The Covid19 thread

[VampyreWraith]

The idea here is to stop the spread of this. We don't know much about this virus. How long before symptoms can people be carriers, spreading it to others? As I understand it, some folks can be completely asymptomatic and still have and spread it. And god help us if it can recur in the same person, that would rewrite our ideas on immunity completely. The only way to minimize the number of carriers is to maintain our lockdown for everyone. Just because the youngsters don't seem to be as hard hit by it (and that's not set in stone either, permanent lung damage?) doesn't mean that won't be spreading it around if they're let out of their cages. I think we've had more than ample demonstration that people in general cannot be relied upon to behave themselves without govt. coercion.

Also, how many "at risk" people simply can't stay home? They have to obtain food and other essentials.

No, I'm sorry, but if you ask me, maintaining or mandatory closures until well after this subsides is the safest path. Anything else is just sacrificing people's lives in order to keep business and wall street happy.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. You're not going to convince me that it's necessary for everyone to stay inside until well after "the virus has run its course" or subsided (who knows when that will be) even if they have antibodies and/or are at minimal risk for serious infection. There's very little evidence that anyone as actually been reinfected. The lung damage is happening to the people who developed really bad pneumonia because of the virus (the people who are severe cases), asymptomatic people or the ones getting mild symptoms aren't the ones getting lung damage.

I'm not suggesting forcing the at risk people to stay home and not got out to by essentials. The special grocery store hours that you seemed to have an issue with can keep going. But also if everyone else is back at work and everyone is feeling more relaxed about things getting back to normal, people aren't going to be packed into grocery stores panic buying items, so staying away from people in the stores during regular hours shouldn't be as much of a problem.
Asymptomatic people can possibly spread it, and everyone should be staying away from the high risk people or wearing masks around them, whether they're on lockdown now or not just in case. What's being seen now since we've been on PAUSE for almost a week, is older adults getting sick from the younger healthy members of their family who've they've been cooped up with. These younger people who are asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms, who were previously at work and going out all the time and had little contact with the grandma or grandpa other than to say "hi" as they ran out the door are now spending all kinds of time with them and getting them sick.
South Korea hasn't done the whole extended lockdown for everyone and they seem to be doing well so are several other Asian countries (I'm not talking about China, since I know they had a lockdown), granted our culture is different than that of South Korea and the way they dealt with things from the start was a bit different since they had experience with epidemics like this previously. They also don't seem to be having an issue with reinfection.

[Annoyed]

speaking of 'social distance'

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...sures-11965352

an honest mistake: they heard 'social dance'

#koronaraoke

You really believe that lame excuse?

[Annoyed]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. You're not going to convince me that it's necessary for everyone to stay inside until well after "the virus has run its course" or subsided ...

I guess we will have to. To me, the most important aspect is minimizing the spread of this largely unknown but possibly fatal and apparently very easy to catch disease. Wall Street and business interests don't even get the back seat. They can ride on the roof or in an open trailer behind the car.

[VampyreWraith]

I guess we will have to. To me, the most important aspect is minimizing the spread of this largely unknown but possibly fatal and apparently very easy to catch disease. Wall Street and business interests don't even get the back seat. They can ride on the roof or in an open trailer behind the car.

The spread of serious illness to those most vulnerable would be minimized and as said before Wall Street isn't the only economic issue with an extended lockdown. Is the government planning on erasing all debts owed during lockdown months, or planning on paying the bills for everyone who can't work (rent, various insurance payments, car payments, loans, medical bills, schooling, ect)? Unemployment, if they can manage to apply for the thing, will help some, and that one time $1200 (+$500 a kid) from the stimulus bill that most individuals who paid taxes last year will eventually get about a month down the line will help some too, but that's not going to be enough for a lot of people especially if, as you're suggesting, they all stay on lockdown (and unemployment) for months on end. Normal middle class people would probably be the ones most affected by an extended lockdown.

[jelgate]

I question the efficiency of the lockdown. In my corner of the woods I don't see a lot of people actually staying home. They keep on doing what they want. I also question how some companies can justify their business as essential

[VampyreWraith]

My block is pretty quiet normally. There are really busy areas in my neighborhood, but everything that is supposed to be closed is closed (as far as I can tell) even places that don't need to be closed are closed. Today I saw a group of my neighbors talking, they were all standing really far away from each other and some were even wearing masks. I live in Queens, we've got the highest number of confirmed cases in NYC, so I guess most people (I hope) are taking social distancing pretty seriously and following the rules.

[epg20]

The spread of serious illness to those most vulnerable would be minimized and as said before Wall Street isn't the only economic issue with an extended lockdown. Is the government planning on erasing all debts owed during lockdown months, or planning on paying the bills for everyone who can't work (rent, various insurance payments, car payments, loans, medical bills, schooling, ect)? Unemployment, if they can manage to apply for the thing, will help some, and that one time $1200 (+$500 a kid) from the stimulus bill that most individuals who paid taxes last year will eventually get about a month down the line will help some too, but that's not going to be enough for a lot of people especially if, as you're suggesting, they all stay on lockdown (and unemployment) for months on end. Normal middle class people would probably be the ones most affected by an extended lockdown.

as i understand it, the federal reserve is GIVING the U.S. the 2 trillion loan, that is to say they DO NOT expect it to be paid back, the loan will be forgiven, with everything that is going on, I am expecting that there will need to be another loan, maybe more than one, I think it will need to have at least 4-6 more over this and the next years, to get things straightened out. they said that America is too big to fail, if America falls, then in the rest of the world it will be a free for all, wars will start up and countries will raid countries, the bigger countries will feed on the smaller ones, so though there more than likely will be another few loans, I believe that it will be needed to stabilize the world in this time of crisis.

once things have settled down, then I believe there will be some kind of repayment, what that will be, I don't know, but there are more than a few national treasures that can be sold to cover the expense, things like the hope diamond and there are countless gems and mineral deposits and not to mention the security we can provide to the rest of the world.

the thing I wonder about is what about china and Russia, will they put them selves out there as a "stabilizing force" OR will they launch wars of conquest to expand their territory , will this lead to a third world war, or will it mean that the U.S. is going to have competition in the world stability game.

[VampyreWraith]

as i understand it, the federal reserve is GIVING the U.S. the 2 trillion loan, that is to say they DO NOT expect it to be paid back, the loan will be forgiven, with everything that is going on, I am expecting that there will need to be another loan, maybe more than one, I think it will need to have at least 4-6 more over this and the next years, to get things straightened out. they said that America is too big to fail, if America falls, then in the rest of the world it will be a free for all, wars will start up and countries will raid countries, the bigger countries will feed on the smaller ones, so though there more than likely will be another few loans, I believe that it will be needed to stabilize the world in this time of crisis.

once things have settled down, then I believe there will be some kind of repayment, what that will be, I don't know, but there are more than a few national treasures that can be sold to cover the expense, things like the hope diamond and there are countless gems and mineral deposits and not to mention the security we can provide to the rest of the world.

the thing I wonder about is what about china and Russia, will they put them selves out there as a "stabilizing force" OR will they launch wars of conquest to expand their territory , will this lead to a third world war, or will it mean that the U.S. is going to have competition in the world stability game.

Right now taxpayers will directly see $1,200 for individuals ($2,400 for a couple) and $500 per child (the exact amount might be less depending on how much you made last year). It will come as a check or as direct deposit (whatever you used to get a refund last year). It supposed to come within the next month or the next few months. I read that's there's already some company in Texas trying to take the money that people are supposed to get out of their employees paychecks. The rest of the money goes to cover unemployment payments, state aid, aid to companies/businesses that lost money and things like that, I think.

Edit: Here's the link to the article about that company in Texas I mentioned
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...-paychecks.amp

[mad_gater]

[Annoyed]

I read that's there's already some company in Texas trying to take the money that people are supposed to get out of their employees paychecks. The rest of the money goes to cover unemployment payments, state aid, aid to companies/businesses that lost money and things like that, I think.

Edit: Here's the link to the article about that company in Texas I mentioned
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...-paychecks.amp

I suspect that unnamed company is unnamed for a reason. That's going to land in the courts, and I don't think it will stand a chance in hell of surviving that.

But more importantly, that company is going to be vilified in the court of public opinion. I doubt it will survive. Unless it is some quasi-govt. connections or origins.

[Annoyed]

Unemployment, if they can manage to apply for the thing, will help some, and that one time $1200 (+$500 a kid) from the stimulus bill that most individuals who paid taxes last year will eventually get about a month down the line will help some too, but that's not going to be enough for a lot of people especially if, as you're suggesting, they all stay on lockdown (and unemployment) for months on end. Normal middle class people would probably be the ones most affected by an extended lockdown.

The stimulus bill is adding $600 to the standard unemployment payout rate, so an awful lot of people are actually going to take home considerably more money than they did while they were working.

Now granted, unemployment is administered by the individual states, and some states will create a byzantine series of hoops to limit the number of people who qualify for it, But for many of the successful hoop-jumpers, they'll end up way better off.

[VampyreWraith]

The stimulus bill is adding $600 to the standard unemployment payout rate, so an awful lot of people are actually going to take home considerably more money than they did while they were working.

Now granted, unemployment is administered by the individual states, and some states will create a byzantine series of hoops to limit the number of people who qualify for it, But for many of the successful hoop-jumpers, they'll end up way better off.

How much you get for regular unemployment varies by state, for some people it can around 40%-50% of what they actually make. From what I've read the most you can get on unemployment in NY state is $504 week if you add $600 to that that's $1100 a week (that's the max you can get in NY everyone isn't going to be getting the max). That's not too bad, especially for a single person, but it's not going to be considerably more money than what most middle class people were getting in a regular paycheck, at the most some people will be breaking even. Some states give out better max unemployment payments than that (I know for a fact that NJ does, because my brother's wife mentioned it a while back when she was on unemployment, she lived in NJ, but worked in NY), so that's really good for the people in those states, but a lot of states also have a max benefit amt a lot less than what NY state gives. Most people aren't going to be better off than they were (especially most middle class people).

[VampyreWraith]

I suspect that unnamed company is unnamed for a reason. That's going to land in the courts, and I don't think it will stand a chance in hell of surviving that.

But more importantly, that company is going to be vilified in the court of public opinion. I doubt it will survive. Unless it is some quasi-govt. connections or origins.

I hope they won't be able to get away with something like that, that's just so wrong.

[epg20]

I hope they won't be able to get away with something like that, that's just so wrong.

eh....I don't know, an anonymous source talking about an anonymous company, this sounds a little fishy to me.

[Annoyed]

How much you get for regular unemployment varies by state, for some people it can around 40%-50% of what they actually make. From what I've read the most you can get on unemployment in NY state is $504 week if you add $600 to that that's $1100 a week (that's the max you can get in NY everyone isn't going to be getting the max). That's not too bad, especially for a single person, but it's not going to be considerably more money than what most middle class people were getting in a regular paycheck, at the most some people will be breaking even. Some states give out better max unemployment payments than that (I know for a fact that NJ does, because my brother's wife mentioned it a while back when she was on unemployment, she lived in NJ, but worked in NY), so that's really good for the people in those states, but a lot of states also have a max benefit amt a lot less than what NY state gives. Most people aren't going to be better off than they were (especially most middle class people).

I think you are severely underestimating the number of people stuck working in low-wage jobs. 1100x52 weeks = 57,200 /year salary.
NYC is a bubble, but outside of that, very few people (aside from govt. employees) make that.