|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 25 2020 12:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 12:21 Erasme wrote:On March 25 2020 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2020 10:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm for not going back to work and being homeless if that means I don't have to suffer more idiocy from people like that. I have no problem whatsoever waiting this out in the wilderness of midwest north some place.
If the youth of today really wanted to send a message, not showing up for work until medical professionals deem it safe to do so, and foregoing careers to protect the people they say they care about, would send a pretty strong message to a lot of people.
While I am loathe to agree with GH, I have little faith in the intelligence of the American masses. Question is; what is people's number. 100/day 1000/day 2500/day? How many will be too many to just keep showing up to work and one of the reasons I mentioned before (or one I didn't) isn't enough to keep them showing up? Not sure we ever get to that number for many people, even with the random deaths accompanied by horror stories about how they could have been saved were it not for the hospitals being full from COVID-19. For some context/scale: Smoking kills more than 1,000 people a day (in the US) and none of us has probably ever thought about missing work to stop it. How to say it .. Today its 100, tomorrow its 300, the week after its 50k+, the month after it's 3millions. Your hospitals won't be able to keep up with anything, since they barely keep up when there's no crisis. Meaning people who shouldve survived will die. People with other medical issues will die. You can go from 2% mortality rate to 10% or more if you get overwhelmed. On a population of 300millions, that's between 6millions and 30millions deaths. This is why you need to think about missing work. I can only hope that Trump or states governors think really hard about it. They need to ensure that people can either work from home or have a safety net. Else you will lose a lot more than those lives. Anyone thinking this is going to kill 6 to 30 million people is out of their mind just like the climate armageddonists. C-19 is not that lethal and its R0 is not that high. The hysteria without facts to justify economic shutdown and violations of 1st and 5th amendment rights is absurd. I bet you if this state of affairs lasts for 2-3 weeks let alone 1-2 months with the minimal effects of the virus people won't be tolerating "shelter in place" orders and vast economic shut down for a virus that, all told, will likely be less deadly than prolonged economic shut down. I don't like Trump, but he is right about this. It's easy to see what's in front of your face. It's not so easy to see the vast human and material well-being damage from a 2 month economic shutdown. It goes back to Bastiat's 'Seen and Unseen'. Humans are very bad at recognizing this. Also, Certificate of Needs are fucking stupid and I hope at least some regulatory reform will come from this clusterfuck.
If your healthcare system is unable to cope, people will not just die from covid19. Secondly the r0 is at 3, so my numbers are _very_ real. The situation i described will happen unless drastic mesures are taken in the US. Thirdly the death rate of covid19 is around 3% with a working healthcare. This is obviously the worst case scenario, so it might not come to this, but immediate action needs to be taken.
|
Norway28818 Posts
There is a big difference between CFR (case fatality rate) and real mortality rate because of the huge number of unreported cases. The real mortality rate seems to be closer to 1% (could be quite a bit lower, even) if health care is not overrun.
But, a real mortality rate of 1% and an infection rate of 40% would still leave the US with nearly 1.5 million dead. It's absolutely essential to ensure that the peaks are as low as they can be, so that the maximum amount of people can get the health care they need to survive.
|
On March 25 2020 22:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There is a big difference between CFR (case fatality rate) and real mortality rate because of the huge number of unreported cases. The real mortality rate seems to be closer to 1% (could be quite a bit lower, even) if health care is not overrun.
But, a real mortality rate of 1% and an infection rate of 40% would still leave the US with nearly 1.5 million dead. It's absolutely essential to ensure that the peaks are as low as they can be, so that the maximum amount of people can get the health care they need to survive.
Even if we cut that to .5%, 40% is the lowest/low-end projected infection rate so I feel we have the information available to indicate ~750,000 people will die from Covid-19 in the US as a conservative estimate.
For those still thinking how bad it can get before they refuse to keep making it worse by going to their workplace (regardless of what their boss/the government/their landlord says) that averages out to ~2500 people dying per day from COVID-19 if those 750k were spread out over about 300 days.
The longer we wait for a full shutdown (or sooner we stop the shutdowns we currently have) the higher that death toll goes. I don't think we can avoid at least that much death and suffering at this point if I'm understanding the modeling correctly.
|
Luxembourg has a high number of people coming in to work or just buy stuff from surrounding countries. So that's probably why their nominal cigarette consumption is so high.
|
On March 25 2020 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 11:45 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 25 2020 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2020 10:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm for not going back to work and being homeless if that means I don't have to suffer more idiocy from people like that. I have no problem whatsoever waiting this out in the wilderness of midwest north some place.
If the youth of today really wanted to send a message, not showing up for work until medical professionals deem it safe to do so, and foregoing careers to protect the people they say they care about, would send a pretty strong message to a lot of people.
While I am loathe to agree with GH, I have little faith in the intelligence of the American masses. Question is; what is people's number. 100/day 1000/day 2500/day? How many will be too many to just keep showing up to work and one of the reasons I mentioned before (or one I didn't) isn't enough to keep them showing up? Not sure we ever get to that number for many people, even with the random deaths accompanied by horror stories about how they could have been saved were it not for the hospitals being full from COVID-19. For some context/scale: Smoking kills more than 1,000 people a day (in the US) and none of us has probably ever thought about missing work to stop it. Car accidents would be a much better example in this case. You're not going to stop people dying from smoking by not going to work. We're marginally past that point already for COVID deaths per day. Maybe once we're at 1000 instead of just 100. There is also a propagation issue with things. Most of the deaths are clustered in certain areas so you've got huge potions of the US that have no idea what is coming yet. Optimism bias is a problem, especially when it isn't your area that has the cases. Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 11:48 BigFan wrote:On March 25 2020 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2020 10:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm for not going back to work and being homeless if that means I don't have to suffer more idiocy from people like that. I have no problem whatsoever waiting this out in the wilderness of midwest north some place.
If the youth of today really wanted to send a message, not showing up for work until medical professionals deem it safe to do so, and foregoing careers to protect the people they say they care about, would send a pretty strong message to a lot of people.
While I am loathe to agree with GH, I have little faith in the intelligence of the American masses. Question is; what is people's number. 100/day 1000/day 2500/day? How many will be too many to just keep showing up to work and one of the reasons I mentioned before (or one I didn't) isn't enough to keep them showing up? Not sure we ever get to that number for many people, even with the random deaths accompanied by horror stories about how they could have been saved were it not for the hospitals being full from COVID-19. For some context/scale: Smoking kills more than 1,000 people a day (in the US) and none of us has probably ever thought about missing work to stop it. Smoking won't infect you like corona unless you are talking about getting sick from second hand smoke, but point is that it's not a similar example. I think I wasn't clear? The point was just that I don't think anyone is going to do anything but keep working as long as the people dying can be forced to fit the typical explanations. I mentioned. The question was how many people dying from CV-19 before people are willing risk their jobs and homes by refusing to keep working while vulnerable people are dying. I picked smoking because the connection between the profit and the death is very direct and been legally and scientifically established. Like I said, we're all used to thousands of people dying to keep the economy churning as it is, so long as they are relegated to far away people, impoverished people, etc. Frankly I don't think it is a number issue, 1k/day or 10k/day I think most Americans will just accept the idea that there's nothing they can do to stop the death and the best they can do is just keep going to work, vote for Biden/Trump in Nov, and hope things get better.
Wedandi brings up a good point about rights. I'm willing to drive and accept that some people will die in car accidents each year. We try to make cars safe and have tons of regulations in place to try to ensure safety. Contrast this with the federal government's response to CV-19.
I think your analogy to smoking falls apart because of the delayed impact and that nobody is going to defend cigarette companies being a net good to society. Especially, when you're moving in the direction of them lying about the impacts to increase profits.
|
I think this corona thing is quite similar to the climate crisis, only faster.
It is not horribly bad right now, but any realistic estimate shows that it will get really, really bad. And still a lot of people only see "It is not horribly bad right now", and completely ignore the future estimations.
|
Word is that the bailout bill prohibits monies being given to any entity in which federal politicians have an interest, which includes Trump properties. Trump may veto the bill because of that, so some crazy fireworks may be set off soon.
|
On March 25 2020 22:54 Simberto wrote:
I think this corona thing is quite similar to the climate crisis, only faster.
It is not horribly bad right now, but any realistic estimate shows that it will get really, really bad. And still a lot of people only see "It is not horribly bad right now", and completely ignore the future estimations.
Yes, and the arguments/blind spots are remarkably similar (namely the role of capitalism). I'm not optimistic that the US is going to get right about either in time.
On March 25 2020 23:07 farvacola wrote:
Word is that the bailout bill prohibits monies being given to any entity in which federal politicians have an interest, which includes Trump properties. Trump may veto the bill because of that, so some crazy fireworks may be set off soon.
A mortgage freeze/relief without a rent freeze as well from what I'm hearing. It is a shit bill by my estimation.
|
On March 25 2020 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 22:54 Simberto wrote:
I think this corona thing is quite similar to the climate crisis, only faster.
It is not horribly bad right now, but any realistic estimate shows that it will get really, really bad. And still a lot of people only see "It is not horribly bad right now", and completely ignore the future estimations. Yes, and the arguments/blind spots are remarkably similar. I'm not optimistic that the US is going to get right about either in time. Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 23:07 farvacola wrote:
Word is that the bailout bill prohibits monies being given to any entity in which federal politicians have an interest, which includes Trump properties. Trump may veto the bill because of that, so some crazy fireworks may be set off soon. A mortgage freeze/relief without a rent freeze as well from what I'm hearing. It is a shit bill by my estimation.
Got to love that ill be paying 2700 a month in rent while my parents 500 dollar mortgage will be suspended
|
|
|
On March 25 2020 22:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There is a big difference between CFR (case fatality rate) and real mortality rate because of the huge number of unreported cases. The real mortality rate seems to be closer to 1% (could be quite a bit lower, even) if health care is not overrun.
But, a real mortality rate of 1% and an infection rate of 40% would still leave the US with nearly 1.5 million dead. It's absolutely essential to ensure that the peaks are as low as they can be, so that the maximum amount of people can get the health care they need to survive.
You are right about the real mortality rate, my bad. But you fail to take count of the people who will die because of lack of equipment/beds/nurses/doctors. Then you have the frontline who are exposed every day to the virus poorly equipped due to the previous cut to their budget.
|
On March 25 2020 23:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 22:54 Simberto wrote:
I think this corona thing is quite similar to the climate crisis, only faster.
It is not horribly bad right now, but any realistic estimate shows that it will get really, really bad. And still a lot of people only see "It is not horribly bad right now", and completely ignore the future estimations. That is a great one, and it seems to be the same people who dont believe in the consequences in either. Perhaps this will watershed moment where we can go, remember how you didnt believe the scientists and doctors and how bad ot got? Same with the environment. One benefit of the corona virus is how much less pollution is being created. With way less air travel and people.not driving to work it has made big impacts.
Fingers crossed that governments can coordinate enough to kill the incentives for "ghost flights" (i.e. empty flights to keep contracted landing/takeoff berths) through the end of the year. For once I actually agree with the airline lobby-the EU and US need to stop this ASAP.
|
Norway28818 Posts
On March 26 2020 00:08 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2020 22:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There is a big difference between CFR (case fatality rate) and real mortality rate because of the huge number of unreported cases. The real mortality rate seems to be closer to 1% (could be quite a bit lower, even) if health care is not overrun.
But, a real mortality rate of 1% and an infection rate of 40% would still leave the US with nearly 1.5 million dead. It's absolutely essential to ensure that the peaks are as low as they can be, so that the maximum amount of people can get the health care they need to survive.
You are right about the real mortality rate, my bad. But you fail to take count of the people who will die because of lack of equipment/beds/nurses/doctors. Then you have the frontline who are exposed every day to the virus poorly equipped due to the previous cut to their budget.
I did have 'if health care is not overrun' as a qualifier, because yes, the mortality rate being that low hinges on necessary care being given to the people who need it. 
|
|
|
Washington state NPR has said they will stop airing live briefings due to the abundance of misinformation in them. I think that's a good move - nothing seems to have stopped Trump from saying dangerously inaccurate things so far.
|
I think it is honestly amazing to look at that. Basically, they are saying:
"The president lies so much that we need to factcheck everything he says before repeating it."
It is amazing how far from normality the US political discourse is at this point in time.
|
I'm sure there's comments about how this is the deep state trying to censor the president.
|
|
|
On March 26 2020 04:02 JimmiC wrote:
It really is bonkers that the president lies/makes shit up on the spot, so much that it can't even be broadcast. It was not long ago that people were so scared of not getting something right that they would not say much of anything. Trump just says everything wrong so that fact catchers can't keep up and 47% or whatever people in the states applaud him for it.
It is hard to wrap my head around it. I need to see a poll on how many American's think he is truthful and accurate becaue I have to think that is way less then his approval or I will jut get really really sad.
But that doesn't work either. Because that would still mean that a lot of people approve of him, DESPITE knowing that he just bullshits all day long and has no clue what he is talking about.
I don't know if that is worse or better than them simply believing that he is telling the truth. How you can believe that that is acceptable behaviour for a president is beyond me.
Also, another reminder that none of this was unknown before his election. All of this was open for anyone to see. And if you somehow manage to reelect this absolute buffoon, your country really deserves all the possible ridicule it will rightfully get. It is kind of sad that he is president during a time when having an actual president would have been useful. But that can always happen if you elect a Trump. You cannot just hope that nothing will happen during his presidency.
|
The Federalist (right wing news site) promoted the chickenpox "coronavirus party" method that GH was thinking about and got their tweet on the story deleted by twitter. I always thought they were one of the more reasonable sites of that kind, so it's a little surprising they were the first to jump on this grenade.
I'd link the tweet, but you know...
(via managing editor for TruthorFiction.com ... never heard of them. A quick perusal of their site seems pretty legit. Pick any one of a dozen sources for it though). She has a pretty good tweet thread afterwards about why it's a really bad idea. We basically don't know how good the immunity offered by getting the CV once is yet, and there are a ton of possible complications.
edit:
here's the original source with twitter's statement on the matter.
via Mediaite reporter. Pretty reliable site on issues in media like this, though rather ad infested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
