Coronavirus

[One Brow]

I pointed it out specifically in the video as to why it would be hard to send her to jail for not apologizing. That's garbage reasoning.

If she had paid for unemployment insurance for herself, wouldn't her kids be able to eat off of that? If she has no income, Texas still has food stamps. Her kids will eat.

 

[Deleted member 365]

It’s not just about finding treatments or developing a vaccine, it’s also about adequate testing. How are we supposed to contain this pandemic if we don’t have adequate testing and tracing?

 

[Zombie]

It’s not just about finding treatments or developing a vaccine, it’s also about adequate testing. How are we supposed to contain this pandemic if we don’t have adequate testing and tracing?

That's been the most successful strategy employed by countries in protecting their health and their economies so of course we aren't following their lead.

 

[sahlensguy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we shutdown primarily to flatten the curve, and not overwhelm hospitals, correct?

Maybe it's different where you all are, but our hospitals are empty. Nothing going on. ER is open, you can take kids in to get their shots, and that's about it. They're laying people off because there's no work.

Waiting until there's a vaccine isn't feasible. We have over 30 million unemployed. The majority of hospitals have a ton of open beds. They have more equipment. I'm not saying go back to normal, but why shouldn't we slowly open while remaining cautious (keeping distance, washing hands, wearing masks, etc)?

Not exactly sure what re-opening looks like other than a willingness to expose those who make the least to the highest risk on the front lines, for the convenience of others.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Not exactly sure what re-opening looks like other than a willingness to expose those who make the least to the highest risk on the front lines, for the convenience of others.

Is making a living now considered an inconvenience?

I'll ask this. What are you, personally, waiting for? At what point is it "safe" enough?

 

[Beer]

Is making a living now considered an inconvenience?

I'll ask this. What are you, personally, waiting for? At what point is it "safe" enough?

That seems to be the question no one can answer, unless they cite something irrational like a cure or a vaccine. Both of which are obviously irrational.

 

[Scat]

Interesting statistics regarding Utah:

The data shows the vast majority of cases, just under 60%, have been transmitted through a person's own household. About 25% of cases were transmitted through a social interaction, 4.7% in the workplace and about 10.7% through unspecified means, the data shows.

Of the 134,543 people tested in Utah so far, 4.3% have tested positive for COVID-19.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46750506/utah-sees-129-new-cases-of-covid-19-3-new-deaths

 

[sahlensguy]

Is making a living now considered an inconvenience?

I'll ask this. What are you, personally, waiting for? At what point is it "safe" enough?

Most of the unemployed are making a living. $600 per week plus their weekly unemployment benefit. Many of these people will make less per week if they go back to work while taking on the health risk of a front line worker that they didn't have before. Bad deal for them. So who will benefit from a reopening? Not the front line employee...

 

[candrew]

Sweden just past three thousand deaths while doing nothing.

So adjusting for population that would put US deaths at a baseline of 90K.

You'd have to factor in some other stuff like US being the land of pre-existing conditions like diabetes, hypertension and obesity - all of which clearly exacerbate the underlying symptoms of COVID-19. Sweden is consistently rated as a top 5-10 country when it comes to overall heath while US is typically somewhere in the 30's. It's hard to put a number on that but let's call it another 10-12K.

So can we say the steps we've taken to mitigate the spread of the virus saved 25-27 thousands lives up to this point? Who knows. But food for thought.

 

[PJF]

 

[RandyForRubio]

Most of the unemployed are making a living. $600 per week plus their weekly unemployment benefit. Many of these people will make less per week if they go back to work while taking on the health risk of a front line worker that they didn't have before. Bad deal for them. So who will benefit from a reopening? Not the front line employee...

Well ****, we better just never go back to work in that case. What's the incentive?

How long can the government continue to pay 30 million + and counting unemployment? That's not sustainable. They'll just tax the piss out of the majority of middle class people to get the money back.

So I'll ask again. At what point is it "safe" enough to go back to work?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Sweden just past three thousand deaths while doing nothing.

So adjusting for population that would put US deaths at a baseline of 90K.

You'd have to factor in some other stuff like US being the land of pre-existing conditions like diabetes, hypertension and obesity - all of which clearly exacerbate the underlying symptoms of COVID-19. Sweden is consistently rated as a top 5-10 country when it comes to overall heath while US is typically somewhere in the 30's. It's hard to put a number on that but let's call it another 10-12K.

So can we say the steps we've taken to mitigate the spread of the virus saved 25-27 thousands lives up to this point? Who knows. But food for thought.

Sweden may see a sudden and swift decline in number of deaths since many have been exposed. We won't. We really, really, slowed it down, but eventually people will become exposed to it. That's just the reality.

So it'll probably be a couple years before we can study the results, but I wouldn't be surprised if the per capita deaths are similar between the two countries by the end of it.