What's new
By:
Filters

Coronavirus

@fishonjazz But isn't that the role of government for times like these? We shouldn't have to choose between economic prosperity and public health. Right now the issue is the pandemic. The government can and should step in to keep the economy afloat as much as possible. Otherwise, what's the point of this stimulus/bailout/whatever you want to call it worth trillions?

Other countries have figured this out. Why can't we?

If our safety net is so poor, lets fix it.

But ignoring these issues and telling people, "aw shucks. Make sacrifices, death is necessary to keep up the stock market. Get back to work." seems:

a) Defeatist
b) Extremely short-sighted
 
As we know, the president invoked the Defense Production Act, but has not utilized it as yet. As to why, this may be why:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/donald-trump-defense-production-act

Yes, according to the New York Times, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and heads of major corporations have “lobbied the administration against using the act,” arguing that it could impose “red tape” on companies at a time when they need the government out of their hair. Unsurprisingly, free market die-hard Larry Kudlow,i.e., Trump’s never-right National Economic Council director, was “persuaded” by such arguments, as was Trump’s not-very-bright son-in-law, Jared Kushner.Instead the Trump Brain Trust has insisted that it can just convince businesses to help bridge the shortfall of vital medical supplies without making a formal demand, an initiative that thus far has had predictable results:

The government has essentially thrown out its existing playbook for dealing with pandemics, seizing the issue from the Department of Health and Human Services and moving it to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But it is far from clear that the effort to enlist companies like General Motors, Apple, and Hanes, just a few of the firms that have promised to free up existing supplies of masks or repurpose 3D printers to produce ventilator parts, constitutes an effective strategy.....
---------------------------------
So, NY Gov. Cuomo just completed his daily briefing. It was his most scathing review to date of the federal response to the needs of his state: He needs 30,000 ventilators, and FEMA just promised him 400.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...s-30000-ventilators-pleads-with-feds-for-help

Cuomo: "you pick the 26,000 people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators".

(His math is off, but the message is clear).
 
Belgium has been in lockdown since around a week and today it's a second consecutive day with considerably less new cases. I hope it's going to be a steady trend. We are lucky here to have much higher capacity of intensive units than the european average, ironically it has been criticised before as a waste of money..
 
Jazzmix said:
Belgium has been in lockdown since around a week and today it's a second consecutive day with considerably less new cases. I hope it's going to be a steady trend. We are lucky here to have much higher capacity of intensive units than the european average, ironically it has been criticised before as a waste of money..
Click to expand...

health care and social safety nets are always criticized for being wastes of money... until they’re needed.
 
The Thriller said:
@fishonjazz But isn't that the role of government for times like these? We shouldn't have to choose between economic prosperity and public health. Right now the issue is the pandemic. The government can and should step in to keep the economy afloat as much as possible. Otherwise, what's the point of this stimulus/bailout/whatever you want to call it worth trillions?

Other countries have figured this out. Why can't we?

If our safety net is so poor, lets fix it.

But ignoring these issues and telling people, "aw shucks. Make sacrifices, death is necessary to keep up the stock market. Get back to work." seems:

a) Defeatist
b) Extremely short-sighted
Click to expand...
I'm fine with everything in your post here. I was really just pointing out that those who want to keep the economy going strong doesn't simply mean that they want old people to die or are cool with it and I don't think you should try to paint that despicable picture.
Just like it's very wrong when the "right" insinuates that the "left" wants babies to die or that they are cool with killing babies. Painting that picture is also despicable.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
I'm fine with everything in your post here. I was really just pointing out that those who want to keep the economy going strong doesn't simply mean that they want old people to die or are cool with it and I don't think you should try to paint that despicable picture.
Just like it's very wrong when the "right" insinuates that the "left" wants babies to die or that they are cool with killing babies. Painting that picture is also despicable.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

maybe I’m seeing something different, so tell me if I am, but the right is advocating for killing people to keep the economy going. I mean, how else are we to read this?





And that’s without trumps pressers and tweets. I didn’t include those because we all know all he cares about is re-election.

What I think hasn’t been communicated well is that the bills being debated in Congress are supposed to be the safety net to sustain Americans until this pandemic is under control.
 
Jazzmix said:
Belgium has been in lockdown since around a week and today it's a second consecutive day with considerably less new cases. I hope it's going to be a steady trend. We are lucky here to have much higher capacity of intensive units than the european average, ironically it has been criticised before as a waste of money..
Click to expand...
Bulgaria has been in state of emergency/heavy social isolation measures for the last about 10 days and we are seeing a downturn in the last 2-3 days too. Still not sure this establishes a trend and we will probably need more time to be sure, but for now it looks promising.
 
Last edited:
Seeing a lot of new articles about "so and so was such a healthy person and is now veryvery sick due to corona" etc ... then they show the person who was apparently so healthy and they are fat *** old people. Hate to break it to you but if you are 30 pounds over weight and are 50 years old you are not healthy. IDGAF how many miles you ran this year. The eye test is borderline impossible to beat and you aren't fooling anyone. Fatties.
 
Beer said:
Seeing a lot of new articles about "so and so was such a healthy person and is now veryvery sick due to corona" etc ... then they show the person who was apparently so healthy and they are fat *** old people. Hate to break it to you but if you are 30 pounds over weight and are 50 years old you are not healthy. IDGAF how many miles you ran this year. The eye test is borderline impossible to beat and you aren't fooling anyone. Fatties.
Click to expand...

so now overweight people and those 50 and over aren’t worthy of living?

some of the stuff I’m seeing on social media is eerily similar to the arguments made in the west for Euthanasia 100 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life

This isn’t going to end well...
 
The Thriller said:
so now overweight people and those 50 and over aren’t worthy of living?

some of the stuff I’m seeing on social media is eerily similar to the arguments made in the west for Euthanasia 100 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life

This isn’t going to end well...
Click to expand...

Jesus you are a bitch. No, they are worthy of living, but its up to them to take care of themselves. Not the whole of society to cow to their unhealthiness.
 
Beer said:
Jesus you are a bitch. No, they are worthy of living, but its up to them to take care of themselves. Not the whole of society to cow to their unhealthiness.
Click to expand...

what did this person do wrong? When you say “take care of themselves” what do you mean? Are there no other factors to consider?
 
Beer said:
Probs. Or not healthy at all in the first place. But I mean, 1 out of 360 million. By all means lets shut it down.
Click to expand...

the first of what could be many. It’s only been 685 deaths so far. But how many deaths until you agree shutting down the country and keeping it shut down is warranted? 1,000? One million?

why am I a bitch? I’m just asking you questions since you indicated that it’s only killing the old or unhealthy.
 
The Thriller said:
the first of what could be many. It’s only been 685 deaths so far. But how many deaths until you agree shutting down the country and keeping it shut down is warranted? 1,000? One million?

why am I a bitch? I’m just asking you questions since you indicated that it’s only killing the old or unhealthy.
Click to expand...
I think the question, from a superficial level, sounds like prioritizing other things over life, but the question isn’t asked about a lot of things. 40k deaths a year on roads isn’t questioned. Nearly 100k deaths due to alcohol isn’t questioned. Obviously we don’t know what the exact death toll will be, but as a hypothetical, it’s good to ask the question, and I am asking this non-rhetorically: what’s the minimum level that warrants shutting things down indefinitely? 5k deaths? 1k? There’s not a right or wrong answer here, but if we’re saying even even 15k, then we have some real re-evaluating to do in many other ways in which we tolerate death as a risk and not just with motor vehicles and alcohol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top