OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part V

[Synergy27]

Is there any evidence that would point to him not being vetted?

Seems to me that you are trying to draw me into a fight about Trump. Which we can certainly do if you just tell me which aspect of his we should be debating. I mean are you really going to debate with me that by and large the media loathes him can basically never be impartial when it comes to him?

No. I am not debating that the media loathes him. They do. I agree with you.

The evidence that would point to him not being vetted includes the various other members of the administration I previously referenced and the topic of this recent stretch of conversation - the president’s blatant disregard for norms and process as key tenets of his approach to the office.

Also, I am not trying to draw you into anything. I am just trying to determine if you have the ability to be impartial about anything that involves the president, and subsequently if it is worth continuing any conversations with you here regarding the on-going response. He’s given you a couple of softballs to knock out of the park over the last 48-72 hours if you’re so inclined.

 

[Synergy27]

The debate is going to come to was this not as deadly as originally believed and was such complete shutdown worth it?

This is exactly what’s going to happen, and it will be infuriating. The deniers are going to be able to cite statistics that show that this hasn’t been “that bad”, and they’ll openly ignore or minimize the impact that the shutdown measures had on making that true. They’ll be right in the sense that it can’t be proven what impact the shutdown measures had because we (fortunately) don’t live in the timeline where nothing was done.

It’s still pretty crazy that tens of thousands of deaths are going to be looked at as not that bad though, regardless of what could have been or might yet be.

 

[Fireonk]

There is not question that the lockdown had helped. The only question that exists is how much did it help or was this thing not as deadly as originally thought and it might not have needed such a complete lockdown. Or when it is time to start to reopen.

The sentiment is for real. Like I said, I have friends who are not earning paychecks at this point. The fear is not so much can they hold on, but rather will they even be able to work when people start to emerge? I also have friends on the front lines who fear how it is that their hospital is supposed to make enough money to where layoffs are not needed?

I find it hard to debate the wisdom of a lockdown by using what we now know (or at least have a much better idea) the mortality rate is. When these lockdowns were put into place we really had no idea what the true rate was. Due to lack of testing and limited information it was the only choice.

I also don't see how there is a real debate that in certain places like New York a lock down was absolutely necessary. Luckily didn't get hit AS hard as possibly expected but it was definitely stretched to the existing limits.

Which is different than the current debate of is it time to re-open of course. As you know by now, I believe that makes sense in most places, with a phased strategy.

 

[True Blue]

This is exactly what’s going to happen, and it will be infuriating. The deniers are going to be able to cite statistics that show that this hasn’t been “that bad”, and they’ll openly ignore or minimize the impact that the shutdown measures had on making that true. They’ll be right in the sense that it can’t be proven what impact the shutdown measures had because we (fortunately) don’t live in the timeline where nothing was done.

It’s still pretty crazy that tens of thousands of deaths are going to be looked at as not that bad though, regardless of what could have been or might yet be.

I do not so much think it is about deniers as it is if this was not as deadly as originally thought, was the government right to so completely shut everything down? Just like when is it time to begin to re-open things up.

The evidence that would point to him not being vetted includes the various other members of the administration I previously referenced and the topic of this recent stretch of conversation - the president’s blatant disregard for norms and process as key tenets of his approach to the office.

Fine, so does that mean that we do not know if he was vetted or are we guessing that he was not vetted?

Also, I am not trying to draw you into anything. I am just trying to determine if you have the ability to be impartial about anything that involves the president, and subsequently if it is worth continuing any conversations with you here regarding the on-going response. He’s given you a couple of softballs to knock out of the park over the last 48-72 hours if you’re so inclined.

When it comes to Trump, there is a lot that can be said. And I am going to overlook the "he is not presidential" as I find it meaningless. Prior to the virus, like it or not the economy and unemployment rate is something that each president owns. So I do not and did not need to have him over for dinner in order to give credit where credit is and was due. With what he has done since the virus, yeah he says some dumb things. But again, my focus is not on what he says but what he does as it is with every president. I have made this point, largely I do not think that others would have really done different.

 

[True Blue]

Which is different than the current debate of is it time to re-open of course. As you know by now, I believe that makes sense in most places, with a phased strategy.

I do not disagree. Looking at anything with the benefit of hindsight is not a realistic approach.

I am getting worried that Cuomo is getting paralyzed by needing to make a hard decision. He knows that he needs to reopen and get the small businesses going again. But am afraid that he has no idea how as those small businesses do not really operate with the concept of social distancing. We shall see I guess, but just how I am reading the tea leaves right now.

 

[Tawnos]

It’s still pretty crazy that tens of thousands of deaths are going to be looked at as not that bad though, regardless of what could have been or might yet be.

More deadly than the Vietnam War, but not that bad

It actually reveals quite a bit about people.

 

[NYR Viper]

More deadly than the Vietnam War, but not that bad

It actually reveals quite a bit about people.

Flu Update: April 2020 Numbers Are In | Rochester Regional Health

In fairness, it seems like we have roughly these numbers or worse from the flu every year. I'm not saying we should deal with it the same right now, but there is already an annual virus that kills quite a few people every year

 

[Tawnos]

Flu Update: April 2020 Numbers Are In | Rochester Regional Health

In fairness, it seems like we have roughly these numbers or worse from the flu every year. I'm not saying we should deal with it the same right now, but there is already an annual virus that kills quite a few people every year

That's not "in fairness", it's pure spin. The period of that data is 6 months.

 

[OverTheCap]

21x as deadly as flu

 

[Trxjw]

The debate is going to come to was this not as deadly as originally believed and was such complete shutdown worth it? I do not know that the answer is. We can just speculate. As more and more people are laid off and have their benefits rolled off, you will see him being burned in effigy more and more.

Which is exactly my point. People will blame the person who made the difficult decisions, even if those decisions may have very well kept tens of thousands of people alive, because they are facing hard times. Then they'll say exactly what you're already alluding to: Was this as deadly as we thought? Because surely if the body count is low, it must mean those policies were a drastic overreaction and not that they saved countless lives.

More people will lose their jobs. More people will take to the streets. Many of those people will die, or infect others who will go on to die or continue to spread the virus. All because people can't see beyond the tip of their nose when it comes to righteous outrage.

 

[sbjnyc]

I am not taking it an insult, but a recession is typically recognized as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER calls it a negative decline lasting more than a few months.

A recession does not happen over night, as I am sure you know. So to state that the country was in a recession in end of February is simply not accurate.

The NBER does not define a recession the way you do and their definition is the only one that matters. They even explain on their FAQ that they have called recessions without the 2 quarters of real GDP decline that you require. Regardless, recessions are determined retroactively. By your definition, we are in a recession today if Q1 and Q2 have negative real GDP growth. We obviously won't know that until some time in August.

 

[Trxjw]

Flu Update: April 2020 Numbers Are In | Rochester Regional Health

In fairness, it seems like we have roughly these numbers or worse from the flu every year. I'm not saying we should deal with it the same right now, but there is already an annual virus that kills quite a few people every year

It's not the death toll that's important. It's the mortality rate and how contagious it is. Take the low end of that article you posted of 39m cases across the US. That's 63k deaths in 39m infections. COVID-19 is nearly as many deaths in LESS THAN 1m cases. If you extrapolated that to 39m cases, you get a significantly higher number. And that is completely ignoring the lack of herd immunity, higher infection rate, lack of vaccines, and the probable collapse of our healthcare system. All of which would likely inflate that number.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Which is exactly my point. People will blame the person who made the difficult decisions, even if those decisions may have very well kept tens of thousands of people alive, because they are facing hard times. Then they'll say exactly what you're already alluding to: Was this as deadly as we thought? Because surely if the body count is low, it must mean those policies were a drastic overreaction and not that they saved countless lives.

More people will lose their jobs. More people will take to the streets. Many of those people will die, or infect others who will go on to die or continue to spread the virus. All because people can't see beyond the tip of their nose when it comes to righteous outrage.

1000000000% agree on both counts. We get the luxury of reacting to decisions. We aren't making them and what we react to is about 1/10th of the information that actually went in to the decision making process. Whatever the decision is you can expect 47-48% of the population to be outraged. If the decision was reversed, expect the other 47-48% to be outraged.

I don't get the outrage culture that seems to be prominent in our world. Life is too short to constantly be living in a semi-permanent state of anger. I would have hoped that given what we are facing not as a nation, but as a species, that it would give a new perspective to people, especially in our country. I couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[NYR Viper]

That's not "in fairness", it's pure spin. The period of that data is 6 months.

It's not the death toll that's important. It's the mortality rate and how contagious it is. Take the low end of that article you posted of 39m cases across the US. That's 63k deaths in 39m infections. COVID-19 is nearly as many deaths in LESS THAN 1m cases. If you extrapolated that to 39m cases, you get a significantly higher number. And that is completely ignoring the probable collapse of our healthcare system, which would likely inflate that number.

I should have been more clear. I wasn't trying to compare the two viruses, just that we deal with a large death toll every year from viruses like the flu so it shouldn't be THAT surprising that we are okay with a 40-50-60k death toll. It's not 'okay', just that it's not something we are unfamiliar with.

 

[True Blue]

The NBER does not define a recession the way you do and their definition is the only one that matters. They even explain on their FAQ that they have called recessions without the 2 quarters of real GDP decline that you require. Regardless, recessions are determined retroactively. By your definition, we are in a recession today if Q1 and Q2 have negative real GDP growth. We obviously won't know that until some time in August.

The NBER defines a recession as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

Recessions are visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. The working definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP), although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession, and uses more frequently reported monthly data to make its decision, so quarterly declines in GDP do not always align with the decision to declare a recession.

Whether you choose to say it is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth or call it a decline in economical activity that lasts more than several a few months, you are basically getting to the same spot. And none of that changes that the country was not in a recession at the end of February or beginning of March.

Besides, isn't this now just semantics?

 

[True Blue]

Which is exactly my point. People will blame the person who made the difficult decisions, even if those decisions may have very well kept tens of thousands of people alive, because they are facing hard times. Then they'll say exactly what you're already alluding to: Was this as deadly as we thought? Because surely if the body count is low, it must mean those policies were a drastic overreaction and not that they saved countless lives.

More people will lose their jobs. More people will take to the streets. Many of those people will die, or infect others who will go on to die or continue to spread the virus. All because people can't see beyond the tip of their nose when it comes to righteous outrage.

I am not disagreeing with you. That is why evaluating events that have occurred in the past with the benefits of hindsight pretty silly.

But as more and more information becomes known, it should enable a much more educated decision to be made.

 

[True Blue]

1000000000% agree on both counts. We get the luxury of reacting to decisions. We aren't making them and what we react to is about 1/10th of the information that actually went in to the decision making process. Whatever the decision is you can expect 47-48% of the population to be outraged. If the decision was reversed, expect the other 47-48% to be outraged.

I don't get the outrage culture that seems to be prominent in our world. Life is too short to constantly be living in a semi-permanent state of anger. I would have hoped that given what we are facing not as a nation, but as a species, that it would give a new perspective to people, especially in our country. I couldn't have been more wrong.

In the end human nature wins out. And you can never underestimate the need for people to be correct and righteous. The latter is probably worse than the former.

 

[sbjnyc]

The NBER defines a recession as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

Recessions are visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. The working definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP), although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession, and uses more frequently reported monthly data to make its decision, so quarterly declines in GDP do not always align with the decision to declare a recession.

Whether you choose to say it is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth or call it a decline in economical activity that lasts more than several a few months, you are basically getting to the same spot. And none of that changes that the country was not in a recession at the end of February or beginning of March.

Besides, isn't this now just semantics?

There was no recession two months ago. I am certainly not trying to be insulting, but I am not sure how I can state this any more clearly. The very definition is two quarters of negative growth. I am not sure how you can even start to debate that.

If the NBER says the recession began in February then we were in a recession in February. My guess is it will be either February or March. The economy isn't a light switch you can just turn on (though obviously it can be turned off). Hopefully it'll be short like 2001 (which only had 1 quarter of negative GDP growth).

 

[Trxjw]

I should have been more clear. I wasn't trying to compare the two viruses, just that we deal with a large death toll every year from viruses like the flu so it shouldn't be THAT surprising that we are okay with a 40-50-60k death toll. It's not 'okay', just that it's not something we are unfamiliar with.

We deal with skewed statistics like that all the time. Something like 10k people die in gun-related homicides each year and most people don't give it a passing thought. Yet when some piece of garbage shoots up a school and 15 kids die, it's a national outrage and a rallying cry for six weeks or however long it keeps people's attention. Over 20k people die each year by shooting themselves and virtually nobody cares. Yet we still talk to this day about what an incredible tragedy Kurt Cobain's death was. We, as a society, can rationalize pretty much anything. Its significance really comes down to how it directly impacts our daily lives and just how outrageous or abnormal it is.

 

[Trxjw]

1000000000% agree on both counts. We get the luxury of reacting to decisions. We aren't making them and what we react to is about 1/10th of the information that actually went in to the decision making process. Whatever the decision is you can expect 47-48% of the population to be outraged. If the decision was reversed, expect the other 47-48% to be outraged.

I don't get the outrage culture that seems to be prominent in our world. Life is too short to constantly be living in a semi-permanent state of anger. I would have hoped that given what we are facing not as a nation, but as a species, that it would give a new perspective to people, especially in our country. I couldn't have been more wrong.

And to be clear, I'm not saying everything Cuomo is doing is perfect. I'm not even a NYS resident anymore and I've never been a particularly big fan of his. I also can't pretend to understand the outrage someone who lost their job is feeling. I'm still working and it's unlikely I would lose my job in a recession. That being said, I can empathize to an extent. However, I can't empathize to the point of saying, "Yeah, you're right. We should put millions of lives at risk because you want to go back to work." If you want to be mad about being out of work and struggling to pay bills, then turn your righteous anger on the people who are screwing you over. Not the people who are potentially saving your life.

 

[NYR Viper]

We deal with skewed statistics like that all the time. Something like 10k people die in gun-related homicides each year and most people don't give it a passing thought. Yet when some piece of garbage shoots up a school and 15 kids die, it's a national outrage and a rallying cry for six weeks or however long it keeps people's attention. Over 20k people die each year by shooting themselves and virtually nobody cares. Yet we still talk to this day about what an incredible tragedy Kurt Cobain's death was. We, as a society, can rationalize pretty much anything. Its significance really comes down to how it directly impacts our daily lives and just how outrageous or abnormal it is.

Very well put. I just wanted to make sure you all didn't think I was trying to compare the two, just that I'm not overly surprised with the 'ho hum' attitude of some.

We all need to realize as well that this is a NYC mainly forum and the majority of issues are in NY. Other locations in the US, while they are effected, aren't effected like that area. In many areas, the flu has actually been more fatal up to this point in the year. Again, not saying it's an apt comparison due to the quantity of people who have contracted COVID just that from their perspective it will feel different.

 

[Trxjw]

I am not disagreeing with you. That is why evaluating events that have occurred in the past with the benefits of hindsight pretty silly.

But as more and more information becomes known, it should enable a much more educated decision to be made.

I agree. Though wouldn't you agree that we can't wait for that information to become known in order to make important decisions?

 

[sbjnyc]

I should have been more clear. I wasn't trying to compare the two viruses, just that we deal with a large death toll every year from viruses like the flu so it shouldn't be THAT surprising that we are okay with a 40-50-60k death toll. It's not 'okay', just that it's not something we are unfamiliar with.

About 7500 people die per day in the US. Flu and pneumonia combine for about 2% of the total. In just 2 weeks NYC alone had over 7500 people die of Covid. This is not something that we are familiar with in any way. They don't run out of room to store the bodies of people dying from the flu.

 

[NYR Viper]

About 7500 people die per day in the US. Flu and pneumonia combine for about 2% of the total. In just 2 weeks NYC alone had over 7500 people die of Covid. This is not something that we are familiar with in any way. They don't run out of room to store the bodies of people dying from the flu.

Again, I'm not comparing the 2, just that we see high numbers annually from the flu as well hence why the death toll numbers may not be 'eye-popping' to some

 

[Trxjw]

Very well put. I just wanted to make sure you all didn't think I was trying to compare the two, just that I'm not overly surprised with the 'ho hum' attitude of some.

We all need to realize as well that this is a NYC mainly forum and the majority of issues are in NY. Other locations in the US, while they are effected, aren't effected like that area. In many areas, the flu has actually been more fatal up to this point in the year. Again, not saying it's an apt comparison due to the quantity of people who have contracted COVID just that from their perspective it will feel different.

Oh I definitely didn't interpret it that way. Don't sweat it.

Yeah I can't really pretend to understand what it must be like in NYC right now. Here in Pittsburgh we're locked down, but it's a pretty loose lock-down. We're somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 cases in Allegheny County and fewer than 100 deaths. A lot of my co-workers are in NYC and it's literally a different world compared to what we're going through here.