~* Make America Great Depression Again -- Official Thread of Corona Virus infected markets *~

[skillzdadirecta]

9 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

So if we're not all locked in our houses until next year we're all gonna die?

 

 

 

No one is saying that and if you want to be reductive and turn this into an either or proposition, be my guest. I'm not gonna argue with you. But if you want this thing to be over with minimal loss of life and economic damage, then we have to open up smartly and responsibly. Not out of impatience or because we miss eating shitty food at shitty restaurants. There's a way to do this and we have precedence with what happened a 100 years ago. If we're not careful we COULD see a second wave that is far worse than this first one. For example, this Covid outbreak occurred at the END of the flu season last year... imagine if we get hit with a second wave in the fall at the same time  as flu season. What's THAT gonna look like?

 

Another thing to consider is that out front line workers; medical professionals, policemen, bus drivers, grocery story employees, food processing plant workers etc.( the people who actually keep society running) have barely been able to hold on even with the shut down. Here in Jersey, the situation got so bad that my dad who just retired from the police department last year, got an offer from the PD to come BACK. He would be paid his salary that he was making before he retired AND he would keep his pension benefits coming in. He said NO because he's in the high risk group for sure and he's DEFINITELY not leaving the house all that much. If you flood the streets with people again without the proper precautions, we COULD end up overwhelming our system. Then what? Is shitty fast food really worth it at the end of the day? 

[Dodger]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I know you're asking that sarcastically, but of course we will not all die...just millions and millions more people will die worldwide. Yes, most of them will be 75+, but that will still include hundreds of thousands of younger people.

 

 

I don't think you're getting the point. There seems to be no middle ground in the debate. It's either we're all on indefinite lockdown until you're area doesn't report a new case for a week or something, or its all let's ride the Matahorn at Disneyland tomorrow. 

 

Instead, maybe I don't know fucking Iowa can re-open with restrictions like keep the kids home from school, no large gatherings, encourage those who can work from home to stay working from home. I don't see any credible data that millions of people will die if rural states have a limited re-opening. 

 

At some point you have weigh the risk versus the rewards. Remember, the lockdown isn't free of consequences. The global economy being completely demolished. So how much do you let that continue to save lives? 

[Dodger]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

No one is saying that and if you want to be reductive and turn this into an either or proposition, be my guest. I'm not gonna argue with you. But if you want this thing to be over with minimal loss of life and economic damage, then we have to open up smartly and responsibly. Not out of impatience or because we miss eating shitty food at shitty restaurants. There's a way to do this and we have precedence with what happened a 100 years ago. If we're not careful we COULD see a second wave that is far worse than this first one. For example, this Covid outbreak occurred at the END of the flu season last year... imagine if we get hit with a second wave in the fall at the same time  as flu season. What's THAT gonna look like?

 

Another thing to consider is that out front line workers; medical professionals, policemen, bus drivers, grocery story employees, food processing plant workers etc.( the people who actually keep society running) have barely been able to hold on even with the shut down. Here in Jersey, the situation got so bad that my dad who just retired from the police department last year, got an offer from the PD to come BACK. He would be paid his salary that he was making before he retired AND he would keep his pension benefits coming in. He said NO because he's in the high risk group for sure and he's DEFINITELY not leaving the house all that much. If you flood the streets with people again without the proper precautions, we COULD end up overwhelming our system. Then what? Is shitty fast food really worth it at the end of the day? 

 

 

The lockdown isn't having a minimal impact on the economy, it's destroying it. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

 

I don't have the links handy, but there were multiple surveys/polls that all showed the same thing: The people who want everything to open up are primarily those who are able to work from home. The people who want things to remain closed are primarily those who cannot work from home. Interestingly, people who have already been laid off supported keeping things closed by a greater margin than those who are still working from home.

 

The re-openings have little to do with people's jobs, and everything to do with people wanting to get out.

I think that is an oversimplification. Even people who are able to WFH exist in an economy reliant on consumer spending at some point. As an example, my cousin is a chemist at a major firm in the Houston area, and his division makes products primarily used by Ecolab, which services a TON of the restaurant industry. What happens when people don’t go out to eat in restaurants, not using plates/cups/flatware/etc? The orders for Ecolab cleaning products drops like a rock and his division starts furloughing or laying off staff.

 

The interconnected nature of both domestic and international commerce means the ripple effects of plummeting consumer demand will absolutely be felt in most sectors of the economy.

 

If only we had printing presses to pump this thing up in the short term!

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The lockdown isn't having a minimal impact on the economy, it's destroying it. 

 

In 10 years the economy will be fully back, if reshaped, but those dead people will still be dead. Some people will die or have their lives ruined by the lock down efforts, but less than would have died of the virus. Wearing seatbelts also kills people in some circumstances, but far less than are killed by not wearing them.

 

I am not advocating for total lock downs for years, I think there needs to be controlled openings. But some things will remain impractical such as large gatherings/events, as well as crowded indoor areas such as restaurants and crowded stores. This is definitely going to restructure the economy and some industries are going to massively contract.

[skillzdadirecta]

10 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The lockdown pandemic and muddled Federal Response isn't having a minimal impact on the economy, it's destroying it. 

FFTFY.

[Dodger]

 

 

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

FFTFY.

 

Countries with better responses than the US still have their economies fucked. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

 

 

You got me, we'll just all hide in our houses for the rest of the year while hoping our great government will come through and take care of us. 

 

Just as a thought experiment, what if I state re-opened, and everyone didn't die?

Better to give these businesses grants to keep people on payroll, at home, and away from potential exposure, with enough so that they can still pay their rent and other bills so that we don't have to worry about these workers not having a job to go back to.

 

Basically, government should have stepped in to pay the bills of basically everyone who needed an on-site presence until a cure or vaccine or treatment or eradication is available.

 

But we didn't do that. So now there's a faction of dumbasses who think opening up is going to help the economy. It won't. Our economy is based on confidence of everyday people, and by and large we do not have that. What will help is getting infection amounts down, getting deaths down,and reducing the very real and reasonable fear that people have. And where we are in this, since we do not have a plan to trace infections, quarantine the infected, and a political culture that has an absolutely juvenile definition of what freedom is, we are stuck between lockdown and mass death. We're just praying for a treatment or vaccine. That's it.

 

There's not a lot of room for error if we actually cared for human life but this country shows us time and time again we absolutely do not give a fuck about lives, and doubly so of the primary victims are black or brown.

[skillzdadirecta]

19 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

 

Countries with better responses than the US still have their economies fucked. 

Yeah... because there's a pandemic going on. 

 

Quote

Our economy is based on confidence of everyday people, and by and large we do not have that. What will help is getting infection amounts down, getting deaths down,and reducing the very real and reasonable fear that people have. And where we are in this, since we do not have a plan to trace infections, quarantine the infected, and a political culture that has an absolutely juvenile definition of what freedom is, we are stuck between lockdown and mass death. We're just praying for a treatment or vaccine. That's it.

 

This... all of this.

[Dodger]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Better to give these businesses grants to keep people on payroll, at home, and away from potential exposure, with enough so that they can still pay their rent and other bills so that we don't have to worry about these workers not having a job to go back to.

 

Basically, government should have stepped in to pay the bills of basically everyone who needed an on-site presence until a cure or vaccine or treatment or eradication is available.

 

But we didn't do that. So now there's a faction of dumbasses who think opening up is going to help the economy. It won't. Our economy is based on confidence of everyday people, and by and large we do not have that. What will help is getting infection amounts down, getting deaths down,and reducing the very real and reasonable fear that people have. And where we are in this, since we do not have a plan to trace infections, quarantine the infected, and a political culture that has an absolutely juvenile definition of what freedom is, we are stuck between lockdown and mass death. We're just praying for a treatment or vaccine. That's it.

 

There's not a lot of room for error if we actually cared for human life but this country shows us time and time again we absolutely do not give a fuck about lives, and doubly so of the primary victims are black or brown.

 

 

Right, it would be nice if we had a competent government that could tell us hey don't worry we already have universal health insurance, and we'll pay employers/you while you stay home until this all over so we can all get back to "normal" as soon as safely possible. But we don't, instead you have $1200 to last you 3 months and your health insurance gone if you just lost your job. You better hope staying at home will prevent you from getting Covid 19, because you're gonna be super fucked if you get it now.  We're all still fucked if we have to lockdown until we have no new cases and testing everywhere. Honestly we're fucked either way, so you should at least be able to enjoy your shitty Chili's. 

 

Every single story I've seen of a business opening up is that they were completely slammed. So it's not like we're going to re-open and everyone will stay inside and do nothing. Shit @sblfilms is about to make more money renting out his parking lot than he does with his theater because people want anything to do right now. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Basically, government should have stepped in to pay the bills of basically everyone who needed an on-site presence until a cure or vaccine or treatment or eradication is available.

This is why I really came to love the concept of the Fed guaranteeing all ACH payments no matter what. No massive program needs to be created, just have businesses operate like everything is normal and if they bounce checks they still pay out.

[Joe]

Why are you so desperate to eat shitty chain restaurant food? Isn't your gf Mexican? Tell her to make you some carnitas with that pressure cooker you ain't using. Or you do it. It's not hard.

[Spork3245]

6 minutes ago, Jose said:

Why are you so desperate to eat shitty chain restaurant food? Isn't your gf Mexican? Tell her to make you some carnitas with that pressure cooker you ain't using. Or you do it. It's not hard.

So, f’n racist... I’m sure she makes a mean lasagna too!

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

Right, it would be nice if we had a competent government that could tell us hey don't worry we already have universal health insurance, and we'll pay employers/you while you stay home until this all over so we can all get back to "normal" as soon as safely possible. But we don't, instead you have $1200 to last you 3 months and your health insurance gone if you just lost your job. You better hope staying at home will prevent you from getting Covid 19, because you're gonna be super fucked if you get it now.  We're all still fucked if we have to lockdown until we have no new cases and testing everywhere. Honestly we're fucked either way, so you should at least be able to enjoy your shitty Chili's. 

 

Every single story I've seen of a business opening up is that they were completely slammed. So it's not like we're going to re-open and everyone will stay inside and do nothing. Shit @sblfilms is about to make more money renting out his parking lot than he does with his theater because people want anything to do right now. 

Yeah, you can "do what you want" but what about the poor waitress who loses her unemployment/wages because you want to eat that shitty food? Or the cooks or anyone else who has to risk their and their family's life, or face impoverishment, just so you can have UNLIMITED soup salad and bread sticks? There's a second side here that you're just glossing over here.

[Joe]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

So, f’n racist... I’m sure she makes a mean lasagna too!

 

 

I could have asked him what region of Mexico his gf's family was from and selected a dish afterwards, but that would take way too long.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

I could have asked him what region of Mexico his gf's family was from and selected a dish afterwards, but that would take way too long.

He’s likes Chili’s so I’m kinda just assuming his gf doesn’t cook

[Joe]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

He’s likes Chili’s so I’m kinda just assuming his gf doesn’t cook

 

True!

[skillzdadirecta]

Reposting this for the willfully dense

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/lessons-1918-flu-reopening-coronavirus-pandemic-too-soon-2020-4

 

Quote

Studies of the "Great Influenza" of 1918 concluded that cities that adopted "non-pharmaceutical intervention" measures earlier and kept them in place for longer did better, both health-wise and economically. Specifically, they had fewer deaths and their economies recovered faster. In other words, in 1918 it wasn't health or the economy. It was health and the economy.

 

Quote

St. Louis, Denver, and San Francisco, for example, adopted "distancing" measures early, which helped mitigate the initial epidemic wave. All three cities, however, then relaxed their measures early … and then saw second waves. In St. Louis and Denver, these second waves were worse than the first. As the second waves took hold, the cities reimplemented distancing measures, but it was too late. 

 

Meanwhile, other cities took a different approach, keeping their initial restrictions in place for longer. New York City issued basic isolation and quarantine rules earlier than other cities and then kept them in place until its death rate returned to a very low rate. The city saw only one major wave of infections, and its total death rate was at the lower end of the US range.

Importantly, despite having its initial rules in place for longer, New York's restrictions were only in place for about half the total time as those in St. Louis and Denver. The rush to reopen in those cities, in other words, led to second shutdowns that lasted about as long as the first.

 

 

In other news and I didn't see this posted here...Twitter announces that employees can work from home "Forever" if they want...

 

Quote

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, in a paradigm-shifting, COVID-19-inspired move, informed his employees that they can continue working from home “forever.” 

Understanding this option is not suitable for everyone, Dorsey is keeping the door open for those who wish to work within the traditional office structure. He’s leaving the decision to either work from home or at the office in the hands of his employees. To those who wish to work at Twitter’s offices, the chief executive cautioned, "When we do decide to open offices, it also won't be a snap back to the way it was before. It will be careful, intentional, office by office and gradual."

 

[Guest]

Maybe somebody has some link, but is there any data that would suggest the waitress or cook is more likely to die or being seriously injured in a given year due to Covid than they otherwise would, assuming we are in an economy that is reopening like we are currently seeing in many states.

 

I don’t think the risk of death or serious injury has gone up much for the people working those jobs.

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Yeah, you can "do what you want" but what about the poor waitress who loses her unemployment/wages because you want to eat that shitty food? Or the cooks or anyone else who has to risk their and their family's life, or face impoverishment, just so you can have UNLIMITED soup salad and bread sticks? There's a second side here that you're just glossing over here.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Maybe somebody has some link, but is there any data that would suggest the waitress or cook is more likely to die or being seriously injured in a given year due to Covid than they otherwise would, assuming we are in an economy that is reopening like we are currently seeing in many states.

 

I don’t think the risk of death or serious injury has gone up much for the people working those jobs.

Not sure about cooks, but waitresses for sure. Restaurants are one of the primary vectors of transmission and they're even more dangerous for the people who work there. Basically any job where you're forced to deal with a lot of people face to face puts you at risk. That CNN story I posted earlier talks about this. Grocery store works are more at risk than the people shopping there again, because they are dealing with dealing with the public all day. Same for Bus drivers, flight attendants and other front line essential workers who deal with the public. There's a whole support system for society that will disproportionately be affected by this virus if we open up too soon. 

[Dodger]

11 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

I could have asked him what region of Mexico his gf's family was from and selected a dish afterwards, but that would take way too long.

 

Mexicali, she’s a great cook, and I’ve been working from home the whole time. I’ve been pretty fortunate during all of this, but I’m thinking of those I know who haven’t been so lucky.

[Guest]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

Not sure about cooks, but waitresses for sure. Restaurants are one of the primary vectors of transmission and their even more dangerous for the people who work there. Basically any job where you're forced to deal with a lot of people face to face puts you at risk. 

That isn’t answering the question though. Being alive carries the risk of death, so the question is does working that job in the Covid pandemic increase your likelihood of death in the year 2020 over what it would have been of Covid wasn’t a thing. We know certain populations do have a much increased risk of death or serious harm in the present year, and that is primarily senior citizens living in nursing homes. 

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That isn’t answering the question though. Being alive carries the risk of death, so the question is does working that job in the Covid pandemic increase your likelihood of death in the year 2020 over what it would have been of Covid wasn’t a thing. We know certain populations do have a much increased risk of death or serious harm in the present year, and that is primarily senior citizens living in nursing homes. 

 

Ok this one time, I'll play... considering that within two months time, COVID has become the number one cause of death in the United States and that Waitresses who have to deal with the public are at an increased risk of contracting the disease AND a person who contracts COVID has a higher chance of dying than someone who DOES NOT have the disease, I don't think you need a statistical analysis to conclude that working THAT particular job will increase your likelihood of death. Is this another one of those times where you're bored and you're just starting shit for the sake of starting shit? I don't think you need to be Nate Silver to conclude that anyone working a job that forces them to deal with the public during a deadly pandemic  faces a higher chance of dying than they would doing that same job during normal times. Am I missing something here?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

So how many dead bodies are ok to justify opening up? How many families have to be at risk of an infectious disease for the economy? Is it .1%? 1%? That percentage of how many possible infected people?

 

Especially when the alternative is stay at home, how many have to die or be hospitalized?

 

This isn't driving or slipping in the shower, this is an infectious disease where there is no cure and there is no treatment. 

[skillzdadirecta]

20 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

Mexicali, she’s a great cook, and I’ve been working from home the whole time. I’ve been pretty fortunate during all of this, but I’m thinking of those I know who haven’t been so lucky.

So have I... I've been fortunate enough to still have a job that allows me to split my time from working from home and actually going into the office. A lot of my friends who do what I do haven't been so lucky and are out of work because Hollywood has ground to a complete halt. Only my writer friends who were already on jobs are still working. Everyone else? Nothing. I am also thinking of folks that are NOT fortunate enough to work from home and have jobs that are directly affected by the public's compliance with stay at home orders... like my brother who drives a bus... or my other brother who works at the airport... or my uncle who works at a hospital, has seen co-workers die, and who has already contracted and recovered from COVID and is already back at work.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Ok this one time, I'll play... considering that within two months time, COVID has become the number one cause of death in the United States and that Waitresses who have to deal with the public are at an increased risk of contracting the disease AND a person who contracts COVID has a higher chance of dying than someone who DOES NOT have the disease, I don't think you need a statistical analysis to conclude that working THAT particular job will increase your likelihood of death. Is this another one of those times where you're bored and you're just starting shit for the sake of starting shit? I don't think you need to be Nate Silver to conclude that anyone working a job that forces them to deal with the public during a deadly pandemic  faces a higher chance of dying than they would doing that same job during normal times. Am I missing something here?

Yeah, you do need statistical analysis to figure out what the increased risk of death or serious harm for a person is. 
 

Covid being the current number one killer doesn’t answer the question either. We don’t know at the end of the year how much Covid will have affected the death rate here on May 13th. Covid could simply replace some other cause of death, especially for those in demographics minimally affected by Covid.

 

These numbers are just made up, but to give an idea of what I’m actually asking.

 

Lets say the likelihood of a waitress dying of something in a given year is 1 in 10,000 and in

the Covid pandemic they are now 1 in 9,990, the risk indeed has increased, but to a mostly irrelevant degree.

 

So what is the likelihood of the waitress dying in 2020 before Covid hit, and what is the likelihood of the waitress dying in 2020 after Covid hit?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

What you're asking is what is the increased risk of death or whatever for a given occupation, which is irrelevant when it comes to an infectious disease. Her risk is not independent of the risk to spread to other customers and her family.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What you're asking is what is the increased risk of death or whatever for a given occupation, which is irrelevant when it comes to an infectious disease. Her risk is not independent of the risk to spread to other customers and her family.

You said they are at risk based on the occupation, and I’m asking where the evidence is of the increased risk of death or serious harm to a person with that occupation is because ‘Doger wants shitty food”.

 

Its wholly relevant to public policy whether or not the infectious disease actually causes more death and serious harm than would exists otherwise given a specific set of policies.

[skillzdadirecta]

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yeah, you do need statistical analysis to figure out what the increased risk of death or serious harm for a person is. 
 

Covid being the current number one killer doesn’t answer the question either. We don’t know at the end of the year how much Covid will have affected the death rate here on May 13th. Covid could simply replace some other cause of death, especially for those in demographics minimally affected by Covid.

 

These numbers are just made up, but to give an idea of what I’m actually asking.

 

Lets say the likelihood of a waitress dying of something in a given year is 1 in 10,000 and in

the Covid pandemic they are now 1 in 9,990, the risk indeed has increased, but to a mostly irrelevant degree.

 

So what is the likelihood of the waitress dying in 2020 before Covid hit, and what is the likelihood of the waitress dying in 2020 after Covid hit?

So wait... I need a statistical analysis to tell me that if nationwide 50 waitresses die of COVID related complications brought on by them contracting the virus at work in April of 2020, vs 50 waitresses dying of non Covid related events the ENTIRE YEAR of 2019 that they're job has become more dangerous for them because of the pandemic? That's not to mention the increased risk to their families and communities. 

But since people need charts and graphs here's a graphic from March 15th that shows which workers are at elevated risk due to the nature of their jobs.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/15/business/economy/coronavirus-worker-risk.html

 

Quote

As the coronavirus continues to spread throughout the United States, people with jobs that put them in physical contact with many others are at the greatest risk of becoming sick. Many people who do service jobs like cashiers and fast-food workers face elevated risks. Walmart, Starbucks and Uber are among the many companies that have had workers fall sick.

 

I don't expect this will answer your question though.

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You said they are at risk based on the occupation, and I’m asking where the evidence is of the increased risk of death or serious harm to a person with that occupation is because ‘Doger wants shitty food”.

 

Its wholly relevant to public policy whether or not the infectious disease actually causes more death and serious harm than would exists otherwise given a specific set of policies.

If their risk is x based on their occupation and the associated general risk in that occupation is y, then you introduce a deadly infectious disease with a specific risk profile for that individual is z, minus any preventative measures to counteract z, plus new risk associated with the countermeasures in z then you have a fucking complicated answer because there is no way to assign a value for risk z to individual but in aggregate this all equals more dead bodies than just x alone.

 

So again I ask: how many dead bodies are acceptable for microwave chicken breasts? How many people is it ok to risk death and infection for eating dinner in a restaurant? All for a disease we know per CDC is many times more deadly than the flu.

[Guest]

No Skillz, that’s not what I’m asking.

 

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If their risk is x based on their occupation and the associated general risk in that occupation is y, then you introduce a deadly infectious disease with a specific risk profile for that individual is z, minus any preventative measures to counteract z, plus new risk associated with the countermeasures in z then you have a fucking complicated answer because there is no way to assign a value for risk z to individual but in aggregate this all equals more dead bodies than just x alone.

 

So again I ask: how many dead bodies are acceptable? 

You have to show that math is correct. That’s what I’ve been asking for.

 

How many dead bodies are worth the existence of <insert literally anything that leads to deaths>? Public policy always involves weighing the potential for death or harm from one policy or another. Always.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The risk of an individual dieing on the job in their everyday life is not very high, as in total only ~2500 people have died on the job in 2017 (not counting chronic illnesses from the job that lead to death, which is estimated to be ~95,000) all per the AFL-CIO. Seeing these numbers and comparing with covid numbers over the course of two and a half months should give a sense of scale

 

The job requires frequent, close contact with the public, and there's no telling how risky that actually is, or how likely one would be to being infected, let alone spreading the disease.

 

Sorry for not having more accurate numbers, but when talking about a disease that could in theory infect 100 million+ in this country alone even low odds of death is a massive number

[Anathema-]

I make a killer carnitas.