What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

I think the solution has to be localized. For example, North Carolina has ~300 positive cases right now from a base of over 8,400 tests (meaning 96% of tests are negative), and zero deaths. For a state with a population of 10 million, that's a tiny infection rate. They can sit back and gather data for another week or so, but as long as they have hospital capacity, their solution ought to be to adopt some basic social distancing practices, ban all domestic travel to places like NY/NJ/CT, CA, WA and any other hotspot, and see if they can keep their local economy going.

The reality is that people are now going to be spooked by this virus, and a number of economic consequences are going to happen on their own. People will go to restaurants less. They'll travel less and stay in hotels less. They'll avoid crowds on their own. It won't be necessary to mandate all these things.
 
Catchall said:
I think the solution has to be localized. For example, North Carolina has ~300 positive cases right now from a base of over 8,400 tests (meaning 96% of tests are negative), and zero deaths. For a state with a population of 10 million, that's a tiny infection rate. They can sit back and gather data for another week or so, but as long as they have hospital capacity, their solution ought to be to adopt some basic social distancing practices, ban all domestic travel to places like NY/NJ/CT, CA, WA and any other hotspot, and see if they can keep their local economy going.

The reality is that people are now going to be spooked by this virus, and a number of economic consequences are going to happen on their own. People will go to restaurants less. They'll travel less and stay in hotels less. They'll avoid crowds on their own. It won't be necessary to mandate all these things.
Click to expand...
From Italy, this seems like dejavu. This is what happened here...limited measures to begin, then the realization that more restrictive measures were necessary to make any difference in the outcome. First there were red zones and talk of social distancing. People were going to work, restaurants, etc. except in the red zones only. Everyone else was free to live normally. Then it was the whole country on restrictions, but still relatively liberal movement restrictions. Then it was "lock it all down".

There are two characteristics of the virus that make half measures not only ineffective, but dangerous as well.

One - the long incubation time. With up to two weeks before symptoms show, people with the disease spread the virus without knowing it. Some may never show symptoms at all.

Two - the virus persists for extended periods of time on surfaces. Door knobs, tables, car doors, gas pump handles, etc..

Italy learned the hard way that delaying making the choice to lock it down cost them dearly. We are just now starting to see results from measures instituted two weeks ago. Hopefully the trend continues to go down. There is no guarantee it will, but the Italians are taking it seriously and uniting as a people to save the lives of the most vulnerable.

I hope the US learns from their experience.
 
Last edited:
Just to give a different perspective on what the response has been in other countries.

Peru:
Went into a complete lockdown after 40-50 cases were confirmed, about 8 days ago. High compliance by the population. The government transfered a bonus to poor families to stay home (equivalent to a half month salary). Major corporations are chippin in with millions of $ into the relieve fund. No one is even discussing bailing out major companies. Everything is about containing the disease quickly, helping the most vulnerable and getting things running again in a few weeks. We can't afford this to spread everywhere as the health sector is in really bad shape. The president approval is at 88%. Basic utilities and debt payments has been suspended.

Mexico:
The complete opposite. The president is urging people to go out and keep their daily routine. And people is doing exactly that. With an economy with over 50% on the informal sector, is pretty hard to ask people to stay home. There is no capability for direct transfers here. Local governments and the private sector are trying to deal with the desease on their own. But things are looking grim as the federal government is placing the economy above public health, delaying necessary measures until it's too late.

Just wanted to share there are different perspectives on this. Most economies will fall into a recession anyway and I find it hard to stomach that governments are balancing economic growth/unemployment vs lives. I hope they find a way to help the most vulnerable in US rather than bailing out big corporations and hoping for trickle down economics to work. Maybe is the rich/corporations who need to step up and show solidarity.
 
Last edited:
Catchall said:
I think the solution has to be localized. For example, North Carolina has ~300 positive cases right now from a base of over 8,400 tests (meaning 96% of tests are negative), and zero deaths. For a state with a population of 10 million, that's a tiny infection rate. They can sit back and gather data for another week or so, but as long as they have hospital capacity, their solution ought to be to adopt some basic social distancing practices, ban all domestic travel to places like NY/NJ/CT, CA, WA and any other hotspot, and see if they can keep their local economy going.

The reality is that people are now going to be spooked by this virus, and a number of economic consequences are going to happen on their own. People will go to restaurants less. They'll travel less and stay in hotels less. They'll avoid crowds on their own. It won't be necessary to mandate all these things.
Click to expand...

When things spread exponentially, getting in early, while the number of cases is small, is essential. Here's an example from the US.

https://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2020/03/graph-on-effects-of-corona-virus-spread.html
 
Political Jazz Fan said:


Click to expand...
You know nothing Political Jazz Fan, nothing.

There is a direct correlation between isolation and lives lost. If you don't realize that yet, you will eventually learn it the hard way.

When people isolate we do not spread the virus to others. When we go to "fill in the blank" ____ we can inadvertently spread it to others.

Having our cake and eating it is not an option.

That doesn't mean we can't make the call, (well the government will be making it), to ask those who are most vulnerable to isolate, and let the rest get back to business. However, let's not sugar coat it and think that there won't be a real cost in doing so. There will be more people exposed to the virus, and the outcomes are deadly for some.
 
Stars Fan said:
You know nothing Political Jazz Fan, nothing.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Here in Mexico we are screwed. No restrictions on flights, no social distancing, nothing, nada. For those curious, here is how the president is responding:

 
RandyForRubio said:
Aren't the favela gangs enforcing a curfew now? Thought I read that somewhere.
Click to expand...

Maybe in Brazil?

There is no curfew here. Everything looks normal. Streets are full of people (although the Municipality has forbidden major gatherings like concerts, cinemas, etc). Public transport is working as usual.

Due to the lack of action, everything is self-imposed at this point. Some businesses have moved into online retailing, private firms into remote working. But Mexico City is a pretty hectic and unequal city, in which millions rely on day-to day income. A lockdown is pretty unlikely to be enforced.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top