OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part V

[Machinehead]

America's billionaires added $282 billion to their total wealth in 23 days during the coronavirus crisis, a report claims | Markets Insider

Nothing tangible is being produced or exchanged, workers are being laid off by the thousands, and record revenues are rolling in.

We live in a planned economy and they make it up as they go along.

 

[Ola]

Not sure where I lost you. Steer policy towards what will work but don't blindly kill people "because they're young." Pretty straightforward point if you ask me.

Schools are the absolute worst thing you could do right now without a clear plan to reduce infection.

"Protect those at risk" is a trojan horse. Much of the elderly population of the US is already isolated in nursing homes -- disaster. Much of the elderly population in Italy lives in the home -- also a disaster. The only way to protect those at risk is to keep the spread below a certain level.

But what would be to blindly kill people in this context lol?

 

[Machinehead]

But what would be to blindly kill people in this context lol?

Doing low-benefit, high-risk things like opening schools tomorrow when the academic year is almost over anyway.

Of course, the plaintiff has already suggested -contrary to unanimous testimony and every piece of data available- that he doesn't think schools are a risk.

 

[Ola]

Doing low-benefit, high-risk things like opening schools tomorrow when the academic year is almost over anyway.

Of course, the plaintiff has already suggested -contrary to unanimous testimony and every piece of data available- that he doesn't think schools are a risk.

But doesn’t keeping kids at home come at an extremely high cost too? Physical and mental health. Monetary costs for society.

40m lost jobs aren’t good either. Lost health care. If anything can be done to reopen it should be done.

In addition, you must remember that flattening the curve has nothing to do with preventing cases, that is very hard, but to spread them out over time.

Also, isn’t opening the schools more or less a zero risk action? Kids aren’t not at risk with Covid 19. There are no data whatsoever implying that it would be dangerous for kids to get it. Heck, all experts I’ve heard are saying that it’s great for their immune system because it get exposed to a corona virus that doesn’t treat them.

Infants always face a risk from influenza, and Covid isn’t different. But if we look at kids in school age — really, the risk is more or less zero.

 

[Ola]

What is good for your immune system? Sit at home, do nothing, get no sun light. Or be out playing, exercising, learning stuff, getting a decent meal food in school and so forth?

The experts compare a quarantine to smoking 15 cigs a day. Cigarettes aren’t healthy.

 

[sbjnyc]

Unless I misunderstood what Cuomo said when he rolled this out, I don't think they are only testing symptomatic people in this particular survey.

A test of symptomatic people would yield much higher than 13%, no?

I don't know what the rate is but they have not done widespread testing throughout the state as far as I know.

America's billionaires added $282 billion to their total wealth in 23 days during the coronavirus crisis, a report claims | Markets Insider

Nothing tangible is being produced or exchanged, workers are being laid off by the thousands, and record revenues are rolling in.

We live in a planned economy and they make it up as they go along.

You're better than this. Why do you think Bezos gained wealth now that everyone is ordering through Amazon. This is an article without any real information but just has an obvious political agenda.

What is good for your immune system? Sit at home, do nothing, get no sun light. Or be out playing, exercising, learning stuff, getting a decent meal food in school and so forth?

The experts compare a quarantine to smoking 15 cigs a day. Cigarettes aren’t healthy.

There are plenty of pathogens in your home to give your immune system a workout especially mine). Sitting in the sun is as bad as sitting at home. Sitting is the new smoking. Just because you are an md doesn't make you am expert on public health. In fact these bozos put their pockets ahead of their ethics.

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation

 

[MyLoveIsBlue]

 

[Machinehead]

You're better than this. Why do you think Bezos gained wealth now that everyone is ordering through Amazon. This is an article without any real information but just has an obvious political agenda.

I don't know what political agenda you think Markets Insider has but it sure ain't mine, I'll tell you that much.

Sure, Bezos may be doing more business. Sure as hell not $15 billion a month worth in an economy where purchasing power has taken a significant hit.

What about the others? It lists major players in the auto and real estate industries, both of which are at a standstill.

All of this wealth is coming from stock buybacks. It's their own stock that they're moving from one pocket to the other -- stock that isn't producing anything tangible in a recessed economy. It's all arbitrary nonsense.

It's a fact that economies are man-made social rituals. It's beyond me why people treat them like scientific laws that can't be manipulated.

 

[bl02]

What is good for your immune system? Sit at home, do nothing, get no sun light. Or be out playing, exercising, learning stuff, getting a decent meal food in school and so forth?

The experts compare a quarantine to smoking 15 cigs a day. Cigarettes aren’t healthy.

Add depression and anxiety to that list as well. All inflammatory things that do bad things to the body and inhibit your bodies ability to fight off infections on a cellular level.
It’s too bad we also don’t talk more about nutrition and how to keep our immune system stronger.

 

[Irishguy42]

The experts compare a quarantine to smoking 15 cigs a day.

[citation needed]

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

The experts compare a quarantine to smoking 15 cigs a day. Cigarettes aren’t healthy.

That's a lotta hoons to crank but there is zero chance this is true

 

[bl02]

That's a lotta hoons to crank but there is zero chance this is true

smoking is horrible but long term quarantining can definitely cause inactivity (which leads to a host of diseases like diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol), low vitamin d levels and depression. Collectively all those factors could be just as devastating as what smoking would cause.
Not sure if studies have been done but would be interesting to compare.

 

[sbjnyc]

I don't know what political agenda you think Markets Insider has but it sure ain't mine, I'll tell you that much.

Sure, Bezos may be doing more business. Sure as hell not $15 billion a month worth in an economy where purchasing power has taken a significant hit.

What about the others? It lists major players in the auto and real estate industries, both of which are at a standstill.

All of this wealth is coming from stock buybacks. It's their own stock that they're moving from one pocket to the other -- stock that isn't producing anything tangible in a recessed economy. It's all arbitrary nonsense.

It's a fact that economies are man-made social rituals. It's beyond me why people treat them like scientific laws that can't be manipulated.

The report in the article you linked was from the Institute For Policy Studies, who describe themselves as a progressive think tank. I agree that the engine behind the recent surged in the stock market is due in part to stock buybacks as a result of tax cuts. That doesn't mean the tax cuts are a bad idea. It did result in a large increase tax revenues.

 

[Tawnos]

Not sure where I lost you. Steer policy towards what will work but don't blindly kill people "because they're young." Pretty straightforward point if you ask me.

Schools are the absolute worst thing you could do right now without a clear plan to reduce infection.

"Protect those at risk" is a trojan horse. Much of the elderly population of the US is already isolated in nursing homes -- disaster. Much of the elderly population in Italy lives in the home -- also a disaster. The only way to protect those at risk is to keep the spread below a certain level.

This is what I don’t get. Sure, the elderly population has the highest risk for serious consequences here, but that doesn’t make it low risk for younger people. It’s still high risk, just not as high.

Also, regarding car crashes, cancer, etc etc. We are CONSTANTLY trying to find ways to reduce the deadliness of those things. We find out what works based on what the data and the experts in that data tell us, and we implement those things. It’s why we have mandatory seatbelt laws. It’s why we have airbags. It’s why cars are designed to crumple on impact to better protect the interior cabin. If they find ways to make car travel even safer, they’d implement that too. So why object to the things the experts in this field say are necessary?

Btw, after however many years of conflict on this board, I’m thoroughly enjoying @Machinehead posts I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[Tawnos]

smoking is horrible but long term quarantining can definitely cause inactivity (which leads to a host of diseases like diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol), low vitamin d levels and depression. Collectively all those factors could be just as devastating as what smoking would cause.
Not sure if studies have been done but would be interesting to compare.

Given that we know this, and we know long-term quarantining could be necessary, wouldn’t the proper response be to include ways of helping people avoid those outcomes you mention?

 

[Machinehead]

But doesn’t keeping kids at home come at an extremely high cost too? Physical and mental health. Monetary costs for society.

Probably not, and I say this as an educator. Long-term, 100%; they need to go to school. A few months off, though? That'll do them good. We overwork students in this country.

As far as monetary costs, public school costs money anyway. This will cost less, if anything. You won't have to maintain the building.

40m lost jobs aren’t good either. Lost health care. If anything can be done to reopen it should be done.

Agreed 100%. Don't be reckless is all I'm saying.

Also, the idea of isolating young from old is not something that realistically happens in practice. We have to protect the old by slowing infection amongst the young. That's the only way.

In addition, you must remember that flattening the curve has nothing to do with preventing cases, that is very hard, but to spread them out over time.

Yes. Not arguing against that.

Also, isn’t opening the schools more or less a zero risk action? Kids aren’t not at risk with Covid 19. There are no data whatsoever implying that it would be dangerous for kids to get it. Heck, all experts I’ve heard are saying that it’s great for their immune system because it get exposed to a corona virus that doesn’t treat them.

Infants always face a risk from influenza, and Covid isn’t different. But if we look at kids in school age — really, the risk is more or less zero.

False.

Kids contract it at extremely low rates, but they can 100% still spread it. One kid gets it, the whole class has it, and then the whole class takes it home to grandma.

Also, teachers aren't kids. And as I told Serpico before (he didn't believe me but I can show you the sources) more teachers are dead from this than police officers.

School has to open at some point, but it's going to require a radical and innovative plan, something we won't have in place tomorrow morning.

 

[Machinehead]

This is what I don’t get. Sure, the elderly population has the highest risk for serious consequences here, but that doesn’t make it low risk for younger people. It’s still high risk, just not as high.

Also, regarding car crashes, cancer, etc etc. We are CONSTANTLY trying to find ways to reduce the deadliness of those things. We find out what works based on what the data and the experts in that data tell us, and we implement those things. It’s why we have mandatory seatbelt laws. It’s why we have airbags. It’s why cars are designed to crumple on impact to better protect the interior cabin. If they find ways to make car travel even safer, they’d implement that too. So why object to the things the experts in this field say are necessary?

Btw, after however many years of conflict on this board, I’m thoroughly enjoying @Machinehead posts I wholeheartedly agree with.

EXACTLY!

Just like I'm not saying ban cars or swimming pools, I've actually been pro-reopening this entire time, even though I hate the term "reopening" simply because it isn't black and white.

But we do absolutely everything we can to make these other activities safer, you're 100% correct about that, so why wouldn't we do the same here?

Again, not saying ban cars, but opening schools tomorrow would be like getting on the highway drunk and blindfolded.

 

[bl02]

Given that we know this, and we know long-term quarantining could be necessary, wouldn’t the proper response be to include ways of helping people avoid those outcomes you mention?

If this continues on absolutely.

 

[bl02]

But doesn’t keeping kids at home come at an extremely high cost too? Physical and mental health. Monetary costs for society.

40m lost jobs aren’t good either. Lost health care. If anything can be done to reopen it should be done.

In addition, you must remember that flattening the curve has nothing to do with preventing cases, that is very hard, but to spread them out over time.

Also, isn’t opening the schools more or less a zero risk action? Kids aren’t not at risk with Covid 19. There are no data whatsoever implying that it would be dangerous for kids to get it. Heck, all experts I’ve heard are saying that it’s great for their immune system because it get exposed to a corona virus that doesn’t treat them.

Infants always face a risk from influenza, and Covid isn’t different. But if we look at kids in school age — really, the risk is more or less zero.

If this continues beyond this academic year for sure!

 

[Tawnos]

If this continues on absolutely.

From my perspective, many of those things should’ve already been happening, like increased availability of mental health professionals to address the psychological effects, even if remotely. The obesity thing would be a bigger challenge I think, but I’m sure there are ideas out there to address it.

 

[Synergy27]

The report in the article you linked was from the Institute For Policy Studies, who describe themselves as a progressive think tank. I agree that the engine behind the recent surged in the stock market is due in part to stock buybacks as a result of tax cuts. That doesn't mean the tax cuts are a bad idea. It did result in a large increase tax revenues.

I just wish people would stop defending this nonsense. It used to be well hidden. The 2008 financial crisis exposed reality to those that were paying attention. This current crisis should have opened the flood gates, but people were given a couple of bucks this time and most are so desperate that that seems to have appeased them.

We live in a corporate welfare state. Our system is socialist for the moneyed and powerful. How else can you explain why we bailout “industries” and corporations instead of people themselves? Why bother “trickling down” in a bailout situation where it’s simply easier and more efficient to give the money straight to the people who need it? How and why did we bailout troubled mortgages but not the people underneath those mortgages?

 

[sbjnyc]

What exactly are you arguing? The financial crisis was over 10 years ago and the government made a profit on the loans and investments it made. The tax cuts from a couple of years ago was unrelated to any bailouts. You can argue whether or not it was sound policy but I'm unclear what relevance it has here.

 

[Synergy27]

What exactly are you arguing? The financial crisis was over 10 years ago and the government made a profit on the loans and investments it made. The tax cuts from a couple of years ago was unrelated to any bailouts. You can argue whether or not it was sound policy but I'm unclear what relevance it has here.

I’m arguing that the government is largely a structure that has been corrupted to benefit very few. That corruption gets more blatant with every crisis.

 

[egelband]

America's billionaires added $282 billion to their total wealth in 23 days during the coronavirus crisis, a report claims | Markets Insider

Nothing tangible is being produced or exchanged, workers are being laid off by the thousands, and record revenues are rolling in.

We live in a planned economy and they make it up as they go along.

I’m not sure it’s planned, per se. But the field is certainly tilted.

 

[Irishguy42]

America's billionaires added $282 billion to their total wealth in 23 days during the coronavirus crisis, a report claims | Markets Insider

Nothing tangible is being produced or exchanged, workers are being laid off by the thousands, and record revenues are rolling in.

We live in a planned economy and they make it up as they go along.

To be fair, the stock market is mostly black magic, even if you do understand it.