going to sit idly they are going to take action. Failing to account for human nature is what had the bars packed for St Pats in Chicago and the beaches in FL packed last week.

But without that defined end point it seems like the type of program that gets rolled out in a crisis and is never unwound but in fact via the magic of politics grows bigger and bigger over time.

Absolutely agree with everything you said here. I am in favor of short term stimulus payments with a defined starting and ending point. I am not in favor of rolling out an undefined UBI with no end date. You would never be able to roll it back.

Human nature is what makes it so important to handle these problems from the grey area, not in black and white absolutes.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Agreed. I would be completely supportive if it had a defined end point. In fact I would argue vigorously in favor in it...it’s clear as day letting people go 3-6mos+ without income is not just damaging its foolish. People are not going to sit idly they are going to take action. Failing to account for human nature is what had the bars packed for St Pats in Chicago and the beaches in FL packed last week.

But without that defined end point it seems like the type of program that gets rolled out in a crisis and is never unwound but in fact via the magic of politics grows bigger and bigger over time.

I agree with all of this... but bear in mind, the end point you mention is only when we can then hopefully take a breath and reassess. Right now, we need to take measures to get to that point, and agree that we will then reevaluate... not what those reevaluations might contain once we get there.

Only once we know we've flattened the curve, passed the inflection point, etc. will we then be able to say, "okay, 6 more weeks and then here's how we're going to start loosening..."

And to be clear, I desperately want to get to that point! But we need to get there, before we can talk about how/when we'll get back to normal.

How do you define an endpoint before you flatten the curve?

Or, put more succinctly, this ^^^.

 

[McRanger]

Respectfully, this reads to me like an using an existing tragedy to implement large scale societal change and not necessarily a response to what we are currently facing.

That was probably a popular argument against the New Deal.

I wouldn’t stress it too much. Even if thangs change for a month or a year or a decade there are always enough people who gleefully vote against their own economic self interests that I’m sure we’ll make our way back to where we were. Show a little faith!

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The other main argument against “opening up” the economy is that the economy isn’t a machine you can just turn on.

A lot of the habits people have gotten into the last few weeks out of fear are not going to just disappear over night especially while the numbers in the ICU are growing day by day.

I’m not going to start going to restaurants, pleasure travel, concerts, etc just because Trump says it’s ok. It’s going to take proof of effective surge hospital capacity and probably a widespread vaccine to get me to feel comfortable going back to normal.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I agree with all of this... but bear in mind, the end point you mention is only when we can then hopefully take a breath and reassess. Right now, we need to take measures to get to that point, and agree that we will then reevaluate... not what those reevaluations might contain once we get there.

Only once we know we've flattened the curve, passed the inflection point, etc. will we then be able to say, "okay, 6 more weeks and then here's how we're going to start loosening..."

And to be clear, I desperately want to get to that point! But we need to get there, before we can talk about how/when we'll get back to normal.


Or, put more succinctly, this ^^^.

Yea I agree with you. I didn’t mean to imply an exact date but an ironclad phase out methodology based on some conditions.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

 

[Gardner McKay]

Would it be better if I said "temporary monthly payments" instead of UBI? I just used the shorthand of the day for convenience.

Though, I should point out that your implied reaction – which reads negative – goes precisely to my point about doing things a certain segment finds distasteful.

I thought it was obvious by post, but to be clear, by no means am I suggesting that these measures need – or should – be permanent. (Personally, though I am generally progressive in my views, I am uncertain as to the effectiveness of a UBI; truthfully, I haven't really investigated the arguments because I thought that it was an unrealistic proposal in the political environment of 2019.)

But by the same token, I can see how if such measures were successful, they might impact subsequent political conversations.

Of course, I'm sure I don't need to tell you how I would react to anyone suggesting I should risk the safety of my 72-y-o mother who just recovered from pneumonia 3 months ago, simply because they don't want to risk the possibility that a permanent UBI might become a popular platform in subsequent elections 2 to 4 years down the line...

Reads negative or you interpret as negative

I appreciate your clarification that you aren't suggesting the measures be permanent but as you said to me, your post reads as leaving these measured open ended. The problem is that without clearly defined terms including end dates, it becomes impossible to take away when this current situation resolves itself. I'm not really arguing for or against the merits of implementing a UBI in the US. I am simply saying that having it happen as an unintended consequence of a stimulus proposal, is not the way to do it. It is something that would require a large framework with well defined up front funding methods, a staunch oversight committee to prevent corruption, etc. all to ensure you are putting your best foot forward with the program.

This is why I have such a distaste for Speaker Pelosi's proposal. It seems like a short sighted approach, where they are trying to leverage a current crisis to backdoor a program that would otherwise be tough to pass through congress, but in the best interest of said program, should be given significantly more thought.

Clarity is of the utmost importance right now.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

3 months doesn't sound that terrible actually, wasn't expecting it to be less.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

China is lifting the lockdown on Wuhan beginning midnight tonight, after 2 months.

Hopefully ours only last 2 months as well.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Reads negative or you interpret as negative

I appreciate your clarification that you aren't suggesting the measures be permanent but as you said to me, your post reads as leaving these measured open ended.

No, I didn't. That's you reading it that way.

The problem is that without clearly defined terms including end dates, it becomes impossible to take away when this current situation resolves itself.

I don't think it actually would be – but I agree that we need end dates for this initial period. As I said in my initial post "for 1-2 months".

I'm not really arguing for or against the merits of implementing a UBI in the US. I am simply saying that having it happen as an unintended consequence of a stimulus proposal, is not the way to do it. It is something that would require a large framework with well defined up front funding methods, a staunch oversight committee to prevent corruption, etc. all to ensure you are putting your best foot forward with the program.

This is why I have such a distaste for Speaker Pelosi's proposal. It seems like a short sighted approach, where they are trying to leverage a current crisis to backdoor a program that would otherwise be tough to pass through congress, but in the best interest of said program, should be given significantly more thought.

Clarity is of the utmost importance right now.

Do you have the same distaste for McConnell's original proposal? Because I notice you stress the need for oversight – which it left criminally lax – but made no value judgments as to what he'd put on the table first, this past weekend.

To be clear, as I pointed out yesterday, there are elements in the Speaker's bill that I think are silly. But given that she was putting it forward in response to what many (among Dems, anyway) viewed as a bad faith initial proposal, I wonder how much of that was simply making sure to include stereotypical "lefty" points strictly as fodder that could then be subsequently sacrificed in order to get what concessions were needed from the other side.

Interestingly, our endpoints do not appear to be all that different. We just have disagreements re: the conversation to get there.

 

[JimmyG89]

not sure how that buried the lede when the 2nd tweet just further explained why these people are morons and a perfect example of darwin at work.

It's buried because the first tweet issues blame when it's not what they are actually using for sick patients. It's all used as a scare tactic to say that it shouldn't be used.

These people didn't consult a doctor and are not sick. This is being used for sick patients. It's also so far down the list of tweets that people will see the first one and not read the rest.

 

[Doctyl]

China is lifting the lockdown on Wuhan beginning midnight tonight, after 2 months.

Hopefully ours only last 2 months as well.

Our “lockdown” is nowhere near what China did

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

 

[Gardner McKay]

No, I didn't. That's you reading it that way.


I don't think it actually would be – but I agree that we need end dates for this initial period. As I said in my initial post "for 1-2 months".


Do you have the same distaste for McConnell's original proposal? Because I notice you stress the need for oversight – which it left criminally lax – but made no value judgments as to what he'd put on the table first, this past weekend.

To be clear, as I pointed out yesterday, there are elements in the Speaker's bill that I think are silly. But given that she was putting it forward in response to what many (among Dems, anyway) viewed as a bad faith initial proposal, I wonder how much of that was simply making sure to include stereotypical "lefty" points strictly as fodder that could then be subsequently sacrificed in order to get what concessions were needed from the other side.

Interestingly, our endpoints do not appear to be all that different. We just have disagreements re: the conversation to get there.

Feels like hockey season has never left us

 

[EdJovanovski]

Some BOZO who works with me is also a tutor, he tutors a kid who tested positive for coronavirus. He continued coming to work without telling anyone, then yesterday he told someone and they reported him and he got sent home. Now my mom is showing symptoms. I don’t have any though