US Election 2020

[cerebus]

At this point yes absolutely, in 3 weeks? Who knows. The idea that you can carry on supplying shops with the necessities under these restrictions is naive. I work in an industry that supplies packaging to the food industry, big problems for us over these next three weeks .

Make sure you've all got lots of food at home people.

I think it's quite likely that there will be shortages if a shutdown has to continue for a prolonged period. It is a crisis situation, I don't know how it's avoidable. Ultimately it could cause economic devastation. But there just isn't a way around that. If you try to make the public get back to work it will only exacerbate the situation. Even if you decide that you are willing to commit to letting the public get sick and risk that outcome, you will face societal breakdown on a fundamental level because it's a horrible illness that wipes out communities and kills at a huge rate and it has no vaccine.

 

[Unhappy1]

I think it's quite likely that there will be shortages if a shutdown has to continue for a prolonged period. It is a crisis situation, I don't know how it's avoidable. Ultimately it could cause economic devastation. But there just isn't a way around that. If you try to make the public get back to work it will only exacerbate the situation. Even if you decide that you are willing to commit to letting the public get sick and risk that outcome, you will face societal breakdown on a fundamental level because it's a horrible illness that wipes out communities and kills at a huge rate and it has no vaccine.

If the public is starving then risking getting sick might be a risk worthwhile, im not saying we are at that point right now but if you aren't constantly evaluating that then you're doing it wrong.

 

[buka001]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1242508406411284483

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The final paragraph inscribed on the Statue of Liberty saying that America opens its arms to immigrants.

James Woods on immigration -

Without illegal immigration, however, #Democrats cannot survive as a viable political party. Illegal immigration is rewarded with free perks, and illegal fraudulent voting is the tacitly accepted quid pro quo. #VoterFraud

 

[cerebus]

If the public is starving then risking getting sick might be a risk worthwhile, im not saying we are at that point right now but if you aren't constantly evaluating that then you're doing it wrong.

I think you do need to be preparing for an eventuality of rationing if it got that bad. It's still better than the alternative. I don't know, are you willing to just decide that we can lose 1% or 2% of the population if it means we can carry on with our lives as normal? And there's no such thing as life as normal when everyone is as sick as they get with COVID. People will be scared to death, every interaction will become a matter of fear because it's not a question of if but when you are going to be the one to get it, and you don't know if you'll be one of the ones to die, and even if you don't die, you can be left with permanent lung damage.

 

[konfab]

If you think a lockdown wont effect food and medical equipment then sorry to say you are naive. Supply chains are all linked. They might not be effected after a few weeks. Longer then that and there will be shortages without a doubt.

The aim of all these lock downs should be to get countries from the Totalitarian China state of affairs to a South Korean/Japan state of affairs.

In other words, getting the pieces in place to get widespread testing and masks for everyone.

I am not supprised that people think you can just shut down one part of the productive economy and not affect the other. It works so perfectly most of the time that people don't know about it, so they take it for granted.

 

[konfab]

I think you do need to be preparing for an eventuality of rationing if it got that bad. It's still better than the alternative. I don't know, are you willing to just decide that we can lose 1% or 2% of the population if it means we can carry on with our lives as normal? And there's no such thing as life as normal when everyone is as sick as they get with COVID. People will be scared to death, every interaction will become a matter of fear because it's not a question of if but when you are going to be the one to get it, and you don't know if you'll be one of the ones to die, and even if you don't die, you can be left with permanent lung damage.

Do you drive a car?

 

[konfab]

The final paragraph inscribed on the Statue of Liberty saying that America opens its arms to immigrants.

James Woods on immigration -

Nothing in that lovely statement about liberty states that you are entitled to free healthcare and Trump Bux.

 

[cerebus]

Do you drive a car?

Yes

 

[buka001]

Nothing in that lovely statement about liberty states that you are entitled to free healthcare and Trump Bux.

What's that got to do with immigration?

I was highlighting James Woods hypocrisy, as he chooses to use American iconography to make a point, using an icon which stands for something he is opposed to.

 

[konfab]

Yes

Motoring accidents kill lots of people every year. Yet you still drive a car.

Which means that personally, you act as if there is a balance between safety and the economy (as you probably use your car to drive to work).

People take risks every day. Heck smoking is still allowed in most countries and it kills on average 1300 people a day in the US.

If you look at secondhand smoke which is closer to C-19 in that you don't really choose to get it, it kills 41000 people a year. Or 112 people per day in the US alone. C-19 would have to kill twice as many people as it already has just to catch up with the US secondhand smoke figures.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Yet society considers this pretty normal and not worth panicking over. Implicitly, society in the US has balanced the economic cost (entertainment, cool factor, calming, whatever reason why idiots smoke) of smoking to the health cost to something like 41000 people a year.

It isn't realistic to state that we can aim for 100% safety and 0% risk. If it isn't true for smoking, which is a preventable and somewhat controllable thing, it certainly won't be true for an infectious disease.

 

[Temujin]

 

[daveza]

Now this lunatic wants packed churches for Easter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1242537995103846400

 

[cerebus]

Motoring accidents kill lots of people every year. Yet you still drive a car.

Which means that personally, you act as if there is a balance between safety and the economy (as you probably use your car to drive to work).

People take risks every day. Heck smoking is still allowed in most countries and it kills on average 1300 people a day in the US.

If you look at secondhand smoke which is closer to C-19 in that you don't really choose to get it, it kills 41000 people a year. Or 112 people per day in the US alone. C-19 would have to kill twice as many people as it already has just to catch up with the US secondhand smoke figures.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Yet society considers this pretty normal and not worth panicking over. Implicitly, society in the US has balanced the economic cost (entertainment, cool factor, calming, whatever reason why idiots smoke) of smoking to the health cost to something like 41000 people a year.

It isn't realistic to state that we can aim for 100% safety and 0% risk. If it isn't true for smoking, which is a preventable and somewhat controllable thing, it certainly won't be true for an infectious disease.

Of course we all make choices between risk and safety. I’m not a risk-averse person.

The difference here is that we aren’t talking about risk - we are talking about a very certain, devastating social outcome if the disease spreads unchecked. And our systems aren’t able to deal with that kind of shock.

C-19 has never yet lived up to its full potential, only because the societies it hit took extraordinary measures to curb it. What you are suggesting is reckless and inhumane and unprecedented in our lifetimes, yet you act as though people are just being skittish

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Whatever dude, Orange Man Bad.

So you admit you're wrong. Cool.

Please tell where exactly in the tweets where he told people to take any product with that in place?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1241367239900778501

The valid criticism of this is that it might cause people to horde the medication, not that idiots will self-medicate.

He said, repeatedly, that it's been approved.

I don't know if there is a correlation. Guess we will find out.

But as Pagasus has pointed out with his link, Cuomo certainly is going for it.

New York To Begin Clinical Trials For Coronavirus Treatment Tuesday, Cuomo Says

750,000 doses of chloroquine, 70,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine and 10,000 doses of Zithromax were acquired by New York state for the trial.

www.forbes.com

Question for you and the other TDSers, if hundreds more people swallow fish poison because of the New York trials (making a chloroquine connection) do we blame Cuomo for their deaths?? Please answer.

Please show me where Cuomo said it's been approved already?

This man is going to cost lives, lot of lives, many lives.

Trump Claims U.S. Will See More Death By Keeping Economy Shut Than By Coronavirus

The president's downplaying of COVID-19 reached dangerous levels as he threatened to open up the economy despite skyrocketing cases.

www.huffpost.com

What's important to understand here is that he's relying on the word of Richard Epstein, an absolute clown, who has been circulating on Fox News. Epstein claimed the US won't have more than 500 deaths from COVID-19, total. Needless to say, they've already blasted past that.

I notice that the Dems in this thread don't want to address this.

The Democrats are refusing to pass the much needed Corona virus bill unless the Republicans agree to their pork that has nothing to do with corona.

Lives are stake but the Dems want to push a social agenda.

Which specifically do you disagree with? Some of those can probably be stripped out, but the majority is about dealing with the fallout on different parts of society/the economy - which is the whole point.

And any comment on the utter abortion of a bill Senate Republicans came up with that would create an unaccountable, secret slush fund solely at Trump and Mnuchin's discretion?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

If you think a lockdown wont effect food and medical equipment then sorry to say you are naive. Supply chains are all linked. They might not be effected after a few weeks. Longer then that and there will be shortages without a doubt.

The lockdowns all over the world are being done while keeping essential supplies and services (and associated supply chains) open. Why can't the US do the same?

And what do you think will happen to those supply chains if restrictions are loosened prematurely and the virus isn't contained? If it spreads into the very factories and services you're talking about.

Cautioning about economic disaster from a prolonged shutdown is fine, but the public health side of this is intrinsic to the economic side of this. Getting the prior wrong ensures failure on the latter.

Now this lunatic wants packed churches for Easter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1242537995103846400

Disgraceful abdication of responsibility. Disaster/crisis response is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. Trump's staggering incompetence on full display.

 

[boramk]

Motoring accidents kill lots of people every year. Yet you still drive a car.

Something tells me that if you had a 3.4% chance of dying (and if your grandparents or older parents had a 15% chance) when getting into a car, you probably wouldn't get into a car.

How else do you you incorrectly use statistics everyday? Curious.

 

[TysonRoux]

Coronavirus in America: why the US has struggled to tackle a growing crisis

A lack of preparation, deep-rooted dysfunction and a reckless president – now the US faces being the center of the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

A lack of preparation, deep-rooted dysfunction and a reckless president – now the US faces being the center of the pandemic

Exactly a month after Donald Trump tweeted that the US had the coronavirus outbreak “very much under control”, the World Health Organization delivered a stark and jarring reality check: America faces being the centre of a pandemic that has paralysed much of the world.

Dummer and Dummer

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Quiet please....our daily comedy time is starting.

 

[daveza]

Chinese virus is now the invisible enemy.

 

[TysonRoux]

Quiet please....our daily comedy time is starting.

Its under way.

I see Dr. Fauci is back.

Trump Disagrees With Top Immunologist Over Untested Drug Treatment for Covid-19

Donald Trump has "a feeling" that an anti-malarial drug might be effective against Covid-19, even though Dr. Anthony Fauci says there is no evidence it is.

theintercept.com