Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Coronavirus


I get it Sconnie. I don't mean to be controversial by suggesting some balance. The "if even one death" argument is lacking balance, and is a dramatic way to shut down the concept of a thoughtful debate on this. Reading through the last few pages of this thread would have me believe there is no merit to debate another side, there is no other side worthy of discussion, and to suggest we start reopening life in America, is to suggest it is ok for people to die.

The devil you know is often times less dangerous than the devil you do not know. All I'm saying. Everyone has a different seat in the ballpark, depending on circumstance. Some of us are starving, some of us are full. Some of us are being paid, some of us are going broke. It is ok to see this differently, and to seek some middle ground. We need to find a balance here.

 

The answer is testing. And individual due diligence, which I have far less faith in. Minnesota will likely lead the country in showing how we can reopen as safely as possible, sooner than others, by knowing who has immunities and who are safe to go back to work because Minnesotanis ramped up and ready to test 10s of thousands of people. And testing for the virus in greater numbers with quicker results to find the hot spots sooner. That is the answer. We still have a bit to go, but that is the answer to when and how we can get people back to work. I understand some need to work ... and that shows me how greatly support for those is so inequitable in this country. Given the nature of this disease, and so much is still not known, anyone in a high risk group should not be forced back to work for any reason and given the support they need until such time it is safe for them. Unfortunately, that is not how we do business here, and unfortunately many will die as a result.

 

If you don’t HAVE to go back to work, you shouldn’t, at least not immediately. It should not be a choice of want, but of necessity, and that is for the greater good. And greater support should be available to those that have the greatest need but have preexisting conditions that make them the most vulnerable to be out there. More support should be allocated to small businesses, unfortunately, not how the Republican Senate views it. But for those who have to work, when testing has proven it’s good to send people back out there, we still need to be diligent about safety and hygiene. what safeties will employers be providing for? Will the employer be responsible to see they can still distance? Will there be ample hand sanitizers positioned at all work stations? Some forms of masks to wear? Ample sick time and medical coverage? All of that should be made mandatory in order to require a workforce to go back to work. But many employers won’t do this. Sad, but true.

 

But your claims that this is no worse than the flu are simply false. False, false, false! And as a moderator, please do not repeat such claims. Please read. Sconnie pointed that out to you. The contagion rate is higher and length of time a person is contagious is believed to be longer, the severity is higher, no one is immune (well, or no one was, that is changing, but not enough yet). And the severity is higher. The annual flu has a death rate of .1%, but it also affects a lower amount of the population because, people have immunities, people can get vaccinations. It’s not a simple, this is just like the flu, let’s get back to work. It’s far more severe and far more complicated to do that. And if you know someone who is starving and can help out, do it. If you and your family are starving, PM me and I’ll help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I get it Sconnie. I don't mean to be controversial by suggesting some balance. The "if even one death" argument is lacking balance, and is a dramatic way to shut down the concept of a thoughtful debate on this. Reading through the last few pages of this thread would have me believe there is no merit to debate another side, there is no other side worthy of discussion, and to suggest we start reopening life in America, is to suggest it is ok for people to die. 

The devil you know is often times less dangerous than the devil you do not know. All I'm saying. Everyone has a different seat in the ballpark, depending on circumstance. Some of us are starving, some of us are full. Some of us are being paid, some of us are going broke. It is ok to see this differently, and to seek some middle ground. We need to find a balance here. 

agreed, it's a failure of our economy, leadership, and society that anyone goes hungry, or lives homeless in the strongest economy and wealthiest nation on planet earth. Covid or not, we have the resources to provide an appropriate safety net, and we choose not to exercise those resources. I would rather allow the free market economy to function as it should, but in times of crisis you need to intervene. We've let the economy be broken and now we need to fix it. It's not a passive allowance, but an active repair.

 

The ultimate sacrifice a person can make is their life. Why should someone who works hourly or for themselves in a small business have to pay that price at a higher rate than those who work salaried office jobs? Average monthly rent in the US is over $1400 and during the greatest health crisis in this nation since 1918, we can't even muster one month? Let alone groceries and utilities and it will be weeks or months until many people can even get the money....

 

We have failed. Failed miserably.... but telling people that they should put their health and lives at risk because of our societal failures exacerbates the failure even greater.

 

And we do need to get back to work, desperately, but we are so far from being able to do that safely in many/most industries and especially services that we need the intervention to give the science and industry institutions time to scale up solutions, and rebuild new infrastructure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The answer is testing. And individual due diligence, which I have far less faith in. Minnesota will likely lead the country in showing how we can reopen as safely as possible, sooner than others, by knowing who has immunities and who are safe to go back to work because Minnesotanis ramped up and ready to test 10s of thousands of people. And testing for the virus in greater numbers with quicker results to find the hot spots sooner. That is the answer. We still have a bit to go, but that is the answer to when and how we can get people back to work. I understand some need to work ... and that shows me how greatly support for those is so inequitable in this country. Given the nature of this disease, and so much is still not known, anyone in a high risk group should not be forced back to work for any reason and given the support they need until such time it is safe for them. Unfortunately, that is not how we do business here, and unfortunately many will die as a result.

If you don’t HAVE to go back to work, you shouldn’t, at least not immediately. It should not be a choice of want, but of necessity, and that is for the greater good. And greater support should be available to those that have the greatest need but have preexisting conditions that make them the most vulnerable to be out there. More support should be allocated to small businesses, unfortunately, not how the Republican Senate views it. But for those who have to work, when testing has proven it’s good to send people back out there, we still need to be diligent about safety and hygiene. what safeties will employers be providing for? Will the employer be responsible to see they can still distance? Will there be ample hand sanitizers positioned at all work stations? Some forms of masks to wear? Ample sick time and medical coverage? All of that should be made mandatory in order to require a workforce to go back to work. But many employers won’t do this. Sad, but true.

But your claims that this is no worse than the flu are simply false. False, false, false! And as a moderator, please do not repeat such claims. Please read. Sconnie pointed that out to you. The contagion rate is higher and length of time a person is contagious is believed to be longer, the severity is higher, no one is immune (well, or no one was, that is changing, but not enough yet). And the severity is higher. The annual flu has a death rate of .1%, but it also affects a lower amount of the population because, people have immunities, people can get vaccinations. It’s not a simple, this is just like the flu, let’s get back to work. It’s far more severe and far more complicated to do that. And if you know someone who is starving and can help out, do it. If you and your family are starving, PM me and I’ll help you.

That was thoughtful - but that was also laced with political thought, which I thought Brock says is a no no. I will also point out that I did NOT claim this was no worse than the flu - it is simply a fact that some people that test positive had nothing, others minor, others major - and it is looking like an under 1% mortality rate. Cuomo said again today, the antibody trial shows, if accurate a .5% mortality rate. If reality is a mortality rate at .5 or less we are getting into the .1-.2 common flu mortality range - and that's with a flu shot available every year. The immunities rebuff is apples and oranges - if America were allowed to build antibodies (ala Sweden) we'll have the same herd ammunity to covid that we supposedly have to the common flu. Your approach to this debate is dismissing my side out of hand. That's ok. I am getting used to it. No hard feelings Carol. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is simply a fact that some people that test positive had nothing, others minor, others major - and it is looking like an under 1% mortality rate. Cuomo said again today, the antibody trial shows, if accurate a .5% mortality rate. If reality is a mortality rate at .5 or less we are getting into the .1-.2 common flu mortality range - and that's with a flu shot available every year. The immunities rebuff is apples and oranges - if America were allowed to build antibodies (ala Sweden) we'll have the same herd ammunity to covid that we supposedly have to the common flu.

We have some math challenges here.

1% is 10X .1% and .5% is 5X .1%. Scale matters.

 

Also, transmissibility is a big factor here as you even point out in your own statement. Frequently when people get the flu, they’re puking and stay home. Further, you are contagious with the flu before getting symptoms for a couple days and are generally sick for 2-3 days. With Covid-19 you could feel fine or a little cruddy and pass it for weeks. It lasts on hard surfaces for days.

 

Time will tell on Sweden, but it is a different culture than the USA. Their unemployment and sick leave policies are national. People stay home when they are sick more frequently. They have national healthcare and might have more capacity to deal with the surge of Covid cases. They also might be wrong and have sealed the dates of hundreds of thousands of people.... comparing the US to Sweden is not very comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was thoughtful - but that was also laced with political thought, which I thought Brock says is a no no. I will also point out that I did NOT claim this was no worse than the flu - it is simply a fact that some people that test positive had nothing, others minor, others major - and it is looking like an under 1% mortality rate. Cuomo said again today, the antibody trial shows, if accurate a .5% mortality rate. If reality is a mortality rate at .5 or less we are getting into the .1-.2 common flu mortality range - and that's with a flu shot available every year. The immunities rebuff is apples and oranges - if America were allowed to build antibodies (ala Sweden) we'll have the same herd ammunity to covid that we supposedly have to the common flu. Your approach to this debate is dismissing my side out of hand. That's ok. I am getting used to it. No hard feelings Carol. Thanks

You seem to be ignoring a large context here. Yes, a vast majority have minor to no symptoms, but when you are talking about a 75% figure of society who could be infected (one sconnie gave) that .5% death rate results in a very high number of bodies dead. And, that rate wasn’t including deaths at home and unconfirmed cases. The sheer numbers of dead is much, much higher than the flu. The fact that none of us are immune is the problem, so is also we are contagious for longer, the rate of recovery is longer for those who get it, and for those who get it, it is largely more severe. I agree that allowing a certain portion of the population to self-immunize isn’t a bad approach, and I’ve said it earlier in these threads, but that requires a medical system we do not have, and organization for our population we do not have. We also have a much larger population here. We aren’t Sweden. And we still aren’t sure of a full immunity ... could people get it again or a mutated version ... still unknown for certain. That really is an apples to oranges comparison. Had we acted immediately, in January, we could have done this in a much more controlled manner, but we didn’t and are left with a much harsher reality as a result of lack of leadership. Again, you are not doing all the math here and comparing .5% to .1% and saying it’s not so different, yet it is, vastly so. When you said, ‘This is either nothing, or a minor, or a nasty flu to 99% of the public’, I took you as a comparison to the yearly flu. It’s a false equivalence, imo, because it leaves out a lot of context. I’m actually not surprised the mortality rate is dropping, I expected as much, once we started getting more data on the scope of contagion, but we are no where near knowing all we should. Rate of contagion is a big factor in all of this. Maybe in a couple of years, yes, this may end up in flu-like comparison mode, but we aren’t there. Not even close.

 

But sconnie hit it exactly right. We have failed as a nation and as a society if someone, anyone, has to choose a method of death - illness vs starvation. this game of Russian roulette ... I don’t think anyone should be forced to play for any reason, and it will be largely those in the worst economic brackets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic problem regarding optimization in general is choosing the correct objective function to optimize and then considering the constraints to be applied.

It's even worse than that. Most problems worth their salt can't be boiled down to "A" single correct objective function. There are usually multiple, and each one individually may lead in a different direction toward what (in that narrow view) would be in theory a unique optimum. For an airline looking at crew scheduling, competing objectives may be "minimize cost", "keep the employees happy", "keep the customers happy", "be ready for a disruptive snowstorm". For a pandemic, at minimum there are "save lives" and "don't ruin the economy".

 

Sometimes as a practical matter, analysts construct a mathematical blend of the objective functions, into a single one, and optimize on that. It can lead toward a solution that everyone will grudgingly say is acceptable. Or, it can lead to worse arguments than they started out with.

 

A different approach is to keep the multiple-objective specification, and let software construct a (perhaps incomplete) set of trial solutions. It sounds like you may have run across the concept of "pareto-optimal". If not, you can look it up - I'm confident that no one else reading this will. :) But the bottom line is that when the result of analytic methods results only in a reduced set of possible solutions that need to be considered, it still falls to Leadership to select among these - or perhaps to blend the solutions into one (instead of blending the objectives in the first place).

 

As must surely be clear, I'm all for analytics, but it would be a rare case where I'd believe that the human factor can or should be removed from decision making. That applies to baseball, to airline crew optimization, and most especially to pandemics.

 

Um, sorry. What were we discussing, again? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will also point out that I did NOT claim this was no worse than the flu - it is simply a fact that some people that test positive had nothing, others minor, others major - and it is looking like an under 1% mortality rate. Cuomo said again today, the antibody trial shows, if accurate a .5% mortality rate. If reality is a mortality rate at .5 or less we are getting into the .1-.2 common flu mortality range - and that's with a flu shot available every year. 

Except they're not. You're using small numbers to make them look small without applying scale.

 

.5% is, at minimum, 150% higher than the upper end of flu rates, which you referenced as .2%. Assuming those rates, which you're basically just making up, means that 2.5 people die of COVID-19 for every single person that dies of the flu.

 

And that's your best case scenario.

 

Never mind that infection rates cannot be left out of this conversation because humans have been fighting the flu for millennia. We have natural immunities plus a solid vaccination system that prevents people from getting sick in the first place.

 

Start stacking these things on top of each other and the typical 30,000 flu deaths a year could reach 500,000+ COVID-19 deaths without things even going unexpectedly badly.

 

And that's why I want everyone here, and I mean everyone, to stop equating this virus to the flu. That argument is used solely to minimize the danger of COVID-19. While I welcome discussion about how to move forward, it's time to squash bad, flawed comparisons that do not hold up to what any experts, scientists, or doctors are telling us about this virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Will the governor extend social distancing past May 4th?

Almost certainly. 

 

I really appreciate Walz's leadership on this. Any reopening of the economy before the infection rate drops and we have adequate testing is only going to prolong the misery as we'd likely have to shut things down again in mid- to late summer.

 

Without any controlling measures to slow down the rate of infection, things will just go right back to where they've been (or worse) in just a few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost certainly. 

 

I really appreciate Walz's leadership on this. Any reopening of the economy before the infection rate drops and we have adequate testing is only going to prolong the misery as we'd likely have to shut things down again in mid- to late summer.

 

Without any controlling measures to slow down the rate of infection, things will just go right back to where they've been (or worse) in just a few weeks.

I’d actually say that prolonging the misery isn’t a warning of what will happen if we stray from the policy path we are on, but instead is actually the goal of the policy. Prolonging the misery, flattening the curve, it’s the same thing to me, practically speaking.

 

I agree with you that I appreciate having Walz in charge. Loosening some of the early restrictions is the right thing to do. For example, I don’t see any reason to ban golfing (disclaimer: I don’t golf, I don’t plan to golf, nor am I involved in the golf business or culture). Golf is an outdoor activity and people can easily stay spaced apart, it offers some exercise and something to look forward to. Bravo, Governor Walz. It’s not going forestall the economic destruction on the other side of this and social effects that will follow, but at least it will give a few people a way to pass the time and put a few more back to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’d actually say that prolonging the misery isn’t a warning of what will happen if we stray from the policy path we are on, but instead is actually the goal of the policy. Prolonging the misery, flattening the curve, it’s the same thing to me, practically speaking.

Bolded for emphasis.

 

Do you honestly believe that extending social distancing is prolonging the misery? If yes, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolded for emphasis.

 

Do you honestly believe that extending social distancing is prolonging the misery? If yes, why?

I’ll just say that what we are doing right now is vastly better than the alternative. Honestly, I am on your side. There are no good answers. What worries me is when people (not necessarily on this forum) suggest that we need to stay in indefinitely or until we can get vaccinated or tested for antibodies. I don’t think people can hold out that long and it doesn’t seem productive to go down that road without at least offering some solutions or ideas or hope. Edited by Hosken Bombo Disco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’ll just say that what we are doing right now is vastly better than the alternative. Honestly, I am on your side. There are no good answers. What worries me is when people (not necessarily on this forum) suggest that we need to stay in indefinitely or until we can get vaccinated or tested for antibodies. I don’t think people can hold out that long and it doesn’t seem productive to go down that road without at least offering some solutions or ideas or hope.

There are no good answers, and all of this is showing the folly of the American economic system as it stands today. We're trying to force our way into reopening not because it's the right thing to do but because we've put ourselves into a situation where there are no alternatives.

 

We had literally months of warning. We did virtually nothing.

 

I suspect Minnesota will be a leading example of how to operate because of how quickly we distanced ourselves, how effectively we distanced ourselves, and now we're on a path to test tens of thousands a day.

 

But we had no federal leadership and I suspect, as is usual, we're going to have to spend truckloads of money to bail out the states that continually fail to protect their constituencies. That's the nicest way I can put it without openly blasting a certain party of this country for their continued failing of both their constituency and democracy itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota climbed by 28 on Sunday — the largest single-day increase on record in the state since the pandemic began.

 

The confirmed death toll in Minnesota is now 272, the state Department of Health reported. Officials said 23 of the 28 deaths reported Saturday were residents of long-term care facilities — including a 44-year-old resident of Hennepin County, the youngest confirmed COVID-19 fatality in Minnesota to date."

 

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/04/26/latest-on-covid19-in-mn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In Georgia, funeral homes are struggling to keep up with the pace of death - physically and emotionally.

 

As bodies fill over-crowded morgues, coroners are having to change the way they console grieving families, many of which they know personally."

 

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/04/24/georgia-coroner-coronavirus-deaths

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are no good answers, and all of this is showing the folly of the American economic system as it stands today. We're trying to force our way into reopening not because it's the right thing to do but because we've put ourselves into a situation where there are no alternatives.

 

We had literally months of warning. We did virtually nothing.

 

I suspect Minnesota will be a leading example of how to operate because of how quickly we distanced ourselves, how effectively we distanced ourselves, and now we're on a path to test tens of thousands a day.

 

But we had no federal leadership and I suspect, as is usual, we're going to have to spend truckloads of money to bail out the states that continually fail to protect their constituencies. That's the nicest way I can put it without openly blasting a certain party of this country for their continued failing of both their constituency and democracy itself.

One of these is rearing its head in Minnesota's neighbor to the west currently. Over $1B designated to SD in COVID-19 relief funds, but the way it's set up, if the state ran at a deficit, the money would easily be assigned. Instead, the state has a constitutionally-required balanced budget, so the budget shortfalls to come from lost tax revenue, lost tourism, and lost lottery revenue will actually not be covered at all with those relief funds because they're not "COVID relief" needs. The state had budgeted for other needs in the state and the real financial need is covering the infrastructure, education, and healthcare portions of the budget that are still functioning in the midst of all this. The way all the wonderful stuff in DC has been written, not one nickel of that $1B can be used to ensure roads flooded in 2019 are repaired this spring, hospital staff that are not "essential" are paid, and educational staff and programs are funded.

 

Poor leadership in DC isn't just coming out of the White House right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But sconnie hit it exactly right. We have failed as a nation and as a society if someone, anyone, has to choose a method of death - illness vs starvation. this game of Russian roulette ... I don’t think anyone should be forced to play for any reason, and it will be largely those in the worst economic brackets.

That failure has been set up for decades as companies saw technology leap forward incredibly while doing business the same way. In many industries (multiple agricultural fields, multiple energy fields, etc.) that look-back is business still done the way it's been done since before the military even had heard of a thing that would eventually become the internet (in other words, more than 50 years without changing how business is done).

 

Businesses are now being forced to consider how they can work with employees spending only 1-2 days at the office while spending a total of 25-35 hours a week working and getting just as much work done while spending more time with their family. Farmers/ranchers and consumers are both making an effort to get Congress to clean up the unwieldy "middle men" in our food production system in this country. Many businesses are realizing that shipping out for lowest cost always can suddenly come with significant cost when that country is unable to ship out any supplies whatsoever and discussing drastic changes to their business model that should have existed for decades but instead was allowed to continue on unchecked because profits=stock prices rising=good, right?

 

It's very feasible that our local paper is going to cut yet another day from printing. We call ourselves a "daily" paper, but advertising is down such that if another day is cut, we'll be printing just four days per week. That is from the most significant news source in a seven-county region that covers more territory than Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. No one is out pounding the pavement to protect my job - in fact, it's more likely that they'll devalue my job in a press briefing than ever discuss its value, but I've surely not been allowed to leave home, and the way our news is delivered to us is absolutely a broken system.

 

So many businesses NEED an overhaul right now. Perhaps this is finally the thing that does it. However, much like Sandy Hook and gun control, it's likely going to simply be the moment we all realize something should be done...and then keep on keeping on without putting our own foot forward to facilitate any meaningful change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That failure has been set up for decades as companies saw technology leap forward incredibly while doing business the same way. In many industries (multiple agricultural fields, multiple energy fields, etc.) that look-back is business still done the way it's been done since before the military even had heard of a thing that would eventually become the internet (in other words, more than 50 years without changing how business is done).

 

Businesses are now being forced to consider how they can work with employees spending only 1-2 days at the office while spending a total of 25-35 hours a week working and getting just as much work done while spending more time with their family. Farmers/ranchers and consumers are both making an effort to get Congress to clean up the unwieldy "middle men" in our food production system in this country. Many businesses are realizing that shipping out for lowest cost always can suddenly come with significant cost when that country is unable to ship out any supplies whatsoever and discussing drastic changes to their business model that should have existed for decades but instead was allowed to continue on unchecked because profits=stock prices rising=good, right?

 

It's very feasible that our local paper is going to cut yet another day from printing. We call ourselves a "daily" paper, but advertising is down such that if another day is cut, we'll be printing just four days per week. That is from the most significant news source in a seven-county region that covers more territory than Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. No one is out pounding the pavement to protect my job - in fact, it's more likely that they'll devalue my job in a press briefing than ever discuss its value, but I've surely not been allowed to leave home, and the way our news is delivered to us is absolutely a broken system.

 

So many businesses NEED an overhaul right now. Perhaps this is finally the thing that does it. However, much like Sandy Hook and gun control, it's likely going to simply be the moment we all realize something should be done...and then keep on keeping on without putting our own foot forward to facilitate any meaningful change.

I agree that this event will probably fundamentally change businesses and significantly change our economy. Most likely retail workers will largely shift to warehouse workers. My job will probably change from going to the office 5 days per week and flying to my factories quarterly, to becoming 100% remote: work from home 5 days per week and travel/fly to my factories quarterly... I can see where business will change to meet demand and supply.

 

I don’t see where this will fundamentally change our government and healthcare infrastructures. Unemployment insurance as a state run entity for instance makes it very difficult for the nation to act cohesively and states require a balanced budget over time, where the federal government does not.

 

I don’t think supply chain and logistics will change as much as you do. Maybe we’ll grow the National stockpiles, but businesses will carry less, not more. Liquidity has been a real challenge in this environment and that won’t change.

 

Answering the question of “how are we going to pay for healthcare?” Will probably still be a valid question long after I’m dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comments above. I think that as a concept there is significant resistance to change and I witnessed that first hand in my last year of employment at a gigantic medical and research concern located in Rochester. 

 

I think some of the lessons learned during the pandemic will be incorporated into business models going forward, particularly work-at-home. However, as long as profit remains the #1 goal, many major changes won't happen. Factors such as getting and keeping the best possible employees and demand for product will continue to drive what the boardroom does. 

 

I also wonder if there is a financial lesson to be learned. A great many businesses will suffer losses but be bailed out by the federal government or perhaps by the states. If the lesson learned to maximize profits and keep the margins incredibly small because Uncle Sam will bail us out during the bad times, it will be a real disappointment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’ll just say that what we are doing right now is vastly better than the alternative. Honestly, I am on your side. There are no good answers. What worries me is when people (not necessarily on this forum) suggest that we need to stay in indefinitely or until we can get vaccinated or tested for antibodies. I don’t think people can hold out that long and it doesn’t seem productive to go down that road without at least offering some solutions or ideas or hope.

 

I guess I'd have to ask what the definition of "staying in" is.  Here in Minnesota, if I abide by the law, I think I could deal with this for longer. I'm not speaking for others, but for me, it's livable.  If it's literally "staying in" way above and beyond what's legal, then yes, people won't be able to hold out that long.   I'm just going to continue doing what's legal and make sure I give others (especially the elderly) their space.  

 

I think us Minnesotans are basically just being inconvenienced and maybe slightly annoyed.  If I think about those I know in the Philippines or India, then I need to count my blessings.  I know it's not always fair to make comparisons to situations that people have never experienced, but I do know that things could be much worse.  

 

I do know one thing. When business does get back closer to normal, they aren't going to be able to post the sign that says "long-haired freaky people need not apply", or they won't have any employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an economy the size of ours, a headline number like "a net benefit of $5.2 trillion" means it's a pretty close decision.

 

As a purely side topic, I also note that by this same reckoning the three grown children my wife and I raised added $30,000,000 to the net worth of our country, and we bore the costs moreso than childless folks and would like to start seeing some significant return on investment. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so much for the ‘herd immunity’ plan.

 

“Take the pandemic now,” he said. “If they come out with a vaccine and you have 15% of people saying, ‘I don’t want to take it, I don’t believe in it, it’s going to cause harm’, you’re never going to get up to the level of herd immunity to really shut off the process.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/27/us-warning-pandemic-anti-vaxxers?fbclid=IwAR2lugL4XOXOfS581E1DCD6BZqKRJPtWmCor2iSccN9wV5GF4EsjIKQH_ac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...